This is exactly the kind of thing that made me very nervous about Obama's campaign at the outset.

Can he maneuver through the general election without getting cut up every couple days with something like this.

I always thought Hillary's most valuable experience was her political experience, in order to run a smart enough campaign to win.  Likewise, I always thought Obama's most dangerous inexperience was his political inexperience and his untested nature as a candidate.

The Republican machine can make mince meat out of moral leaders and war heroes, and no movement can save Obama from that.

Obviously Clinton has hit some rocky water, but I still think she is the best chance to both pierce through these land mines and obstacles and also to do accomplish progressive goals by doing the same thing after she becomes president.

Obama on the other hand walks right into them.

ANOTHER rookie mistake. oy.

He HAS to take the heat for it now and he cannot accept public financing.

Allowing for the spending cap will kill his ability to play the game his way...and he can't win by playing McCain's way.

McCain's the one with a character issue here.  He signed up for public financing in the primary when he was flat broke, but is now trying to weasel out of it on a technicality (he hasn't actually received any of the funds he signed up for yet) since the money is flowing in with the nomination all but locked up.

He basically said that he isn't even the nominee yet and if indeed he is, he will sit with McCain and decide the ground rules.

I doubt people are going to care one way or the other.

if he wins it will be because his fundraising crushed Hillary, allowing him to compete all over the usa.

why would he give that up?

I hope he is not an idiot.

This is a non issue. Flip flop, wiggle out of it, do whatever you have to.

obama should raise as much money as he can, and play in all 50 states. He would be the first dem. candidate to do so in a generation.

Please someone tell me this is a joke.

Hopefully Hillary wins, but if not, I hope obama is a regular pol to know he has a big advantage.

Obama's not the nominee yet, so there's no reason he needs to address an issue that could hurt him in the primary. It would be foolish for him to address that now. That's why McCain raised it now - while he has the nomination locked up and Obama doesn't.

I can see the validity of the argument for refusing public financing in the general election on the strength of Obama's potential to raise more than McCain.  But what of the long-standing 'progressive' cause in favour of publicly financed elections which seems central to election reform?  Just ditch it?  I'm in the 1% you estimate who place strong importance on this issue.

I can understand why Obama is hedging on this during the primary, to insulate himself from criticism among Democrats if he accepted the conditions of this pledge.  And it is not a great look.  But are there any other options?  Public financing provides $85M for a campaign which by all accounts will not commence until the Democratic Convention.  What are the potentials, assuming for a moment an Obama nomination, of diverting his fund-raising potential to the national Senate and House races, in fact to down-ticket campaigns across the country, in support of a 50-state strategy in the general election?

I don't know what the legal or practical implications might be but I could see a situation where Obama's existing donor base would be happy to contribute to a national campaign with him on the top of the ticket even if his campaign was publicly financed, especially if his campaign endorsed such a strategy.  Would that not provide $85M for his campaign plus retain the perceived fund-raising advantage Democrats apparently enjoy over Republicans in this cycle?

It's just a thought, but I have always assumed that Obama's campaign intends not only to win the White House but to do so with a substantial Congressional majority, perhaps even a super-majority in the Senate.  As an Obama supporter I would be happy to contribute to such a strategy, to give him the gift that keeps on giving beyond the inauguration.

And it would satisfy my aspiration to see publicly financed campaigning restored as a first step to genuine electoral reform.

Where Obama goes off on his own with grandiose visions of the future of politics, and reality brings him crashing back to Earth. Hillary is smarter in that she merely gives lip service to these issues without committing herself to it. This is an example of an issue that will cost Obama the nomination because if he's already compromising the Democrats' ability to wage a cut-rate battle for the White House, then why are we even bothering to field a candidate at all? The NY Times write-up on this issue quoted Obama as saying that his "folks" would sit down with McCain's people, not now but in the future, to see if terms could be met for both to accept public financing.

So if the talks break down, which they will, because there is no agreeing with crafty Republicans, then the public perception would be that Obama was privately disingenuous to the process of accepting public financing from the beginning. The public (i.e. the white guys in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida who we need to win) will say, "This guy was earning 1 million a day fighting Hillary; he never wanted public financing for himself anyway." And this small issue--which no one cares about--would be writ large as the meme that Obama is untrustworthy and disingenuous.

Another disingenuous liberal Democrat. And we know what happens when that label rears its ugly head. Just ask Gore and Kerry.

"...I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

1. "Pursue an agreement" means he and McCain would have to agree to some set of groundrules. Shorter version: he'll take McCain's phone call, aggressively.

2. "Preserve a publicly financed general election" means the whole thing is publicly financed. (He said "general election," not "my campaign.") If, for example, 527s act as proxies for the candidates, that's not a "publicly financed general election."

Yes, Obama will resolve this issue, but it won't be until he's the nominee. It's the wrong time right now.

The way it works is this: How many days it stays in the news depends on how many days McCain keeps harping on it. The press will generally cover something a candidate is saying.

I was surprised to find out that so far no candidate has ever not accepted public financing for the general election. A lot of people have raised gobs of money for the primaries, but not the general. So if the two nominees opt out, it would be a further step in the unraveling of the publicly financed election system.

Speaking to Shaun's point. $85 million seems like a lot of money to spend in the 2.5 months between the convention and the election. Does Obama anticipate raising considerably more than that? He may--I don't know.

Huh?

McCain wiggled out of his own public financing pledge in the primaries.  If you can't hit back with that you don't belong in politics.  McCain is a craven hypocrite and you're VALIDATING him?  Mentioning that he jumped through all kinds of hoops to get out of public financing AFTER HE ALREADY ACCEPTED IT would be nice.

Man, it's sad to see what's become of the liberal blogosphere.

Obama responded perfectly... He's not the candidate, yet...  When he is, he'll address the situation with McCain.  Done!

If McCain keeps harping, rinse, lather and repeat.

Thanks,

Mike

but that's is his weakness.  He CAN'T make a decision.  he's always the guy in the middle, unit everyone.  When thing get tough, he can't make a stand.  

...The short-term version is something like this:

"As Senator Obama said, he would be delighted to discuss how we can keep corporate and lobbyist money out of the general election after he becomes our party's nominee. Right now he is focused on winning the nomination against a lobbyist-funded rival. Senator McCain should call back later."

...Later, an escalation (assuming McCain doesn't resign too quickly):

"Senator Obama and Senator McCain both serve in the U.S. Senate. The best way we can establish an iron-clad agreement to keep all corporate and lobbyist influence out of the general election is if we co-sponsor legislation in the Senate, to take immediate effect, for public financing like Senator McCain's home state has and which he supported. Senator Obama would be delighted to co-sponsor that federal legislation immediately with Senator McCain and awaits his support to get this done."

Its not a non-issue for the public or the "heat" he's taking from McCain wouldn't matter, would it? It is however an issue for insiders, ranging from SEIU (which I'm sure asked him about GE finance strategy before endorsing him) to the leading voices in the progressive blogs, which have made this an issue since last fall.

The Democratic Party desperately needs to offer an alternative to both the corruption wrought by the Republicans for 6 years through manipulation of campaign finance and from the distortions caused by the "raise as much as you can as fast as you can" approach taken by Clinton in 95-96. It saddens me greatly that leading progressive voices consider the "raise all you can" approach to be not only not a problem for America's sick democracy but for the Democratic party as well.

Don't forget that one of the reasons Dean was able to take the positions he did in 03 was because he had a broad small donor base. And Edwards was right when he said the system is corrupting our democracy.

Obama should stand up for public financing now and through November. It will help him do that if progressives support campaign finance reform instead of trying to use public financing, as they did with Edwards, to suggest a lack of a winning strategy.

Good Lord, this is the dumbest line of attack yet.  Yes, in a campaign that's going to be a referendum on the Bush Administration, people are going to care about a little spat over public financing and whatever implications one can draw about a person's "character" from that (as opposed to their positions on the war, torture, etc.).  

It is telling that the people so concerned about this are Clinton supporters.  Because, you know, being unable to fight back when McCain claims that Clinton agrees with Bush on Iraq is a much better position to be in.  

This is a very skilled intelligent attack on Obama.    If John "the new Bush" McCain can keep up these "edge" issues on Obama -Then his 527's can be the evil ones touting "He swore in on the Koran" and "He doesn't put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance" type rumors. (These are two actual rumors going around.)

And all the people who don't know or don't care to know, can publicly and loudly justify not voting for him because of these "edge" issues.  They will be touted 24/7 on Faux.

But, truth be told, McCain played this hand WAY too early.

If Obama needs political advice, I would advise him not to accept advice from any Clinton supporter.

Jerome is right--the media will lap this stuff up.  It's going to be a lot easier for Republicans to portray Obama as a slick talker than for Democrats to tarnish McCain's image as a straight talker.

thinking that Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination and thus this will be an issue for him? I thought all you Hillary supporters still think that Hillary is going to win the nomination.

Obama may NOT even win the Democratic primary so this whole issue may be a mute point.

The good news here is that McCain has set his sets on Obama, not Clinton.  That tells us a lot about who the GOP perceives to be the Demoratic nominee.  Let the games begin...

The whole thing is a poorly funded, poorly run "system" that will just corner Obama into keeping supporters from helping him.

Obama should just say "hey this is a dumb idea" call BS on it, and let the millions of small donations speak louder than some fucking taxpayer dollars.

What a bunch of Nervous Nellies.  Right now these "attacks" are great for Obama.

Obama is still in a race with Clinton.  But every time McCain attacks Obama, McCain underlines the perception that in the eyes of the Republican candidate Obama is the nominee of the Democratic party.  Great.  That growth in public perception helps Obama put away Clinton.  And yet until Obama is the actual nominee, he has a perfectly good answer can keep on letting McCain either sweat the money issue, or force McCain to unilaterally ditch the pledge.

Also, by taking this line of attack, McCain might as well be saying to the nation "I'm toast.  There is no way I can raise as much money as Obama."  Awesome.  Let him keep pounding away with that loser's message if he wants.

If McCain sticks to his own public financing pledge, so can Obama. If McCain breaks his pledge, so can Obama. Either way way, McCain will have no fodder for attack.

I hope Obama keeps to the pledge. Sure, he's been a money-raising machine, so he's theoretically giving up something. But political reform has been the foundation of his candidacy. And I'm not so sure that there's not zillions of Republican dollars on the sidelines that will be flooding into McCain's coffers as the general election gets nearer. They have it, they just haven't seen reason to spend it yet. I would take my chances with a two month campaign, $85 million on both sides. And as noted above, he great would it be if he encouraged his donors to contribute to down-ticket candidates so that he could actually get some great stuff passed?

I am thinking more and more he should say HELL NO.  There will be $250 million of Republican 527s that will be bashing him.  Barack will need EVERY cent he can get.

He should just take the hit.  People don't give a shit about this any way.  

I'm fairly certain I read through all of these comments, and I am very surprised I have not seen this sentiment arise yet:

The raison d'etre of public financing is to reduce the influence of big money in elections. When Barack Obama made this so-called "pledge," it was well before he began to campaign for the presidency in earnest. Since that point, he has completely redefined the modern presidential candidacy. He has raised insane amounts of money, from an insane number of people, almost entirely from small donations of a couple hundred dollars or less.

McCain has been going on and on about his "pledge to the American people" to use public financing. But why is he so earnest about this? From whence does McCain's undying passion for campaign finance reform stem?

He'd like the American people to believe it is from his fair-mindedness, from his desire to do right by the people. But that notion will be easily dispelled.

All it's going to take is a nice one-minute-long Obama-style inspirational speech about how his campaign is ALREADY PUBLICLY FINANCED. Almost FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND people have donated money to Obama... in 2008! In a MONTH AND A HALF! This is what public financing should mean... not some mandated tax, but real grass-roots organization, hard work and, yes, HOPE that the average citizen CAN make a difference.

The real reason McCain is reminding the American people of his pledge is because he is scared shitless at "the power [and dollars] of millions of voices calling for change."

That McCain thinks he can challenge Obama on campaign financial grounds is absolutely ludicrous. He is, in every sense, the old guard, and Obama is playing this perfectly so far by answering, urbanely, that it would be extremely presumptuous of him to even answer this claim without having yet gained the Democratic nomination. In due time he will deny this ridiculous call from McCain and ride the wave of real public financing all the way to the white house.

Did anyone see anything about this on the news tonight?

All I saw was stories about shooting sprees on college campuses and Clinton's attempt to regain momentum.  

This is a non-issue

How many people even know what public financing of a campaign means?  I'll be honest, I don't know.

In fact, given the stigma that taking money from the government has, deciding not to accept public financing has a certain appealing ring to it.

McCain signed up for public financing in the Primary, and then later backed out when convenient.

Therefore, McCain has proven that he cannot be trusted not to weasel around the spending limits.

Wasn't the whole point of public financing to have the public and not "special interests" financing an election.  Well here it is!  Just tell them how many people, the average amount, and how there is no special interest money and declare that you think this fulfills not on only the spirit but the letter of your intent.  It's kind of a populist version of the Republican (big) money = free speech, except it's the small donor and regular citizen.  

And if they give you any guff, bring up all the pledges and positions (about 20 or so by my account) that McCain decided to reverse including repudiating his opposition to the Bush tax cut, his new embrace of torture, his recent REJECTION of his own McCain-Feingold campaign finance law at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  

You are right... he needs to abandon the position.  But he needs to wait until after Wisconsin to do so, like the day after.  That gives nearly two weeks for it to die.  He needs to say something like, I went into it with that in mind.  However, the hundreds of thousands of small donors who have helped to build my campaign while Senator McCain built his with lobbyist or special interest money (not sure McCain's record with lobbyists so that may not work)  have demanded I continue to build my movement, allowing hundreds of thousands more to make small contributions to help change America...etc.  

Something to that effect right after Wisconsin should help blunt an issue that voters don't give a shit about and should kill it in the news cycle fast as Oh and TX come up.

needs to repeat that it would be presumptious to even comment on general election campaign strategy while in the fight for his life in a primary with a heavy favorite.

Then if he has locked it up; he can deal with it either by pointing out McCain own broken promise or take it.

I'm for public financing, but only a fool would accept public financing at this point.

I do have to ask...can he take any leftover Primary Money into a GE campaign?

I'm still supporting Hillary Clinton, so I don't think I'm objective enough to have an opinion as to what Obama should do or not.

It is worth noting, however, that this is another case where Obama is being tripped up because he tried to portray himself as nobler and cleaner than other politicians. This wouldn't be a story had he not so proudly claimed he would accept public financing earlier. Similarly, it would have been no big deal that he has lobbyists working for him had he not claimed to be better than that. Nor would having 527s working on his behalf been an issue had he not so proudly denounced them against John Edwards.

The rules of the current system allow these kinds of things, and sadly, to give yourself the best chance of winning you have to take advantage of them. I think the public understands that intuitively. What they don't like is when someone claims to be above it all, but acts like everyone else when it actually matters.

He said that he would do public financing, if a Republican did as well, back in early 2007 before hundreds of thousands of small donors donated to his campaign.  Markos slammed him for it then, and he was right.  Obama should come out and say he's not going to do it, and then frame his campaign as a people-powered campaign, which it is, due to the hundreds of thousands of small donors.

It would be idiotic to piss away this advantage in the general.

Mark Schmitt over at TAPPED has posted an excellent article on McCain's campaign finance shenanigans (and likely law breaking). The article also correctly interprets Obama's statement, matching my interpretation upthread:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe d_archive?month=02&year=2008&bas e_name=would_you_make_a_pledge_with_t

Given Senator McCain's dishonesty in stretching and probably breaking our campaign finance laws, I very much hope Senator Obama aggressively pursues an iron-clad agreement if he's the nominee. Senator McCain has no principles in this matter, so it's going to be hard to arrive at a binding agreement, but I applaud Obama for trying.