June 20, 2008
Must Read for the Day

Patrick Ruffini runs the numbers and absolutely annihilates Barack Obama's professed reasoning for abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election.

UDPATE: ...the problem is, there is a troubling additional reason why Obama's logic is wrong: 3rd party groups aren't lining up to take Obama out, in part because of assorted issues with the GOP nominee.

Posted by Eric Earling at June 20, 2008 08:07 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Rubbish!

Posted by: Canuck on June 20, 2008 08:31 AM
2. This is why I refer to him as Senator Fauxbama. He purports to represent a new kind of politician bringing a new kind of "politics" to the American electorate for their approval. Unfortunately for phonies like Obama, words are one thing and actions are another.

We don't hire individuals that talk a good game and don't deliver on their promises, we hire individuals with a demonstrable track record of accomplishments and a resolve to do their very best to live up to their own goals for themselves and their employer.Senator Fauxbama is the former, not the latter. His paper thin resume, failure to live up to the "transparency" he calls for in other government officials and his reneging on prior "pledges" expose him for what he is...The same old politician playing the same old political games that those before him have played.
The only difference being his disingenous call for political reform without he himself living up to those same lofty standards.

Posted by: Rick D. on June 20, 2008 08:35 AM
3. I love how Patrick assumes every single person donating from those corporations are "corporate executives". I've donated to candidates in the past and put my employers name in the box as required, but I'm by no means an executive of the company... and I doubt the vast majority of the donor for the companies listed are either.

Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 09:32 AM
4. The guy is just a wolfy Marxist in sheepy charismatic orator's clothing. Carter's presidency will look great compared to the damage Obama would do to our economy.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 20, 2008 09:35 AM
5. "Obama should have no problem limiting the maximum an individual can give to his campaign to $100 and turning down contributions from employees of Fortune 500 companies in the general election."

So using this logic, any employee working in the auto industry, any employee working for Boeing or Microsoft, should be banned from donating to Obama.

Patricia is living in a fantasy land.

Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 09:38 AM
6. "Obama should have no problem limiting the maximum an individual can give to his campaign to $100 and turning down contributions from employees of Fortune 500 companies in the general election."

So using this logic, any employee working in the auto industry, any employee working for Boeing or Microsoft, should be banned from donating to Obama.

Patricia is living in a fantasy land.

Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 09:40 AM
7. Here's Obama's answer on the presidential Q&A form:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns
combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of
moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State
Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingoldĺs (DWI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Now, his campaign is saying that was not a "pledge". Whatever.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 10:24 AM
8. I love how Patrick assumes every single person donating from those corporations are "corporate executives".

I laughed at that too. I guess Darcy Burner really was an Executive after all... :)

Patricia is living in a fantasy land.

Not to mention that she seems oblivious to the fact that her own horse in this race is actually breaking the law in his campaign:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php

Posted by: thehim on June 20, 2008 10:30 AM
9. If people want to make hay about this, that's fine. It's not as if the Obama campaign didn't predict a fallout. They just decided that a 3-1 finance advantage over McCain in the general was worth it. Which it most certainly will be.

Posted by: Zeeb on June 20, 2008 10:56 AM
10. It's interesting to hear how the MSM describes it too as "flexing his fundraising muscle", rather than blatant hypocrisy.

I just wonder how the liberals would be reacting if the tables were turned. Surely, we would hear the outrage over buying the election by Republicans.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 11:01 AM
11. Not the first time Sen. 'Faux'bama has lied to the voters, and certainly won't be the last time. The question to ask yourself is "if he'll lie about the small things, will he lie about the big things as well".

The answer is clearly a resounding "YES, He will!!".


Posted by: Rick D. on June 20, 2008 11:03 AM
12. @10
I just wonder how the liberals would be reacting if the tables were turned. Surely, we would hear the outrage over buying the election by Republicans.

So I assume you'd come down hard on John McCain for violating campaign finance laws, since you seem eager to point out the hypocrisy of liberals here?

If you're unclear about what I'm talking about, please see the link in comment #8.

Posted by: thehim on June 20, 2008 11:16 AM
13. thehim@12:

I'll buy you a slize of pizza if you get a good faith response to that question.

It's gratifying to see all of the newfound devotees to public financing. Or is that the newfound devotees to forthright campaign rhetoric? I'm sure these guardians of the electoral process were equally critical of Karl Rove in 2002 and 2004. And I'm sure that if McCain thought he could afford opting out, he would. But given that he just had his best fundraising month -- a shade over $21 million, I think -- he pretty much had to take the taxpayer money. It still won't be enough.

Posted by: Zeeb on June 20, 2008 11:27 AM
14. Eric, you must have struck a nerve given that the "Obama Defenders" are coming out to fight about it. Pretty funny! Just as Hillary losing in Iowa put a stake in her "inevitability" argument, things like this continue to hurt Obama's argument that he is a "new" kind of politician.

Posted by: Bill H on June 20, 2008 11:46 AM
15. Interestingly, Bill H. does not try to refute any of the counter-points being made to what is obviously a fairly biased and partisan "must read" article.

Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 11:53 AM
16. Public financing that he didn't use, but used as collateral to get a campaign loan. And the beef is that he opted out before the FEC says he could opt out. The horror! This is what you and your "talking points memo" are up in arms about? Versus a solemn pledge about the integrity of elections and committing to a publicly financed general election. Not even close. If and when the FEC says he has actually violated a campaign finance law, then he should get a slap on the wrist for that.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 12:37 PM
17. Palouse: "Versus a solemn pledge about the integrity of elections and committing to a publicly financed general election."

What exactly is a "solemn pledge" anyway? Checking yes on a survey with the clarifying statement that they would sit down with the McCain camp and try to come to agreement? By the way, how did McCain answer that question anyway?

Also, technically, the Obama campaign is the probably more "publically funded" than any election in my lifetime.

Posted by: Splinter on June 20, 2008 12:55 PM
18. @18
Also, technically, the Obama campaign is the probably more "publically funded" than any election in my lifetime.

Exactly, which is why Ruffini is so desperate to mischaracterize donations from low-level employees of large companies.

The bottom line is that both campaigns have problems with their campaign finance management, but the buffoons around here had no idea that McCain did unless we pointed it out to them, which makes their claims of hypocrisy even more hilarious.

Posted by: thehim on June 20, 2008 01:02 PM
19. Checking yes on a survey

He answered the direct question in the affirmative. That's a pledge. It's not very complicated. And he was very forthright in wanting his counterpart to do it too, and McCain agreed. The hypocrisy isn't hard to recognize.

The bottom line is that both campaigns have problems with their campaign finance management

Yeah, compare blatant hypocrisy about a publicly financed general election to a small loan with public financing used as collateral and when McCain was allowed to opt out. Delusional.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 01:17 PM
20. Well, actually, since I don't support McCain (and never have) I can point out that while there is hypocrisy on both sides, only the leftist are here defending Oliar's part in it.

This is a pattern developed during the Clinton days, where despicable conduct proved no deterrence to the rank hypocrisy of leftist support (where these same BDS infested types would have re-elected Bill if they'd just seen a video of him molesting a Girl Scout Troop); even the leftwing nutters posting here have come up with nothing besides a "McCain does it too" defense that is laughably moronic on its face.

Oliar is just that; a liar. He gave his word, which should, presumably, mean something. To the leftwing fringers populating this thread, there is no lie that Oliar could utter; no lack of experience, no policy, no action, no position that would move them off the empty suit they swoon over.

Nope, Barry Oliar is their boy, no matter what. And they will spin, excuse and/or justify each and every one of his massive shortcomings to get him elected... just like they were sucked in by the "elect us... we'll end the war!" leftists they voted for in Congress last time around.

And how'd that work out for you more gullible types, eh? The war over, yet?

Posted by: Hinton on June 20, 2008 01:19 PM
21. @20
I can point out that while there is hypocrisy on both sides, only the leftist are here defending Oliar's part in it.

Please point out which comment above contains "leftists" defending Obama's move.

Posted by: thehim on June 20, 2008 01:33 PM
22. The Associated Press published this piece by Liz Sidoti yesterday:

Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word

*** QUOTE ***

"Let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people," Obama said - ignoring the fact that the system he's opting out of is paid for by taxpayers who donate $3 to the fund when they file their tax returns.

Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama - and running commercials against McCain.

So much for being a straight shooter.

*** END QUOTE ***

Posted by: airfoil on June 20, 2008 01:51 PM
23. Look, Obama's turnaround is not all that defensible as a matter of principle, in my opinion. And yes, Obama using the spectre of 527s as an excuse is pretty weak. Conceded.

But getting red-faced and using language like "rank hypocrisy" is ridiculous. I mean, John McCain did break campaign finance laws (that he had a hand in passing!!); why should he get "a slap on the wrist" for that? The violation may have been technical, but campaign finance law is pretty technical anyway, so violations aren't going to seem like huge moral transgressions.

This is the McCain of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. He is identified with the current campaign finance regulatory machine. He's denounced the FEC in public for thwarting his legislation. So why does Obama get labeled the hypocrite here?

Obama has over 1.5 million donors. Most aren't anywhere near their federal limit. The entire DNC didn't even have a million donors in 2000. The vast majority of his donors are below $500. They wanted to donate to him, and they chose to do so.

That seems like a pretty public, democratic system of campaign finance to me.


Posted by: Zeeb on June 20, 2008 02:41 PM
24. using language like "rank hypocrisy" is ridiculous

Not when it exists. Like in this case. See above quote in #7.

John McCain did break campaign finance laws

McCain has not been found guilty and/or punished for this, so until this happens, this is false.

The violation may have been technical

And for all we know, not a violation.

why should he get "a slap on the wrist" for that?

Because the only supposed "violation" was whether he opted out of primary financing before the FEC said he could. Not whether he could have opted out or not (he could), but when he did so. This is very, very minor in the grand scheme of things.

Obama has over 1.5 million donors......"

Yeah, got it, he's a great fundraiser. Congratulations. But he's still a hypocrit.

That seems like a pretty public, democratic system of campaign finance to me.

Or he's a hypocrit who's trying to buy the election. That would certainly be the description of him everywhere, if the tables were turned and we were discussing John McCain doing the same thing.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 02:54 PM
25. It's hypocrite, with an "e".

I was pretty excited when Bush outraised Gore, and then Kerry (since I supported Bush both times). And I really don't recall a slew of stories about how Bush was buying the election. There was a lot of admiration for his "Pioneer" bundlers, though, and a lot of respect for the discipline of his organization.

Posted by: Zeeb on June 20, 2008 03:03 PM
26. Oops, hypocrite. Sorry for the typo.

I really don't recall a slew of stories about how Bush was buying the election.

That's because Bush didn't opt out of general election public financing, like Obama just did. That, despite his ability to raise funds well as you noted.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 03:18 PM
27. Did anyone noticed where his big donors came from. Try the housing market. LOL

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 20, 2008 04:04 PM
28. Been in DC for CFUnited conference, so I haven't been following closely this week. I did have a chance to read Eric's post, the linked analysis, and the comments. My comments are as follows:

1. I did see the news a couple days ago, since DC Convention Center has CNN on televisions throughout the complex. Not sure my final take on the matter. I don't consider him, technically breaking his pledge, especially if I use Pudge parsing on the matter :-) He technically only agreed to Public Financing if his competitor also agreed and agree to limit what the RNC and 527's also do. McCain wouldn't agree to control the RNC (like he really could, even if he tried), and McCain would be a fool to try to control the 527 groups. For McCain, they can do the dirty work and McCain can keep his hands clean, all the while looking the other way. So, McCain knew he couldn't live up to the entire pledge, and Barack knew McCain wouldn't agree to the entire pledge. That being said, I do think Barack did break the "spirit" of the pledge. Yes, I agree with those here that call him to task on that matter.

2. The linked article makes some glaring mistakes, the biggest of them was the author's comment on "squeezing" more money out of the small time contributors. Obama didn't have to "squeeze" money out of the people that gave to date, and if the people double what they have given (i.e., give one more time for the general), then Obama will be doing fine. Since the donor base is so large, and a large number of small givers ($250 or less), the task of having them give a second time does not seem out of the question. The author is stretching for an argument here.

3. In a larger aspect, however, Obama's decision is one to go with a large population base, and not rely on smaller amount of large donors like past elections. In the evolution of fundraising that Obama has achieved, the election does reflect a more public view than the current public financing system. Have you actually fathomed his base (number of people actually given to his campaign)? Nobody has even come close to this base, not even Rove and his very successful management of Bush's 2004 campaign. In one sense, given the large base, he would almost have to turn back donations, if he went with public fundraising. He earned $22M in May alone. The whole public financing limit is $80K. He has over half that amount in cash on hand at the moment. He could go with the public limit, not need any public funds and still have to turn back donations. How is that fair to the small $25 dollar donor? My guess is he will have at least $100K of cash on hand by the convention.

Posted by: tc on June 20, 2008 08:13 PM
29. Splinter says "Interestingly, Bill H. does not try to refute any of the counter-points being made..."

And what counterpoints would those be? The issue is that Obama has now said he will not utilize public financing after he had said that he would. Sorry, the Clintonian "everybody does it" argument or referencing something John McCain may or may not have done doesn't fly with me--I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a McCain supporter. I just think it is interesting that Obama can be a hypocrite just like other politicians--nothing "new" about that, and that IS the point.

Posted by: Bill H on June 20, 2008 08:21 PM
30. He technically only agreed to Public Financing if his competitor also agreed

And his competitor did. And he's been consistent for a long time saying that. In fact, Obama references McCain's agreement to use it in his statement.


and agree to limit what the RNC and 527's also do.

False. See the statement in #7. It says no such thing.

I don't consider him, technically breaking his pledge

So by opting out of public financing, and making absolutely no attempt to even pretend he's going to make an agreement to with McCain, he has not broken this pledge?

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Right. Justify it in your mind however you like, but it's still hypocrisy.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 08:44 PM
31. Good observation of who Barry Obama is. If he gets elected, see what we deserve..

The Two Obamas

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 20, 2008
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they're running against some academic liberal who wouldn't wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn't proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they're running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there's Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who'd throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He's the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he's too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he's been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in "Entourage" and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don't do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don't go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He's spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama's got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn't just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa's final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won't care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama's money is forever. He's got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I'm ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he'll sell that out, what won't he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain't beanbag. If we're going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I'd use to describe Barack Obama. He's the most effectively political creature we've seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn't smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

Posted by: KS on June 20, 2008 09:04 PM
32. Palouse,
McCain would not agree to common "rules of the game" inherent to the pledge. The pledge was based on both sides sitting down and agreeing on the framework. The framework proposed by McCain was limit the campaigns to the (approx) $80M federal limit. There was now limits put on RNC, nor independant 527's. Obama's proposal was to limit to the (approx) $80M, that the respective National Comittees would also agree to the framework and rules, and that the candidates would proactive discourage and go after 527's on their side of the argument from breaking the overall pledge. Obama has done the latter two, independently of McCain. The DNC at the direction of the Obama campaign has adopted a no-lobbyist giving stand. The Obama campaign and DNC have also addressed pro-Democratic 527's, like Move-On. In fact, Move-On has disbanded its 527 (news today). So, I ask you how is it breaking a pledge when the pledge was not fullfilled? The two sides never came to an agreement as to the framework. What you are trying to hold the Obama campaign to is a disadvantaged position, not an equal position. McCain was being smart by not agreeing to the deal. He was dumb in how his campaign framed the issue however. McCain was focused on his disadvantaged portion (i.e., the fact that his campaign is behind on fundraising), and failed to see their positions of advantage, which were a lot more 527's who would have no problem raising money independently and the RNC, while low right now on funds, has deep pockets to draw from. McCain had two aces in the hand, to Barack's one. Yet, McCain missed playing the bluff out correctly.

Posted by: tc on June 20, 2008 09:08 PM
33. I applaud Obama for not taking government welfare to run his campaign.

I condem McCain for relying on politician welfare. I also condemn him for violating the campaign finance laws by using the federal funds and then going over the imposed limits for accepting the funds anyhows. If we can not trust him to follow campaign finance laws, how can we trust him to run our Country?

Posted by: Lysander on June 20, 2008 09:47 PM
34. McCain would not agree to common "rules of the game" inherent to the pledge.

Wrong. Obama says himself, "Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge." That is McCain agreeing to the terms of the pledge. The 527 excuse was made up well after the fact, and well after he went back on his word.

If you are nominated for President in 2008

He was.

and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign,

He already had at this point.

will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Yes.

Plain and simple language. Not to mention how he was talking all about preserving integrity of elections with public financing all over the country. It was all B.S.

He cannot be trusted.

Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2008 10:02 PM
35. let's face it....Sheik Barry is doing favors for the ultra rich and the ultra corrupt banks and financial companies like Lehman Bros .....

old time demoncrats should be ashamed....I thought they used to represent the little people...no longer....since Clintoon, they represent the ultra rich ....

nice going...

I still believe that most logical, caring, patriotic,moral and upstanding Americans will vote for the better candidate ...McCain...the war hero...not Barry "I love you George Soros" Bama...

Posted by: lee on June 21, 2008 12:49 AM
36. to encapsule the post @ 28 by tc:

"It's okay that Obama reneged on his campaign promise because, well, he's Barack Obama. It's okay to lie as long as you have your best interests at heart."

Somehow, I'm not getting the feeling that this is a "new kind" of politician.

What I find amazing is how fast some people drop their drawers in adulation over the verbal diahrrea that Senator Fauxbama so aptly spews. It's frightening, frankly.

Posted by: Rick D. on June 21, 2008 12:03 PM
37. Slate (Slate!) made a compelling arguement for "difference between changing your policy position and breaking a promise."
But if these flip-flops reflect character attributes, then it's Obama who emerges more vulnerable. Breaking a promise is a problem of a higher order than changing a policy position. Our mothers told us not to break promises; they were silent on the question of drilling.
Obama's change of heart was more closely tied to his self-interest than McCain's. If he entered the public financing system, he would have denied himself hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, Factcheck (via Crush Liberalism) points out that B-HO flat out lied.

Finally, both Jenn of the Jungle and Wizbang teach us how to "Speak Democrat".

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 21, 2008 12:29 PM
38. Oh and Factcheck has MORE about little lying B-HO!

Obama Polishes His Resume
June 21, 2008

Summary Obama has released his first post-primary ad, a 60-second spot that's airing in 18 battleground states. In effect, "Country I Love" is Obama's first ad of the general election campaign, and as such it invites scrutiny. (FactCheck will address McCain's first general election ads in a separate article.) We don't find this ad egregiously misleading, but it paints a picture of Obama's accomplishments that could leave viewers with a misimpression or two.
His description of his upbringing and work history are accurate. He describes the "strong values" he says he learned from his mother and her parents. But when Obama discusses his legislative accomplishments, he leaves out some important context.
The ad talks about laws that Obama "passed," but in fact, he sponsored only one of the three bills mentioned and cosponsored another. The third included provisions from some bills he'd sponsored earlier, but his name wasn't attached to the one that passed. And two of the three laws were accomplishments of the Illinois Legislature, not the U.S. Senate.

Liar, liar, wannabe pres for hire!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 21, 2008 01:06 PM
39. I think that it would send a great message to the generally misguided materialistic under 30 crowd if McCain with significantly lesser money but a substantive and clear message that says yes we can do it - the old fashioned way defeats Obama with a plethora of cash, an skilled orator but less effective when it comes a debate or a town hall format.

Barack Obama says everything that people want to hear about the new politics, but is clearly a Dr.Jekyl/Mr.Hyde (Fast Eddie) type - more of the its all about me/a quick study of Bill Clinton. The new politics, hope, change and uniting us all really smacks of old Soviet style political gimmickry.

Posted by: KS on June 21, 2008 11:53 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?