i don't doubt that this isnt about McCain's deep committment to public financing.
But are you really saying Obama should go back on a pledge because its politically convenient?
Hasn't Obama just spent the last year talking about a new kind of politics?
Then he's going to break a pledge he made the moment it becomes politically convenient to do so, just like he broke the Florida campaigning pledge as soon as it was convenient to do so?
Obama has set a high standard, McCain is going to make a lot out of things like this. This sort of thing will help McCain undercut Obama's change message.
It was a dumb promise for Obama to make in the first place, but he made it and thats going to have consequences. Hopefully the Obama campaign will find some way to get round the appearance of a broken promise.
Obama had a television commercial that ran nationally in a number of states that had already voted, as well as in Florida. That line of attack is simply dishonest.
Here's a simple way to rebut McCain's attack: note the fact that McCain has lied about using public financing before, and state that Obama simply can't trust McCain to embrace public financing in the general. Hence, he can't agree to McCain's terms.
Its not dishonest, Obama promised not to air tv ads in Florida. He did. The pledge he signed was clear, it didn't make exceptions for national networks.
Obama's talk of hope, change and a new kind of politics is extremely powerful but its also very fragile. A few lies, broken pledges, any hint of corruption is going to totally undermine it. If you promise a lot, you risk letting people down a lot.
I totally understand why Obama is breaking this pledge, but it can't just be explained away by saying McCain is just as bad. McCain isn't going around the country claiming to be a new kind of politician.
Obama's already started attacking the double talk express, so i guess this is McCain trying to undermine the 'hope and change' message of Obama.
It is dishonest. No one claims that the technical violation had any effect on the Florida vote (not even Clinton herself), yet you are spreading it in an effort to discredit Obama. The message is only fragile because partisans attempt to blow such small matters out of proportion.
With regards to campaign financing, Obama merely said that he would work to hammer out an agreement with the Republican nominee. It's hard to agree when the other side is completely untrustworthy.
I don't want to discredit Obama. If he's the nominee, i want him to win.
If he pledged to take public financing if the Republican nominee did the same, then he's probably going to break that pledge. Is that the new kind of politics he's been promising? Isn't that the kind of thing we criticise McCain for?
If he just promised to come to some kind of arrangement thats different.
I hope it was the latter.
It was more equivocal than some are making it out to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/pol itics/15cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&ex=13 60818000&en=ec50b88ba8d5c10b&ei= 5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss& oref=slogin
Actually, it wasn't equivocal at all. This is what Obama said in November:
"Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, (i)(b)I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."(/i)(/b)
Wait until McCain starts running ads against Obama for saying that, if he breaks the agreement. This could be a huge issue, because it cuts right at the heart of Obama's appeal.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/0 2/obama_wont_pledge_to_take_publ_1.php
The NYT and Washington Post editorial boards are already pounding Obama on his as well.
Let's look at that quote. Obama said a) that he would work to pursue an agreement, based on the fact that b) McCain had agreed to public financing in the primary (that is what is being referred to here, not McCain's new GE "pledge"). In other words, Obama said that he would work towards an agreement (though he did not commit to an agreement), based on McCain's actions at that time (which McCain subsequently reneged upon). There's no beef here.
This line of attack is not going to have legs for nine months, especially when McCain is being a hypocrite on this issue (it also won't have legs because no one actually cares about the issue and bigger issues of character will be raised on issues such as Iraq).
Actually, I need to correct myself - it seems that the quote you cited may refer to McCain's GE "pledge." However, again I think it's a very easy out to simply say that McCain backed out of public financing once before, and under those circumstances there can be no agreement about public financing in the GE. You can't trust McCain when he's already broken his word once before.
Clinton ran ads in Mobile, AL, before Florida voted, ads that reached into Pensacola and the panhandle.
