Obama made exactly the right move today and decided to forgo public financing in the general election and instead rely on the small donor funding model he's successfully constructed in the primary.

He has? I haven't heard anything to that effect. (Obama's camp has been saying that they'll make the decision if/when Obama becomes the nominee.) If you could provide a link confirming this, Ezra, that would be greatly appreciated.

What really kills public financing is the existence of 527s. They can raise unlimited cash from a handful of donors and attack a candidate who has to stay within a limited budget. Obama's reliance on small donors is as clean as campaign finance can get under the current system.

Yeah, I'm sure the Republicans will get just tons of mileage from talking about campaign financing, since they've been so clear and principled about it for the last dozen plus years.

Once the Democrats win the presidency and get an overwhelming turnout to boost their numbers in both the House and Senate, then we might have some honest discussions of public subsidized and or properly regulated campaign finances.

Until then, it's just so much K-street bellyaching.

The liberal blogosphere's obsession with political money is its greatest weakness, IMHO. Tortured arguments about how chosen candidates can implement their policies or vision "through" small-donor-based fundraising are an enormous crock of shit. They only serve to take the focus away from our elected legislators (and executives) actually doing what we want them to do (or not). The current disastrous Congress is the greatest example of this, when the netroots contented itself with raising money in 2006 and is now left impotently whining about disappointments. We have very powerful ideological enemies within the party, individuals who are very happy to take our money and give back shit.

Without a conscious intra-blogospheric discussion about what went wrong with this Congress, we are going to be left angry with the next Democratic administration.

Hillary's definitely right on this. How can we trust someone who breaks "pledges"? Despite the enormous advantage it would give her, Hillary has stood by the pledge she made prior to Iowa, N.H., S.C. and Nevada not to count the Florida and Michigan delegates. Oh, wait.

The issue driving campaign costs is advertising. Clearly we should have public provided advertising the same as public healthcare.
The government should mandate lower cost prices for advertising for politicians, same as we reduce doctors pay for procedures under Medicare.

I would say papers and magazines only need 1/4 of what they actually charge, so the government should step in and mandate that price for all politicians in all campaigns.

Of course this will not drive papers and magazines to charge other people more...because you see healthcare cost has not gone up for those not under a government plan due to government mandates....have they??

It will take a very different political context before this nation can ever discuss intelligently the simply, plain, and highly expected reality that the political system is dominated by its uppermost classes, and that the primary means of doing so in the electoral system is via the campaign finance system -- through both determining likely candidates and through attempting to vary the likelihood of winning.

As long as the system is discussed as related to some moral degree of commitment by individual candidates instead of making the electoral system fundamentally less plutocratic, the discussions will continue to turn in navel gazing directions.

Ezra,

do you have a link for this? I'm not seeing it anywhere else in the news. Are you basing it all on that sheister Wolfson's spin?

This is pretty shoddy "journalism."

yeah, what's up with the no link? this is silly

Marshall-- The ultimate goal would be complete public financing because then anyone with significant support could run for office. Right now you need sufficient support among a very elite group of people, or you're not likely to be able to run a serious campaign for public office. The only thing you should absolutely need to get elected is votes.

Run a Google News search. The Obama campaign has retreated from saying they'll use public financing to "we'll decide later." It's all there in the public domain, kids. As for me, I'm commenting on Wolfson's letter, so that's what you get.

It's not clear what Obama decided "today." Or, even, what Obama "decided" this week, except to postpone deciding anything.

Don't blame the kids, Ezra -- it's a confusing opening line!

Yeah, seriously Ezra, I think you've overstated things here.
All Obama's done is to say nothing's been pledged.

Still, I think Obama has an easy way out of this. All he has to do is state that his objective from the beginning was to limit the role big money was playing in presidential politics. By relying on a base of donors contributing small amounts, he's done just that.

Ouch. A second time I have to defend ObamaNation. Gotta stop reading here.

"Last year, Senator Obama pledged to take public financing in the general election if the Republican nominee agreed to do so as well."

The (presumptive) Republican nominee (that "73-year-old white man," as TDS's Black Correspondent described him last week) has specifically BACKED OFF from taking Public Funding. While his campaign has not officially declared that he will not take public funds, it is being certain to leave itself in a position where it does not have to do so.

Obama's campaign hasn't committed to not remaining committed to public funding because the Republican is specifically maneuvering not to do so.

He'll only be breaking the promise if, by some miracle, McCain stays with public financing. Nothing indicates that that will be the case.

"Obama made exactly the right move today and decided to forgo public financing in the general election and instead rely on the small donor funding model he's successfully constructed in the primary."

This is just patently false Ezra, and I can't believe you are defending that statement. Nothing has been decided. Your refusal to admit you are wrong (just like you were on Obama town halls) is really reaching Joe Klein levels of absurdity.

I like Obama, but he's a politician and sometimes he'll do self-serving and opportunistic things. He'll have to, or he'll never be elected or get anything done. I'd suggest you all come to terms with that. There's no sense in shooting the messenger. It's just the kind of thing you have to learn to accept, within reason.

You can all pretend that nothing got decided, but we all know that it did. It's not even the wrong decision. We will NEVER have a better public financing system so long as the current one hobbles along.

We criticize the media for only stating what the campaigns state, for being stenographers. We're right to do so. Now half of you are criticizing Ezra for stating what everyone knows, just because the campaign hasn't come right out and said it? Personally, I'd prefer an honest accounting of what's going on to the official version. We all know what this means, why pretend we don't?

I understand defending your candidate and all, but this is a little silly. It's a non-issue that nobody will really care about. To the extent they will, Obama pretty much has the googoo vote already and this isn't going to lose it for him.

Soullite, my confusion is over what exactly happened today>/i>. I saw Ezra's post and thought the Obama campaign had made a definitive announcement or something. Far as I can tell, they didn't. Hence, confusion.

You can make the argument that they've already 'decided', but that's an interpretation of some far more ambiguous statements they've made. While it's a very possibly correct interpretation, it needs to be backed up a little,

That's all!

Obama's small donor base is fantastic but let's not forget that through at least the first three quarters of 2007 the majority of his funding came from large donors. There was a reason early 2007 was called "the money primary" when he and Clinton were fighting for all the big fundraisers and bundlers. Candidates still have to rely too much on large donors and moneymen early in the process to launch their campaigns.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070725obama,1,5894874.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

I agree it's a silly non-issue, but the way Ezra continues to play loose with the facts is not.

He stated that the issue has been decided, but gave no reasoning or evidence as to why he knows that is the case. He stated that the Wolfson memo was in response to Obama's decision, yet there is also no evidence that it was in response to anything other than the Clinton camp trying to score a few cheap points.

Seriously, the Klein boys are having a really hard time with reading comprehension lately...and admitting mistakes.

Ezra,
This isn't a close call. The first line of your post states clearly that Obama has decided to forego public financing. That's just plain false.
He's said that he'll address the question once he's the nominee -- which is entirely consistent with his response to the League of Women Voters that he'd aggressively pursue such an agreement with the Republican nominee.
Is that a hard to grasp distinction: forego public financing vs. talk about it later?

Turns out that Obama hasn't broken any pledges. Details at Yglesias.

Wow, Obama supporters are mendacious. He said he would enter an agreement about public financing. A year later he is "reconsidering" it. He broke his pledge. It was the smart thing to do, but good god people he still did it.

Obama didn't forgo public financing. He's just kicking the can down the road. If he thinks he can win a "straight talk" shootout with John McCain, he's nuts. That Obama-ade you're drinking should be illegal.

Lmao, They decided to kick it down the road because they have already decided not to take public financing, but don't want to announce it until they already have the nomination.

That's whats going on here, and everyone knows it. Some people just want to pretend that that isn't what's going on here. Ezra just wrote the reality of the situation, that's all. I would prefer that to the polite fictions that reporters usually like to deal in.

At the same time, people have ot understand why Obama supporters are doing this. They are looking at a half a year of the media smearing Obama as a corrupt, chicago politician and pretending that John McCain is a straight talking Saint. There's going to have to be a lot of push-back against that.

"decided to forgo public financing"

I wasted five minutes searching cause I thought I'd missed something. (Stupid me, shoulda gone to the comments first.) C'mon Ezra, just say oops, sorry, and try not to do it again.

I would have to go with those who say the first graph is misleading. It's a stretch to say that something that big was decided today. I too looked for a link to a news story announcing that O. "decided to forgo public financing," but there is no news story of that type.

If you're making a sly point about the Clinton's press operation getting ahead of reality, well, okay. They are indeed doing that.

Wow, Obama supporters are mendacious

Why yes. Yes we are. All of us. Every last one. How clever of you to have noticed.

Ezra,
I am seriously starting to question your intelligence or objectivity, or both. This is the same old song and dance we hear from the mainstream media about Obama and I had hoped that you were immune from that type of bias and ignorance, but obviously you are not. This has very little to do with public financing and everything to do with Obama's hypocrisy. Obama is not being criticized for not taking public financing. He is being criticized for going back on what he has promised. The issue is not public financing, it is if Obama is a different kind of politican as he claims or not. It is not what Obama does that is the problem, it is the difference between what he says he is going to do and what he actually does that is important. Obama is able to lie with impunity because the first response to anything he does that he has promised not to do is that the person criticizing him does whatever it is that he has broken his promise not to do. That is totally irrelevant. Obama does exactly what every other politican does, whatever he has to to win. He lies about that and you and the rest of the press continue to ignore that. People can't legitimately criticize others for doing what they themselves have done. They can point out the rank hypocrisy of someone like Obama criticizing them for doing the exact same things that he himself is doing. You and the rest of the media's refusal to acknowledge and highlight the politics of hypocrisy that is the Obama campaign is a disgrace.

Here in Oregon we have a $50 credit on our state taxes for contributions to political campaigns within the state. A similar credit at the national level could go a long way towards encouraging small donors and more involvement in politics by citizens.

After all, a $1 contribution to the matching fund isn't much of a buy-in. But a $50 donation to a campaign makes you feel like your are invested in the result.

"Obama made exactly the right move today and decided to forgo public financing in the general election"

"The Obama campaign has retreated from saying they'll use public financing to "we'll decide later.""

Now look at those two quotes, Ezra. Don't you notice they're not compatible? The folks here rightly criticized that they haven't heard anything about the decision you write about. As an answer, you ridicule them, and point to a statement saying that the campaign won't decide yet. D'oh.

Hellooooo, McKlein, anybody home?

"Ezra just wrote the reality of the situation, that's all."
Uh huh. Did he hire a mindreader or did he use a crystal ball? Well, maybe he has a mole inside the campaign. However, he gave us no notice about the source of his "information".
Come on, he presented guesswork as fact, and this isn't really up to the usual level of reporting here. Gladly, this isn't a gossip site. Yet.

Get off Ezra's back!

It matters little if Obama takes or doesn't take public financing - the point is BOTH are LEGAL in this country.

The problem is the Clintons will be taking ILLEGAL foriegn money just like they did last time from the Chinese. We already have reports that Hillary was pocketing 1,000 dollar donations from minimum wage making Chinese immigrants - CAN YOU SAY ILLEGAL FORIEGN DONOR LAUNDERING??

Hillary just brought Maggie Williams back after reports she had to lend her campaign 5 Million bucks.

Maggie Williams claim to fame: She was the illegal foriegn money lady for Johnny Chung, who gave her envelopes full of cash in the WhiteHouse, a completely ILLEGAL activity. One such enevelope contained 50,000 dollars of illegal bundled campaign donations from foriegners.

So why are we complaining about Obama?

This is typical of what the Clintons do; attack the other guy for doing something while they are engaging in much more offensive behavior.

I suspect they have now kicked off their illegal fundraising into high gear and are projecting their own moral failings on the other guy...again.

Just like when Bill has a bimbo eruption, its always the womens fault for sleeping with him to begin with - their must be something wrong with HER, for associating with HIM.

Typical women hating behavior.

Why no post detailing the Clintons notorious history with illegal campaign cash?

Anyone else notice just how mean and devisive Bill Clinton has been on the campaign trail??

He seems to have a rant against anyone who doesn't agree completely with him and Hillary.

I don't know if he really wants Hillary to win, he seems intent on hurting her campaign anyway he can.

Does he really think such tactics are going to get people to join the Clinton bandwagon? belittling people, shoving his finger in their face, man he's got a serious chip on his shoulder..

Gray, don't be such a hack, it makes you look like a moron. This doesn't require a crystal ball, it only needs you to have a passing familiarity with political code.

Just as 'I need to spend time with my family' really means 'my ass just got fired'; 'I'm kicking it down the road' means 'I've mad a decision, and I don't think people are going to like it, so I'm going to delay revealing it until it won't matter as much'. If you don't know that, you aren't qualified to be criticizing anyone.

I'd imagine that you do know that, and you just want to act like a jack ass. I don't need a crystal ball for that one either.

I don't know anonymous, do Obama's supporters think harassing people who are at least vaguely pro-obama because they aren't 100% Obamaniacs is going to have the desired effect either?

People are only human, and going out of your way to antagonize them is going to have an effect no matter how much integrity they have. That's human nature. None but saints are above it's influence. I don't think that includes anyone here.

McCain has already been cheating:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=would_you_make_a_pledge_with_t

I think McCain’s abuse of public financing in these shady loans should be investigated. Has he done anything illegal?

Soullite,

I think Clinton has a bigger problem, he doesn't appear to recognize he no longer has any moral standing to tell us who's better or worse. It was bad enough getting caught diddling the lowliest possibly employee on the payroll, but then to come into this campaign and denigrating African Americans and dismissing them was the straw that broke the camels back.
people have dismissed them as having any moral authority to tell us what's good for us.

People I've heard defend the Clintons for decades are throwing up their hands and saying, FU Bill!

"Gray, don't be such a hack, it makes you look like a moron. This doesn't require a crystal ball, it only needs you to have a passing familiarity with political code."

I'm well aware of this. But Ezra didn't say it this way, that that's how he interpretes the statement. He presented it as a fact, and when other readers here asked him for the source, he ridiucled them by pointing at Google. Sry, but I stand by my point that this kind of arguing is below the usual standard here.

And I also think that Ezra kind of dropped the ball by not noticing the obvious hypocrisy showing in this reaction nby the Obama campaign. Jusat some months ago, public funding was a very important issue for him. Now, that McCain raises the topic again, he avoids a clear and definitive answer. This isn't exactly inspiring confidence in the trustworthyness of this candidate. If he really sacrifices public funding for pragmatic reasons now, what other "changes" will he forget once they become an inconvenience?

Yep, Ezra is just lying here.

Obama's pledge: to take public financing ___if___ the Republican candidate did so as well. John McCain has made the same pledge: to take public financing if the Democratic nominee does. Obama has never made any other pledge about public financing.

McCain has not yet decided whether to take public financing. Neither has Obama. Therefore, Obama's pledge has not yet been tested, and neither has McCain's.

Ezra is lying about Obama's pledge - Obama didn't pledge to take financing unconditionally. And he's lying about the results - Obama hasn't decided whether or not to take public financing.

Ezra Klein: you fail it.

Gray, I just see this as needlessly combative. I do understand the impulse, but this is a waste of time and a non-issue. Public financing is a double edged sword for McCain, at best. No matter how complicated that loan appears to be, it can be boiled to a simple statement. John McCain was only willing to take public funding if he was already going to lose. He would only take public money to waste it, and for a man running against government waste and on tax cuts, that's going to hurt.

Anonymous, yes. Clinton has serious credibility problem. He held his tongue while Bush destroyed every last aspect of his legacy, and the country with it. and now he decided to get into the thick of things and fight? It's just pathetic, and it's selfish. It proves the worst stereotypes about him. But honestly, I've not been a serious Clinton defender since I was 16.

I just have three words for Obama: Hyp. O. Crite.

hmm.. Im a bit troubled by this on a few fronts. Heres the ctual quote, which took a bit of time to dig out of all the blogospheric commentary.

"Senator John McCain 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 publ'icly financed general election."

Note there is no wording there indicating the level of confidence he had in this statement. It wasnt 'I promise', or 'i pledge', or 'no matter what'.

To nail someone to a statement like this is is really pushing for a president with the mindset of Pres Bush. He said something 1x a year ago, he will stick to it no matter how facts change on the ground.

Certainly I think that pols should be held to pledges they make. But we need to clarify a bit on what we accept as an actual pledge from a candidate I think.

To me this whole thing is a non-controversy. He has in place right now a better, much more democratic funding system in place. It would be outright stupid of him to go the other route. Those facts have changed, and he should explain that.

"Gray, I just see this as needlessly combative."

Well, excuse me pls, but after all this slamming on Clinton, with all gloves off, now that a good example shows that Obama isn't really the principled fighter for change he wants us to believe, you say that pointing to this is "needlessly combative"? Sry, but this doesn't fly with me. No double standards, same rules for all.

Oops, sry, hit Enter too fast. This ^ was from me, of course.

Btw, why doesn't the "remember personal information" feature work here at the Prospect???

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will"

That's a clear, definitive statement, David. It's not "I may", "I would prefer", "I'll take into consideration" or any other weasel words. "I will". Well, McCain came up with a proposal (it's arguable if he's really serious, but at least he publicly raised the point). Obama isn't the nominated candidate yet, sure, but he can't simply use so strong words throughout his statement for the questionaire, emphasizing his commitment for public funding, and now all but ignore McCain's advance. If Obama would be true to his principles, he should have publicly appreciated the proposal and stated that he will come back to it once the Dem nomination is decided. Well, he didn't. Neither did he say he changed his mind and prefers another system now, maybe on that emphasizes small donors. No principled statement this time, but instead a refusal to engage the topic at all.

As Ezra anticipates (it's NOT a fact), this looks like the campaign is trying to avoid public funding. Sure, with his edge in fundraising, it would be counterproductive for Obama to give away this advantage. But then, he IS positioning himself as the principled candidate for change, and this is rasing severe doubts about the sincerity of Obama's stances. Being just another politician pragmatically going the way of the least resistance hardly is a sign of principles, and not of change, either. Looks like Obama is just another one of the same old same old hypocrites.

Thanks for letting all us citizens who contributed to Clinton know we are actually corporations.

Some good pointers that will give you a bit more advantage over another player, pick up a profession and complete as many quests that is convenient and within your reach. Picking up a trade skill early on the game can give you a big advantage, especially a gathering profession. A gathering profession such as butchering, scavenging, magical salvaging or cultivating can grant you great bonuses during your early journey. By utilizing all your resources early in the game and continuing it will yield rewards later on the game. Rather than achieving the max level then going back to level up your profession you can gain all that benefit and sell your extra resources while warhammer power leveling your character up.