The London Times, the biggest paper in England, reports that the Clinton campaign started the “Obama is a cult” story. In today’s paper, the story says,

“Clinton’s camp has been circulating stories criticising the “cult” of Obama in the hope of portraying “Obamania” as a mass delusion. Media Matters, a watchdog organisation sympathetic to Clinton, compiled a report headlined, “Media figures call Obama supporters’ behaviour ‘creepy’, compare them to Hare Krishna and Charles Manson followers”. It was forwarded by Sidney Blumenthal, a top Clinton adviser, to select reporters.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382295.ece

I ain’t feelin’ that noise. Neither should Obama.

Let McCain stand by the side of the road with a tin cup and a hand-printed sign that reads, “Will be your President for cash.” Don’t listen to the demands of people who have nothing but ill will and bad intentions toward you.

Would you make a “Pledge” with this man?” gives an overview of “the precise relationship between a loan and public financing for a presidential campaign, and the agreement, if one can call it that, between McCain and Obama to participate in the public financing system for the general election.” An excerpt:

‘I described this a few weeks ago as a “pledge” to participate, but I should not have. Obama’s precise statement was, and has always been, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” That’s an artful statement, and it’s not artful in a “meaning of ‘is’” sense — it’s exactly the right answer. A commitment to “preserve a publicly financed election” would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, “Swift Boat”-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

The side story here is why many of the the “traditional” campaign finance reform advocates and the Times and Post editorial boards still seem so hynotized by McCain-as-reformer, a pose he adopted for a period that ended years ago, that they cannot call him on his evasion of public funds in the primary, and are happy to be used to echo his first partisan attack in the general election, against someone who, unlike McCain, really has been a remarkably consistent and hard-working supporter of public financing, at both the state and national level.’

The Pete Rose of Politics looks at McCain’s loans in more detail — and concludes …

“There’s a reason no one’s ever done anything like this. It makes a travesty of the choice inherent in voluntary public financing, between public funds and unlimited spending. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Legal or not, it should bring to an end whatever tiny thread of credibility John McCain still has as a straight-talker or reformer of the political process.”

“Obama talks about unity but has tried to center his positions to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Does he have a record of bipartisanship?”

These points, if one is to take anything substantial away from a politician’s voting record AND stated positions, makes Obama out to be a flip-flopper, but it’s sadly mired in those nasty things like logic, fact and context. How sad for that commenter. Obama’s ‘most liberal voting record’ is a meme that is such a canard the very editor of the magazine that broke that supposed story, National Journal, has already said it’s “misleading” to use their representation of Obama’s record against him. Also, his positions are actually quite progressive in any number of areas from healthcare to poverty to taxation to foreign policy. I don’t think he’s a perfect progressive, no, but he’s not billing himself as a DINO in any way.

“Obama talks about fiscal responsibility when he has proposed new government programs and agencies that will cost billions and earmarking ten of millions of dollars in new spending while claiming that the economy is on the verge of a recession.”

You sound like you’d have the government NOT spend money while in a recession and YET you criticize Obama for supposedly tacking too far to the right? Keynesian economics (investing in the infrastructure and economy to spur growth) is certainly a much more progressive economic policy than being a budget hawk would be. Your point, while the underlying thought behind it may be valid, itself is nonsensical in light of your previous sentences.

“I do not ascribe to the notion that Obama supporters are ‘hopeless Hopemongers’ or that they are uneducated! You can’t diminish real questions and contradictions about your candidate with such lame comebacks.”

If you were the other Anon to ask people if they knew anything about Obama, then it certainly is odd that you now say you don’t think supporters of Obama stupid.

By the by, the comment about John Edwards being a more genuine populist, while it says NOTHING about who is more PROGRESSIVE (two different movements) is only true if you exclude the way Sen. Edwards, then a centrist pro-war Democrat, voted in the Senate. If you do think that is fair, then why count Sen. Obama’s votes against him? Because it’s fun? Because it’s fashionable? Because he’s a possible nominee? Talk about contradictions.

“Why not use this forum to persuade many of us on the fence who are taking a look at Obama and trying to make an informed decision.”

I do not know about others here, but I’m not good at that over the Internet, I’m much better at that in person. I do think, however, that if you’re genuine in your interest, there are a lot of great ways to do so and launching an opening salvo or bomb-lobbing usually isn’t one of the better strategies. It’s up to you really.

I think you just made the argument that if he rejects public financing he IS a candidate for change, since no nominee has done that before.

Just saying.

Your logic is an example of making the perfect the enemy of the good or better.

Your logic is that if both met a perfect standard in their fundraising and dealings, neither would have any funds or associations from lobbyists, rich contributors or compromised politicos. Since neither are perfect, they are therefore the same.

This is exceedingly obtuse.

If one candidate raises much more money from individuals than large donors and doesn’t take any money from lobbyists or PACs, then that candidate obviously owes less to those interests than the candidate who takes more than anyone else and raises most of his or her money from large donors even if he also has some ties to large donors and takes some money from them.

And Barack hasn’t even violated his own standards here, he’s stated several times that large donors and corporate interests should have a seat at the table, they just shouldn’t own all the chairs.

In Baracks campaign,they have a seat but don’t own everything. The special interests and large donors can’t say that their money is the reason for Barack’s success.

Is that true of Hillary?

The $85 million spending limit only applies once a nominee is announced. The democratic convention ends on August 28, and the last primary is on June 6th. If Obama is the presumptive nominee by that point, he will have two and a half months to use all his privately raised cash to successfully define McCain. That way Obama can have the best of both worlds, maintaining the moral high ground on campaign finance, and greatly outspending his opponent at the same time.

We know damn well if he’s the nominee, he will NOT take public financing. YES, it will take a hit for reversing positions and not living up to his “rhetoric,” but he can couch the decision in terms of what’s best for the Party. Let Howard Dean and the Leadership say they forced his hands that given ‘04 they can not afford a repeat of unanswered attacks from unfettered 527’s and the like. He’ll suffer in the short-term, but the long-term gains outweigh them.

Not sure. There’s a lot to be said for the “hell.to.the.naw” answer too of course; then again, I think that seth brings up a reasonable point that this could clash with the message of change.

In the short-term, the best way to respond to this is by saying: “we’ll discuss after the convention”. This turns the supposed Republican advantage of having an early nominee into a disadvantage: McCain now has to prepare simultaneously for a potential opponent [Clinton] who will turn down funds, and one who’s keeping his options open. McCain will either have to choose first … or defer a lot of fundraising opportunities until he knows which way the wind is blowing.

jon

Obama talks about unity but has tried to center his positions to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Does he have a record of bipartisanship?

Obama talks about fiscal responsibility when he has proposed new government programs and agencies that will cost billions and earmarking ten of millions of dollars in new spending while claiming that the economy is on the verge of a recession.

I do not ascribe to the notion that Obama supporters are ‘hopeless Hopemongers’ or that they are uneducated! You can’t diminish real questions and contradictions about your candidate with such lame comebacks.

Why not use this forum to persuade many of us on the fence who are taking a look at Obama and trying to make an informed decision.

NO!

Didn’t you get the memo? We’re all hopeless Hopemongers here. We only care about inspiration and hope and great speeches. And we totally believe that Obama’s campaign is 100% financed by the small donors like us the campaign has highlighted. We don’t understand anything about law firms and financial institutions donating to campaigns. After all, everyone knows that most Obama voters aren’t very well educated and don’t make much money, so why would we know about such things? Only Clinton supporters can understand such wonders.

This really is a non-issue until Obama is the nominee.

Also, I’d rather not give future generations a context for opting out of the system if they get more money than the public financing would give. It may be lots of small donors now, but in the future it may just be corporate America being back TOTALLY by one solitary candidate getting many donations from all over the private sector. Maybe I’m paranoid, maybe I’m nuts, but I think it’s possible and a real fear. Think it over, I say.

I hadn’t written about this yet…but yeah..what u said:-)