Obama would also have a strong case to make that he is publicly financed anyway considering the size and number of his donations.

There's no need to fear McSame on this non-issue.

I know the Republicans are so jealous of all the money that Hillary and Obama (especially Obama) has raised.  That used to be the Republican campaigns that was racking in the big bucks.

Not anymore.

Because he's running against Hillary Clinton -- who is a fantastic candidate with a huge well of support and has institutional resources beyond what even Gore had with the power of incumbancy on his side.

In any other year, Obama would have cleaned up. Can you imagine him(now) versus Kerry(then)? And any other year, Hillary would have cleaned up. Can you imagine her (now) against... well, against Bill(then?)

It's a testiment to these two how tight it is.

Remember, Obama started with a tiny fraction of what Hillary began with. She did well with her advantages, but seemed unprepared after the front-loads ended. He had a better plan.

Ultimately I think that's the end result here. Obama wins, but not because Hillary lost.

Hillary has raised a lot too -- but from big donors.

As for, "it amazes me that he has not won the race so far," Obama has won the race and his upset of the indomitable Clinton Machine is perhaps the biggest one ever.

Hmm, maybe not easy, per se; but McCain has significant liabilities as well, which I guarantee you, we will exploit to the fullest.

It's important to keep in mind that the number of Republicans who have swore never to vote for McCain are legion!  Now that he seems like their only hope, we see a little bit of coalescence on their side; but that can be exploited by forcing him, over and over, to choose between the Republican narrative and the Sanity narrative.  Make him wed himself to Bush's positions time and time again, or risk losing his own base.  Remind that same base of McCain's cavalier nature of the last several years.  

I don't think he's agile enough to keep up.  He's certainly not as tough as the Clinton machine, and if Obama can beat them - which he pretty much has done - then McCain won't stand in his way either.

Yet, at least 45% of the Democratic voters have supported other candidates.  

In some circles, we call that "winning."

I think that we have 2 awesome candidates.  I think that the original 10 had 4 or 6 candidates the I wouldn't want to face this year if I were a republican.  

I think McSame is a very weak candidate and as soon as one of our candidates is focused on him and the voters don't have more than one democrat from which to choose, we will beat McSame like a rented mule.

But there has to actually be a "we".

Thanks. Early morning...

McCain already broke his FEC promise.

That is a hit he's willing to take (the media bytching about inconsistent past statement), if at the end of the day it gives him a tens of millions of dollar advantage. He'd be a fool, and I would think less of him, if he allowed the media and McLame, to bully him into accepting public financing.

"Obama promised to vigorously pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee regarding public financing in the general. He is now backtracking from that promise."

That's McBush/McClinton spin.

Obama has not said he won't seek for an agreement with McCain, and he certainly will. But such an agreement is unlikely since it would have to involve McBush somehow reigning in all the 527s which will operate in his behalf.

It would be irresponsible suicide for Obama and his party to simply disarm in the face of McSame's 527s.

I suggest you and others stop carrying water for McBush in this matter.

Actually his proposal was much more complicated than simple public financing in the general from what I recall.

Obama hasn't backed away from his pledge at all. In fact, his vast fund raising is entirely in keeping with the intent and letter of his pledge. The funds are drawn overwhelmingly from small individual donors and he actively prevents 527 groups from bypassing fundraising restrictions on his behalf.

The real problem is that people are trying to spin his pledge into a commitment to the public financing system, which it very explicitly was not. In the future, please check your facts to avoid spreading this kind of misinformation.

What he DID say was he was willing to sit down and see if there was some sort of common ground on the topic. He made no promise whatsoever. Gomer's characterization is entirely wrong. In some circles we call that lying.

Small donors like myself.  Millions of us.

You need to get your foil hat refitted.

Obama's donations are in the public record. Look it up before you blindly smear.

And me.

You can go and look at all 1 million plus donors as they are in the public record. Let us know if you find any Republicans.

"I am always wary of candidates who raises a lot of money."

MCBush hasn't raised much money. Are you wary of him? If not, you should be.

Tens of thousands of Republicans decided the best way to win POTUS for the GOP was not to contribute to a Republican candidate, but to Obama. Does this make sense to you?

Explain the logic of these Republicans--Republicans who aren't contributing to Republicans--giving to Obama.

When will the protestations of the extremist HRC supporters become nonsensical enough that the responsible HRC supporters explain, "Yo, sister, that doesn't make sense"?

It came from me too, and I've been a Democrat since before I was born.

They are both very strong candidates. This a credit to both of them. If it was anyone else but Obama, HRC would have locked this up 2 months ago. Same with Obama.

"I have doubt. Considering he outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and sometimes up to 3 to 1 in some states yet lost tells me something."

You're referring to states where he was behind by  double digits and closed the gap to single. You're referring to states that Clinton got to brag about winning, but where Obama quietly added to his delegate lead.

And with the dubious except of NH, Obama has lost no state where he has had a lead in the polls. Clinton has blown many leads.  

It tells you that he's up against someone with over a decade of name recognition and is still winning. He's ahead in just the primary states as well.

Actually Hillary would have been our nominee if that was the case. At the start she had the money, the Clinton machine, a large number of declared super delegates already lined up behind her and the name recognition and not only did she not close the deal she is so far behind at this point as to be considered a very long shot.

When you start with 2 candidates one with every advantage and the other having to build everything from scratch with no personal fortune or national organization to rely on and the person who started with such a disadvantage now has a commanding lead it's clear who is the stronger candidate.

The President of the United States of America is such an insignificant position in your mind that money spent on choosing the office holder is a waste? You ned to broaden your perspectives.

In the first place, the amount of money America spends is tiny, yes tiny, in the scheme of things.  All the money spent by all campaigns, both primary races and the general election all combined, add up to roughly the same amount Aemricans spend on video games on one month. And the POTUS race occurs only once in four years.  

The money spent amounts to about one fifty-thousandth of what the US economy produces in teh four-year period.  It is fairly important to put a good person in the job.  It's worth spending less than 1% of 1% ... that comes pretty cheap.

More importantly even is this.  The broad-baes little donoer support system means millions of ordinary Americas feel they own a little tiny bit of the process.  For once being a little donor MATTERED.  That means more enthusaism for the elctoral proces, more citizen involvement, more energy, nothing but upside.

Wasted? Look for the bigger picture.

Yeah,  Obama used his cash to game the caucus system and won in the end and OVERTURNED the popular vote.

You can brag about that if you want.

I'd say don't bet your house on that prediction.

Outspending her 2, 3 to 1 is not enough to win?

Frankely, the fact that he didn't manage to win any decisive battle so far reinforce my doubts about his overall strength.

every single one of your comments demands Hillary step down, even though she will most likely win PA, IN, KY, WV, PR and be competitive in the other states.

Stop spouting talking points!

It would be nice if Obama-followers would stop begging and being whiny ninnies.

Hillary is in this to the end.
GET OVER IT!!!

Even the most ardent HRC supporter has to be amazed by those numbers.

Triple wow

He has never take money from lobbyists or PACs.

Accepting money from people who work in an industry does not necessarily mean that the money was bundled.

Also, Obama took a voluntary pledge. I'm sorry if your interpretation of Obama's pledge is different from Obama's interpretation.

It is not a campaigns duty to pay for elections... that would be insane

No, he lost Texas.
Hillary won the popular vote and the primary vote.

I still consider the caucus double voting because I'm sure that people who voted in the primary voted in the caucus too.  And the Obama camp infiltrated the caucuses and made over-votes for Obama.  So many accounts of the caucus tells about the fights, the confusion, the disgust.  It was a friggin' mess.  But I guess in Texas, that's the norm.  You'd never get away with that in NY.

Hillary probably won in the early voting too.  But no one wants to announce that.

Obama's people are getting desperate.  They can't land the KO punch, because their guy ain't all that.  Hillary is staying in there and looking strong every day.  She got past the Bosnia thing while people are still concerned with Rev. Wright.

I don't think either camp can honestly claim a victory in TX.

Obama supporters will say he won TX because the primary is a race for delegates and on that score he won.

Clinton supporters will counter that neither campaign can cross the delegate threshold without superdelegate support. Additionally they will argue that the person best positioned to win the SD argument is the winner of the popular vote. Thus, TX counts as a win for her since she wont the primary part of that state's contest.

I think a neutral observer would have to say that both arguments have merit behind them.

Obama never backed away from public financing.

He said that he would work something out with the Republican if (and only if) he were the nominee.

He's not the nominee yet.  Regardless, McCain is so deep into violation of FEC guidelines (that he helped create) that it will never happen now.