Exactly what I thought when I read the Washington Post article. What's the difference between pledging the public funds certification and pledging to reapply for a certification that had been granted? Either way, McCain should be called out for abusing the public finance system.

You have got to be kidding. Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth on public financing.

March 2007

On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that he would take up Mr. Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.

Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.

Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.

February 2008

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign said Thursday that it stood by a year-old pledge made with Senator Barack Obama that each would accept public financing for the general election if the nominee of the opposing party did the same. But Mr. Obama’s campaign refused to reaffirm its earlier commitment....

Bill Burton, the Obama campaign’s national press secretary, responded to Mr. Salter by saying Mr. Obama would deal with the matter later.

“We will address that issue in the general election, when we’re the nominee,” Mr. Burton said. “We’re just not entertaining hypotheticals right now.”...

“I’m concerned with the position the Obama campaign is taking,” Mr. Wertheimer said. “He is now saying this is an option. But they made a commitment in 2007 to do this. There were no conditions, no arguments, that ‘we’ll decide this when we get the nomination.’ I think it’s very important for Senator Obama to reaffirm the commitment that he made.”

whoops. Now it's just "hypothetical" because $85 million is far less than what Obama can pull in if he doesn't go to public financing. That's why they call it "waffling."

In fact, I would go so far as to say Obama has no intention of keeping his word if it doesn't suit his purposes when the time comes.

Seeking an opinion on the legality of a proposal is hardly the same thing as wedding yourself to it.

And was this 'offer' made directly to McCain? Because he can't accept something if it was just being batted around by Obama's team and not made to anyone in particular.

Unless there's more to this story that I'm missing I don't see a valid contract of any sort here at all.

corinne: What the Obama campaign asked the FEC to approve last March was, exactly as they have characterized it, an option to raise money for the general election and later elect to opt into the public system by returning the money. That was the legal question that needed to be answered -- were they stuck if they accepted some money for the general? That answer makes it possible for them to negotiate an agreement for both candidates to participate, but it is not an agreement in itself.

You also did not quote the portion of the Times article in which Obama's campaign defines it exactly as I did above: "Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent."

Well done Corinne. Mark has actually quoted Obama's words from back then, and noted that they do not contradict what he is saying now.

To counter this, you have, er, quoted an article that gives a vague description of Obama's proposal. You have really dismantled Mark's point! Some amazing commenting there.

A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides.

Right. And one has to wonder, which party would have the advantage with respect to these various forms of "outside money." Hmm...

Sheesh,

If Hillary had given such a vague (e.g. so called Clintoneque) conditional about public financing, you would have criticized her--but you praise Barack.

Nope, no bias here at Tapped. ;)

Given that Obama's money comes from small contributors by and large, what would be the problem with staying outside of the public funds system? His approach gathers broadly from the public.

Perhaps Obama could propose a finance approach in which candidates would accept less than the law allows. The current max per person is $2300. He and McCain could agree that they would accept half of that per person.

I'm continually amazed at the Obamaphiles' unshakable faith in their hero's superpowers. In a fight over "straight talk" McCain is Superman and Obama is Aquaman. Get a clue, guys, or the Democrats are toast.

The issue here is not about public financing, and the pundits have it all wrong. It's about 527 groups.

If McCain is going to sit back and let 527s try to smear Obama with $250 million warchests, then why on Earth should Obama agree to limit his funding to the same public funding as McCain? Because the 527 groups backing McCain aren't going to be limited by public finance laws.

Here's the only logical situation for an Obama-McCain public financing agreement: that there is a, say, $100 million cap on total spending in advocacy of each candidate - where total spending means all money from the campaign, from PACs, and 527s.

Mark

Barack Obama would be a fool if he agrees to public financing thereby foregoing the amazing advantage that Democrats have built ever since Howard Dean channelled the power of the internet.

I was dismayed when he made his first statement about it last year. Unilateral disarmament was not what I wanted from a candidate. It was one reason among others that made me not an Obama supporter.

So if he's hedging away from this statement now I am happy...because if he's the nominee, I want one who hasn't tied his hands behind his back and put on a compromisingsmile when dealing with Republicans.

But it is disturbing that he is already losing the press and PR war with John McCain.... as one who has always had problems with the idea that Obama will be untouchable (which far too many of his supporters semm to think...he's not as magical as they think) In a general election this is just some evidence that in a general election, his magic touch may fail.

If he falls to this very small pressure over an issue that I think means the difference between winning and losing not only the White House but adding to our margin in Congress, then it should become clear to his supporters that his bipartisan kumbaya means more to him than actually doing the strong, right thing. It's like how he dealt with McCain on the ethics legislation or the Exelon legislation. He sweet talks and doesn't carry a big stick.

He should just make a statement that Americans don't want a fool for a president....so he's not going to give up his weapons but he is going to do the right thing for the country because electing a Democrat to the White House is what this country needs right now.

The first matter of contention between John McCain and Barack Obama , as you yourself note, and already Barack Obama is losing the spin game!

What does this say about his ability to aggressively contest John McCain in a general election? Not too well...by your very own admisssion.

"And yet, backed by several of the reform groups and their freinds at the editorial boards, McCain seems to be getting the better of Obama..."

I think this is something to really chew over as one considers if he should really be the nominee.

well said. especially regarding the 527's

PS and it wont be a cake walk for McCain if he faces Obama. In fact if Obama wins the delegate count and Hill wins the super d's, it will be like running into a brick wall for the DEms

Ask me about Obama vs. McCain when Obama is actually the nominee. Much as his supporters wish it, he isn't yet.

"the difference between winning and losing not only the White House but adding to our margin in Congress, then it should become clear to his supporters that his bipartisan kumbaya means more to him than actually doing the strong, right thing."

But that's because you define "doing the right thing" as winning, whereas a candidate could think "doing the right thing" is acting on principle because good governance matters.

It may be ill advised to act on principle if you have reasonable evidence that your opponent will not, and you think losing means something other than the failure of your own ambitions. I'm inclined to think that's right in this case, but I also think it's entirely possible that both Obama and McCain (who had to compete with Mitt's millions) are both stuck bobbing and weaving in and out of this issue because the principle actually matters to them, but the larger context doesn't appear to support acting on principle.

Wanting to act on principle is not the same thing as "holding hands and singing kumbaya." Acting on principle is the point of not "singing kumbaya" with them in the first place. I don't need Democrats who defeat people calling themselves "Republican" just to say they did it. ie., the Clinton model-- there's your real "kumbaya" family singers.

And no, I am not an Obamamaniac.

I also find these "kumbaya" references sort of offensive. You might want to derive a new phrase.

Still working for the Republicans, I see.

Putting aside policy issues for the political question:

The political argument for Obama is that he is drawing in Independents and some Republicans.

The opposing argument is that many of those voters will ultimately vote for McCain, and that those who don't are mostly in states the Dems have no chance of winning regardless, And that meanwhile Obama is losing the white working class vote in key battleground states the Dems MUST win in November.

I find those opposition arguments serious and worrying. Obama can settle the matter by winning (or coming extremely close) in PA and/or Ohio. But if Hillary wins both of them by significant margins, nominating Obama would be a serious gamble, exactly the sort of gamble the Super Delegates are supposed to prevent.

Of course, it could be the cards are so stacked for the Dems after 8 years of Bush that ANY Dem will beat McCain no matter what. But I wouldn't want to bet the White House on that.

Good post. Thank you for the work put into it and I appreciate the clear explanation. Personally, I think Obama has run a smart campaign.

"Given that Obama's money comes from small contributors by and large,"

Lol. Right. Oprah's contributions are small.

Oprah threw a fundraising party at her mansion for Obama, and has probably made HUGE contributions.

Also she have Obama and his wife a large amount of FREE time on her show.

Obama himself lives in a two million dollar mansion obtained through dubious, if not unethical, means.

He is no man of the people.

Um, I'm pretty sure Oprah can't contribute more than $2,300 to Obama's campaign. Just like everyone else in the country.

This is a very depressing development for someone who thought an Obama-McCain matchup would be honest and interesting debate. McCain isn't who I thought he was

中联石化不锈钢管销售公司,专业经营各种不锈钢管