Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Criticizes Obama on Financing

John McCain, with his wife, Cindy, in Ohio, offered tough words on Barack Obama. (Reuters)

By Glenn Kessler
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. John McCain accused Sen. Barack Obama this morning of engaging in "Washington doublespeak" and challenged him to abide by what he called a signed commitment to accept public financing in the general election.

"Facts are facts," McCain said, noting that news accounts suggested that Obama was considering rejecting public financing because his extraordinary fundraising prowess. He said that Obama a year ago "signed a piece of paper" pledging to accept public financing if he won the nomination, while Sen. Hillary Clinton -- who at the time was the Democratic front-runner -- did not.

"That's Washington doublespeak," McCain told reporters. "I committed to public financing. He committed to public financing. It is not any more complicated than that. I hope he will keep his commitment to the American people."

Candidates who accept public financing receive $85 million but cannot accept additional contributions; Obama raised $35 million just last month, suggesting he could raise much more than McCain in the general election.

Last February, lawyers for Obama asked the Federal Election Commission if the campaign could raise funds for the general election but retain the option of returning to the public finance system. When the FEC gave its permission, an Obama spokesman said the candidate would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Answering a questionnaire in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network, Obama said he would forgo private funding in the general election, adding he had "proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election."

In recent weeks, however, Obama has suggested he has not made up his mind on whether to opt out of the public financing system. In an op-ed in USA Today, Obama wrote today that if he is the Democratic nominee he "will aggressively pursue" a policy with his opponent for a "publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits," but made clear that he thinks a new agreement is needed.

At the news conference here, McCain could not specifically point to the document he said Obama signed, saying it was with a "public-interest group," presumably the Midwest Democracy Network.

McCain said that Obama's apparent efforts to wiggle out of his answer to the group is why "the American people are so cynical about us in Washington. They are cynical about people who put their name on a piece of paper and don't keep it."

McCain jabbed, "I think the American people would expect him to hold that commitment -- especially if you want to bring about change."

By Washington Post editors  |  February 20, 2008; 11:07 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Team Sees 'Wide Lead' Over Clinton
Next: Adviser Defends Obama on Foreign Policy



Perhaps Obama should have thought about that BEFORE he agreed to "aggressively pursue" such an agreement with the GOP nominee?

Posted by: JakeD | February 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

This is somewhat of a phony argument by McCain who is strapped for cash while Obama is a fundraising machine.

McCain is basically asking Obama to forfeit an advantage he has in fundraising and come down to McCain's level by accepting public financing. No campaign run by anyone with half a brain would submit to that.

McCain is the co-author of the dismal McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that has made the problem of money in politics much worse.

McCain would do himself a favor by not bringing up campaign finance as an issue.

Posted by: danielhancock | February 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Why do all Clinton supporters talk like the obama guy on msnbc last nite. like they don't have anything in their brains? At least that guy from last nite saw his mistake and apologized on his blog. Clinton supporters never see anything wrong with the bullsh*t they write! Take for instance this comment: comment neecee | February 20, 2008 11:52 AM . does she really believe in all that she saying? that obama is a bigot? oh my got!!!! Lord save us

Posted by: ftroit | February 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I think DoTheMath hit the nail right on the head. Obama has agreed to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the GOP nominee unless 527 PAC Attack groups of the Swift Boat type spend unlimited resources to smear and negatively define him. That's kinda like Obama "aggressively pursuing" an agreement unless the sun comes out tomorrow. McCain's right: "Washington doublespeak" by Obama -- the Post already called Obama out on this:

Posted by: JakeD | February 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Please don't accept public financing, Barack Obama. The organization that swiftboated John Kerry was not the George W. Bush campaign. If a similar group launched a similar attack on you, John McCain would ask how anyone expected him to stop them. He might even say he disapproved of the attack, but that would not undo any damage they might have done.

A mutual agreement to accept public financing would not limit these third-party attacks, but it would limit your ability to respond to them.

Don't let anyone stop you from doing what you do so well: Thinking things through, researching thoroughly, evaluating the reliability of your sources, and making well-reasoned, well-informed decisions.

Yes, I've heard that you're good at giving speeches and fundraising, too, but your thinking is what convinced me you would make a great President.


Posted by: DoTheMath | February 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain once called leaders of the evangelical right "agents of intolerance" and he was absolutely correct. He's spent most of the last year cozying up to these agents of intolerance and pretending he never said any such thing. He once made a courageous and difficult decision to begin ATTEMPTING to actually address issues with illegal immigrants; he never claimed it was a perfect solution but it was a start. Now, of course, he's backpedaled in response to the fear-mongering and nativist claptrap of the conservative wing and now we have NO SOLUTION AT ALL, not one that actually works because walling ourselves off at our borders does not, can not, and never will succeed.

Now we find out he cut himself a sweetheart loan deal with a bank at a time when he couldn't raise money for his campaign (Obama has never had that problem) and now that he's pandering to all those GOP radicals who will use 527 groups to circumvent public financing constrictions to go after Obama, he wants to throttle Obama into an agreement he never made in the first place and which would be incredibly politically stupid...something Obama is not.

Sorry, John, this ole dog won't hunt.

Posted by: windrider2 | February 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

As a first time contributor to any political campaign I give Obama my permission to break this one supposed deal.

Does Mccain take us Obama supporters for fools? He has a tremendous advantage in name recognition alone. Just like Queen Hillary. And just look what OUR campaign money has done to her, it's made her an also ran.

Even if Obama did stick to general funds his grassroots alone will be priceless in contributing to a win.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 20, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I respect John McCain greatly. He earned that respect by losing six years of his life in prison. I don't agree with him on many issues. Especially the Iraq war. I wish he had been against it. I have no doubts that he would have fought like hell against it. Defund or what ever it took. Even against his own party. I would have more respect for Clinton if she had fought more for her conviction. I don't know how Obama stands. For or against. He says against. His actions, convictions and votes say he was for it. I guess present would be the best description.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

neecee - anyone who votes for or against Hillary because she is a woman is a sexist and must accept a sexist world.

Likewise, anyone who votes for or against Obama because he is black is a racist and must accept a racist world.

Each of us has to decide - do we want to perpetuate sexism and racism? Or do we want a society where leaders are selected by the content of their character?

Posted by: martiniano | February 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I must apologize for my previous comment. While John McCain might seem to me like a relic of the past, it was insensitive of me to lable him a coger or a coot. He has served his country courageously and with great devotion but I'm 60 years old and I don't have time to support someone who seems so entrenched in visions of the past. I am probably the female extention of geezers - probably call me a crone - I just know how people can get without injecting their lives with great new thoughts and forward looking ideas. Our time has come and gone and it's time for the next generation to step up and pry the Presidency from our cold shriveled hands.

Posted by: goddessreturns | February 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry to even think this, but McCain looks larval - I mean he has the coloring of larvae. And lately his awkward physical movements make him seem like a post-stroke larvae. Very odd. And what happened to his proud wife's face? It is looking a little joan-riverish. I salute his service to our nation. I don't want him as president.

Posted by: martiniano | February 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain was born in Panama and as such it sounds as he is not a "Natural
Born Citizen" accordingly to the Constituion meaning of the world "Natural
Born Citizen" indicating Born within the territory, therefore he may not
qualify to run for the office of the president.
Panama was leased and we have no Territorial Rights nor it was considered
US territory.
McCain is a Citizen of the United States because a Law (Controlled by
Congress) that allows Citizenship if Both parents are U.S. citizens.
Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible
to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and
been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a July 25,
1787, letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the
Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it
would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of
Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to
declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall
not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was
no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was
introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without
discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

If I may, this is not about McCain per se but rather a legitimate quest for
the truth and clarification.

I'm not a Constitutional scholars, but if you feel as passionate and
fascinated with this subject as I am, in the process of researching you
will discover the vast data that exists of factual information extracted
from US Supreme Court cases as well as the Founding Father Papers during
the process of writing our Constituion you will discover what the actual
intend of "Natural Born Citizen" was and is and what is missing or not to
have it clarified once and for all.
Here is a set of web pages to help you all that love reading and educating
{ Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President
To Be a "Natural Born Citizen}
{ The Pernicious "Natural Born" Clause of the Constitution}
another Digital book on this subject..

So what is going to be? I guess at the end someone will file suit against McCain to have this mess clarified to see if current and future US Citizens NOT born in USA soil where both Parents are US citizens are eligible for the office of the President of The United States of America accordingly to the constitution requirements.

Posted by: politiciannc | February 20, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The key point here is Sen. Obama's answer in the referenced questionnaire from 2007 -- presumably the "piece of paper" at issue -- states "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That is what his campaign reportedly said at the time of the FEC ruling. So actually his position has not changed at all, and it looks like Sen. McCain just didn't get his facts right.

Sen. Obama's piece in USA Today makes it clear why he thinks a solid agreement is necessary, including to address funds spent by "independent" policy groups. Given the role such groups played in the 2004 general election, his views seem completely reasonable. The point is to keep the advocacy of partisans as much within the public financing system as you reasonably can.

Posted by: dan.moylan | February 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

What was MO thinking? By the Nov election every person in the US that has a TV will know exactly what she said. For 30 seconds every 10 minutes her "For the first time in my adult life...." will be seared into our brains along with all the achievements this country has accomplished since she was born (1964) that did not make her a proud American. It will make John Kerry's "Swift Boating" look like a kindergarden fight. It's tough to run a campaign when your spouse just "capped" you, ask Hillary. BO is running a near perfect campaign so far, he doesn't need to be watching his back when he goes home to sleep at night.

Posted by: jmfromdc | February 20, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Geez, talk about divisive comments: from goddessreturns, "geezer, codger, coot" and from carssipi, "liverspot."
I guess you two will manage to age without ever having those terms applied to you? And you don't mind that when you acquire those terms, you will be deemed worthless to society?
Way to go for unity. Bring on the brave new world.

Posted by: deenaquin | February 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain is lying about Obama's position on campaign financing. He lied about Obama's position on Pakistan last night, oops, as of this morning Obama's ideas were good and it's just that he shouldn't have told the American people about them. He's flip-flopped on the Bush giveaway to the wealthy and now torture, just to appease his base. How sad. I used to respect him as a man of integrity.

Posted by: Nissl | February 20, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

So, people who support Clinton would rather have a committed opponent to a woman's right to choose in the White House? That would be McCain.

And, for misogynist invective, McCain is surely on the A-list. His nasty remarks about Chelsea Clinton are on the record.

He is no "moderate". Whatever that means anyway. But, surely, anybody who truly supports the ideas of Clinton would be cutting off their nose to spite their face by voting for McCain, who wants to appoint another Scalia, or Alito to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: freddiano | February 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's turn the page,


Posted by: supportobama | February 20, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

No surprise that John McCain -- that would be the John McCain of Keating 5 Fame -- would be doing a little double dealing on financial matters. No surprise that John McCain -- that would be the John McCain married to the Cindy McCain who stole drugs from charity -- would be doing a little double dealing on his "straight talk."

As for the claims of "I will vote for McCain unless Clinton is the nominee" -- give me a break. Anyone that considers McCain the second choice to Clinton is either lying or uninformed. McCain and Clinton are polar opposites on every important issue today.

Posted by: Jayne | February 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Senator McCain is disingenous at best with this false issue regarding Seantor Obama. Check out this W.P. article from 2/16/08:

McCain Got Loan by Pledging to Seek Federal Funds

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 16, 2008; A10

John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show.

McCain had already taken a $3 million bank loan in November to keep his campaign afloat, and he sought from the same bank $1 million more shortly before this month's Super Tuesday contests, this time pledging incoming but unprocessed contributions as collateral. He never used the funds of the most recent loan, because his win in the South Carolina primary helped him raise enough money to compete in Florida, his campaign aides said last night.

The loans, revealed yesterday in documents a McCain attorney filed with the Federal Election Commission, offer fresh details about how the Republican senator from Arizona scrambled to secure money as his shoestring campaign navigated a rapid-fire succession of primary contests.

The unorthodox lending terms also raised fresh questions from McCain's critics about his ability to repeatedly draw money from the Maryland-based Fidelity & Trust Bank. Campaign finance lawyers speculated whether McCain may have inadvertently committed himself to entering the public financing system for the remainder of the primary season by holding out the prospect of taking public matching funds in exchange for the $1 million loan in December.

"This whole area is uncharted," said Lawrence H. Norton, a former general counsel of the FEC.

McCain's attorneys and the Fidelity & Trust president said the loan agreements were carefully scrutinized in advance to make sure they would pass muster with federal banking regulators and the FEC.

"We stayed in a safe zone, and so did he," said Barry C. Watkins, the bank's president. "We were being careful not to force either one of us into a situation we didn't intend."

McCain's campaign filed the modification to his initial $3 million loan on Dec. 17, seeking an additional $1 million. The bank asked him to produce something more than his campaign's assets as collateral.

"They said, 'You've explained how you can afford to borrow more, and how you can pay us back if things go well. What happens if things go badly?' " said Trevor Potter, a McCain attorney.

The campaign's response, Potter said, was that McCain could reapply in the future for federal matching funds, and would agree to use the FEC certifications for those funds as collateral.

Under the agreement, McCain promised that if his campaign began to falter, he would commit to keeping his campaign alive and to entering the federal financing system so the money he had raised could be used to gain an infusion of matching funds. Had that happened, he would have been forced to abide by strict federal spending caps before the Republican National Convention in September.

Under FEC rules, a candidate who uses a certification for federal funds as collateral for a loan is obligated to remain within the public financing system. "We very carefully did not do that," Potter said.

Cleta Mitchell, a veteran campaign finance lawyer and a McCain critic, said she has never encountered a similar agreement.

"They've clearly got a sweetheart deal with this bank," Mitchell said. "This bank is just a cash register for them."

Watkins, the bank president, said the terms of the McCain loans were novel, but only because the campaign finance rules have changed over the years. He said he and the other bank trustees have a long history of lending to political committees of both parties, including loans to the presidential campaigns of Democrat Walter F. Mondale and Republican Robert J. Dole.

"Over the years, we developed an expertise on ways to meet federal banking regulations and FEC requirements," Watkins said. "We've done everything in accordance with all the standards." Members of the bank's board of directors have made campaign contributions to candidates in both parties but none to McCain.

McCain's victories in the early primaries meant he never had to enter the public financing system. He formally returned his certification to the FEC on Feb. 6.

That decision has not stopped McCain from pushing for an agreement with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) that, if the two became their parties' nominees, they would return to public financing for the general election.

Last spring, an Obama spokesman said that the Illinois Democrat would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election," and McCain told reporters yesterday that Obama should "keep his word to the American people."

"If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position" on public financing, McCain said in Oshkosh, Wis.

Under the federal campaign finance system, after a political party nominates a presidential candidate at its convention, the nominee becomes eligible for $85 million from a fund provided by taxpayers but would be barred from raising additional money.

Candidates have abided by these limits in the past, but no campaign has created the kind of fundraising machine that Obama has.

Obama said in Milwaukee: "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure that our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations in respect to the general election." But, he added, "it would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it, and I'm not the nominee."

Staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. contributed to this report.

So you see, th ebottom line is that Senator McCain realizes that Senator Obama will raise more funds than he so he is trying to box him in to a pledge that was never made.

Posted by: JMac_in_MD | February 20, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: neecee
While I may not always agree with the policies of Washington, I am PROUD to be an American!
:end quote

This is a swipe at Michelle Obama's comment right? I do not know what she was thinking but I do know that it is possible to love one's country and still not be PROUD of it. I am not proud of America's involvement in the Iraq War. I love America's high ideals, but I am not proud of the way we often fall so very short of them.

I've served in the Armed Forces. I love my country, I've served my country, but I'm not always proud of the collective behavior of Americans.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree with Georgiapeac21556! (unless McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate, then I probably won't vote). It's really sad that even today women are still oppressed by men not only in politics but in wage earnings. The stereotypes and bigotry against women are still alive and well today. I surely cannot vote for Obama for his attacks on Hilary, an attack on her is an attack on me. He is showing women that if you want to be a women in politics, you better think twice and not dare to run against a man and expect to win. Just shameful. While I may not always agree with the policies of Washington, I am PROUD to be an American!

Posted by: neecee | February 20, 2008 11:52 AM

oh dear God...I don't know what attacks on gender that Senator Obama has made on Hillary Clinton. But who needs proof, right? And a vote for McCain makes sense, as the GOP champions women's rights all the time. If you are serious, you make our gender look stupid and thin-skinned. If you are a GOP operative, it figures...

Posted by: LABC | February 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Surely someone as superstitious as Sen. McCain can understand that - as he said - Sen. Obama does not want to hold these discussions UNTIL he is actually the nominee and should that occur, he WILL do so. That's precisely what his pledge was -- to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee" as the story says. Sen. Obama is not yet the nominee. End of discussion. ------- Could we please get past these "made up" issues? We grew to expect them from Sen. Clinton, but I really thought more highly of Sen. McCain.

Posted by: esommers2 | February 20, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

John has a lot to do, in order to gain on Barack in the coming race for president, that is for sure.

Obama vs. McCain; Google, Web Hit Statistics and Facebook Figures:

Posted by: davidmwe | February 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has not broken his word. There was no "Pledge" to break. He said he would aggressively pursue an agreement with the GOP nominee IF he won the Democratic nomination. I read the USA Today OpEd, and it is just as I suspected. The Obama campaign has to be careful not to get boxed into an artificial limit while 527 PAC Attack groups of the Swift Boat type spend unlimited resources to smear and negatively define him. If the Kerry Campaign taught the Democratic Party anything, it was that negative ads have to be answered immediately. Any agreement with McCain would have to address these types of groups.

Also, DINOs who threaten to vote for McCain if their favored nominee (Clinton, or Obama) doesn't win the nomination fairly demonstrate that they are not voting on the issues.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I completely agree with Georgiapeac21556! (unless McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate, then I probably won't vote). It's really sad that even today women are still oppressed by men not only in politics but in wage earnings. The stereotypes and bigotry against women are still alive and well today. I surely cannot vote for Obama for his attacks on Hilary, an attack on her is an attack on me. He is showing women that if you want to be a women in politics, you better think twice and not dare to run against a man and expect to win. Just shameful. While I may not always agree with the policies of Washington, I am PROUD to be an American!

Posted by: neecee | February 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

In my opinion, "Liverspot Mc Cain" case does not hold water. What he is saying about Obama is untrue because how did he get millions of dollars in his bank account. he was down and out not too long ago? The GOP got us into a recession and this uncalled war. We need a change for the housing industry and it mortgage situation. You should be waterboarded!You're just jealous "Liverspot", because Obama has the appeal to get donations by the millions. LOL!

Posted by: carssipi | February 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

COPY of a Complaint I just filed with the FCC:

Marketing, Promoting, Campaigning, Propagandizing FOR the election of Barack Obama using deception - because he supports the owner's of NBC & MSNBC (GE's) PLANS to build nuclear power plants. Nothing but negative, scurrilous, deceptive "news" "coverage" about the Clintons - because Hillary did not vote for "the Cheney Energy Bill" (H.R.6) and stated that her Energy Plans do not include nuclear. Attempted subversion of a Presidential Election to further GE's and the nuclear industry's PLANS to reap billions in Profits ... without any risk of losing a dime ... due to the Cheney Energy Bill's Guarantee of taxpayer payback of any default on the loans to build the nuclear power plants.

DATES: From the inception of their campaign "news coverage" to the present date.

Please feel Free to FILE Your OWN COMPLAINT ... You can do it in minutes with the FCC's Online Complaint FORM.

(Details of MSNBC's SELLING of Obama can be found at Media Matters Website)

Posted by: elme13 | February 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

So McCain uses public financing certification to obtain a loan in the primary and then wiggles out of it. That is so slippery. How is that not the same thing. It was a legal document. McCain has already shown he would wiggle out of public financing in the primaries if he found he could raise more money. So Obama could not trust McCain's pledge to public financing in the general election. But does the media cover that? No. It is back to the lopsided coverage again. I am surprised WP reporters don't bring that up because it was the WP's story about McCain's loan. So be proud of your work and bring it up when McCain plays this game on Obama. People are voting for Obama because they are sick of this kind of gotcha, gossip politics.

Posted by: goldie2 | February 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

As I watched McCain last night I am totally convinced that he is the perfect candidaate to extend the Bush legacy. What a completely tired, inarticulate, dried up old husk. He sure would be the person we would want as the Commander and Chief.Gee we would go from a moron to a geezer, coger, coot too wrapped up in the past to want a brave new world. Myopic, incapable of realizing that patriotism is loving your country so much that you would seek to change it when it is wrong not hold on to the notion that it can do no wrong. Go Barack!!!!!

Posted by: goddessreturns | February 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Here is one right here. Julie in Georgia.

I have been a life-long Democrat, and Hillary supporter this primary, because I have failed to see anyone hold Obama accountable to any of his promises, and I am glad to see someone finally doing that.

If Hillary is not the nominee, McCain surely has my vote in the GE !

Posted by: Georgiapeac21556 | February 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Up is down and down is up. The GOP nominee is calling for spending limit controls during the election and publicly-funded campaigns.

The Democrat wants to use private financing and not adhere to strict spending limits.

How many voters will McCain win on this one?

GOP conservatives, you on board with Johnny Mac on this one?

Posted by: steveboyington | February 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company