Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Challenges Obama on Public Financing

By Dan Balz
DALLAS -- Sen. John McCain prodded Sen. Barack Obama Friday to live up to a past commitment to accept public funds for the general election, telling his potential rival, "Keep your promise to the American people."

Responding to comments made earlier Friday, in which the Illinois senator continued to hedge about whether he would opt out of the public financing system if he is the Democratic nominee, McCain said Obama is "saying one thing and doing another" on the issue.

McCain said he remains committed to accepting public funds in the fall, but only if his Democratic opponent, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, agrees. "If Senator Obama doesn't, we will examine to take it or not," he said.

Asked under what conditions he might not take the federal funds, he replied, "A little straight talk: How it benefits us. How it's most beneficial to us."

Obama, McCain and Clinton all have opted out of taking public funds during the primaries, decisions that allow them to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money until the nominating conventions this summer. But Obama signed a pledge last year to take public financing in a general election campaign if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same.

Since then he has wavered, in part because of the extraordinary success his campaign has had raising funds from both small and large donors. On Friday, he described the campaign finance system as "creaky," a description with which McCain agreed. But the Arizona senator, author of the most recent campaign finance reform legislation, said that, in contrast to Obama, "I have a record" on the issue.

On other topics, McCain dismissed charges by his rivals that he has changed positions on government's role in dealing with the home mortgage crisis. On Thursday, McCain outlined a proposal to allow some homeowners to restructure their mortgages with government assistance.

"I said there shouldn't be a broad federal bailout," he said, while noting that he had said there was a clear federal role. "It's just factually incorrect," he said of the criticism.

McCain, who plans a broader economic speech next week, said the question of whether the economy is technically in a recession is incidental to the reality that many American families are struggling. "We've got to work hard to fix it," he said.

On Iraq, he was asked whether the decision to invade Iraq made it more difficult to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. McCain responded by enumerating a series of factors that have caused problems there, from corruption in Afghanistan to difficulties with allied support to problems of cooperation from Pakistan.

"I think there are many factors that have made Afghanistan difficult and challenging. I believe that it's a good conversation but at the end of the day, I am convinced that if we pull troops out of Iraq before [Army] General [David] Petraeus says we're ready to, we will have disaster is Iraq."

By Washington Post Editors  |  April 11, 2008; 3:37 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Halt in Troop Withdrawals Give Dems Flexibility?
Next: Bill Clinton's Bosnia Comments Revive a Controversy

Comments

Jake, stuff like that happens in politics all the time. Candidates say something that is to their advantage and then reverse themselves later when it is less advantageous.

It usually happens with debates. Early in the campaign a candidate may commit to debates with his or her opponent and then find technicalities to avoid debates when they have a substantial lead later in the campaign. An oral commitment to do something is not an enforcable agreement.

My point is that McCain better not be depending on Obama taking public funding to make McCain competitive moneywise in this campaign. McCain better start raising money and bringing up substantial issues.

McCain and his consultants are not being realistic if they thinks this public funding issue is going to score points for McCain and against Obama.

Posted by: Daniel Hancock | April 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | April 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Daniel Hancock:

I agree that McCain-Feingold was a travesty. That being said, hypothetically, if Tiger Woods had pledged to "agressively pursue an agreement" to only use a nine-iron and a putter during a tournement -- that's obviously not "enforceable" and you won't see the RNC filing any lawsuit about that either -- but you can at least understand the other players pointing out when he refuses to do so, right?

Posted by: JakeD | April 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of any comments that Obama made on the issue, McCain is smoking something if he thinks that Obama is going to forfeit a huge fundraising advantage to take public financing. That would be like forcing Tiger Woods to only use a nine-iron and a putter during a tournement.

At the same time, Democrats are trying to use the campaign finance law (ironically co-sponsored by McCain) to hamper McCain's ability to spend now and in the general election.

That is the problem with campaign finance laws. They are drafted and enforced to give one party or the other an advantage.

The McCain-Feingold law is a travesty that has made the problem of money in politics much worse. It has introduced more money with less accountability into the process.

McCain probably deserves what he gets but it still does not make it right.

Posted by: Daniel Hancock | April 13, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Hey feastorafamine,

I was going to point out you must not have understood the article you cited, but Ed beat me to it. I notice you didn't defend yourself, so you were either ignorant or lying. Take your pick.

Three facts.

1. McCain has not taken any public financing.

2. The FEC can't rule on anything because they lack a quorum.

3. Obama signed a promise that he might break. If he breaks it, what other promises will he break?

Posted by: EdwardATeller | April 13, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Even if you can't believe in the commitments the candidate (Obama) makes.

Posted by: Ed | April 12, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Campaign Rewrote the Book on Public Financing, at 103M supporters and counting giving $100 on average. The limits are set on how much individuals can give, there is no limit on the amount of supporters you can have. Stop the Drama, Vote Obama. Do I sense a little "Bitterness" from McCain. He should hit up his biggest supporter (wife Cindy) for a few bucks. Hillary hit up her biggest supporter (self) for $5M when she got broke, but she didn't pay any of her creditors that she owes. This is why the phone rings at the White House at 3:00 AM, and she answers (no Hillary isn't here), "This call is for Hillary and is an attempt to collect a debt and is being recorded". McCain doesn't know under what circumstances he would take "Public Money"? If you want to support Senator Obama with a $100 he will be glad to take it under those circumstances. Public Financing (Change)we can Believe in. Obama 08.

Posted by: Fareed | April 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Partisian perspective has NOTHING to do with anything. The FEC has spoken. McCain broke the rules. Worse still McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation. When he didnt think he could raise any money he abandoned his principles and broke the rules. Then after he realized he had a shot at the Nom he FLIP-FLOPPED and started crying out for campaign finance reform."

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 11, 2008 7:40 PM

The FEC has not spoken. The chairman spoke but he lacks a quorum because new members needed to make up that body are stuck in political limbo in a dispute in the Senate. Therefore claiming McCain "broke the rules" is completely partisan because the ruling body cannot rule.

Posted by: Ed | April 12, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Look Obama supporters,

Stop feeding into the mean spirted, dirty politics machine that Hillary Clinton as well as John McCain are trying to spread about Obama. Remeber it's politics, Hillary by sheer numbers alone has no chance of winning the nomination by votes alone. Her campaign is in desperation mode at this point ant they will go to "Willie Horton" mode in order to smear Obama and secure the nomination. I don't think she would even graciously support him if not nominated. I think she'd tear the party apart before she'd ever agree to bow out if she loses the popular vote or delegates. The Clintons (Bill or Hillary) are more concerned about their legacy as they are about the American People. This has become more about the Clinton legacy and Let's Smear Obama by linking him to being Muslim campaign than it is about actual issues paralyzing this country.

This is a good test for Obama because the Republicans are gonna take the mudslinging to a whole different level and Obama better have people around him to prepare him for it. The Clintons maybe Democrats but they play hardball like Republicans and Obama's camp needs to make sure he's mentally tough enough to handle the whole weight.

Posted by: Reggie | April 11, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Ed wrote:

McCain accepted no public money for the primary. I am sickened by Democrats stating everything from "broken law" to using loophole when #42 blatantly broke the law while in office and they said, "Nevermind" and they accepted the lame ice tea excuse and "no controlling legal precedent excuse" from Al Gore.

McCain came close to the edge and whether you say he did or did not cross the line may be totally a matter of partisan perspective. It will require no special discernment to detect whether Obama stays in the public financing system for the general. He either does or he doesn't. He either gives his word and breaks it or he doesn't.

----------------------------------
Partisian perspective has NOTHING to do with anything. The FEC has spoken. McCain broke the rules. Worse still McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation. When he didnt think he could raise any money he abandoned his principles and broke the rules. Then after he realized he had a shot at the Nom he FLIP-FLOPPED and started crying out for campaign finance reform.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain.fec.ap/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 11, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

The thing is, though, Kate, that Barack is positioning himself as being a different breed of politician. I am a supporter of his, but it makes me cringe when I see him back-pedal on issues such as Cuba, public election financing, and NAFTA. He needs to stick to his guns, and show the courage that it took come out against the war when it wasn't fashionable.

Posted by: netnuevo | April 11, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

McCain accepted no public money for the primary. I am sickened by Democrats stating everything from "broken law" to using loophole when #42 blatantly broke the law while in office and they said, "Nevermind" and they accepted the lame ice tea excuse and "no controlling legal precedent excuse" from Al Gore.

McCain came close to the edge and whether you say he did or did not cross the line may be totally a matter of partisan perspective. It will require no special discernment to detect whether Obama stays in the public financing system for the general. He either does or he doesn't. He either gives his word and breaks it or he doesn't.

Posted by: Ed | April 11, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

> VOTE SMART. VOTE HILLARY!

So why are all the educated people voting AGAINST her?

Posted by: Ishida | April 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Homer Raulks | April 11, 2008 5:27 PM wrote: On February 27th, speaking to Kristof of The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, published in The New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent."
---------------------
You know, I honestly respect someone who's able to say something like, "I don't know if Obama's experienced enough" or even "He DOES have a middle name that wasn't on the Mayflower." But lying about stuff anyone with a computer can discover is pathetic.

First off, Homer, do you have several aliases? I found your exact same posting on TPMElectionCentral.com. Looks like you're a shill for someone.

Homer, this is the article (op-ed piece, actually) to which you refer, correct? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Here's the relevant section: "Likewise, with countless people today spreading scurrilous rumors that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, the most appropriate response is a denial followed by: And so what if he were?

Granted, that's not politically realistic as a comeback. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidate for president and 88 percent for a woman. In contrast, a Los Angeles Times poll in 2006 found that only 34 percent of respondents said they could vote for a Muslim for president.

Even if a prejudice is directed to a matter of choice, like religion or long hair, it's still prejudice. It's possible to believe that Catholics have every right to be president while opposing a particular Catholic candidate who would ban contraception; likewise, it's possible to believe that Muslims have every right to hold office without necessarily embracing the candidacy of particular Muslims who advocate enveloping all women in burkas.

To his credit, Mr. Obama has spoken respectfully of Islam (he told me last year, on the record, that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset"). If he were to go further -- "and so what if I were Muslim?" -- many Americans would see that as confirmation that he is a Sunni terrorist agent of Al Qaeda who is part of a 9/11 backup plan: If you can't reach the White House with a hijacked plane, then storm the Oval Office through the ballot box."

In other words, Kristof is arguing the OPPOSITE of the conclusion you impute to him! Good grief, man: do you think a majority of Americans are that stupid? Can't you object to a candidate honestly? At long last, have you no shame???

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Obama, McCain and Clinton all have opted out of taking public funds during the primaries"

My understanding is that this isn't so cut and dry. That McCain initially took funds but then tried to change his mind, and he may be violating campaign finance rules right now.

Posted by: BB | April 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Reality Check Time for Dimocrats!

IF, Billary and Obasama are such GREAT Options;

Why is it, Big Gay Al Gore could easily STEAL THE SHOW? ;~)

At the Dimocrat Broken Convention in Denver, the Attendee's get "Gored" :-D

Posted by: RAT-The | April 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Yea vote for Hilary who admited her biggest crisis in life was Billy getting blown in the whitehouse, she's who I want for president! NOT

Posted by: davesopinion | April 11, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The latest Pennsylvania general election numbers suggest Democrats might be getting a boost out of the increased exposure of the primary; also, two new primary surveys show the race tightening. Full roundup here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/04/are-dems-getting-boost-in-pennsylvanias.html

Posted by: Daniel | April 11, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh, don't youselves about Obama and his campaign of change. Or is it change campaign, as in say one thing today or in public, and do or say the exact opposite the next day? He will read a "great speech" from a teleprompter, and the media talking heads like Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the MSNBC and NBC crews, not to mention Huffington Post, DailyKos, TPM and other so-called progressive bloggs, will shower sweet-smelling hyperbolic flowers on him, while bashing Hillary at the same time!!

Had the media done their job and vetted this guy, the Democratic party would not have found itself in this mess. They allowed their obsessive hatred of Hillary to over-look Obama's double face, double-speak, and here we are

Posted by: dennisdean | April 11, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Is it just my imagination or does Obama keep changing direction, like a weather vane in a windstorm. I'm getting motion sickness from watching him go back and forth on this and that.

Posted by: Curliquedan | April 11, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The hilarious thing about the pompous posturing of those attributing the worst of intentions to Obama's potential "failure" to use the public funding system for the General Election is that the only people who really care about it are the people dedicated to blogs.

My guess is that the vast majority of the people out there could 1) are totally confused about the differences between public vs. private funding in the first place, 2) couldn't care less where he gets his money from as long as he (nor any other candidate, for that matter) doesn't try to take it out of their pockets without their approval, 3) assume that every politician will do whatever it takes to get as much money as he/she can in order to run, so what's the big deal, and 4) will forget about this within 5 minutes, if that long, because it has nothing to do with the issues they actually care about, like the economy, Iraq, health care - you know, the stuff that actually affects them.

Obama's a politician; so's McCain; so's Clinton. You know that they're going to go back on their "promises" as soon as it is expedient for them to do so. Everyone expects it; the vast majority of voters don't care; that's life in politics, be it local or national. So, rage on, until the next "big" issue arises.

Posted by: jk5432 | April 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has continually chosen to interject racism, sexism and classism into this campaign. It's disgusting.

Obama flip flops on campaign financing. Anyone surprised? I am not. Obama is fraud.

Obama is unelectable.

The audacity of Barack Hussein Obama (yea, it's his name) to attempt to denigrate a former President of his OWN party is appalling. His attempt to paint Geraldine Ferraro as a racist is appalling. Obama owes the Clintons and Ferrarro an apology.
Obama owes the nation an apology. Obama is destroying the Democratic party.

Obama has not been fully vetted. He must be. The criminal associations mentioned in the above post by John are serious and must be investigated NOW before the Dems get stuck with Obama who will be crushed in a general election.

Donate to Hillary. Work for Hillary. She will be a great President. She has already proven she can win in the important states for the Dems in the general election. She has earned our support. The Clintons are the greatest success story of the Democratic party since FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. All the losers in the party, Kennedy, Daschle, Hart, Kerry support Obama because they seethe with jealousy of the Clintons success.

If you cannot win in Ohio, you cannot win the Presidency. In Ohio, Obama outspent Hillary 4 to 1 yet he won only 5 out of 88 counties in Ohio, those with large black voter turnout, the only voting group he won. As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

Superdelegates take note. Today, in Ohio, Hillary polls 10 points ahead of McCain while Obama loses or ties. Same story holds true in the other electoral rich states that are the must wins for the Dems in November. Obama's caucus wins are meaningless in the general election. Polls show Obama would likely even lose New York to McCain. Dems, we cannot let this happen. We must nominate Hillary.

Why do you think the corporate owned media relentlessly and shameslessly promotes Obama 24/7 while attacking Hillary 24/7?
They know Obama is unelectable.

Don't be fooled by the media again.

VOTE SMART. VOTE HILLARY!

Posted by: Kate | April 11, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Barak is not running as J. Wright's understudy.

Hillary is running as Bill's understudy.

This is why she is unelectable. Too stupid to distance herself from a husband who might have give her more than political disease.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 11, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Who cares what McCain says? If he had the advantage he would opt to decline federal funds. Obama needs to get his message out and he needs to draw on his deep support among normal people to fund that effort.

Posted by: CDVA | April 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Ohhh LOL! An Anon attacker!

First, It is "Surf Rat"-Not "Dirty Rat".

Second, I BITE! ;~)

Third, and this applies to you;

Animosity is the Cry of the Wounded loser!

Finally, "Jesus" and "Buddha" were already taken! :-(

Posted by: RAT-The | April 11, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama is unelectable.

Investigative journalists (are there any?) should be investigating and reporting on the criminal connections and relationships of Obama. For example, ask Obama about Syrian born Antoin Rezko, currently under criminal indictment in Chicago) Obama supporter David Wilhelm is named in the Rezko trial, ask Obama campaign manager about his ties to Rezko. Nadhmi AUCHI, who is also currently under criminal indictment (he apparently stole money from the Iraqi food for oil program), Rashid Khalidi, Aiham Alsammarae,(wanted by Interpol and the Government of Iraq) Ali Abuminah and Kenyan, African leader Odinga, (cousin of Obamas??)

These are troubling associations of Obama.

The voters deserve to know the truth.

Any one of the above named criminals would be enough to sink Obama, combined with the other scandals involing Obama and "pastors" Wright, Moss, and Meeks, Emil Jones, Crown, Exelon, casinos and you have a fatally flawed candidate, now and in the future.

The Dems would be foolish to nominate Obama. He has not won any of the big electoral rich must win states of the general election. Obama's caucus wins are meaningless in the general election.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already proven she can win big in the big electoral rich must win states for the Dems in November.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is qualified and electable. She's our American girl! Patriotism matters. The Dems have never really understood this concept.

The Democratic party would be wise to remember that for decades white women have been the largest majority voting group in the party and WHITE WOMEN WANT HILLARY!

NO HILLARY AND IT'S PRESIDENT MCCAIN.

WHEN WHITE WOMEN VOTE, DEMOCRATS WIN.

VOTE SMART. VOTE PATRIOTIC. VOTE HILLARY.

Posted by: John | April 11, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Just words?

"We started the AIDS virus ... as a means of genocide against people of color."


Actually more than 'Just Words'

...Considering the fact that the U.S. Goverment, (including the Surgeon General) conducted experiments on uneducated African-American men; injecting them with syphilis, to see how they would react vs white males, I don't think it's that much of a stretch for some blacks to think that the Goverment was trying to infect them with AIDS.

http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586


Posted by: Chuck | April 11, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I have said from the Fall of '07 (when she was way, way ahead) that having stayed married to Bill would destroy her candidacy.

Now Bill has lost it again saying Hillary as a result of being age 60 has to be forgiven for not remembering she would never have brought her daughter to a war zone.

Too late. No good American can stomach the thought of Bill Clinton back in the White House. He has promised to stop his red faced finger wagging tirades, his lying, his cheating.

As I psychiatrist, I can tell you how people who want to change do it. This guy has not changed.

He would argue the meaning of the word "is" this evening if he thought someone cared what he thought.

But it is Hillary who is proposing we bring this cretin back to the Presidency and for that, she is unelectable.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 11, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

In Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." In fact Obama learned to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than his native language (Indonesian) at the time, which is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of Islamic fundamentalist societies.

Obama describes his new found "Christian" faith as: (1) Suspicious of dogma (2) Without any monopoly on the truth (3) Nontransferable to others (4) Infused with a big healthy dose of doubt, and (5) Indulgent of and compatible with all other religions.

On February 27th, speaking to Kristof of The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, published in The New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent."

According to Islamic scholars, reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, makes one a Muslim. This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. Obama chanted it with pride and finesse.

The Indonesian Times reports: "Barack Hussein Obama might have convinced some Americans that he is no longer a Muslim, but so far he has not convinced many in the world's most populous Muslim country who still see him as a Muslim and a crusader for Islam."


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

Posted by: Homer Raulks | April 11, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Rat's Eat S@#$ you also know that thay eat trash as well. Tell me why thay call you RAT!! that is a name that any one in thier right mind would not want to be called. But I must understand because you support a crazzzz old FOOL!!! And you are a DAMM FOOL if you think this country is better off with McCrazzzzy. We will be at war on day one with Iran and China and the U.S.S.R will defend Iran that means WW-3.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."

Just Words?

"God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Just words?

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye."

Just words?

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Just words?

"We started the AIDS virus ... as a means of genocide against people of color."

Just words?

In a campaign appearance earlier last month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

Yes, just words.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I dislike Obama intensely because when it suits him he swings from a scoundrel to a saint so effortlessly. This whole race issue is a perfect illustration of it.

The race row really started when Bill Clinton called Obama's Iraq stand a "fairy tale". Apparently this phrase "fairy tale" is racist in any context. Where was Obama's high flown pedantry when Bill was being cruelly turned into a racist over this?

Hillary tried to say that activists (such as MLK) require Presidents/legislators (LBJ) to convert policies into law. According to Obama this statement is tinged with racism. Where was Obama's contextualizing and preaching for forbearance then?

Another one of his spiritual advisors from Harvard writes an op-ed saying the 3am ad is racist! For the first time in my life I saw even Obama supporters uncomfortably shrugging off that claim. Did we hear anything from Obama? Any post-racial calls?

Geraldine Ferraro at worst was crudely trying to say that Obama wouldn't have come this far in the race without 80-90% of the African-American vote. Perhaps an imprudent statement but it was made in a paid speech in an insignificant forum and would hardly have been noticed if Obama's camp had not pushed it. She was merely one of Hillary's hilariously big finance team. Where was Obama's mature outlook towards race then? What was especially galling was Obama, in his dysfunctional union speech, trying to equate Wright's hateful, anti-American speech with Ferraro's remarks! Whoa! This guy is positively reptilian. I mean, chameleons have more consistency than this multi-faceted slickster. To compare the hate speech of a mentor/spiritual advisor of 20 years with mildly insensitive remarks of a woman tangentially connected to Hillary's campaign is really something. And he wanted Ferraro to resign straight-away. He came with hatchets at her. Look at the cold-blooded nature of people like David Axelrod who sought and got Ferraro's support several times in the past for minority candidates and is known to be her friend. No benefit of doubt for a friend. No respect for a former democratic vice-presidential nominee.

That Obama's candidacy has been sustained by "we know what is good for you" attitude of mainstream press. That such intellectuals should be so naive is what is galls me. Did they really think a person who ginned up a real estate deal with a top-notch crook to add a 10 square foot of land to a $1.5 million dollar home is of any remarkable probity? How ding-dong in the head do you have to be to expect that such a person wouldn't be upto all sorts of other crookery?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

At first he knew of no controversial remarks from his pastor. Then he knew it. Then he knew some but not others.

At first the "union" that brought him into this world was caused by the bridge crossing/civil rights movement in Selma which, by the way, actually happened 5 years afterwards. Long after he was born.

He flattered Kennedys by crediting them for funding his father's arrival to US when the Kennedys had nothing to do with it.

Don't even get me going over the questionnaires he has filled indicating positions he has completely contradicted during this campaign cycle.

Obama claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Semantics. Because about HALF of his donations come from big donors and "bundlers" who in terms of influence on campaign and favors they expect in return are not much different from lobbyists. His bundlers include partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. Use of bundlers was perfected by George W. Bush who established a hierarchy of "Rangers" and "Pioneers" to monitor their progress.

List keeps on growing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

The Obama activists, that is, the extreme left wing of the party (MoveOn, Democracy for America, DailyKos, Keith Olbermann etc) are threatening to do to the Democratic Party what they did to us in the Connecticut Senate race. They got Ned Lamont to beat Lieberman in the primaries only to see the former get wiped out in the real race. Now, since I don't care much for Lieberman I tought that was rather cute. Big mistake. I had no idea how malicious these guys are. Their sunny fronts like Politico and MSNBC are trying to shut Hillary down. I say to all those who have been penalized for fighting tough battles. To all those who have paid their dues only to see a cute, ambitious upstart stroll in and steal the show. To all those who favor substance over style. To all those who have had to work so hard only to see the tall and young and good-looking get the credit. To all those who are sick of seeing hard earned experience get wiped out by "charisma". To all of you: MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO HILLARY RIGHT NOW.

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=2390

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Financing might be a conservative issue, but integrity is not. Keep your word, Senator Obama. It might be the first time.

Posted by: Lana | April 11, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The financing issue is a favorite for conservatives, so no surprise to see McCain hammer hard on it.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mpp | April 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

No doubt about it that John McCain and George W. Bush attended the same night school and read the same book" Presidency for Dummies".
Hope Obama challenges this MORON "American Hero" dumb ass let his ass get cut.

Posted by: CharlesIII | April 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama will go back on his promise to keep the general on public financing alone. He is now trying his best to lay some defense work for that breaking of his word when the deal goes down.

It's just that simple.

Posted by: Ed | April 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Why President McCain, what part of Obsama is promising Changes don't you understand.

HE is all about CHANGE! Starting with His Mind, and ending with his Promises!

Barack Hussein's Campaign Stances? Don't worry about them!

They'll CHANGE! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

You go, Senator McCain

Posted by: Ajay Gupta | April 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"Asked under what conditions he might not take the federal funds, he replied, 'A little straight talk: How it benefits us. How it's most beneficial to us.'"

How is ol' Johnny answering the question here??

Posted by: Jane | April 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

So how does McCain get to criticize Obama for taking public financing when he himself has broken his own public campaign finance law by using public financing in the primary to get on state ballots and pledging a loan based on his aim to get public financing and then backing out. Only he really has not been let out of public financing yet but he is already spending over the limit. So McCain can't be trusted to live up to any public financing pledge. Obama should not make a deal with him.

Posted by: Goldie2 | April 11, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Why would Obama or Clinton trust McCain on the issue when he has shown he will use any legal maneuver to get around the finance laws. He took a loan saying he would get public funding for the primaries but then bailed out when his fundraising turned around. He used his legal team to get out of it. I wouldn''t trust McCain on this or any issue.

Posted by: Troy | April 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

let's try to elevate the discourse a lttle, shall we?

Posted by: moe | April 11, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

why on earth would Obama who lies about his own grandmother being a racist be expected to keep his word on public financing?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in the drivers seat, at least on the Internet, as these figures show us- he has no obligations to McCain on this;

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
The Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=76

Posted by: Dave | April 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Shut up, you lobbyist-f*cking hypocrite!

Posted by: Dissent | April 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company