Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ARMING UP FOR THE GENERAL.
The particulars of what Barack Obama actually "pledged" to do on public financing notwithstanding, it's pretty clear that what coverage there has been of this issue assumes it's an ironclad pledge. Obviously, it would be of great benefit to Obama to opt out of the system, because as of now it appears he'd be likely to raise far more money than John McCain. So how can he opt out and still save face?
The answer is: 527s. No, I don't mean that he should encourage people to organize 527s on his behalf. But he can use the very well-funded Republican 527s as the lever to enable him to opt out.
The argument would go something like this: "I said I would 'aggressively pursue an agreement to preserve a publicly financed election' with my Republican opponent. And I'm happy to have our two campaigns sit down and see if there is a way to make the debate between me and John McCain, within the publicly financed system. But as long as there are 'independent' Republican groups out there planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars attacking me, it would be pretty foolish to lock myself into a spending limit that makes it impossible to respond. So I ask Senator McCain: Can you call off the right-wing hit squad? If you can do that, I'll be only too happy to say we should both accept public financing. But if you can't, I'm not going to sign away my ability to compete."
McCain would squawk, of course, but the real question is whether it would be enough to satisfy the press. And it just might -- at least enough to shorten the issue's life. It would also have the benefit of beginning a discussion on all the nasty, nasty stuff that will be coming at Obama from the right, and what kind of responsibility McCain bears for what is going to be done on his behalf.
-- Paul Waldman
COMMENTS (10)
Don't just be general, call 'em out by name, like Ari Fleischer's Freedom Watch:
http://www.freedomswatch.org/
With hundreds of millions of dollars to spend. Set up basically to slime Dems.
If that and other groups are disbanded and their funds distributed to malaria prevention, I'd go for public financing.
Posted by: riffle | February 20, 2008 12:03 PM
No, he should just OPT OUT, and damn the torpedoes.
Posted by: Vidor | February 20, 2008 12:18 PM
Will Obama call off the Dem 527S , moveon, ACT, George Soros's cash machine, etc? In the interest of a fair fight?
Posted by: C.S. | February 20, 2008 12:19 PM
I think this is basically what Obama's saying in this op-ed from today's USA Today.
Posted by: Stephen Frug | February 20, 2008 12:42 PM
Vidor is right an Obama's piece in USA Today is a mistake. Obama should just tell McCain to go to hell. Obama needs to let all the voters know that he is the top dog and isn't going to get slapped around.
Posted by: rk | February 20, 2008 1:05 PM
The problem with this strategy is that most people aren't already convinced that there is an actual referent for "right-wing hit squad." This would get spun like "vast right-wing conspiracy," and Obama would end up being painted as a paranoid partisan. Meanwhile McCain's credibility on "campaign finance reform," deserved or not, gives him a real advantage here in that people will of course believe that he is sincerely interested in a fair campaign and that if he can't control 527s it's because he can't, not because he won't.
Posted by: Greg | February 20, 2008 2:10 PM
McCain can't coordinate with the 527s, which means he can't legally "call off the hit squad" -- which means he'd happily agree, and when the 527s showed up, point out that under hte law he can't say anything about it.
Posted by: Morat20 | February 20, 2008 2:25 PM
I don't get how this is possibly supposed to work.
As someone mentioned, 527s are inherently independent of the candidate. They can't take guidance from candidates.
So how can Obama insist that McCain "give them up", as if he could control them? It doesn't even make logical sense, so far as I can see.
How would this demand of Obama's not be rightly ridiculed as absurd or dishonest?
Posted by: frankly0 | February 20, 2008 4:49 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. I posted this idea the other day too. It's the perfect approach to this issue. 2 birds - One stone.
Posted by: PulSamsara | February 20, 2008 4:53 PM
Here's a better framework: "I was hoping to pursue a good faith agreement to preserve a publicly financed campaign, until I learned of the games Sen. McCain has played with the public financing system - opting in to save his failing campaign, getting loans based on a promise to re-enter the system, then opting out when it suited him. Clearly any agreement with Sen. McCain would not be worth the paper it was printed on, and I have no intention of leaving our party vulnerable to unilateral attack when there is so much at state in this election."
Posted by: Kevin | February 20, 2008 5:52 PM