Obama made the smart move. He realized he could raise millions more from his private supporters -- not lobbyists -- than the mere $85 million public funding offers; McCain cannot.

When a person gains more information or better insight of an issue, they should change their minds. That is the mark of intelligence. Demanding people don't shift is rigidtiy underscored by stupidity. CNN's Wolf Blitzer wrote a column on this very subject today:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/blitzer-whats-wrong-with-a-politician-who-changes-views/

 

Obama made the smart move. He realized he could raise millions more from his private supporters -- not lobbyists -- than the mere $85 million public funding offers; McCain cannot.

When a person gains more information or better insight of an issue, they should change their minds. That is the mark of intelligence. Demanding people don't shift is rigidtiy underscored by stupidity. CNN's Wolf Blitzer wrote a column on this very subject today:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/blitzer-whats-wrong-with-a-politician-who-changes-views/

 

I never thought of it as a bad move till McCain said it was. I still think it was a good move.

I never thought of it as a bad move till McCain said it was. I still think it was a good move.

Of course McCain says it's a bad move, of course he says that Obama betrayed his own statements. Obama made the best choice available to him, and if it's a good choice for Obama's campaign, it's a bad situation for McCain. Reminds of a an 8 year old yelling at a computer game saying it's unfair since he can't win...

Of course McCain says it's a bad move, of course he says that Obama betrayed his own statements. Obama made the best choice available to him, and if it's a good choice for Obama's campaign, it's a bad situation for McCain. Reminds of a an 8 year old yelling at a computer game saying it's unfair since he can't win...

AMP says:

 

"Of course McCain says it's a bad move, of course he says that Obama betrayed his own statements. Obama made the best choice available to him, and if it's a good choice for Obama's campaign, it's a bad situation for McCain. Reminds of a an 8 year old yelling at a computer game saying it's unfair since he can't win..."

Right on the money AMP!

 

Have you noticed McCain's recent change of heart on domestic oil drilling and immigration, as well as his stand against the current bill in Congress that would pay the full college or trade school tuition for all veterans. Yes, we're talkng about Mr. War Monger himself.

AMP says:

 

"Of course McCain says it's a bad move, of course he says that Obama betrayed his own statements. Obama made the best choice available to him, and if it's a good choice for Obama's campaign, it's a bad situation for McCain. Reminds of a an 8 year old yelling at a computer game saying it's unfair since he can't win..."

Right on the money AMP!

 

Have you noticed McCain's recent change of heart on domestic oil drilling and immigration, as well as his stand against the current bill in Congress that would pay the full college or trade school tuition for all veterans. Yes, we're talkng about Mr. War Monger himself.

Actually Obama cut McCain some slack. All he had to do was say this: "The plan was the McCain and I would negotiate a deal on this. But you can't negotiate with people who are incapable of keeping their word. McCain already broke his word when he tried to jump into public financing and then jumped out again, which got him spanked by the FEC guy. And he is violating the law by having senior campaign mambers also working for anti-Obama attack 527s. You CAN'T MAKE DEALS WITH PEOPLE WHO LIE AND CHEAT."

Actually Obama cut McCain some slack. All he had to do was say this:

"The plan was the McCain and I would negotiate a deal on this. But you can't negotiate with people who are incapable of keeping their word. McCain already broke his word when he tried to jump into public financing and then jumped out again, which got him spanked by the FEC guy. And he is violating the law by having senior campaign mambers also working for anti-Obama attack 527s. You CAN'T MAKE DEALS WITH PEOPLE WHO LIE AND CHEAT."

We can all agree that the pivot was a smart move based on the success he's had with fund raising, but that certainly is somewhat after-the-fact decision making. The point is that the basis for taking his orginal stance was that he was NOT an old style politician, he was the "Candidate of Reform" and the "Candidate that makes the right decisions first time out" based on his highly developed good judgement. So much for sound decision-making and good judgement, and frankly, he's a quick learner - no doubt - but still a neophyte at old style politics. This decision helped his own financial situation, but casts yet another doubt on his judgement skills. The right decision was that of the old style politician; when you don't know the outcome, don't commit yourself or in a larger sense - your country. Is this the type of naiveté, Americans want in their decision-maker in chief? I would hope not; hasn't George Bush taught us that lesson. Here's a quote from back in February '08 that speaks to the right decision and who the nominee should have been, based on experience and judgement, but the ultra-liberals leaders, Kennedy, Kerry, and Rockefeller selected him, while their constituencies voted otherwise. In retrospect, it's pretty prophetic who was the smarter and wiser deicion-maker, one who is not pushed into a decision by the politics of opposition. "But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn't what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It's not befitting Mr. Obama's well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman's statements that she would "definitely consider" forgoing public financing." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503193.html

We can all agree that the pivot was a smart move based on the success he's had with fund raising, but that certainly is somewhat after-the-fact decision making. The point is that the basis for taking his orginal stance was that he was NOT an old style politician, he was the "Candidate of Reform" and the "Candidate that makes the right decisions first time out" based on his highly developed good judgement. So much for sound decision-making and good judgement, and frankly, he's a quick learner - no doubt - but still a neophyte at old style politics.

This decision helped his own financial situation, but casts yet another doubt on his judgement skills.

The right decision was that of the old style politician; when you don't know the outcome, don't commit yourself or in a larger sense - your country. Is this the type of naiveté, Americans want in their decision-maker in chief? I would hope not; hasn't George Bush taught us that lesson.

Here's a quote from back in February '08 that speaks to the right decision and who the nominee should have been, based on experience and judgement, but the ultra-liberals leaders, Kennedy, Kerry, and Rockefeller selected him, while their constituencies voted otherwise. In retrospect, it's pretty prophetic who was the smarter and wiser deicion-maker, one who is not pushed into a decision by the politics of opposition.

"But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn't what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It's not befitting Mr. Obama's well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman's statements that she would "definitely consider" forgoing public financing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503193.html

The one thing that the punditocracy agrees on, is that the voters don't give a crap about this. They want to know who is going to give them peace, cheap gas, and honest, competent leadership.

The one thing that the punditocracy agrees on, is that the voters don't give a crap about this. They want to know who is going to give them peace, cheap gas, and honest, competent leadership.

OneVoteOneBrick says:

"......The point is that the basis for taking his orginal stance was that he was NOT an old style politician, he was the "Candidate of Reform" and the "Candidate that makes the right decisions first time out" based on his highly developed good judgement. So much for sound decision-making and good judgement, and frankly, he's a quick learner - no doubt - but still a neophyte at old style politics....."

 

Actually my friend, the thrust of Sen. Obama's promise was to stay clear of monies from special interest groups, who always expect poitical favors in return.

All of Obama's funds come from private citizens like you and I, who contribute roughly $50 per piece. This is not a corrupting sitution -- except to the GOP, who want to make it one. And the irony is the omission by them of the recent flip-flops by "McBush" on much more pervasive issues like immigration, off-shore oil drilling and his recent opposition to veterans' benefits legislation.

OneVoteOneBrick says:

"......The point is that the basis for taking his orginal stance was that he was NOT an old style politician, he was the "Candidate of Reform" and the "Candidate that makes the right decisions first time out" based on his highly developed good judgement. So much for sound decision-making and good judgement, and frankly, he's a quick learner - no doubt - but still a neophyte at old style politics....."

 

Actually my friend, the thrust of Sen. Obama's promise was to stay clear of monies from special interest groups, who always expect poitical favors in return.

All of Obama's funds come from private citizens like you and I, who contribute roughly $50 per piece. This is not a corrupting sitution -- except to the GOP, who want to make it one. And the irony is the omission by them of the recent flip-flops by "McBush" on much more pervasive issues like immigration, off-shore oil drilling and his recent opposition to veterans' benefits legislation.

I think Obama's decision to decline public financing for the election is unfortunate and ultimately disappointing. It undermines his theme of bringing change to politics. On the other hand, most of it was in the form of small contributions from private donors. And he has to combat all kinds of whacky, racist, and xenophobic rumors floating around that McCain just doesn't have to deal with as a white dood. His chances of winning the election are far slimmer without that big wad of cash to inject into the red states.

I think Obama's decision to decline public financing for the election is unfortunate and ultimately disappointing. It undermines his theme of bringing change to politics. On the other hand, most of it was in the form of small contributions from private donors. And he has to combat all kinds of whacky, racist, and xenophobic rumors floating around that McCain just doesn't have to deal with as a white dood. His chances of winning the election are far slimmer without that big wad of cash to inject into the red states.