Obama signals break from public financing

Obama is a Hypocrite!!!

I don't see a problem w/ Obama changing his stance on this. Most of the money he's raised has been from small individual donations, which is really just another form of popular vote. It's not like he's taking a bunch of huge corporate influence-buying checks.

I think McCain is a decent guy (but not someone I would want running the country), and I don't fault him for calling Obama on this. But at the same time, it seems reasonable that Obama would re-evaluate the situation and decide to use the money he's raised. He'll need it to counteract all the Republican dirty money that will be flowing to Swift Boat groups from the usual sources.

OBAMA, WHERE HE GETS HIS MONEY, AND THE FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN USING GEORGE BUSH/KARL ROVE TACTICS FROM THE BEGINNING (Please use the link below to read the whole article) -- The Washington Post -- April 11,2008 -- Obama gets plenty of money from big donors too: "Sen. Barack Obama credits his presidential campaign with creating a 'parallel public financing system' built on a wave of modest donations from homemakers and high school teachers. ... But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. ... Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ... The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. The use of bundlers was perfected by George W. Bush, who in 2000 and 2004 set some fundraising records that Obama has shattered.
http://tinyurl.com/6dtgq6

If Obama talk the talk, he needs to walk the walk. More and more, his "new politics" looks pretty much like the same politics we're used to. He pledged to public financing, he should stand by his word. It sounds like McCain will.

McCain and Clinton take ooddles of money from big ticket contributors and now McCain is trying to take the high ground with respect to campaign financing. Give me a break. 1.3 million contributors. Who would have ever thought that small donations from so many people who support a just movement of 'change' would determine the fate of arguably one of the most important elections of our time.

Senator Obama never made a blanket pledge to accept public financing in the general election. This is simply false reporting. What he said was that he would accept public financing if his republican rival chose to do so, and that would be based on discussions with the republican nominee, who was not known at the time that these discussions were taking place.

When Obama talks about public financing, he is not simply talking about public financing as defined by the FEC, but also about accepting support from PACs whose funding is unlimited and unregulated. John McCain is going to see a huge amount of support from big money Republican funded PACs, none of whom he is going to reject. It's simply dishonest to say that Barack Obama promised he would accept public financing, because he made no such unqualified statement.

He pledged to "actively pursue an agreement" regarding public finance. Get your facts straight. Where's the broken promise?

So you are picking and choosing what comments are posted and what are not base on your own opinions. Now that's what i call a free press. Not!

Obama’s Dubious Affiliations

There is no way a white man with the same background and credentials as Obama could ever be elected to any significant office in this country.

Look at Obama’s affiliations:
- Mr. Rezko is Obama’s long time friend and a major mob figure.

- Mr. Auchi is a billionaire and major financial sponsor for Obama’s rise to power throughout the past years.
While working with Saddam Hussein, Auchi made his money through the sell of arms in Iraq and by stealing money from the Oil for Food program (no wonder Obama voted against invading Iraq)

- Mr. Wright is (I don’t use reverend because he certainly is not reverend) a racist who hates America and whites and is reminiscent of Hitler, has been Mr. Obama’s spiritual mentor for over 20 years. Before the media exposed Mr. Wright, Mr. Wright was on Obama’s campaign staff as chief religious advisor. Mr. Wright and Mr. Meeks are ideologically closer to Karl Marx and Black Nationalism, than to Christianity.
- Senator Meeks who openly hates whites and gays and is one of listed on Obama’s campaign website as a major Obama supporter and backer and is one of Obama;s super-delegate. Mr. Meeks has been integral in helping Mr. Obama succeed in politics.
- Mr. Ayers of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol served with Obama on the board of the leftist foundation called the Woods Fund.
- Mr. McPeaks is Obama’s military adviser and national campaign co-chairman who claims that American Jews are the "problem." and “Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.”

- Michelle Obama trumpets Obama as “the second coming of the messiah,” and also states that she “has never been proud to be an AMERICAN in her adult life".

The list goes on…

How can Obama’s bad judgment and affiliation with criminals and fanatics be justified?

Oh! And don’t forget Obama’s desire to add Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the above list. Didn’t Mussolini choose Hitler to be his friend? We certainly will be able to add Ahmadinejad to the future list of Obama’s friends as we hide in our nuclear shelters.

Had Hillary Clinton had any of the above ghost in her closet, she would have been thrown out of the election long ago.

Hey everybody - am I missing something here?

It seems to me that perhaps instead of electing Obama president, it would be easier if we just shot ourselves in our collective foot.

Wow, talk about "hedging or clever language". Obama did not make an open-ended, unconditional commitment to public financing, any more than McCain has. But because McCain is so far behind in raising funds, they're desperately trying to pretend he did. (And of course the media happily parrots the McCain campaign's "clever language".)

John McCain does not see the predatory home-loans as "PREDATORY," and he does not have the 'Audacity to offer Hope.' Why should Barack be tied to a conversation that did not include all the facts!

John McCain's desire is to tie up the funding machine (the People) of Barack Obama. Not this time, Barack has the right, and should opt out of the federal funding!

I am one of over a million Americans who contribute to Barack Obama's campaign because we are convinced that he is the best candidate for President of the United States. We are the public. We are financing his campaign. We are public financing.

Another cut and run from Mr. New World Order, New Politics -- yeah, Obama, right. He has waffled on so many issues, if not outright lied. It baffles the mind that people take him seriously at this point. The only thing Obama has been consistent about is his desire for office, by any means necessary. I don't trust that sort of ambition.

Obama would be a fool to accept public financing. Were he to do so, his campaign would be unable to compete with the dozens of right-wing "527" organizations that are waiting to "swift boat" him.

A VERY GOOD ARTICLE FROM FACTCHECK.ORG ABOUT THE RACIST THEOLOGY OF OBAMA''S CHURCH:
The “theology” that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it. The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called “black liberation theology.” Wright admits this and it is stated on the church's website. Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed. This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white. This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of “theology.” Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple of James Cone's quotes: (1) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." (2) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism." (3) "All white men are responsible for white oppression." (4) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." (5) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it." (6) “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” *** These statements, and this “theology,” are fundamentally racist and divisive. The fact that Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years speaks volumes about his character and judgment, and flies in the face of his pronouncements about his ability and intent to “unite” this country.

In reference to the above "hypocrite" comment, the majority of Obama's donations have come from small donations (e.g., less than $200 per person). Neither Clinton nor McCain (who did a 180 on his own commitment to use public financing in the primaries) can say that.

This is definitely a tough choice for Obama, because while his campaign is following in the spirit of public funding (small donations from individuals rather than large amounts from corporations and other lobbyists), it doesn't follow the letter of the commitment. Most candidates are forced to choose between corporations/PACs and public financing. That's not the case for Obama. I'll support him regardless of what he chooses.

"Just words"?

If words are more than "just words" to Mr. Obama he needs to take his own very seriously.

This is one measure of any candidate's integrity.

Unfortunately, none of the front runners seem to possess any.

Come on people....He would actively pursue an agreement was Obama's statement.... Enough BS already its all just word spin. Neither one of them really care about helping each of us with our day to day struggles, so rally behind whomever you like your going to be in the same place 4 years from now, except maybe even worse off.

The real issue here is that Ameri can's actually believe the failed two party system and ultra-corrupt political system actually offers us a choice. Nobody gets elected in this country for anything higher than mayor without being in somebody's pocket. You are a blind and deaf fool to think there is any difference between republican and democrat in this respect.

I know I will certainly base my decision on such an important issue. NOT!!!!!

RE: Fred Jones-

Most of us have already read that article, but nice of you to copy/paste only the part that outlines Obama's "big money" contributions. Why not post the portion that immediately followed- the part that breaks down Clinton's and McCain's contributions from "big money"? Oh, right. It would have only proven that this article's headline belies the real meat of it- that Clinton and McCain's "big money" contributions are in a completely different ballpark altogether. And it further demonstrates the significance of the "small money" donations Obama has received from 1.3 different donors.

On another note, how come an article about Obama's donations stirs up 2 posts in the first dozen or so about Rev. Wright? Probably because that tired old story is all they've got.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PAGE OBAMA WANTS US TO TURN TOO HE THREW SO MANY AT USE I THINK HE LOST TRACK.

The campaign of Hope and Change is reneging on a campaign promise. And the beat goes on.....

Does this mean McCain won't be able to take any more moola from Charles Keating?

For me, the Savings and Loann scandal defines McCain's essential corruption or essential stupidity. Take your pick. No matter, I will never vote for one of the Keating Five.

Where is the oversight in this "parallel" financing over the Internet? What's to stop a "big money" corporation from laundering its illegal contributions by making many, many small donations in the name of all its employees and their spouses, and children and neighbors and friends?

This is why campaign finance reform exists. Doing it over the Internet does NOT make it ok. According to the WSJ, Obama already leads all candidates in contributions from the pharmaceutical and commercial banking industry. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787159467506509.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right?

I don't know, but it seems like flip flopping is not a sign that there will be any real "change" in this campaign/presidency (if it comes to that). Politics as usual, say one thing and do another. For someone who is wanting to take down CEOs, Obama sure does like the clink of coins...at least to promote himself!

To shawn (comment # 5): I don't know how to find out that sort of information, besides through whatever the media decides to report on. Is it public knowledge? Can you tell me where to find out who is contributing to which campaigns?

Which candidate did not take donations? There is no need to attack specific candidate on this kind of issue, except those who want to distract others from important issue.

I am actually glad that Obama made no sharp comment on Tibet and Olympic. I really don't know what exactly has happened in Tibet. I would not comment without enough information. Someone was too quick to respond not to attend Olympic.

Some political leaders are quick to utilize situation to get visibility. Sometime give me an impression that he/she is too practical than thinking beyond his/her own interest.

Re:
Abama,s Dubious Affiliations - by Charles Talaros.
So well said! I fear for America if these supporters continue to believe everything that comes out of this man's mouth. He is so smooth when he is lying.

TOM MUEHL, YOUR CAPS KEY IS STUCK ON!

Public financing should be the rule, not the exception, from the primaries forward. Anyone who can collect enough signatures to be eligible to run should be given an equivalent share of campaign funding and MANDATORY air time from everyone with an FCC license (similar requirements for print media too, what the hey). Then let's see what they can do with it. End money politics now.

All things being equal...

Obama to win big.

Just goes to show... He has the ability to leverage

Talk about weaseling on a pledge by Obama! Well, so much for that promise.

And as said above and well-documented -- OBAMA rather than McCain is the candidate getting the special interest money this year (big pharma - commercial center banks.) After all, with McCain's history with pork and special interests, those folks have no interest in "investing" in his candidacy.

But it's so nice to see his many supporters engaging in their "ends justifies the means" rhetoric. Like their man says . . . . "words . . . only words."

and so is Charles Talaros ...

By the way, Obama never pledged to use public financing. He pledged to look strongly into the possibility.

The accusation that he is somehow going back on a promise is simply poor journalism by poor journalists.

where exactly did Obama pledge outright to use public financing??? Do we believe it happened because a McCain spokesperson said it happened?

that's just typical media coverage, I guess, but at least you commentors should know better than to believe everything you read.

$234,000,000 from 1,300,000 contributors=$1800.00/ contributor. I don't know where people consider this a small donation by any means. If I had $1800.00 laying around, I sure wouldn't give it to a politician who is making far more than my meager Social Security stipend. Since he has accumulated such a tidy sum, maybe he could donate a tithe to my favorite charity, ME.