TROLLING

and

SPAMMING at the same time?

Someone get this guy a nice gold star.

Disclaimer: This was already front paged TWICE, everyone is excited, this spammer is just concerned.

It's clearly not trolling on spam.

Posting a comprehensive background on the subject is sorely absent from other posts, and so I posted it along with my opinion on the subject.

If you disagree, then disagree and point out problems with the argumentation.  It's pointless and silly to just call it spam.

I would like our nominee to have all the money he needs. Obama needs to crush McCain by every measure -- that includes fundraising. He would be foolish to accept public financing, now that he knows how much money he can pull in. As dirty as the GOP fights, I really don't care if they're offended by his decision to reject public financing, which I feel confident will survive through the the GE.

I'm fine with this. As far as I'm concerned, raising money from lots of small donors is public financing.  I have a big problem with only getting money from big donors, but that's not what Obama is doing.

And my husband and I just sent him another $35 today to show our support. That's about as much as we can spare each month.  If we all do that, though, it will be plenty of money for him to compete.

for once, our party will have an insane money advantage. It could be enough to overcome the bradley effect as well, which will be troublesome in many states that we need to win.

You have to ask yourself what the purpose is behind public financing.  If it's to cut out the influence of certain special interests, then Obama has largely done that through his fundraising model.  If you're just concerned about the total amount spent on the election, then I don't think public financing is a worthy goal, because there is no "proper" amount to spend.

I disagree, I think this is the kind of story that has zero resonance with your average low-information swing voter. Obama's brand is already so well-established, it's going to be pretty tough to paint him as politics as usual, especially considering that his campaign is funded by small donors.

like the 527s. Since John McCain said he couldn't control 527s, that agreement was void.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Now, if they tried to work out an agreement with the McCain campaign, but couldn't, then the circumstances are different.  If this is the case, they should make this point clear.  Although, my bet is on the fact that they didn't really "aggressively pursue an agreement."

Not sure, but this might help your concern.
From Politico

Obama counsel Bob Bauer e-mails that, contrary to McCain counsel Trevor Potter's account, he and Potter had an extended discussion of public financing options, which he left convinced that they left "no basis for further exchange."

Trevor and I met at my office on June 6, and we discussed the June 18 panel and then, for 45 minutes, the public funding issue.

I asked him to address a serious of issues of concern to the Obama campaign -- such as the McCain campaign's active raising and spending of private money since February for a general election campaign, including for media, while we were still in the middle of a primary contest. He gave me his perspectives -- the best arguments he could offer for an agreement on both sides to accept public financing -- and it was clear to me that these offered no basis for any further exchange.

Not too long thereafter, John McCain announced he could not and would not "referee" 527 activity.

I am sure Trevor will clarify that I did not at any time counsel him on what choice the McCain campaign would make about accepting or not accepting the public grant.

that you have gotten several 'serious' responses, none of which you have responded to. Conversely, you have responded to every post that implied you were a troll.

Feed your daisies, ignore your weeds - not the reverse.

...and you're still not finished "sorting" and haven't bothered to post an update beyond your tiny non-retraction retraction blurb at the top.

Yet you have time to post another article in the meantime which repeats the incorrect assertions you made in this one.

It's time for a mea culpa.

BTW:  AP's "excerpting policy" is a heaping pile of horseshit.  The AP does not get to decide what is and is not fair use.  Excerpt away, they won't dare to litigate because they know they'd be laughed out of court.

The reaction to this post, which was well reasoned and explained has been somewhat unbelievable.

First, just for the record, the new post that you refer to was written by the other co-managing editor of 2008Central.net, not myself.  I realize this wasn't readily apparent, but just wanted to set the record straight.

That said, I did write another diary on this subject, which provides links to audio of both campaigns' conference calls from this evening that discuss this issue.  This was not intended to replace a followup to this diary, but rather to supplement for those that are interested.

Now, will I post a follow up? Absolutely.

I wasn't aware that I was operating a deadline.  I said I'd follow up, give me chance to do so.

Clearly, you are very concerned about this post and that makes me happy.  I assume you've read my more substantive replies to some of the comments on this thread?  I could understand your frustration if I just up and disappeared after making this post, but I haven't as evidenced by participation in comment discussions, by updating the diary and by posting additional resources on the subject.

Further, I'm not really sure my post requires significant editing, especially in light of some of my replies in the comment thread.  Yes, I want to put together a new post on this topic, but no, it won't be much different than the original.  It will simply be more informed, since new information has emerged, but my original critique still stands -- I think the situation was mishandled.

I'm copying two replies to previous commenters for your reference.

My original issue with Obama's action was not the fact that he opted out of public financing.  It was the smart and necessary decision to make and if he had chosen to do otherwise he would have been hurting himself for no good reason.

Rather, (and again, based on how everything went with the meeting with the campaigns, this may all be moot), my issue is with Obama's promise to aggressively work out some type of agreement with the GOP nominee on public financing.

To me, it just doesn't seem that he really went through the effort that he said he would.  Further, I pointed out the inconsistency between saying that the public finance system is worth preserving and saying that the public finance system is broken.

This diary was not intended to suggest that anyone should decide against supporting Obama on this issue.  I would strongly caution against not supporting him on this alone.  Rather, the post was intended to do a few things:

1) point out an inconsistency (it's important to do that, regardless of where loyalty lies)

2) To assess its significance

3) To point out that there may be political consequences - not for opting out of public finance, but rather, for not doing (or seeming to do) something he said he would do, which is work with the GOP nominee.

And if he did work with the McCain campaign on this matter, he should have indicated that in his statement today. It would have put him in a significantly better light and stronger position on this issue alone.

AND

I was having this conversation earlier with fellow blogger.  From a strategic perspective, even if the Obama campaign met with the McCain campaign in the manner in which it is being reported, I still think they made a strategic blunder (albeit not a particularly big one)...

Obama said he'd work with the GOP nominee to hammer out some kind of agreement on public financing.  From the outset, it was obvious that the GOP had no intention of reducing 527 attacks this year and that McCain had no intention of pressuring them to do so (I should note that I am not saying this to imply that they are evil or something, but rather to highlight a basic strategic point -- they need the 527s for financial and political purposes much more than the Democrats do this election).

So, the Obama campaign should have made a slightly stronger and more public showing regarding efforts to hammer out some kind of deal on public financing.  There really is only two ways that such an activity could have played out:

1) Either McCain looks unwilling to work on public financing in a serious way; OR, 2) He looks too weak to do anything about the 527s; OR, Both.

As a result, Obama still could have made the same announcement that he did today.  Except, he would have the added benefits of:

1) including a sentence or two about his efforts and the McCain campaign's stonewalling; AND 2) he would not seem as though he was acting contradictory to positions regarding this issue that he espoused during 2007.

I suppose in all, my critique is not intended to be some insanely slimy and off base attack (as many seem to think), but rather, something I have done consistently: Look at a situation, point out issues and think about ways it could have been done better.

I certainly think this was one situation that could have been handled better AND possibly could have been to Obama's benefit.