Jerome, why do you lie?
I'm sure he's not going to accept public financing, but his previous pledge to do so,
His pledge was NOT to accept public financing, but to negotiate a deal with the Republican nominee to have a fair election. Or exactly what he said in the interview today.
And you KNOW that.
Stop lying about Obama.
And since McCain has already broken the law with regards to public financing, I would trust his word on this issue as far as I could throw him.
I was just about to post the same thing. It was a pledge to negotiate a deal.
Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.
that the resentment runs so deep that they're willing to adopt McCain's spin completely uncritically. But I expect there will be three diaries about this by sundown.
I did like this part, just for the sheer comic value Obama would be re-writing the rules [...] and attempt to change the rules midway through the game
So Clinton actually signs a pledge, breaks it, and that's not changing the rules, but Obama agrees to discuss an issue, doesn't agree to accept John McCain's attempt to issue the Democratic candidate a diktat, and Obama's the one trying to 'change the rules midway through the game.
I'm sure McCain, Charlie Black and the gang at Fox appreciate your help "Even prominent liberal blogger Jerome Armstrong recognizes that Obama....."
getting less prominent by the day
Fantastic post. The hypocrisy is so blatant its actually amusing.
Please, tell me what pledge Hillary broke?
She didn't have a press conference in Florida and she didn't blanket the state with tv commercials like Barack did.
It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runner--by some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, "It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything."
We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
the pledge and part of the pledge she broke. If you're going to make accusations back them up.
My apologies. She merely flip-flopped on several public declarations about Michigan and Florida not counting in the primary, and now she is hypocritically sowing dissension in the party, and lying about her position, in a desperate effort to keep her Schiavo-like bid for the nomination on life-support.
I concede that Hillary Clinton never took a pledge not to be a divisive, earth-scorching, party-destroying hypocrite.
You are right and I am wrong.
You have my warmest congratulations.
Here you go - http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf :
--- THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC. ---
She pledged not to participate in the Michigan primary. She broke the pledge.
in the Michigan primary?
If you're making the intellectually dishonest argument that not taking your name off the ballot was campaigning then please show me where she was admonished by the DNC or had action taken against her for violating the pledge or where they were even asked to remove their names from the ballot.
But if you want to bring up breaking the pledge then let me direct you to the fact that Obama surrogates were running ads asking voters to vote for "uncommitted" so Barack would have delegates at the convention.
The pledge was about campaigning OR PARTICIPATING.
You intentionally ignored that. I can't possibly believe you simply missed the multiple repetitions of the word PARTICIPATE in the above post.
That makes you a dishonest debater and a liar -- same as Clinton.
And as for Obama breaking the pledge, the good thing about Michigan and Florida primaries not counting is that it won't matter whether they broke it or not.
But ofcourse shameless liars like Clinton simply break first their own pledges and then act all huffy when their opponents try to counter
Did you ever consider that if Clinton had kept her pledge NOT TO PARTICIPATE, then the Uncommited vote wouldn't be a vote against Clinton?
Either way, bye-bye now, liar.
imbalanced or mainling the kool-aid. How did she participate in the primary and where was she asked by the DNC to take her name off the ballot.
Also, feel free to explain how if having your name on the ballot is considered breaking the pledge why Barack had his name on the FL ballot.
The only liar here is you.
"How did she participate in the primary"
You know how, liar -- she intentionally left herself on the ballot and got votes there. By every sane and sincere definition of the word "participate", she participated.
"Also, feel free to explain how if having your name on the ballot is considered breaking the pledge why Barack had his name on the FL ballot."
Because, you liar, it was the law of Florida that didn't allow the candidates to withdraw their names from their ballots -- both Obama and Edwards tried to withdraw their names from Florida as well BUT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED. Not unless they wanted to withdraw from ALL the primaries nationwide as well.
Don't pretend you didn't know that, liar. It has been discussed a thousand times.
Here's Obama's full stand on public financing, what Jerome falsely calls a pledge to accept.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/p olitics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_De mocracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf Question I-B: 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? Yes Comments (please limit to 250 words or less): 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 Feingold's (D-WI) 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.
Question I-B: 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?
Yes
Comments (please limit to 250 words or less):
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 Feingold's (D-WI) 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.
You know, I expect false accusation against Obama from McCain and MSM, not from progressive bloggers.
Sure, thats the second or third revision, lol.
That was from Oct 2007. Can you link to the earlier pledge that you are refering to?
Nothing goes away forever on the internet. How about you link us the original wording?
I too am interested in what you're talking about when you mention second and third revisions. The questioneer was is the only thing I've ever seen cited. You, apparently, know more. It would greatly strengthen your credibility if you could back up your claim.
Still waiting on the previous versions, Jerome. Your petulance astounds me.
I made a diary that includes the earliest revision, from March 2007. You can read it here.
Thanks for doing the Lexis/Nexis search legwork. For those of you wanting the synopsis: Jerome just made the sh$t up.
Hacktastic as always, nice answer though really, nice.
The impression he left way back then was to accept public financing if the GOP opponent did so. He received no shortage of praise from the editorial pages for doing so. Everyone thought that's what he meant.
He's definitely breaking a pledge that we thought he made if McCain wants public financing and he doesn't take it. The argument about 527's and whatnot is specious. They aren't something new--he knew perfectly well they existed back when he made his pledge. To use them now as an excuse is inconsistent.
And let's be clear what public financing is: I supported the public financing system just a few weeks ago when I checked the box on my 1040 directing that $3 go to the public financing system.
It is not a system in which private donors fund a campaign out of their own pockets. Any system in which you have to cough up $1000 to get into a swanky San Francisco fundraiser is not public financing. That the average donation is $96 (a decent amount of money in any case) is misleading and obscures the fact that most of the money still comes from big donors.
Yes, I know that Hillary Clinton hasn't committed to taking public financing either, and I don't expect that she will. I wish she would. The one redeeming thing there is that at least she doesn't pretend that she is.
Well put.
What Obama said in his original pledge regarding public financing could not be more dishonest if he intended that he would NOT use public financing under precisely the sort of circumstances already existing in Presidential campaigns -- that is, where 527s are employed by each side as before.
How could he have failed to leave out the fact that he wouldn't use public financing if 527s operated exactly as before? Could he have been more misleading? On what ground might he be justified in not spelling out this absolutely key qualification, given that he could predict in advance that he'd have to make it?
It does neither his supporters no credit to their own honesty that they themselves can't own up to the clear deception in his statement.
Obama was either being completely dishonest at the time when originally made his pledge, by deceiving people in what he really meant (pretending to be making a far, far stronger commitment to public financing than he was), or he's being completely dishonest now in backing out of what he really did originally mean in his pledge.
And Obama supporters who try to defend him on this point are acting like shyster lawyers in finding tricky, absurd parsings that seem to excuse his behavior.
I think raising money from over 1.5 million people is rather public.
Oh please,
Even Obama isn't pretending that that's what he meant by "public financing".
Get your talking points straight. Read the memo carefully.
what DID he mean?
I have a feeling if Bill Clinton had made Obama's pledge he'd be called a shrewd politician and tactician. Notice how careful his wording was...
Strawman? Yes, but it's also my best guess.
Kind of like parsing the meaning of "particpate" in order to stay on the ballot in a state you said "means nothing."
Everyone thought that's what he meant.
Oh well. I guess that settles everything, then.
He got a lot of praise in the news and in opinion columns for his pledge. If he didn't really mean what they thought, why didn't he say so?
"We assumed John Kerry was Irish, and he never corrected that impression. Therefore, John Kerry is a liar."
That's not even close to the same thing. Kerry never made a big deal about supposedly being Irish. People didn't write glowing editorials praising him for being Irish.
He made a pledge. At the time it was a politically savvy thing for him to do.
Now he realizes that he's raking in the big bucks from contributions and it'd be to his advantage to walk back on it. Fine. Just say that's what you're doing. Don't insult me by telling me it's the same thing.
He made a pledge.
Okay. Find me the exact wording of that pledge. Not what David Broder or Joe Klein or The Picayune Tribune said about it, what Barack Obama pledged.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html
Maybe it wasn't meant to be a pledge, but instead a craftily constructed response that gave the impression of being a pledge while subtly leaving an out for those who parsed it carefully.
If that's the official Obama campaign line, then sure, go for it. Either way, it doesn't sound like a new kind of politics.
This coming from the sort of people who have managed to parse Clinton's "sniper fire" and "not participating [in the Michigan primary]" in new and constructive ways that don't make them mere lies.
Obama pledged to pursue an agreement with McCain about public financing. You don't need to rewrite the dictionary for that -- unlike the sort of things that both Clintons tend to say.
You seem conveniently not to notice that all Obama ever had to do was correct the misapprehensions about what he had really meant when all the editorials and pundits clearly assumed he meant something other than what he did. Indeed, if he really intended such an absolutely key caveat in his original statement, it defies understanding that he would not have seen fit to have stipulated it clearly right then and there on the spot, when he made the original pledge -- which is what any clear headed and honest person would have done.
In fact, Obama did none of this, happy to reap the praise of a pledge that meant something radically different from what he supposedly intended.
Real honest guy there.
I meant,
In fact, Obama did none of this, happy to reap the praise of a pledge that, in his mind, meant something radically different from what every outside party took it to mean.
Obama has to say everything the way you think he shoudl, otherwise it he is EVIIILLL.
Well, only to the Obamanation when they like the words they hear.
I keep trying to warn you guys: You scrape the bottom of the barrel like this, you're gonna get splinters under your fingernails, and it's mighty painful.
I've done all I can.
My conscience is clear.
I would be willing to bet he will come out and define EXACTLY what he meant in a week or so...He generally lets things build and then decides to clarify his statement...Is he ever going to learn? He should have stated emphatically right away...he causing his own problems in this campaign.
"If someone tells you that you can't win, it because they know you can" William Clinton
So when Hillary Clinton and her idolators on these boards tell me Obama can't beat McCain, it's because they know he can?
I would be willing to bet he will come out and define EXACTLY what he meant in a week or so...He generally lets things build and then decides to clarify his statement...
You mean like with Tuzla and sniper fire? Bob Johnson and his "what Barack was doing in the 'hood statement"? Obliterating Iran? For the war before she was against it? Whether or not she's gone hunting? The last time she went to church? Whether or not that "ten million dollars" was from new donors, or donors who had maxed out for the primary who were now donating for the General? (what will happen to that money when she's not in the General?)
It's bad enough to lie about the Democratic nominee Obama. But using GOP attack points is beyond the pale for anyone who has claimed to support the Democratic Party.
As I'm sure you know, Obama is emphatically NOT the Democratic nominee.
Do the math -- or click on the link I provided.
Sure, Chuck Todd is the voice of the Democratic party. I knew that all along.
There won't be a Democratic candidate until one is selected at the convention. You, Chuck Todd and KO can't change that.
When you can't refute the message, you attack the messanger. The math is simple -- Hillary can't win and Obama can't lose.
And superdelegates aren't going to overturn the pledged delegate count.
How do YOU know what super delegates are or are not going to do?
If they were political morons who would overturn the pledged delegate count and wreck their party, they wouldn't be superdelegates. Instead, they'd be bloggers.
(Notice that almost all of Hillary's SD's declared for her early when she was the "inevitable nominee." Since that facade crumbled she's suffered a net loss of them as many have switched to Obama.)
And they could switch back.For my money, all this declaring by the supers is ridiculous. They should cast their votes at the convention and keep their mouths shut until then.
But that's just me, a political moron.
That invites intrigue and a convention fight that would hand McCain the presidency.
There shouldn't be any superdelegates at all, but since the party is stuck with them for now they should simply back up the clearly expressed will of the voters.
And since Hillary can't possibly catch up with Obama, they should declare now and put a stop to the waste of money and personal destruction of their nominee at the hands of Hillary who is now just setting up shop for her 2012 redo.
That is certainly one way to look at it. But I prefer to think of it this way:
The supers are supposed to help choose a candidate who can win in November. Period.
If Obama doesn't turn things around soon, his chances in November will be pretty bleak. The 527s will run ads that will crush him. Those people don't embarrass easily, and they won't be afraid of being called racists.
The Wright thing may not be a big deal to you or to me, but it will be a very big deal to Middle America. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
It never ceases to amaze me how Obama is expected to "turn it around" or "close the deal" in the remaining primaries when Hillary certainly couldn't and can't. He has "closed the deal" -- it's over.
Obama WILL have more pledged delegates than she at the end.. If you don't believe me just ckick on my tag and Chuck Todd will lay it out in simple terms.
How can the candidate who LOST be the stronger one? That's what the primary process is there to determine. Otherwise we could have saved everyone a lot of time, trouble, and money and just let the party insiders choose.
The SD's will go with the candidate who has the most PD's -- Obama -- or hand the presidency to the GOP as they did in 1984 when they chose Mondale over Hart who was the primary winner.
Is that what you want -- another certain defeat from a fractured party whose establishment overturned the people? I can only hope not.
OK. Once again... It is not about winning the nomination. It is about winning the presidency.
How a candidate does in the primaries is only remotely related to how s/he will do in a general election.
Stop looking at delegate counts and start looing at electoral vote counts. That is the ONLY thing that matters.
So why should SD's expect Hillary, who couldn't even win the nomination on her own, to win the presidency?
Why couldn't she "close the deal," and why would a loser not even wanted by the voters in her own primaries become a winner in November?
Think harder, Homer.
Excuse me, but my name is not Homer.
Now to address your concerns:
Last time I checked, neither Obama nor Clinton had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the help of supers.
So why should SD's expect Obama, who couldn't even win the nomination on his own, to win the presidency?
Why couldn't he "close the deal," and why would a loser not even wanted by the voters in his own primaries become a winner in November?
Think harder.
Barack Obama may be the nominee of the Kobi party, but the Democratic part has not yet chosen a nominee. And you saying so doesn't make it true.
So why should SD's expect Clinton, who couldn't even beat Obama, to win the presidency?
"Barack Obama may be the nominee of the Kobi party, but the Democratic part has not yet chosen a nominee. And you saying so doesn't make it true."
It isn't me saying it. It's everyone who knows how to use a calculator. Click on my tagline to find out the inescapable truth.
Not everyone who knows how to use a calculator agrees with you, Kobi. I know how to use a calculator. Heck - I know how to design and build a calculator. I don't agree with you.
Once again: The nominee will be chosen at the convention. In Denver. In August. End of discussion.
That's when the formality of it will happen. The reality of it already has. End of discussion.
