The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Who cares? Only those looking for little nits to pick. There are bigger fish to fry. When he says up will he mean under like Bush has with this Clean Air Act or No Child Left Behind? Will he lie about reasons to go to war? Will he take other people's sons and daughters off to die and empty our treasury and bankrupt our future on unnecessary wars like McCain and Clinton already have? I don't think so.

Personally, I have always been against the idea of public financing. I know the argument is that it has the benefit of ensuring that the candidates are not beholden to people with big pockets. I know that it was borne of a bi-partisan agreement between Feingold and McCain. I know, I know. However, as an indepentdent voter I think it is unfair to use taxpayer dollars to support the presidential asperations of people with whom many may disagree. I don't want any of my money (admittedly, a miniscule portion of the tax base) going to John McCain's coffers. It ain't right. I, like millions of others, have contributed a small amount to the Obama campaign as a way of showing support for what he says he is trying to do: Change the way in which Washington works and who it works for and bring some honesty to government. And that, I believe is the way it should be. Millions of small donors giving what they can because they stand behind a candidate.
That said, I will have a serious problem if Obama does not keep his pledge. I'll forgive the waffling ($32 million in January is an example of the substantial edge Obama has in fund raising), but in the end, if Senator Barack Obama wants my vote, he's going to have to stick to his word. It would be a shame if Obama allowed McCain to call his bluff so early in the campaign. It would be a shame if Obama allowed his message to be overshadowed by financial concerns. I believe that Obama has nothing to fear from the debate. He won't have to rely on T.V. ads for his ideas to gain traction.
Once again, I'm against public financing on principle, but I didn't write that legislation. It is what it is. I didn't fill out that questionaire for Senator Obama either. And I'm against dishonesty in our public figures. Senator Obama would do well to remember that many of his supporters are his supporters because he speaks about holding politicians accountable and we are going to start with him.

This will be a nagging for Obama and he needs to deal with it. Now. The problem for Obama is that he is running as a candidate from the moral high ground, so he is held to a higher standard. (Contrast Clinton who, having made no such pledge, feels free to attack from the moral low ground).

Can Obama beat McCain even with public financing? I think yes. Does Obama think so?

If he agrees with me then I'd recommend he (1) Accept the pledge, unequivocally; (2) Apologize for hesitating... the insidious lure of money and all that; (3) Ask his supporters to give whatever extra money they want to give to the DNC to help the party win big majorities in Congress. There are around 28 Republican congresspeople retiring this year and Obama's coattails could be very very long... especially if the DNC has $1Billion to work with. Also, this will make Obama look like the leader of the Democratic PARTY. Which, as the party's nominee, he will be.

Peace.

Good advice from egc52556. Kudos.

I scanned down the last batch of blog entries and it looks like all Obama all the time. How about looking into Hillary a bit. Drudge is finding all sorts of dirt on her campaign, how about checking those out?

"... the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression ..."

With all due respect. Mr. Dobbs, no one is under any obligation to dispel the media from its incessant false impressions. This issue aside, the the media in general has a hair-pin propensity to jump at any little sound bite for the purposes of seeing conflict set in ink. This is especially true on the editorial pages, where writers apparently confuse expressing a learned opinion with freedom to manipulate the basic facts.

What, no fact check of that March 2 editorial? With the lovely and conclusive subtitle, "Barack Obama and John McCain agree to call off the fundraising race" ... where's your tedious unfolding of careless wordplay when the target is something appearing in print in the Post?

I heard Obama's comments in March differently ... I read it has having said that he's interested in that option if the Republican is. The Republican is, so now we have a viable conversation when the moment comes. This isn't dishonesty, it's simply deferring a complicated question until it is necessary to address it (I call that wisdom, but you judge how you like).

McCain-Feingold, which places limits on donations to candidates, is a good idea and arguably a moral law.

The scheme for publicly financing Presidential elections, in exchange for a promise to forego donations, is a different matter. It is riddle with flaws and open to all kinds of cheating in the form of privately funded groups allied with this or that campaign. Another exception is a very rich self-funded candidate.

Obama should stick to his position: that IF he is the nominee, which he is not yet, that he "will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Such an agreement would have to ensure that there is in fact a level playing field, which involves more than just both candidates opting into the publicly financed system.

The "two pinocchios" is baloney.

What is the lie and where is the proof?

Obama said that, if nominated, he would agressively pursue an agreement to preserve a publicly financed election contest.

He will not have gone back on this until and unless he is nominated AND repudiates the idea of aggressively pursuing an agreement.

I don't see the point at which a lie was told. The "aggressively pursue" language has been consistent and it appears to me he has not moved from this commitment to public financing with the caveat that both campaigns accept the spirit of the agreement.
In that that will be a serious negotiation between the two camps at the appropriate time, I don't see the requirement for Obama to meet pundit's demand that he make any professions beyond what he has at time.
Not telling you what you want to hear when you want to hear does not equate to a lie.

OBAMA PUBLISHED THE FOLLOWING IN USA TODAY:

Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.

By Barack Obama

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

FACT CHECKER OWES OBAMA A RETRACTION.

He should abandon the pledge. Due to the winner-take-all format of the electoral college, those of us living in the wrong flavor of state (I am a Democrat living in an 80% red state) have no voice in the election other than providing funds so our candidates can better reach voters in swing states.

The campaign money IS my vote, it is my free speech, and I expect my candidate (Obama) to do everything legal in his power to secure the presidency. I trust his judgement on what action that entails, but it is difficult for me to believe that $85M in financing is better than three times that, which is the rate at which he is raising money for November. That money can go into paid phone banks with real people, ads, signs, rallies, get out the vote efforts with cars and rides, legal efforts and paid consultants to ensure Republicans and other activists cannot suppress the vote, and many other things. It is not just TV ads, that money spells fairness and a fair result.

Obama isn't the messiah he wants his followers to believe he is. He'll lie and hedge just like any pol to get to where he wants to be. Those Obamaites who trash Bush as unworthy of the holy grail shouldn't throw stones at glass houses.

This is ridiculous and simply dishonest. Your own research has actually exposed the fact that Obama never "pledged" himself to public financing and yet your obvious bias against the man (the last four entries all about him? Is there no one else in this race?) has persuaded you to see lies where there are none.

His language has been clear and consistent. That he will "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." He hasn't gone back on that.

This "Fact Checker" column isn't worth the pixels its printed on.

why have the last 4 fact-checker posts been primarily attacks on Obama? time to mix it up folks, there are other candidates in this race.

I agree that this is premature, he is likely to be the nominee but he isn't yet. In addition, the agreement aspect was always a condition, and as pointed out by others here and the Senator, its necessary to cover many areas that involve loopholes. Why should Obama take time out from campaigning in key states to negotiate an agreement that may never be needed? This is a red herring by the opposing campaigns at this point in time to provide the very distraction that may keep Obama from becoming the nominee. Factchecker's response displays typical inside the beltway thinking, buy more carts even if you don't have the horse.

It seems unfair to judge a person's actions before they occur. Barack Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee. Therefore, he has not broken his pledge. Wait until he is the nominee to see what action he takes, then criticize, if necessary. Fact Checker deserves two Pinocchios here for stretching the truth.

I agree that the 'Fact Checker' seems disproportionately focused on the Obama campaign, while ignoring the other candidates left in the race.

There's also nothing in the coverage of Obama's campaign financing statements to suggest that Obama will *not* accept public financing. Obama has never said he wouldn't, only that he will negotiate with the Republican nominee if and when he is the nominee. This is not a two 'Pinnochio' statement.

In some of the past 'Fact Checker' columns, rather than simply say statements were false or unsupported by the evidence, the Fact Checker' left innuendo made by unnamed sources unchallenged ('leaving it up to the readers to decide'), in effect aiding the circulation of half-baked rumors of the kind the 'Face Checker' is supposed to put to rest.

Today's column, and others before it, make me wonder if the 'Fact Checker' is the impartial arbiter of facts, as they purport to be, or simply another blog or opinion column. If the latter, they should say so.

Who care about public financing? We ought to know how much money the McCain family made from owning and selling black slaves before the Civil War at its Mississippi plantations. And how much money they made after the Civil War from plantation peonage of sharecroppers, their former black slaves. Salon online magazine reported documents from Mississippi state archives that Senator John McCain's "great-great grandfather William Alexander McCain of Carroll County, Miss.,.owned a plantation, with 52 black slaves, and later died defending slavery during the Civil War as a soldier for the Mississippi cavalry...W.A. McCain family's slaves were listed in archives in the customary manner of the day -- including their age, gender and 'color,' labelling each either 'black' or 'mulatto.' The slaves ranged in age from 6 months to 60 years...Tracing the genealogies of slaves is often easy, because slaves frequently adopted the surnames of their owners.In 1876, for example, a former black slave of the white McCain family named Mary J. McCain married another former black slave Isham Hurt both sharecroppers. The two had a son, blues guitarist "Mississippi" John Hurt, in 1892 on Teoc, the plantation community where the McCains owned 2,000 acres." Did any of that plantation money come down to the Senator in inheritance and is any of it financing his present campaign for the Presidency? http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/02/15/mccain/index.html

How the heck does "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." become an unqualified "yes"? Obama never said he would, no matter what, take the public financing, but said it was something that would be aggressively looked at. Why can't Hillary and the "Fact Checker" focus on real issues?

I agree with egc52556. This is bad for Obama. Especially given how much he claims to care about the role of money in politics. It looks really bad . . . he's all for changing the system, except when it starts working for him. Ditto his approach to shuffling money to superdelegates.

Clinton is a goner, so I am not worried about her anymore. What concerns me is how this will look going up against McCain, the big campaign finance guy. Obama's claims about changing the political system are going to laughable.

Get on top of this, Obama! We can't afford to lose this election.

And as for you die-hard Obama supporters who post on the Post online . . . you need to get your stinking heads out of the sand! No matter what criticism is leveled at your man, no matter how legitimate or concerning, you do the same thing: Deny, attack Hillary (or now McCain), defend, spin, spin, spin. I realize many of you are political novices, but your many is playing politics just like everyone else. And it's hard to imagine that he isn't going to suffer for this one . . . He is the one making the claim that he's about something different -- no one else made that claim for him. But to suddenly say, "Oh, but the system I've criticized so strongly is now my best chance of winning" seriously calls into question his commitment to change. If you could look at it objectively, you'd get that.

And, by the way, Obama has gone for a year without any serious scrutiny. So stop whining about the press coverage. . . we all warned this would happen once he took the lead. In my mind, it happened to late if anything. He needs to be able to face this sort of scrutiny, folks. There's only more of it coming! What are you going to do when you can no longer blame Clinton for it?

Where's the pledge? Factchecker gets 5 pinnochios... again.

Yeah, so?

I'm still voting for Obama in the North Carolina primary this May and then for President in November.

How old is McCain again?

Sciencemom,
I'm sorry about Hillary losing (not really, she was unelectable and would unite Regressive Republicans), but the truth is 10% of people will hear about this and 5% of those people will understand this inane argument. It could be reframed as, "Obama takes money from small supporters instead of taxpayers." Case closed.

I was about to ride the high horse on WP again untill I saw others have gone before me.

Is the Washington Post still 'endorsing' Michael Dobbs?

Another older example: http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2007/12/wps-michael-dobbs-misses-point-of-obama.html

Enough

To plagarize Tony the Pitiful copywriter, Yeah, so what? I voted for Obama in the primary and will again in the general election. And you Clintonites better get behind him. (What does Bill have against living in the Naval Observatory, anyway? Heck, it's a nice house!)

Every time I hear McCain say, "My friends..." I am reminded of the sleazy used car salesmen who always address everyone as "my friends..."

The Collapse Of Hillary

As polls in Texas tighten up between Obama & Clinton, will you change your mind & vote with momentum?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1755

.

Who will limit funding to the '527' Swift-Boat PAC Attack groups that are no doubt lining up for a crack at defining Obama to the general population? If anything has been learned from Kerry's campaign, it is that negative ads/accusations have to be addressed immediately. Besides, Obama has not won the nomination yet so what is the problem? He said that IF he was the democratic nominee he would aggressively pursue an agreement. First things first. He has to fend off Sen. Clinton's negative campaign before he can even worry about the 527s.

Sorry Dobbs, you get two pinnochios for this one.

The Cult of Her Own Personality

To my fellow Democratic Party American's; we have a dark specter crossing the landscape of our Party. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element among our membership. This element is becoming more evident with each and every loss that they rack up, in that they are pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart, and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations.

"Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge.
--Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008.

Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way?

Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition's presidential candidate's campaign.

By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970's, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing.

The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate.

What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign's last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain.

Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about.

What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future.

I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life.

egc52556's suggestion is a very good one. But personally, I'd be happy to see Obama simply blow off public financing.

Every US election since WW2 has been bent to the right by the GOP's vastly deeper pockets. We've never seen how Americans would vote if the shoe were on the other foot. I'm very curious to see what the result would be.

The GOP has always hated public financing, and has squeezed every possible advantage out of their greater wealth.

Now, suddenly, comes a year in which, due to their appalling performance in government, they're short of money. And whaddya know? Suddenly the GOP gets morality about public financing. Suddenly they want a level playing field.

**** 'em, I say.

The previous post was by Matthew McGovern

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.