Clinton goes on Fox News and she's lambasted for consorting with the enemy.

Obama goes on Fox News and he's showing heroic courage?

Do you Obama supporters ever listen to yourselves?

Scruples on the other hand...

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.

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.

You know, I expect false accusation against Obama from McCain and MSM, not from progressive bloggers.

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.

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.

There's a difference between finding common ground and triangulation.  The former is a strategy for policy-making, the latter is a political strategy.

Bill Clinton used the Democratic Congress as a foil for his own political benefit. He didn't like the welfare reform law he signed, but only did so for his re-election.

No, triangulation/strangulation means that your SOLE GOAL is to survive by slicing and dicing the electorate into separate interest groups (i.e. penn's tribes) with a top down PR management stule.

Obama's whole focus is on areas of unity rather than division, hence a 50 state strategy, hence mobilising the grass roots, and of course bypassing the lobbyists chorus of special interests.

If you don't get the difference now, don't worry, you soon will

The GOP--still the Party of Ideas!

Realistically, I don't expect every Democrat to agree with the majority of the party on everything issue, though I wish he wouldn't go and say that "there are a whole host of areas" where the GOP is right and we're wrong.

Maybe this should give some pause to folks who want to claim that Hillary is no longer a Democrat, however.

I don't criticize anyone for moving to the center, or right, or left, to "get things done". I criticize them for what they get done, or don't.

If Obama works with Dick Lugar to track and control loose nukes, I think that's a good thing. If Hillary Clinton votes with George Bush to start and illegal war that weakens national security, that's a bad thing. If Hillary Clinton works with Joe Lieberman to get everyone all worked up about naughty video games, that's a stupid thing. If she does that while the aforementioned illegal war that weakens national security is still going on, that's a stupid thing, and a bad thing.

This should once and for all put an end to Obama supporters claims that Obama never stated that Republicans had better ideas than Democrats, as they continually do when faced with that fact.

As to the things he stated were 'better ideas', aren't most of those things that Democrats have fought as ill for the future of the Nation for at least a couple of decades, since. .. um... let's see .... Reagan?

Obama really does want to be Reagan.

"Obama threw DailyKos under the bus!!"  Boy howdy, did he ever.  But they'll be all snuggly under there with  Rev. Wright and grandma.  Who's next?

With Swiftboaters out of the equation in the general...

Hah! Now that's funny! 'Cause if there's one thing McCain can do it's stop independent expenditures from going on. Just look at how well he stopped the North Carolina Republican Party from running an ad against Obama. </snark>

Get a clue, no 'deal' between candidates will stop the outside groups. They have no legal recourse against them. The only thing the candidates can do is ask them not to run the ad. What we get horrible ads and John McCain disavowing them (and perhaps garnering some brownie points for doing so).

What gets me is just the clearly different perspective that I have from you. Because the reasons you listed for why you don't respect Obama are the reasons I don't respect Hillary.

No Obama is not a fighter, and he shouldn't try to be one. This is Hillary framing. Hillary is Negative. Fighting and dividing and microtrends and the rest of it are what she does.

Obama has slightly strayed from his Positive message the past month or so. He needs to stop with the diner visits and small voter sessions. Obama should stick to massive rallies, and talk about HOPE (not change which implies a negative). Obama is an inspirational figure, not a sit down and have a shot and beer with guy. Reagan wouldn't pass the silly "have a beer with" test. The thing is being positive and likable. Obama shouldn't even mention Hillary. He should avoid even talking about her. He doesn't even need to talk about McCain...let ads do that.

Obama will win or lose in November based on whether he stays positive. People like him. People want a President they can aspire to be.

I don't know where to start with this sort of revisionist stuff on Obama's pledge (he called it that) to accept public financing. Yes, he revised it, and continues to revise it along the way. I guess we'll take it up in another post with all the quotes.

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I see this term dropped a lot of late. Just for clarification - this is a semi-oblique way of labeling Markos and the folks who participate at DailyKos as sexist, right? And that would be because they are generally Obama supporters, yes?

I'm asking because I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I'm not sure what else your message could be, here. If that's not your message, you might want to consider expressing your point in a manner less prone to misunderstanding.

I have a friend who works at a Charter School and she actually prefers it to dealing with the bureaucracy of school districts. Also, she said that the graduation rates for those at Charter schools is far higher than those that attend your average public school in urban areas.

BTW,I am pro-union but there are definitely some benefits to charter schools.

there are both positives and negatives to charter schools. If done right, I wouldn't be opposed to them as they've sometimes had a positive effect in Illinois. But Illinois's funding of schools is backwards to begin with and sometimes having the state kick in funds for these schools helps to some degree (in high poverty areas where school funding is determined by property taxes).

Your concern about union busting is a concern and there needs to be a clear separation of church and state (as is the case in Illinois).

A couple of folks will write "Did you read what JA said on MyDD????"  And the general response will be "Yawn."  Guess what, most folks at DKos don't look here for affirmation.  Why?  Because the same three diarists write three diaries a day and are always on the rec list.  And the substance of those diaries are all cut and paste from the Clinton website.  

Take a moment and compare the diversity of diaries at DKos to here.  I've yet to see a series here dedicated to our fallen soldiers, gardening, food, birds, home-repair, etc.

Sorry, but most folks at DKos really aren't that interested in MyDD kerfuffles.

I saw the post and the commenters getting on him. He didn't throw the whole site under the bus.

is there something untrue about his comment

"I have today signed into law H.R. 2539, the "ICC Termination Act of 1995." In my State of the Union address this year, I called upon the Congress to terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). I also called for further reductions in unnecessary regulations. This legislation is consistent with those goals, but it does not go far enough." - President Bill Clinton, 1995

How soon we forget the lessons of the Pennsylvania loss.

1. Break all historic spending records including $11 million dollars on TV ads.
   
2. Throwing money at the problem when you don't have the "appeal" is futile.

Barack should spend $44 million on the May 6 primaries.  Better yet, let's go for a spending record that will last for generations to come.

Obama will lose IN and win NC by low single digits despite his continued gargantuan historic spend.

Hillary's coffers are filling but she doesn't need as much as BO because she has electability, experience, the detailed plan, the empathy and yes the dogged fight in her to become our next president.

Obama's gonna need that "campaign transforming fundraising" because as he breaks all spending records and his coffers dwindle . . .  he will go to you, his supporter and say I need even more money to throw at the election, so get ready to pony up.

The gop took President Clinton's idea on unnecessary deregulation to no deregulation.

Yes, it is a disaster and people have died from Chinese goods and lost their life savings like Enron.

Hey genius.... he didn't say all deregulation.  It's just like many issues, you have to examine things on a case by case basis.  As a general rule, we want new businesses to startup and not be in constant fear of being sued or breaking some obscure "do-gooder" regulation.  If product safety deregulation has caused problems, then you address it on its merits and put in place reasonable laws.

Or you can just jump to the extreme example and disregard the fact that there is no evidence Obama wouldn't support tougher product safety regulations.

Hate will do that.

YES!  Thanks for saying that about deregulation.  GOP/Reagan's deregulation destroyed fair competition, increased global warming, endangered wildlife, polluted our water and skies and land, and led to the situations where workers' pensions are lost while departing CEOs take millions with them.  The only way to make capitalism and democracy work together is through appropriate regulation.  Only Democrats do it right.  I was appalled to see Obama on Faux saying that the GOP has good ideas about deregulation.

Deregulation is a nice word. People don't like regulation. I think it's fair a question you raise, but, once again, anyone who has doubts about Obama's liberal bona fides just needs to examine his legislative record in Illinois. It would really allay your fears to do some research. (It's also what he'll be attacked with in the General, so good to know in advance.)

As has been pointed out multiple times, there's a difference between "tort reform" and tort reform, just like there's a difference between "deregulation" and deregulation. The former is a way to protect and limit damages in cases of corporate malfeasance, the latter is a way to move more cases to arbitration and settlement instead of clogging up the court system.

It's too bad we can't come up with a word for the concept that the GOP hasn't already co-opted, but if you really think Obama went on Fox to advocate Bush-esque "tort reform", you're out of your mind

then anything they say is OK. I mean, they're right now probably spinning how great it was he voted for tort "reform" as we speak

Well, I have been watching the Senate in action during w's terms on C-Span.

Here we have three of them running and if you watched like I have, you would see that nothing much is going to change. The Senate is corporate owned.

Blindly trusting any of these three Senators is ridiculous.

So your point is that he's hired conservative Dems to help him win? Any reason why?  You seem to think it's because he agrees with them.  I'm from IL, I know his record. He's FAR LEFT. Not a little left. That's his liability. Check his 100 percent ratings on choice related issues by both NARAL and NOW. This is just one topic sure to come up in the general, but he's been against parental notification laws and late term restrictions.  

Seriously, do take a look at his record. He's moved to the center since being elected to the US Senate, but over his career, his vulnerability is being too liberal.

You're simply mistaken.

Obama wants businesses to decide based on caps enforced with a carbon tax. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/pol itics/09obama.html?ex=1349668800&en= e8ed2cf46750586b&ei=5124&partner =permalink&exprod=permalink

This is just Obama being a smart pol. He's wooing swing voters and comes off sounding like he's Ronald Reagan. His actual policy (which will eventually be used to call him a tax & spend liberal) needs to be blunted by putting the best spin on it. Notice he didn't lie at all. Under Obama's plan the companies can choose to PUT out MORE CO2 if they wish...however they'd have to pay for it. It's basically an excise tax on carbon emissions and a good look at how Obama views government.

Obama was a civil rights attorney. As a civil rights lawyers he tries to find solutions short of government prohibition in favor of tax-based incentives. Much like his health care philosophy.

Cap and trade along with strong incentives for alternative energy is the best possible solution to the emissions problem, outside of very heavy-handed regulation that would hurt more Americans than help the environment. It's a tough question and it's not a perfect solution, but imagine this, sometimes the real free market (not the GOP's "free market") is the best way to arrive at an answer to a tough problem. A similar system was devised for emissions related to acid rain, and we don't seem to have that problem anymore.

If you think gross misrepresentation is "good work."

and what about those between 75K and 200K?

I can tell you, in MA, 150K is middle class for a family of four.  Not upper, not lower.

There are many places like that in the US.  One of the problems I have with tax breaks and tax increases is that it doesn't look at the region one lives in.