The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

so if you say one thing and do another, and you're Barack, it's not a lie.

Get off your Knees!

I'm not even sure who you are giving the Pinocchios to, but if you have to go back over a year to find conflict then this should be closer to a non-issue. Things change, times change, people change, this is life. No harm no foul, looks like a no call to me.

It was expected that Obama (the promoter of change) won't do what he preaches. He says things just to get where he wants. Do people rember when he says he will talk to our enemies such as Castro, Chavez, The Iranias with no preconditions? He also say he will talk to the republicans about public funding but now that he is the democratic nominee he is getting excuses. Do not trust Obama. More thing will come when he becomes the President of the United States. Just watch!

Yawn.

All this post needs is another plug for Dobbs' book.

Mr. Obama's dissembling about the reason for his decision to renege on his promise to participate in the public financing system for his general election campaign is very troubling. His claim that the public financing system he pledged to adhere to is all of sudden broken does not ring true. The system has not changed since he pledged to participate in it; what has changed is his need to rely on the public financing system to run his campaign. Yet, Mr. Obama, in announcing his decision, chose to conceal his true motive for opting out of the system. His decision and his refusal to be honest about the motivation for his decision raises serious doubts about his credibility on his other promises, including his promise to bring real change to government and the way Washington works. In breaking his promise to work within the public financing system and lying about the reason for it, Mr. Obama has shown his true colors, which must give pause to any who considered voting for him.

when do you start aggressively "fact-checking" that lovable old maverick john mccain. if this is a column almost exclusively dedicated to finding "some merit" in republican charges then it should be labeled as such.
but wait--this is fred hiatt's post.

Typical WaPo! I was waiting for it to become a Republican mouthpiece again. Please start fact-checking your Grand Old Panderer John McCain before you get up on your "fact-check" high horse. Seems like everytime Obama breathes, WaPo has to "fact-check" whether it's oxygen. Fair and unbiased? Please!

To: Joseph | June 20, 2008 7:15 AM
And others.

"....Mr. Obama has shown his true colors, which must give pause to any who considered voting for him."

I'm sure you were standing ready to vote for Obama, until this happened. Or is just another attempt at making mountains out of a mole hills.

I suspect that most people couldn't care less about campaign finance issues.

What does it really mean? Obama has the potential to raise an enormous amount of money.

Going back to Feb 08 is not going back "over a year" to find significant relevance. Take off the blinders. He's no JFK.

Mr. Obama has broken his first promise and he is doing the same thing George W. Bush does, he spins the facts and says "what I meant to say" or he claims he never said....
He's a politician, and politicians lie. He's NOT the God that the media and his supporters make him out to be.

As this "Fact Checker" is an unsigned piece, I will have to assume it is done by a summer intern that has never heard of Google. In about 10 seconds you can go to Obama's most detailed statement on the matter at an op ed in USA Today:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

Does anyone really think McCain would agree to limit the swiftboaters? Please.

He is not only a liar, he is the worst kind: a lawyer. (Read the fine prints!)

Obama loses whatever credibility he had. He say's he will change Washington. He say's he will get rid of the lobby. He say's he will take America in a new direction.

This decision was based on money! CASH! Not some lofty altruistic goal of taking America out of the belly of corruption. It's more of the same old tell em what they wan't to hear then take the cash! CHANGE! YES WE CAN! Is the snake oil still on sale?

Obama's contribution network is composed of more than a million people contributing small amounts of money. How much more publicly financed do you want to be?

To vcsmith: I had been seriously considering voting for Obama. I am no fan of public financing for elections, and I do not hold it against someone that they would opt out of the system. I remain troubled, however, by Obama's dissembling on why he opted out. That he would give such a transparently dishonest answer and expect the public to believe it, shows just how dismissive and disrespectful he is to his supporters and the electorate. If he operates this way before he wins the election, what can we expect from him afterward?

I suggest that any discussion of this issue is not complete without at least some reference to John McCain's use of his wife's corporate jet, which, albeit technically legal, is an example of the "broken" system that gives the candidate with greater personal wealth (or wealthier spouse)a huge advantage.
(See NYT 4/27/08: "McCain Frequently Used Wife's Jet for Little Cost" and 5/10/08: "McCain Plane Still Flying."

The article concluded: "Mr. McCain has said his campaign's method of reimbursing his wife's company for the plane is legal, and no one disputes that. But critics have argued that Mrs. McCain is effectively subsidizing her husband's campaign because either she or her company has to make up for the difference between what his campaign pays for the jet's use and what it really costs to operate it."

Apparently, Obama is too decent to say, "My wife didn't inherit $100 million, and doesn't own a corporate jet. So when my campaign needs to travel, we have to pay full price." But this is the type of thing the media should take note of, before they set to helping McCain bash Obama.

On the larger question, "Is Obama being hypocritical?" Perhaps, but only to the extent that any smart politician is going to exploit every legal advantage. (See, e.g., McCain+wife+jet)

MCain's problem is, when the RNC and GOP 527s start bashing Obama and his family and friends and any distant cousins and casual acquaintances who may have once said something arguably anti-American) -- and you know they will -- it's going to give Obama the perfect opportunity to say, "See what I mean?"

So why is there no mention of McCain opting out of the primary public financing system when he tried to use it to get on the ballot and get loan financing based on his acceptance of it. Now he has taken himself out of it without getting the FEC permission to do so... so he is breaking the law. Why doesn't fact checker check on this? McCain is being hypocritical to criticize Obama when McCain did a flip flop on public financing himself. Why can't the WP be objective here and balance out the score instead of just picking on Obama when McCain is at fault as well. I guess you guys just have to make a controversy so you leave out half the facts. That is poor journalism.

Obama gives new meaning to "public financing" to elections. I'm sending him money for the wise decision on his part. Let's see McCain match Obama dollar for dollar.

Maybe I'm missing something here...Obama is saying he doesn't want to participate in public financing because he is afraid of the RNC and 527's attacking him? Doesn't he have the DNC and 527's on his side? It seems like the playing field is level here. Let his donors give to the DNC or the 527 of their choice instead of his campaign.

It really sounds like Obama, when he made the pledge, was a longshot, and it sounded good. Now that he is in the race he has changed his mind. He sounds more and more like a politician every day. How much change is really here?

Wait a minute, doesn't this represent Obama saving taxpayer dollars, because he has been so successful at raising funds from private donors? Thanks Senator Obama. Well, uh, Senator McBush, are you going to follow suit and save us some more bucks?

If Obama agrees to severely hamper his fundraising ability to make good on some specious promise, he can marvel at just how virtuous he was while watching McCain's inauguration address after the Republicans have buried him alive with a dung heap of smears.

He didn't get where he is today by agreeing to kneecap himself for his opponents.

Donny, You should know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. Obama isn't saving taxpayers anything by opting out. The 80 million he is foregoing is all paid in donations made by taxpayers who choose to check the $3.00 donation on their yearly tax returns. The money is all donated and not taxed. Obama is a snake oil salesman. No different than the rest. The question is do you want the government to run your life or do you want to run your own. Both parties suck but I'll be choosing the lesser of two evils and voting to run my own life.

Who cares that he broke this pledge (made so long ago)! It is such small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. I'm glad he broke it; now he can get on with winning the election. How about checking McCain's runaround on this issue, and hey, speaking of flip-flopper. Didn't McCain, just the day before, break his pledge not to support off-shore oil drilling? Where's your fact checker on this?

So does this mean I can get our $6.00 Presidential Campaign Contribution back that our family elected to donate to both party nominees on our tax form?

Mr. NoBama the public finance system is not broken sir, nor was it broken when you haphazardly made your pledge. What is not so easily repaired is your integrity. And just what are you planning to do with your 200-300 million dollar kitty? Run negative ads?

This is such a ridiculous non-issue. How many people really think it's better for the taxpayers to fund the campaign than for self-chosen donors to do so? Moreover, McCain has blatantly skirted the financing laws already by using the private plane of his wife's family when he was down and out on money. Had McCain had to pay for planes, he never would have made it through the process.

While I agree with the three Pinnochios, I think this is about as important as a fudging of whether Obama prefers Cheerios or corn flakes for breakfast.

Good job, Dobbs. There's no way we can trust this guy.

Jason said:

Both parties suck but I'll be choosing the lesser of two evils and voting to run my own life

Fantastic. So... I guess you'll be fixing your own roads? Transporting your local veterans to the local VA hospital? Teaching at your local school? Inspecting your local chemical plant for emmissions? Chasing down your neighborhood criminals to keep your local streets safe?

If you ever get sick you'll have to face an overwhelmed overpriced health care system, but hey! It's your money right? If you lose your job because the economy goes down the tubes and there's no more jobs in the area, that's just the luck of the draw, correct? If gas reaches five dollars a gallon and stays there for the next three or four years, who cares? If our continued bungling of our foreign policy lowers our standing in the world so much that we can no longer defend the country, well... I guess you can don your own AK-47 and protect your family.

Government matters. Good government can and does improve your life, whether you acknowledge it or not.

This analysis contains one great omission:

What was John McCain's answer to that public financing question from the Midwest Democracy Network?

Answer: Nothing. He refused to answer.

Do you get Pinnochios for that?

Jayne, This is an issue because it goes straight to the heart of the question of Obama's integrity. It's another data point which shows he is willing to say one thing and do another when it suits him. You either stand for and by your principles or you don't. Obama is showing he doesn't. I'm not suggesting that you can never change your mind on a subject but to do so in such a short period of time and then to be dishonest about the reason for doing so is inexcusible and shows Obama's true character.

P.S. to Juan -- it was February 2007, not 2008.

Jon, I never said no government was a good idea. I believe less government is a good idea especially at the federal level. I believe I will make much better choices than the government when it comes to spending my money. If you think federalized health care is a good idea then you are in for a surprise. Free markets will ALWAYS give you better service.

Oh, please. Get over it, GOPers. If McCain thought he could raise a fraction of what Obama has done, and likely will do before the general, he'd opt-out in a heartbeat as well. Why settle for $84 million, which will keep you competative only in states you already expect to win but won't expand the electoral map at all, when the prospect of $250 million is out there? This move may seem bad to some, but it's really pragmatic. Moreover, it's done, and no matter how much you all whine about it, its probably a very smart move for Obama and will pay off dividents in the general.

Ego Nemo:

Perhaps that is because John Sidney McCain has already agreed to accept public financing funds for the general election (although he has every right to decline those funds now that Barack Hussein Obama went back on his word). No wonder he declined 10 town hall meetings. Obama is a sham.

This is a bogus and ignorant analysis. Obama never unconditionally agreed to anything. McCain is the one who has lied and gamed the system and even arguably broken the law, and is clearly trying to have it both ways.

Did Perry Bacon write this? It's shallow enough that it might be his work.

Sounds like your real complaint is with the form. Probably should have give Obama three choices -- yes, no, explain below. To question the explanation of his yes answer seems very thin. I think your analysis gets three or four noses for pettiness. Maybe one more for failing to point out McCain's own vulnerability on this issue (opting in and out of the primary system after using the promise of matching funds to get a loan that allowed his campaign to continue while maintaining the posture of a campaign finance reformer).

alterego1:

I am actually registered Independent, so I believe honoring your word is more important than what is politically expedient. BTW: would you be praising McCain as "very smart" for breaking his word?

Go golf, JakeD...you've done your daily sucking up to whoever writes a bad thing about Obama. Try not to trip over yourself in your feigned outrage.

Egilsson:

Obama, at the very least, pledged to "aggressively pursue" an agreement. Do you think he kept that pledge?

We've heard a lot of back and forth on this issue, the issue of Obama flip flopping, etc, but the real question is: "Why does this issue get more coverage than all of McCains alternating views over the past 8 years"?

Heck, I'd say just give equal coverage to McCain and Obama when they change position and you'll see that McCain has changed position more this year than all candidates that ran for POTUS this year...COMBINED!!!

2008:

I've got a tee time reserved for tomorrow : )

So, Jason, how do you feel about McCain changing his stance on public financing, which he flip-flopped on throughout the primary campaign? On off-shore drilling? The Bush tax cuts? Torture? How about McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal? His wife's theft from charity and her subsequent skating on that theft? If you're worried about a change in policy reflecting character, I hope you're not supporting John McCain. He flips and flops more often than a fish out of water.

Larrien:

Please see "Featured Item" and all the other McCain threads in the Archive.

Four (and in my scale FIVE) Pinocchios for Michael Dobbs running a sham/joke of a "Fact Checker."

HRC & most recently McCain have lied or flipped flopped on issues throughout each of their campaigns and yet the "Oracle" Dobbs seems to overlook this or gives a paltry (one or 2 usually) number of Pinocchios for their mistruths.

Jayne:

Two wrongs don't make a right. I won't vote for McCain either.

Jason,

Its still taxpayers' money! It doesn't matter how you massage, filter it or checkbox it. That money provided by taxpayers that would have gone to Senator Obama's campaign will now go to something else...he does not need the money. Is this the only thing Bush and Cheney's trained chimps have to complain about?

Pretty thin stuff! Good luck McBush supports, you'll need it in November. May the best American win!

TGIF

McCain Breaking the Law in Plain Sight

"I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He's really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain's lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn't really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC -- a Republican -- says McCain cannot do this on his own"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php

AzynAm247:

At least you can admit Obama's "mistruth". Please try convincing the rest above.

i agree with BO choice to fund his own campaign however; he is subjected to being called a flip flopper.......it would not be so bad except that it was not so long ago he and his camp critisized HC for being dishonest. my guess is he is no better than Hil......

FJ:

And, the prior head of the FEC, Michael Toner (also a Republican) opined it was not a violation. Maybe once the FEC gets a quorum, and McCain is sworn in as President, we'll find out what the fine will be if any ...

No harm, no foul? People change? This decision speaks very poorly of Obama. Imagine, two opponents agree to a duel, and agree to use sabres and forgo firearms. Dueling day arrives, Obama pulls out a .45 and blows his opponent away. Hey, situations change, I'm sure Obama would claim he had to do it because his opponent maybe was going to do the same thing.

Nobama.

While I applaud Senator Obama's decision from a fiscal standpoint...he does not need the money, so why should he take it. Kinda like a multi-millionaire drawing social security.

Senator Obama's campaign makes smart moves and intends to win the Presidency thus ending eight years of Bush/Cheney/McBush. The bottom line is that:

* it was Obama's decision;
* it was no on elses;
* no one is harmed by this;
* public funds will be saved as a result;
* this was a smart political move;
* America is not used to "smart" anymore;
* we should get used to "smart" again.

Well done, Senator Obama.

2008:

I've got a tee time reserved for tomorrow : )

Posted by: JakeD
************************

Good for you, Arnold Palmer. It is amazing how someone with no interest in voting for either candidate and claims an independent status feels the pathological need to insert his opinions so frequently. If you are not voting, then frankly your opinions are not worth a bucket of spit. If you have a third party candidate in mind worthy of your vote, let's hear about it.

Frankly I think you are GOP troll combing the papers to find something negative about Senator Obama to stir s**t up.

CR:

He has broken earlier pledges too, such as "I will not run for President".

JakeD, I challenge you to find me a quote where Obama definitely stated he would not run for president ever.

2008:

I have voted for President every 4 years since Truman. Unless McCain can put California in play, I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin.

The purpose of public financing is to get the special interest PACs out of the campaign, and out of politics in general. The rich and powerful have dominated Washington for decades. Now, the Obama campaign has revolutionized politics by financing the majority of its campaign through small-donor contributions. Obama has gone one better than public financing. The millions of small donations he's received represent the democratic process at its finest - Obama's message is getting through to the grassroots and we're responding. Nobody, including the Obama campaign, expected this to be so successful, completely changing the equation on public financing.

McCain, on the other hand, manipulated the public finance system during the primaries, using the funding as collateral for a large loan, then opting out of public financing when there were not enough members of the FEC to enforce the rules he had broken. McCain will, of course, claim that he has taken the high road.

527s change everything. It is clear that (1) McCain has no intent on applying pressure and control to limit their dirty ads - remember what they did to Harold Ford - so therefore there is unlimited money and unknowable outcomes from them - and (2) the campaign financing does not permit the campaign to go after 50 states - why not have a 50-state campaign - and (3) we know more now after and incredibly expensive primary - where campaigning in all states was to the nation's benefit. If a campaign can't use the TV/cable media - there will be millions who only get the news "reporting" of who the candidates are (gosh forbid as I imagine many viewers only watch one network for news!!!!!!!!!!!!) and for Fox viewers - they will definitely get skewed views. And the same goes for other specific news columnists on CNN and MSNBC.

RH:

Your little scenario left out a few details...

What about McCain's little army hiding in the trees with bow-and-arrows?

McCain said he would stop them from firing (to run a respectful campaign), but before the duel could even start he just sat by and let them fire away...

Obama is right to forgo public financing...

The PUBLIC is already financing his campaign!

McCain (via his actions or lack therefore) has shown he had no real intention of curbing 527's

If McCain is unwilling to do that, there's no reason to "aggressively pursue an agreement"

Period.

Yes, Obama is a brilliant politician. Yes, he will change his mind in order to do what's expedient to win the campaign. Yes, he will try to say things that will attract more votes for him to win. Yes, he will call for idealism and taking the 'high road,' while at the same time undermining his opponents with 'low blows'--emotionally loaded quips that denigrate his opponents while misrepresenting their positions.

I'm not concerned whether he can 'play dirty enough to win'. What concerns me is what will he actually do when he wins the election, if he does win. From his record in the U.S. Senate, it is not clear what his priorities are: he voted for tax breaks for the big oil companies, he voted against capping interest rates the big credit card companies are allowed to charge American families, and he also often voted for pro-family legislation, I'm sure. Examinations of his record in the Illinois State Senate show that he missed a critical vote to ban (assault weapons, I believe) because he was on vacation in Hawaii, even though he had been a leader in preparing the legislation. When called by Senate leaders to come back to help with the vote (it failed), he said his daughter was sick and he could not make it. He may not have the strength of commitment needed to be consistently working for American families and workers' interests.

If Obama had the ability to raise hundreds of millions, which he will need to fight the smear campaign against him, and decided instead to take on 84 mill, I would not vote him based on stupidity.

To all of you who are slamming him for being a "liar", please be honest and say that you're for McCain anyway and would never have voted for Obama in the first place.

If you look at it logically, you'd see this is what he must do. Things change with time. He was almost unknown when he first pledged to take public financing. Today is is a fund-raising machine. What is more important and true, is that the public fundraising mechanism is broken.

All of you who say you won't vote for him because of this let me pose the following: if he had eschewed his hundreds of millions and taken the 84, would you vote for him then?

That's what I thought. You are just looking for arguments that promote your already-conceived notion of the way things should be. This is just another way for you to do that.

Jayne:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/11/04/obama_will_not_run_in_2008.html

I can't ever recall seeing a truly OBJECTIVE fact checker for McSame. Obama said he'd participate if there was an agreement between the nominees. If the Federal Election Commission was fully seated, McCain would be facing fines and possible JAIL time. He used the public finance system as collateral for a loan when he was broke and couldn't pay his staff (where was the beer heiress). He's now tried to back out of the system he manipulated. He's spent primary money on the general election and other things that violate the FEC bylaws. Obama broke no laws by changing his position.

Liz:

Wouldn't you be "slamming" McCain if HE was the one to go back on his pledge?

Let me copy for you the very smart posting by Barbara:

"The purpose of public financing is to get the special interest PACs out of the campaign, and out of politics in general. The rich and powerful have dominated Washington for decades. Now, the Obama campaign has revolutionized politics by financing the majority of its campaign through small-donor contributions. Obama has gone one better than public financing. The millions of small donations he's received represent the democratic process at its finest - Obama's message is getting through to the grassroots and we're responding. Nobody, including the Obama campaign, expected this to be so successful, completely changing the equation on public financing.

McCain, on the other hand, manipulated the public finance system during the primaries, using the funding as collateral for a large loan, then opting out of public financing when there were not enough members of the FEC to enforce the rules he had broken. McCain will, of course, claim that he has taken the high road.

...and also Lynn's comments earlier:

"So why is there no mention of McCain opting out of the primary public financing system when he tried to use it to get on the ballot and get loan financing based on his acceptance of it. Now he has taken himself out of it without getting the FEC permission to do so... so he is breaking the law. Why doesn't fact checker check on this? McCain is being hypocritical to criticize Obama when McCain did a flip flop on public financing himself."

This sums it up for me.

iSupreme:

The FEC does not hand out jail time. See my post, above, re: Toner's opinion.

So if 527's change everything, were 527's just recently invented? They were not relevant when Obama highlighted "YES" he would stick with public funding, and furthermore, would aggressively work on improving public financing? And there are no Democrat 527's?

Obama is an excuse-maker. Weak. Instead of announcing his decision like a man, "I opt for this because I'm getting lots of individual contributions and they help me more than public financing", he weasels his way with "It's their fault I had to do it."

Your "fact checking" on this issues is total BS and you know it.

No, Jake D, I wouldn't. And I wouldn't because I tend to look at all of the facts, not just ones with which I already agree. And when I look at all the facts, I agree with the position Obama has taken. I sometimes agree with McCain, too. But, as I've said to you before, I think that given everything we know, Obama is the best person to lead us forward. I know he isn't perfect. But I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for the person who has the intelligence and the judgment and the ability to hear all sides before making decisions.

I would have had a lot more respect for McCain if he had said what is so obviously the truth, which is that if he had found himself in the same situation, he'd have done the same.

You didn't refute anything JakeD. McSame subverted ethics and finance laws knowing the FEC won't be seated by Bush to ever do anything to him. Did Obama break a law? McSame did.

Liz:

If McCain sticks with public financing, I believe your assumption is less than "obvious". Nonetheless, I am looking for the person who has not lied.

This "lie" is predicated on making some assumptions. For example, it assumes that no private back channel discussions were held between the candidates (or even directly between the candidates themselves). Perhaps the 40 minutes of meetings were enough to establish that no agreement could be reached. "Aggressively pursue" does not require that lots of time be spent. It would be equally "aggressive", for example, to go to the McCain campaign and say "We can raise lots of money if we privately finance. But we are willing to engage in public finance if you control the RNC and the 527's. What is the minimum level of control that you will agree to in exchange for our taking public funding". If the McCain answer were so far from the Obama minimum, then it was reasonable not to waste anymore time.

Once again the "Fact Checker" (shouldn't we call this the "Obama Fact Checker" since the questionable statements of others are not "checked") have made a decision based on a surmise as to facts of which he was not actually aware.

iSupreme:

I at least "refuted" the notion that the FEC hands out jail time : )

JakeD stated:

I at least "refuted" the notion that the FEC hands out jail time : )

My Comment:

Another "technically correct" statement. Yes, the FEC does not hand out jail time. NO Federal Agency hands out jail time. Jail can only properly be ordered by a Court pursuant to law. Conduct before the FEC CAN result in Jail time.
If we are giving Obama three noses for the finance claim, you have just earned four.

Assumptions:

So, if the Obama campaign contacted the McCain campaign and asked them to control the sun rising in the East, that would be reasonable and "good faith" negotiations as well?

To those who say this is no big deal, situations change:

Will you be praising Obama after his election if he:

Doesn't attempt to get us out of Iraq,

Doesn't attempt to get universal or even near-universal health care,

Doesn't work across the aisle in a non-partisan way,

Doesn't reduce tensions in the world and doesn't meet with with our enemies,

Doesn't bring a new style of politics to America?

I'm sure that if the going got rough on any of the above, Obama would find a way to redefine his position while at the same time assigning blame to someone else for forcing him to change direction. Obama is great at announcing grand things with a flourish, then backing down, then backing out, and putting the blame on someone. It's getting repetitious.

To all those who think 12 months is 'long ago', given four years in office, how many long agos does that make? How many decisions can you recant? How many flip-flops can you make?

If you publicly push for a higher standard, you don't get to complain about being held to it.

Still voting for Hil' in November... like it or not.

Only the Courts:

Don't forget military tribunals. I am also curious how "technically correct" could ever result in FOUR Pinocchios. According to Dobbs's published criteria, one Pinocchio at worse.

JakeD, we agree??!! WOW!!
Straight Talk broke the LAW!!!

PS
Looked for your post about the jail time.. Couldn't find it. With no Commission, its a moot point anyway.

Jake D wrote:

So, if the Obama campaign contacted the McCain campaign and asked them to control the sun rising in the East, that would be reasonable and "good faith" negotiations as well?

My Comment:

Of course not. But you are "assuming" that this is what happened. You can't say that someone is lying by making an assumption that something happened for which there is no proof. The key is that the Fact Checker stated as "fact" that an agreement was not "aggressively pursued" in the absence of fact. I am not advocating for a check mark of "proof", simply arguing that a finding of a lie is without merit. This is an "unproven" statement, not a lie.

Jake D:

Don't forget military tribunals. I am also curious how "technically correct" could ever result in FOUR Pinocchios. According to Dobbs's published criteria, one Pinocchio at worse.

My Comment:
A military tribunal is a court and sends people to jail pursuant to law. The reason you get four is that it appears that the "new" or "de facto" standard is three for an unproven statement, so a clear "technical" lie gets one more. Thus four.

The Fact Checker has not claimed Obama "lied".

This was his COMPLETE answer to tht QUESTIONAIRE...NOT A PLEDGE...(caps to emphasise this was not a pledge or a promise)

From the Midwest Democracy Network..
Question 1-B

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns
combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of
moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State
Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (DWI)
bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, 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.....................

Now it says McCain pledged..but he did not pledge on paper..and neither did Obama..
This was a questionaire...not a PLEDGE document..
You can read the entire PDF file and all of the Q&A There are responses from Edwards and Obama..No other candidates are listed
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/MDNNATIONALRELEASE.PDF

I hope insted of screaming at Obama..those will also read how McCain has NOT stood by his word..

Military tribunal is a "Federal Agency" within the Executive branch, not a technical court within the Judicial branch. See, Constitution, United States.

What is most offensive and an insult to everyone's intelligence is this attempt to redefine the phrase "public financing" so it also means "private financing."

How Orwellian. Hey, ignorance is knowledge too!

Dear Fact Checker,

Is it true that John McCain ALSO broke the campaign finance laws?

That's something I'd be very interested in knowing too.

RH wrote:
Imagine, two opponents agree to a duel, and agree to use sabres and forgo firearms. Dueling day arrives, Obama pulls out a .45 and blows his opponent away. Hey, situations change, I'm sure Obama would claim he had to do it because his opponent maybe was going to do the same thing.

My Comment:
Do you mean like agreeing with the other candidates that you would withdraw your name from the ballot in a particular state and not campaign in another and that the votes would not count. And then one candidate doesn't do it and claims that the votes should count (and in fact, the votes do end up counting....)

As you may recall at THAT time the Jake D's of the world were arguing that Obama made a bad choice and thus "had to live with it". Perhaps Obama learned that an "agreement" without teeth in it, in the land of politics, is not an agreement. Let's assume for a minute that McCain said that the most that he could do would be to "control" the 527's and the RNC. And Obama agreed to public finance. And because of the absence of any "teeth" in the agreement, the "Swift Boat 527's" and the RNC went to work on Obama. At that point he's screwed (and he can't waste his money complaining about it. That's one of the "wonders" of the Smart Boat technique. If you leave it alone, you "accept" the lie. If you fight it you spend (in the case of a public finance campaign) a portion of your very limited resources on PR that will, at best, limit damage due to a lie.

All you holier than thou Republicans or fake Democrats who get all their news from the Washington Post apparently don't know of John McCain's more egregious violation of campaign finance laws.

Though I disagree with Obama's decision to back out of public finance, at least he did not break the law in plain sight, like John McCain:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php

According to Josh Marshall:

"I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He's really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain's lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn't really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC -- a Republican -- says McCain cannot do this on his own.

Like everything that has to do with campaign finance, the details are a little ... well, detailed. But they're worth understanding. Last February in this episode of TPMtv, we explained just how McCain cheated the campaign finance laws ..."

The next fact-checker should focus on how John McCain has ALREADY flouted campaign finance laws. Why does McCain get a free ride? Why don't Republicans care about these issues when it applies to their own candidates?

Oh wait, this is Fred Hiatt's Washington Post.

JakeD wrote:

The Fact Checker has not claimed Obama "lied".

My Comment:
Sure he has. It is an inherent part of the awarding of "three pinocchios". The standard is "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions". Implicit in this, in this case, is the telling of a lie since no "factual" error is being alleged.

How is "I will not run for President" a pledge? You people are ridiculous.

Obama may have done us one of the best services we could imagine. He may have by himself reformed the fund raising system that has not worked for years. What he has done, like it or not, will create a model that will be used from now on. Times and technology change fast and Obama is on the cutting edge. Mccain should have recognized it from the beginning and put together a team to copy what Obama was doing instead of crying about it. This kind of forward think is exactly why we need someone like Obama in the white house and not a guy who admittedly can't even turn on a computer. At the time Obama talked about accepting money they had not even attempted their fund raising method. Mccain instead of attending 90 fund raisers this month could have been out talking to the American people about his issues instead of hiding behind closed doors begging money. There in lies the problem, Mccain is a candidate who is out of date and out of touch and wants a handicap now for his own ineptness. Obama was not lying because at the time he said it he meant it. But times have changed and the one now should be changing his mind should be Mccain. Mccain should see what a great thing Obama has done and copy it. There is lies another problem though. Mccains lack of ability to be innovative, he has none. His only hope is to try hamstring his opponent rather then run a good smart and campaign himself. This kind of stuff even more so tells me we don't want an antique like John Mccain in the white house.

Clearly, Barack initially thought that he could get more money via pubic financing than he would from donations. When it became obvious that was not the case, he changed his mind. That does not make him a liar.

Clearly, McBush cannot raise nearly as much money as Barack, so he complains about Obama's change of position. Get over it.

"Significant factual error" is that Obama "aggressively pursue[d]" an agreement on public financing.

let's see...
obama promised to participate in the public financing system, if certain terms and conditions were met.
he gave his word to do that.
he attempted to negotioate with mccain concerning those terms and conditions, as acknowledged by all parties concerned.
accordidng to mccain, he did not "aggressively" pursue those particular terms and conditions, as he had indicated he would do, as evidenced by the time spent in negotiations.
somehow, someway, this failure to adequately "aggressively" pursue these negotiations qualifies as some sort of lie or untruth.
to come to that conclusion requires that one make a determination about the seriousness of BOTH SIDES as they participated in these truncated negotiations.
the post's supposed fact checker conveniently neglects to do this, concentrating solely on obama's acts of omission and commission.
pointedly, the post's fact checker neglects to address mccain's refusal to do ANYTHING to reign in malicious 527 groups working on his behalf. mccain's statement that he essentially had no control or influence over those groups is an essential element in any discussion of the "facts" of this problem.
again, this essential fact is mysteriously omitted from any discussion here.
in the meantime, mccain arguably continues to VIOLATE THE LAW on public financing spending limits during the primary season and to the best of my knowledge, the supposed fact checker has not written A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THIS POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW!
does anyone need to know any more about the real intent of this writer's work?

In Obama's recent released statement, at least, he acknowledged that he is not against public financing; however, he did give his reasoning for choosing to be supported by The People through this process. So what?

WaPo writer, do not be jealous that the Repub team hasn't attracted such a roots network, and inspired people to do the same. Call it what you will, but I find that ultimately, Obama has done no harm. McCain is just ticked, that's all. There is nothing wrong here.

Ms Molly:

Are you serious.

JakeD:

Stop flailing wildly buddy, looks girly... It took an "agressive 40 minutes" to understand that McSame was full of it.

Did anyone else see the Venn diagram last night on the Colbert Report?

JakeD,

No doubt Obama has flipped flopped or changed his positions...more recently changes in NAFTA, troop withdrawal from Iraq and campaign financing. Those are all errors on his part and he'll have to deal with them.

I just want policies, errors and flip-flops from BOTH candidates to be ACCURATELY investigated, analyzed and scrutinized with equal zeal, vigor and effort by all media outlets and for it to be lopsided in terms of presentation.

McCain has been given a big-time pass so far by the press on his gaffes, hypocrisy and flip-flopping of issues. I imagine this will continue throughout the election.

Michael Dobbs pawning this blog as a true "Fact Checker" is ridiculous and skewed..mostly like due to his own political leanings and/or personal bias. He's not the "independent" arbiter that he says or beleives he is.

Is changing your mind and explaining it a lie? Is adapting to change and accepting those changes a lie? Is recognizing that change is necessary a lie? No, It is the only way to efficiently function. You never say never because you don't know what is around the corner. I would hope a candidate would have the brains to recognize the right way to go. Let Mccain stumble around in circles and let him do his town hall meetings to 200 people and let him have to beg for money from big donors spending more time fund raising then campaigning. The more I see Obama the more I love this guy and the more I see Mccain the more I see everything I want to get away from. If Mccain was a corporation he would be driven out of business by innovation. He just doesn't get it. that's fine for his campaign and his own personal life for that matter, but not running our country. We don't need someone who proves over and over and over again they just can't lead us in a new progressive direction. We can't keep listening to fools and that is what Mccain is, nothing but an old antiquated fool. Mccain won't lead us forward, he will drag us backwards.

Anyone can change their minds, either candidate should say so and give their reasons behind the change, then the lazy media won't harp on the issue over and over again and blow things out of proportion.

And of course, the candidates have to give their responses in the most simplest of ways and simplest of vocabulary. Otherwise, the obtuse and neanderthal voters out there won't comprehend it...e.g. the Humanoids as Bobby "the Brain" Heenan of WWF/E would put it. Hahaha.

But news is entertainment now, so whatever is good for the ratings or subscription is wherever the dumb and lazy flock of cattle will do.

You mean "backwards" like when marriage was one man and one woman or when abortion was illegal?

I like what one poster said about if Mccain was a company he would be driven out of business.
Mccain is probably like the last guy who was manufacturing typewriters still thinking these new fangled computers are just a fad. "They will never be able to make a computer anyone can afford" he will be telling his employes. "You don't want to buy that Microsoft stock, keep your retirement money in my company" "We have a whole new line of typewriters coming out next year that will set the typewriter industry on it's ear".

Sorry but he needs to recheck his fact checker again!!! Mccain didnt commit to public fiancing until late yesterday.... in addition washington post needs to watch keith olbermann sometimes... he laid it out last night in detail with previous "quotes" and the whole questionaire were obama gave a more indept explanation on his stance on public fiancing. Bottomline if mccain could even raise as much money as obama could mccain would back out of public fiancing himself. In conclusion mccain is hating!! LOL

McCain sure looked ghoulish when he spoke in New Orleans two weeks ago after the final Democratic primary results were just about it.

The forced smiles on his face was hilarious during his speech...e.g. Insert SMILE here...

More like you and I would be exchanging letters today instead of instantly communicating from all over the world. This is a time when things are moving so fast this little thing with the putting up a website and raising a few bucks should have been a given for every candidate. Heck, TV preachers have been doing it for years. Mccain wants to go back to standing on a corner with a tin cup I guess saying "I am running for president , can you give me some change"? This campaign has been an insight into the candidates more then any time in history. In all my voting years I have never been more certain then I am this year who to vote for and I don't think i am alone.

++++++++++
You mean "backwards" like when marriage was one man and one woman or when abortion was illegal?

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2008 11:54 AM

ronda:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is so funny; watching all the haters throw temper tantrums every time Obama breaths incorrectly. This GE is going to be worse than the a$$ whoopin' the C's handed to the Lakers. McCain is a squirel in the road, and Obama is barrelling down that road in an 18 wheeler with no brakes. The GOP knows this. They probably just threw McCain out there as a sacrifice, sorta like Alan Keys in Illinoise during the senate race. The a$$ beating you can see coming a mile away.

Yea it was like is was written on a script, "Now you smile". He is truly a scary guy, I have no idea what he is thinking most of the time, I just down right don't trust him. I think he is weak maybe even a little stupid. This guy is not presidential timber, far from it. I can't get past his having graduated next last in his class something like 896 out on 899. His entire life is totally unremarkable both before and after he was in the war.

+++++++
McCain sure looked ghoulish when he spoke in New Orleans two weeks ago after the final Democratic primary results were just about it.

The forced smiles on his face was hilarious during his speech...e.g. Insert SMILE here...

Posted by: AzynAm247 | June 20, 2008 12:07 PM

I'm afraid/concerned though that ghoulish McCain could win the GE. It would set the country back 40 years. Obama needs to pick up some swing states.

Fear motivates, there is nothing to be afraid of. Get out there and work for your candidate. Mccain is going to find all he is doing with his type of negative campaigning is awaking a giant in the form of the American people. Every attack is a call to rededicate yourself to your goals. Attacks don't break people down, it galvanizes them.

+++++++++++
I'm afraid/concerned though that ghoulish McCain could win the GE. It would set the country back 40 years. Obama needs to pick up some swing states.

Posted by: AzynAm247 | June 20, 2008 12:30 PM

I think that 3 Pinocchios is fair. Obama has not kept his word about staying within the public financing system. But, in the end, who cares? Elections are all about fighting the war the best that you can, and using every tool within your arsenal to make sure you come out the winner. Since there will be a lot more Democrats out there voting this year, there's no reason why Obama should be hamstrung by John McCain's lousy appeal to the general public. Republicans don't have any qualms about using every dirty trick up their sleeve. Why should Democrats worry about changing their mind on the public financing issue, when we all know that it's money, money and more money that wins elections? No, two wrongs don't make a right. But, then again, 4 or 8 more years of bad Republican leadership don't make a right, either.

Well, at least we can agree on the "Two wrongs don't make a right" part ; )

There was a time people fought duels over politics. Political conventions turned into riots. It is not for the faint of heart for sure. This new kind of "whining all the time" and tattle tail politics can be sickening. I don't care what they say about each other. People aren't swayed by stuff like we often read here. People make up their minds and it doesn't turn on a rumor of innuendo. In the end you can't fool people. Even with George Bush, people were not necessarily fooled, had it not been for 9/11 he may have been a great president who knows. Unfortunately history put him in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think with the new modern age and challenges facing us Mccain is the wrong person for this time. In fact maybe as bad as you could get. I remember him saying a few weeks ago he thinks we should go to Mars attempting to sound progressive and forward thinking. I wish someone would have just yelled out, "Why". I doubt he would have had an answer. He was just saying it because it sounded good, at least to him.

+++++++++++
I think that 3 Pinocchios is fair. Obama has not kept his word about staying within the public financing system. But, in the end, who cares? Elections are all about fighting the war the best that you can, and using every tool within your arsenal to make sure you come out the winner. Since there will be a lot more Democrats out there voting this year, there's no reason why Obama should be hamstrung by John McCain's lousy appeal to the general public. Republicans don't have any qualms about using every dirty trick up their sleeve. Why should Democrats worry about changing their mind on the public financing issue, when we all know that it's money, money and more money that wins elections? No, two wrongs don't make a right. But, then again, 4 or 8 more years of bad Republican leadership don't make a right, either.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 20, 2008 12:53 PM

As of McCain's "type of negative campaigning" since when is pointing out the truth "negative"?

Yeah...he changed his mind. Unlike Bush who refuses to alter his opinion despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary. Some might call that good judgement. I'm almost 50 and had never before contributed to a presidential campaign. I am now proud to be one of those "Obamabots" who's small contributions have and will continue to have an impact on the outcome of this election. Bye bye George and Dick. God and history will be your judge.

I read what you write and I have to ask you. Do you really like Mccain and honestly he is thew perfect guy in this time and place?
Or are you just a loyal republican willing to follow them over a cliff? I find it hard to believe any thinking person can think Mccain is the guy we need., I am sorry.

+++++++++++++
As of McCain's "type of negative campaigning" since when is pointing out the truth "negative"?

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2008 1:14 PM

I don't "like" McCain, nor am I asking for "perfect". Just don't lie. For the record, if the election were held today, I would vote for Chuck Baldwin.

Dobbs = Partisan Hack

When Dobbs gives McCain three Pinocchos, he's a "partisan hack" too? I mean, get real. Or, at least, get a user name.

JakeD -- as usual, you overstate the case of what Obama said about running. Does the truth ever matter to you?

Time to reveal the real faces and true colors of both candidates. Let the game begin.

Yes. Please prove that I overstated the case.

Hmph... McCain already got himself into hot water with the public financing system due to his loan in the Primary. So, he announced he was going to use public financing yesterday afternoon - after Obama made his decision, clearly in an attempt to show contrast between them and to game the system. McCain has been the presumptive nominee for months now and has been using private funding, but now that he is being investigated for FEC violations he flip flopped back to public money. He realized that he cannot get the private backing he hoped for (only 10% of Bush's donors are donating to McCain), he has to rely on the big money advantage of the RNC, which is full of Lobbyists, Corporations, etc. Whereas, Barack Obama is is going to rely on the 2 million people who ensured his nomination by donating less than $100 - now that's public financing!

We should not be demonizing Barack's finance reform revolution! We the People of this great nation have found out through this campaign that we can have as much if not more impact than big corporations by banding together and giving small donations to make sure that our voices are heard. He does not take PAC or Lobbyist money and neither does the DNC now - but the RNC has no qualms towing the line for big money. Campaign fund raising will never be the same. I am so proud to be involved in this new kind of governing!

And then prove that I "usually" overstate my cases (usually, I am simply asking honest questions).

Tane:

Private financing = public financing?!

That sounds really close to "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

Less then 1 in 10 check the box

+++++++++
Tane:

Private financing = public financing?!

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2008 2:20 PM

I was never good at fuzzy math, but doesn't 2 million people donating less than $100 each = less than $200 million? Where did Barack Hussein Obama get all the rest of his money?

Interesting:
Republicans have hammered Michelle Obama for her remarks in February that she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult life." Tonight, however, Dan Abrams showed footage he uncovered of a Fox News interview with John McCain on March 13, 2008, in which McCain said, "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

Amazing. What a hypocrite.

So much for C-H-A-N-G-E.

So Obama, with three years of government experience, is already doing things like this?

How can we elect a man with no experience and no record of leadership!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people are unbelievable!

"1 in 10" = more than 30 million Americans. That is certainly more "public" than TWO million. Regardless, I'm using the FEC definitions.

Uncovered of a Fox News interview with John McCain on March 13, 2008, in which McCain said, "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

Posted by: | June 20, 2008 2:30 PM

And he talking about when he was in a POW CAMP you idiot!!!!

Nice try. Check your facts.

McCain flip flopped also about campaign money, but the only difference here is the fact that no one would give a damn if Obama changed his mind and he has the right to do so, he has broken in laws, but McCain can't raise money and hasn't been able to raise that much since he got in the race from the beginning, so now this jackass antique want to be a cry baby. Tell McCain, he doesn't have room to critisize anyone, and tell him to payback the money he owes for riding on his $100,000,000 dollar's wife that he cheated with the money for riding on her plain. What a hypercrit McCain is. Let his supporter do what Obama supporters are doing, sending in small amounts of money,for all his supporter so he can't be bought.

Independent:

I just hope there's no race rioting when John Sidney McCain is elected President of the United States.

Interesting that the Fact Checker was MIA when John McCain signed up for public financing of his primary bid ... took out a loan based on that funding ... then reneged. If the FEC had a quorum (which W certainly won't let happen before November now) he'd be subject not just to campaign rhetoric but fines and sanctions. But the Fact Checker must have been busy when that running of the "straight talk express" took place.

Sheila:

Were you similarly critical of John Kerry's wife?

McCain can say he will take the public financing with $25+ million of RNC money behind him. If Obama would take public financing he would $3.5+ million of DNC money behind him. I wonder how long it took Obama to make a decision. WWKRD?

If McCain doesn't like it he should take Obama to court (he can't) for breach of contract (there isn't any).

Independent wrote: "And he [sic] talking about when he was in a POW CAMP you idiot!!!!"

What difference does that make? Whether someone is twisting McCain's words to make it seem as though it took his imprisonment in a POW camp to make him truly love his country, or twisting Michelle Obama's words to make it seem as though it took her husband winning the Democratic nomination to make her truly proud of her country, it's all about twisting someone's words to make him/her look bad. There isn't validity in either effort. I don't doubt for even a nanosecond that both John McCain and Michelle Obama both love their country and are tremendously proud of America. These petty tactics of trying to gain votes by making the other person seem un-American will not play well in Peoria, or just about any other part of this country. So both sides should get over it, and move onto something that doesn't make them both look asinine.

YOU GUYS ARE BIAS. THROUGHOUT THE PAST 3 WEEKS MCCAIN HAS MADE SEVERAL MISTAKES,GAFFES, EMBARRASSING SPEECHES, HAS RENEGE ON EVERY ISSUE BUT HE NEVER WAS TALKED ABOUT LIKE OBAMA. THE TRUTH IS MCCAIN IS PANDERING TO THE RADICAL RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS AND THEY DO NOT REPRESENT ALL AMERICAN SO VOTE OBAMA.

In doing my morning exercise, one of the songs on my iPod is Boston's "A Man I'll Never Be". A portion of the song:

Girl, you look up at me
and somewhere in your mind, you still see
a man
I'll never be

Fits Obama to a tee.

Are you giving new borns, pre teens and, teen now the right to vote?
Based on the last election it would would be around 10 million and at $3.00 each only thirty million total. Obama can raise more then that by himself in two weeks.
++++++++++++
"1 in 10" = more than 30 million Americans. That is certainly more "public" than TWO million. Regardless, I'm using the FEC definitions.

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2008 2:34 PM

Whew! I was worried that the MTV generation wouldn't be weighing in today. We all know how important it is to have a soundtrack for life. Perhaps McCain's supporters can adopt Beck's "Loser" as their theme song.

Of course, that is the ridiculousness of it. You can take any words out of context just as Mrs. Mccain did about Mrs. Obama. It cuts both ways. When Mrs. Mccain said she doesn't know about Mrs. Obama because she has always been proud of her country. Mrs. Obama can just as easily say she can't identify with Mrs. Mccain since she has never been a drug addict or arrested as a thief for stealing from her own charity she was a director of. Like I said, it cuts both ways.

++++++++++
Uncovered of a Fox News interview with John McCain on March 13, 2008, in which McCain said, "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

Posted by: | June 20, 2008 2:30 PM

And he talking about when he was in a POW CAMP you idiot!!!!

Nice try. Check your facts.
Posted by: Independent | June 20, 2008 2:37 PM

Maybe I'm missing something here...Obama is saying he doesn't want to participate in public financing because he is afraid of the RNC and 527's attacking him? Doesn't he have the DNC and 527's on his side? It seems like the playing field is level here. Let his donors give to the DNC or the 527 of their choice instead of his campaign.

It really sounds like Obama, when he made the pledge, was a longshot, and it sounded good. Now that he is in the race he has changed his mind. He sounds more and more like a politician every day. How much change is really here?
=========================================
Stop getting your news from sound bites. Obama restricted the DNC from using 527s and PACs as soon as he was named the presumptive nominee.

I hope he is a politician, I hope he knows how to play the game. As far as fund raising he has rewritten the rules of how things can be done. Mccain is about to be run over and he knows it and is scared to death. Wouldn't you think the last few days in the news would have brought in a ton of money for Mccain from the public if they wanted him and supported him? His own supporters won't give him any money. How much have you contributed? I have given a lot to Obama and will give more.

++++++++
Maybe I'm missing something here...Obama is saying he doesn't want to participate in public financing because he is afraid of the RNC and 527's attacking him? Doesn't he have the DNC and 527's on his side? It seems like the playing field is level here. Let his donors give to the DNC or the 527 of their choice instead of his campaign.

It really sounds like Obama, when he made the pledge, was a longshot, and it sounded good. Now that he is in the race he has changed his mind. He sounds more and more like a politician every day. How much change is really here?

Donny, You should know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. Obama isn't saving taxpayers anything by opting out. The 80 million he is foregoing is all paid in donations made by taxpayers who choose to check the $3.00 donation on their yearly tax returns. The money is all donated and not taxed. Obama is a snake oil salesman. No different than the rest. The question is do you want the government to run your life or do you want to run your own. Both parties suck but I'll be choosing the lesser of two evils and voting to run my own life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The $3 deduction is tax payer monies. The money given to candidates by the government is not printed specifically for that purpose. It is "donated" by tax payers.

Opting out relieves Senator Obama from being restricted to the $85M that he would have received. In the past candidates have been able to subsidize that amount by having others (527s and PACs) run their adds, distribute their fliers and other costly adventures that are associated with running a campaign. Senator Obama opted out of that also by cutting off the 527s and PACs. The one draw back to this is that he can only request that they do not undertake any such ventures on his behalf, he can not mandate it.

This is such a non issue to everyone but the Mccain blusterers. I respect Obama's methods of funding his campaign. If you want to fact check - follow mccain around for a day or two and fact check him - with all his flip flopping you have your work cut out for you!

Unfortunately the last election that money only totaled thirty million from the public making a defect of a hundred and fifty million to be picked up by the tax payers.

++++++++++++
Donny, You should know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. Obama isn't saving taxpayers anything by opting out. The 80 million he is foregoing is all paid in donations made by taxpayers who choose to check the $3.00 donation on their yearly tax returns. The money is all donated and not taxed. Obama is a snake oil salesman. No different than the rest. The question is do you want the government to run your life or do you want to run your own. Both parties suck but I'll be choosing the lesser of two evils and voting to run my own life.

I find the "Oh but Mccain is an even bigger liar" defence being used by Obamabots here quite disgusting.

ALL politicians are manipulative hypocrites, but only your messianic candidate has built his entire candidacy on the claim that he is above the "Old Politics".

He evidently isn't.

Remove Obama's integrity and his campaign collapses like a house of cards because all he has left is borrowed policies, no experience and a cracking impersonation of Martin Luther King.

What people like you don't get is, We don't care. Whether it was Hillary or Obama you are on your way out. If in four years Obama was not the answer who cares compared to the continued damage that can be done by Mccain and his crew.
GET IT NOW, WE DON'T CARE, WE WILL TAKE OUR CHANCES.
and there is a lot of us.

++++++++++
I find the "Oh but Mccain is an even bigger liar" defence being used by Obamabots here quite disgusting.

ALL politicians are manipulative hypocrites, but only your messianic candidate has built his entire candidacy on the claim that he is above the "Old Politics".

He evidently isn't.

Remove Obama's integrity and his campaign collapses like a house of cards because all he has left is borrowed policies, no experience and a cracking impersonation of Martin Luther King.

Posted by: Jerry | June 20, 2008 3:26 PM

Seems to me that if he has unlimited funds and cannot use them if he goes with public funding, it just makes sense to use the money! The candidate with the most money generally wins, so why would he limit himself if he's ahead?
Yes he said one thing and is doing another but it seems like a non issue if he made a better decision in the end. Just let it go-seriously, 24 hour news must perforce make mountains out of molehills so that they have something to talk about endlessly.
Bigger question: who are the fools that contribute $3 of their taxes to public elections? I know it's so the public money could fund 'poor' candidates, but have we ever had anyone run for president who wasn't a millionaire?

When did John McCain EVER agree to forego ALL privately funded campaigning and rely COMPLETELY on public funds for ALL campaigning? Oh yeah, NEVER.
___________________________________________

The Wash Post is angry at Obama because he doesn't need the MSM to support his campaign with editorials, "fact-checkers" or fawning articles. In other words, the WP is irrelevant because Obama can raise funds independently and his advertising can overwhelm the Post and other MSM.
___________________________________________

Obama is not foolish enough to believe that the Repub party won't fund raise for McCain and 527s won't take up a cudgel for McCain just like they did against Kerry.

A pure publicly financed system would be great, but what we have is a patch-work of regulations that don't regulate political fund raising or advertising. Until the system works correctly, forget it.

Obama should take public financing because that $1 that people volitioanally add to their taxes in exchange for candidates following fundraising rules is the most democratic way to have small donors- much more than taking 52% of your money from "bundlers" (who often are corporate boards or interst groups) and 48% from individual small donors

Leon

By the way, it was Al Gore playing nice that may have gotten us into this mess we are in. He won the election and let it be stolen away from him without even a fight. I am depending on Obama to not be such a fool. He better fight tooth and nail because we need him. Me personally, I don't give a sh&t what Obama does to win as long as he wins. So Mr. Mccain, you better get over it because Obama isn't Al Gore, he isn't going to just roll over. None of us are going to just roll over, not this time. I can't do much but I can give a hell of a lot of money if it helps to get the Republicans out and Obama in, I can do that.

What a persistent bunch of Gutless Wonders!
You mean to tell me that if McCain was in the reverse position opposite Obama that he would agree to Public Financing? Even with the chance that a 527 or two would come out of nowhere, and his advertising dollars would be limited to the point where he can't answer back? Wait a minute! Didn't such an attack happen to McCain during the primary?

You want to call Obama Pinocchio?! I want to call him Smart.

So, if it takes The One shooting and killing McCain to win, so be it?

No, but I have a tenant from Haiti who does Santería, she is a priestess of some kind. Maybe I can get her to whip me up a Mccain voodoo doll I can stick pins in.

++++++++++
So, if it takes The One shooting and killing McCain to win, so be it?

Posted by: JakeD | June 20, 2008 3:58 PM

People like me? What the hell do you know about me? I'm a liberal democrat, but unlike you, clearly, I have principles. I am GENUINELY disgusted by this blatant hypocrisy, not just when it's purpetrated by Republicans.

I get it all right. You DON'T CARE if Obama lies for political expediency, so long as he represents what you want. You're just as big a hypocrite as he is.
++++++++++++++++++++
What people like you don't get is, We don't care. Whether it was Hillary or Obama you are on your way out. If in four years Obama was not the answer who cares compared t