Bears and Alligators Civil Liberties Courts DNA Elections '08 Free Speech Presidential Race Unions Wolves

Obama the Money Monster

    We’re surrounded by monsters

What a relief that Obama reneged on his pledge to limit his fall campaign to the paltry sums of public financing. It was a dumb promise when he made it and would have limited his ability for open combat with McCain the Monster. Public financing is a monstrously broken system. Most campaign-finance reform violates the Premier Monster, otherwise known as the First Amendment anyways.
Obama is now a free man and will raise a monstrous $300 million for the fall campaign. That’s nearly four times as much as the fairy-like $84 million he would have received in public money. Those extra bucks will make it easy to weather any public ridicule for breaking his word like someone out to achieve a goal at any cost, financial or moral.
But now that Obama’s shown himself open to reviewing his past words and deeds, he should make nice with Samantha Power and welcome her back in the fold as a foreign policy adviser. He was wrong to force her out and should make room for her and her divergent views.
We need more open debate in this country. Let’s stop penalizing people for speaking their mind, on or off the record, and that includes politicians, entertainers and radio-show hosts. Such debate isn’t easy to tolerate, particularly when it means giving voice to bull-headed forces of evil, which is exactly what the Supremes did in a decision yesterday, handing namby-pamby California unions their ass. I may have more to say about that righteous ruling later, but this post is dedicated to Obama the Money Monster.


  • I think it’s significant that Obama keeps backtracking from “change” to “maybe the other guys were right, after all” or to anything that suits his situational ethics. Then, you justify it by saying that the extra money that he raises will compensate for him breaking his promise!

    I didn’t trust Clinton, which is why I supported Obama over her, but now he is revealing himself to be just another politician like the rest. And, tell me, how are his views on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq now changing.

    Maybe what he means by change is that he will change his mind when it suits his political needs.

  • The Supremes did the right thing — what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, although of course Gil Cedillo would be the one to try to silence the other side of the debate on the union issue, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fran, known to be more liberal than most, would back him up.

  • Maybe I missed it, but when did Obama promise to unilaterally participate in public financing of his campaign, regardless of what his opponent did?

  • db:

    In answer to your question. Here’s a statement Obama made in Febuary 2007. Obama’s being a bit hypocritical on this. But its hard to imagine any candide turning down the amount fundraising Obama’s receiving.

    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.

  • Right. And that “agreement with the Republican candidate” wasn’t reached, so no “promise” was broken.

    Yea, he probably is being a bit disingenuous, and I doubt he pursued that agreement as “aggressively” as he could have. But it’s also correct that McCain fought hard to get out of his own commitment to public financing, and lost. Yet it wasn’t until after Obama made his announcement that McCain said he was, after all, going to accept public financing.

    The nit I’m picking is really with those who say he’s broken a “promise”. He may have broken the spirit of the pledge, but I don’t see that he was untrue to what was actually “promised”.

    Oh, and McCain didn’t even bother to answer that questionnaire. I’d like to hear a reporter ask him about that, since it is obviously such a big deal to McCain now.

  • db – I agree – and if you listen to the Obama camps various statements on the matter, they gave themselves some wiggle room, and always seem to come just shy on making a promise. But I hate to see Democrats, as soon as they reach power, turn their backs on public financing. After they’ve been pushing it for the last 8 years. I’m a bit torn on the issue, but on the other hand, Obama’s not nearly as sleazy as McCain on campaign finance, so I guess I can’t complain too much.

    Frankly, I’m much more upset by Obama caving on the FISA Bill.

  • Do ya think maybe the Obama camp has some other areas where they’re giving themselves “wiggle room”?

    It’s not our job to cover goofs and slips made by our candidate. We, as supporters, have to keep our candidate honest — Not make excuses.

  • AC, agreed. And on the FISA thing, it’s hideous. The Dems, including Obama, have caved once again. Money money money money money. Es el suxors.

  • I wish Glenn Greenwald had actually linked to some examples of folks against whom he’s making this accusation of backpedaling. That’s pretty easy on the “intertubes” and it diminishes the credibility of his being “aghast” by making a general charge against unnamed Obama supporters and not being more specific. Not saying that he probably doesn’t have a point to make, but his piece was constructed with all of the specificity of “some say…”

  • The main reason I made the above point is because, while I haven’t been keeping track of the liberal blogs this week as much as I generally do, I haven’t seen any apologetics – mostly just disappointment with the Dems in general for not taking a harder stance and making a fight on the FISA telecom immunity issue. So I’m trying to figure out who Greenwald is taking to task.

  • Also kudos to AM for not being “shocked” by Obama’s decision to be in to win and use his strategic advantage in grassroots fundraising to beat these assholes.

  • Woody – thanks for all of your support of Obama in recent months. I’m shocked (Shocked!) that now that he’s the Dem nominee you’re through with him.

  • I imagine Glenn’s failure to link has more to do with offering the offenders a level of professional courtesy than anything else. If it continues, I expect Glenn will make a different decision.

    Examples can be found:

    here, and

    And, these are just the blogs that I still have in my bookmarks. I de-listed the full-throated Obama is the Second Coming of Christ folks months ago.

    Apologies in advance if I’ve jacked the html tags into oblivion.

  • McCain accepted public financing when it was convenient. Now he’s spending beyond the limits. Obama should have pointed out that he wouldn’t participate in public funding while McCain is breaking the law.

  • Also, interesting that both Cole and Sullivan are “converts.” Guess that’s par for that particular course…although I thought Cole’s piece was actually a good presentation of the situation in purely strategic terms.

Leave a Comment