Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

mlbuie — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:54:13 GMT

There was no promise to take the public funds. The commitment was to address it with the other side and work out an agreement. McCain said he won't referee the 527's ... heck, neither would he referee the GOP's deplorable ad given durning the Democratic Primaries that smeared Obama.

Obama would be a fool to fall into their devious hands. Raise that money, 'bama!

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

TishiJo — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:29:59 GMT

"Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to

attempt to work out an agreement on financing. That meeting never took

place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the

two sides was not fruitful. "It became clear to me that there wasn't any

basis for future discussion," said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr.

Obama's campaign.

Mr. McCain seized on Mr. Obama's decision to question his trustworthiness." NYTimes

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

Crabby — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:44:13 GMT

Cutting Out The Middleman: Why Take Money From Lobbyists When You Can Funnel It Directly Through Elites?

For a campaign built on "change," the charismatic Senator likes his operatives old-school. By which we mean Chicago-style, quid pro quo, back-washing politics.

And then there's Obama's bloviating about not taking money from lobbyists, and accepting public financing for the general election. But the disingenuousness of those statements is evidence that he's just another lawyer. Obama has in fact built a money machine unequalled in politics with "bundlers," mostly fat cats, who solicit their private or business networks for donations.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, "Those at the top of the Obama fund-raising pyramid -- people who pledge to raise at least $250,000 -- get a gold VIP lapel pin with the letters "NFC" fashioned in the campaign's logo." The NFC stands for "National Fundraising Committee. And in the same April article, Sweet revealed that "each of the 138 Obama bundlers promised to raise at least $50,000, and many are from Chicago, not surprising since Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker is the national finance chairwoman." Pritzer is the campaign's "money maven," and has her own questionable ties to the subprime loan industry.

Having Pritzker, ranked 135th on the 2007 Forbes list of richest Americans, is a signal to elites that Obama is open for business. And they have gotten the message and are getting in line. Even Rupert Murdoch, the man responsible for Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity of Fox TV, is sending smoke signals to the presumptive next president. Everybody wants to be on the winning side.

Having a black president is a milestone for the nation and I am especially excited about what this dream delivers to African Americans. But the question still looms large: What, other than "hope," will Obama deliver to his corporate bundlers?

CrabbyGolightly.com/Pritzker.html

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

Lisa3425 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:51:16 GMT

We better get used to it. He's no different from any other politician who says what we want to hear, appears like the person we want to see, and acts the way he thinks he should act. He gets off that temeprompter and...duheeeeeeee. His volunteers at his rallys have been reported to put more whites in back of him, and remove head covered Muslims who have waited to hear him speak on "unity". Any question off his talking points is a "distraction", including questioning his wife's controversial comments. Now all of sudden she's off limits and we're told to "lay off her".

This guy is amazing, but he'll still get elected. America has built him up to walk on water only to watch him fall, but at what cost?

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

Thevail — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:01:38 GMT

Look, this won't convince the baiters, the haters and those generally frothing at the mouth but..

As one of those million and a half small donors..

I'm GLAD he's not taking public financing. When he started out no one thought he was going to win..really, not even him.

No one had any idea that we, the American public, were going to get behind him to this extent.

No one anywhere predicted that Americans would reach into their own pockets to help him NOT take PAC and Washington Lobbyist Money and still make a credible run for president. And shatter EVERY fund raising record in the process.

To say that many Americans are "personally invested" in this campaign is not a piece of rhetoric, we are literally.

But guess what, liberals have indeed learned a thing or two both about and from the Republican Hate Machine. This year we are pragmatic, practical, and GOING TO WIN.

We don't care if the smears fly..period. We are now so used to the Republican Hate Machine, that we just won't believe ANYTHING you people say, you are the boys who cried wolf one too many times. Obama will not lose votes between now and the election based on idiocy..you watch.

We don't care if he Outspends McCain a million to one, we will finance it.

We wouldn't care if his wife really was an angry black woman who's not too proud of her country right now. Many of us are angry..bitter..and not too damn proud of this country right now either. This does not mean that we do not LOVE our country, it means you can love your parents and still know that they're acting like idiots.

And if you think everything is going so damn dandy here in the good ole U.S. of A. maybe you should march your happy butt down and sign up for military duty. I hear it offers exciting travel opportunities.

America is sick of a republican party that has betrayed it's own values and all of the rest of us,

a party that is OK with torture,

with suspending habeus corpus,

with politically motivated firings in the judicial branch,

with no-bid contracts to the vice presidents company,

with $4 gallon gas, that could have been prevented, or at least have begun to be dealt with at some point over the last eight years,

with TWO WARS ongoing while the trying to start a third,

with endless lies that led us into a tragically unecessary war and killed and injured almost 50,000 American solidiers,

with running up a trade deficit so huge, and a deficit so big that they are unimaginable in scope and the time it will take to repay them,

and de-regulating the entire lending industry to create a "housing bubble" that made the economy look like it was doing fine..until it fell apart.

with a government that , after the housing crisis hit us all in the face, saved the biggest most corrupt business that was MOST RESPONSIBLE and left ordinary Americans to become homeless.

So Hurray Obama..Keep that advantage, defeat John McCain..

hell defeat EVERY REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS..Depose EVERY Republican Governor. Period.

We have seen the face of the terrorists amongst us, and they are holding the sensible, old fashioned values part of the Republican party and Middle America hostage to FEAR..Neo-cons SUCK.

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

thierrysangel — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:11:16 GMT

ACROBATS????????????? really. WOW wouldn't it be crazy if you held george w. bush to the same standards (whipping post) you like to with Obama. your bias is showing.

the only ACROBAT ARTIST IS JOHN MCSAME. HE'S FLIP FLOPPED more than John Kerry in a frying pan. why don't you report on his voting record of 100% with bush last year or how he DIDN"T want to drill off the coast but now he DOES want to drill off the coast.

or he WANTED campaign finance reform, but how now he has the Keating 5 under his belt. if anyones an acrobat it's John Mc Bush.

re: The Problem with Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

Dani girl 65 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:21:37 GMT

His decision to not accept GOVERNMENT public funding and instead accept small donors public funding tweaked my emotion greatly. So much so that I decided to send him yet another $100 donation. Here's to grassroots public funding!!

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

JimWalsh — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:56:52 GMT

No More Lobbyist!!!!!!

Senator Obama has said many times, "Lobbyist will not run my White House."

Getting rid of the extremely negative impact of lobbyist is one of the major reasons I support Senator Obama.

McCain has flip-flopped on many things. Yesterday he told the citizens of Missouri about a gas tax holiday he knows Congress will never approve.

Prior to McCain's event in Missouri yesterday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said in a conference call that McCain's plan would cost the state 6,000 jobs and $167 million in federal gas tax dollars for Missouri's roadways.

"The people of Missouri can smell a phony deal a mile away," she said. "Frankly, that’s what John McCain’s gas tax is. He knew it wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on people’s real pain – our dependence on foreign oil."

McCaskill said it was "a promise he knew he would never have to deliver on."

The "Could McCain Have Come Up with a More Ill-Suited Economic Advisor Than Phil Gramm?" is one of many examples for the damage caused by lobbyist specifically gas prices and the subprime housing damage.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/?cID=936047#c936047

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

bissron — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:17:38 GMT

He should have said, "Now that I'm kicking McCain's butt in finances, it would be really stupid to give up that advantage. To do so would be 'naive' and demonstrate 'inexperience'. I'm smarter than that. "

That'd shut them up . . . for about three minutes.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

lionred — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:45:26 GMT

Obama is a media driven cult personality! His ardent worshippers are more than willing to sacrifice their life savings or give their last penny to him. Why would he take public financing? When he has so many brainwashed suckers wanting to worship him with their money.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

callmehandy64 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:08:49 GMT

Obama DID day he would take public funding if his opponent agreed to as well. If you think anything else you are delusional. I am sick to DEATH of the same old politics and am voting Nader. If you are tired of a country that has long since been sold down the river to oil companies, bank, insurance companies and HMO's you'll joinme. Since the mainstream media is giving him no coverage at all, (even though they cover Ron Paul) when he has a sizeable chunk in the polls, I suggest AT LEAST checking out his web site:

www.votenader.org

NADER 2008

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

charlieprince — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:25:14 GMT

Ok, help me understand, did Barack Obama agree to accept public financing of his campain only as alleged? If yes, doesnt requesting donations from supporters in the manner had has and not PACs or lobbyist constitute public financing? Oh, I get it, its the WAY he is getting public financing!

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

LuckyAmerican — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:37:40 GMT

Unbelievable. Obama's supporters comments here are troubling. They completely ignore the fact their candidate has broken his promise. A PROMISE! Because they believe the ends justify the means they are willing to buy into his proposition that in his ignoble act of breaking his word he is doing something noble. What did they expect him to say, "I'm breaking my word please excuse me?" Of course he is going to spin it into how he is doing it for the people. That is the same line socialists always give before they reveal themselves for who they really are.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

Spacer — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:14:21 GMT

McCain is lying, and so was Chris Matthews when he parroted McCain's lie that Obama went back on his word. Obama NEVER pledged to take public financing. He only pledged to pursue an agreement with the Republicons. McCain has been using private financing for the general election campaign for the past three months, which nullifies any commitment Obama might have to taking public financing.

Obama is raising money from a million of small donors, and he'll need it with corporate media shills for McCain like Mr. Romano mouthing McCain's talking points. Romano never attacked McCain for being against off-shore drilling before he was for it as flip-flopping, even though it was. If Obama HAD been foolish enough to take public financing, Romano would call him a fool, and he would be. But Obama is no fool.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

Judyco — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:18:39 GMT

Sounds like politics as usual. I think Obama is getting comfortable with all of the money and the perks it can bring.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

Spacer — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:27:30 GMT

Judyco sez [[Sounds like politics as usual. I think Obama is getting comfortable with all of the money and the perks it can bring.]]

Obama gets his money from more than a million small donors, unlike McCain who gets his money from a tiny number of fat cats, as is usual for Republicons. McCain not only broke his word on taking public financing during the primaries, but he's in legal trouble for doing it because it involved getting a loan for his floundering primary campaign under false pretenses. Not that Romano or any other of McCain's corporate media operatives are upset about it.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

TreborCitizen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:39:38 GMT

What is not recently mentioned is Obama instructed the DNC not to take lobby money. His has always been a peoples fundraising effort. The Republicans were going to use 527s anyway so what is the beef. I applaud the decision. Besides McCain was playing games. By the way McCain is still way ahead of the change my position game.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

vyb052856@aol.com — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:40:45 GMT

McCain has told so many lies, gaffs or whatever they want to call it. No one has taken the time to read exactly what was written by Obama in the survey. McCain's wife needs to be very careful about what comes out of her mouth, with her past and all of the new stuff that is coming out about her. For Cindy to say the America wants a traditional family in the white house. What did she mean by that? White only!! McCain has been quoted with words that were similar to Michelle Obama's, however, the media left out a word in Ms. Obama's statement "really" was that because they wanted to make her an angry Black woman. What about a thief, drug addict and a liar in Cindy McCain. Oh no! The McCains are the alleged traditional people for the White House. Sounds like America has not gotten enough in the past 8 years and want more.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

whala — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:51:25 GMT

Here's a Quote from the Obama camp

"The reality is that the amount of money that comes from the government is not enough to run a modern presidential campaign"

That's what we have to look forward to under an Obama presidency. No amount of Taxes will ever be enough.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

freethoughts — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:15:49 GMT

Now that's brilliance. Here is a man that will change his mind if he can see more benefit in doing something different, not "staying the course". He is thinking on his feet. A good leader will analyze a situation and make changes where necessary, tweek a situation to improve it, look for better solutions. He's not just complaining about what doesn't work, he also takes steps to resolve it. That's a man that I want on my team. I've worked with so many managers that are stuck in old ways of thinking. There's nothing orignal or fresh about their thinking. The won't stick there necks out there to take a change. That old way of thinking is why most of our technology is lagging behind other countries. We need Obama and his fresh approach to resolving issues.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

Wooblah212 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:05:20 GMT

The problem is, Obama didn't TECHNICALLY break the pledge.

"If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama agreed.

McCain did not "agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign" until this afternoon - after Obama's announcment. So, Obama in NO WAY broke his commitment. Before today, John McCain had been raising private money. He also bent the rules, according to the FEC, by opting into and out of the system several times during the primary. He also spent 2 million private dollars a week over the last three weeks. SO unless McCain wants to accept 78 million dollars (or even less, actually) then he is doing the politically expedient thing.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

just jerry — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:06:17 GMT

The bottomline is still the amount of control special interests retain no matter who is elected President, or as members of the House and Senate. The broken system continues to be broken despite those pretending otherwise.

It takes more than a "pledge" or "promise" to bring about change, it takes an actual plan that needs to be laid out before the public by both candidates and their parties.

Both candidates have shown us the reality of the problem because both were sincere, as are most polticians, about how bad this problem has become - yet they still need to spend vast amounts of their time fund raising before, during and after elections, and as much as McCain and Obama wanted not to opt out public financing they both had to, just as other politicians have to as well. What is the actual workable plan to change this Barack? John?

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

bcrawf2033 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:29:20 GMT

After reading a similar article, I'm not so sure that Senator Obama's decision not to accept public financing isn't a good thing. We all keep talking about changing the way business is done. Why continue dealing with a broken system anyway? Why fix one leaking water pipe when the whole plumbing system is about to flood your house? Get a new system! We need to start to change everything that we can, especially those things that don't work for us as a Nation. The Preample says, "We The People!" I am so thrilled to see the excitement, the involvement, and the political education going on in America around our Democracy. The many throngs of people around the country totally engaged in the election process. There is on-going dialogue about race, energy, home foreclosures, gas prices, the environment, healthcare and much more. These issues have been on the back burner for too long. We want to see Congress change things and really solve some problems for the American people through the spirit of collaboration. Obama 08.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

paulte — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:35:37 GMT

Generally, I wouldn't miss an opportunity to bash Obama but this funding thing is a little too confusing for me to understand completely. I need to do my homework on this, same with the terrorists and habeus corpus issue.

Obama & McCain & Hillary never made an agreement among themselves on the issue, did they? I think Obama should be free to change his mind. I don't see any breach of trust here.

And let's be frank, Obama has a contribution engine going for the most part by small contributors. Isn't this the way the system should work? Grassroots contributions should be the paradigm. And public funding is more of a liberal issue. If he foregoes it, then he is acting conservative and McCain is ripping him for that? I'll side with Obama on this one.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

GregAugustaGA — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:53:21 GMT

Good for you Andrew! It is great to hear a journalist tell it like it is. Fineman could learn a lot from you. Obama is exposed for being just another "politician". Nothing more, nothing less. Change we can count on for sure, Chicago style.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

pissed-off — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:53:41 GMT

so now you know he is smart enough to fight real hard for us all for this won't be a game and he will have a lot of player's on the feild and his campaign know's how to get the mission done 1600 here we come

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

GregAugustaGA — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:33:02 GMT

Obama signed a "pledge" to the effect he would accept public financing. His honesty, veracity, and judgement have always been my biggest concerns with his candidacy. He keeps proving over and over that he is no different. He will do and/or say anything to get elected. This wasn't a fight "for us", it was his saying to hell with my word. Stay tuned, more "CHANGE" is a coming from this guy.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

sebr01stl — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:46:02 GMT

McCain flipped on this issue twice himself (suposedly his signature issue, campaign finance reform), first borrowing against that tax public funds for his primaries (where he was having trouble raising money through traditional donors, and which is why he's under FEC investigation, or soon to be, plus not paying Cindy back for usage of her private jet for campaigning), then opting out HIMSELF for the GE, and now back in. What a hypocrite. This is a non-issue on Obama's part; his "promise" was CONDITIONAL on flipping McCaint's agreement, which he never got (with all the flip-flopping and all, they never talked - actions speak louder than words). And, in that his campaign takes no PACor federal lobbyist $$, it's STILL publicly financed. McCan't camp is just mad that they're limited to all that McSame can get (can't raise that much himself grassroots, or else he would too) in the $84.1 million from the tax public funds; whereas Obama can raise unlimited PUBLIC funds online in the same manner in which he did during his primaries. With McCaint flip-flopping on his own signature issue, and then also on so many POLICY, candidate-defining issues (how much like Bush are you really all the while you say not, based on previous maverick rep from old 2000 stances that are NOW pandering, leaning more and more to the right DAILY in 2008), the hypocrisy here of holding Obama to a standard he doesn't even hold to himself, as a so-called reform Repub (let alone conservative Repubs), is just downright preposterous and aggregiously unfair. Does McCain wear a flag pin? Did HRC? Now some are criticizing his GOOD new ad, because why? he's wearing the flag pin that they criticized him for NOT wearing! The flag pin that he's worn in times past, but decided to forego recently in protest to the Iraq War, a pin that he says (rightly so) doesn't display patriotism as much by what one wears, as by what one DOES in service to others in one's country. How many hoops must he jump through, and what the h*// does this have to do with having "experience," let alone military expertise? Incredible the standard to which they hold Obama, and then raise it when he meets it. They will never be happy no matter what he does, even when right; even when the Republican dominated SC upholds his position (habeus corpus), they'll criticize the SCOTUS, and we all know why. If you're already judged before you do anything or open your mouth, it's based on appearance, and, therefore, hate/fear and IRRATIONAL.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

sebr01stl — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:15:16 GMT

There's nothing wrong with Obama's position. He won't have equal funds with McCain, but so what? Funds come from supporters. If McCain doesn't have the money from his supporters then his support his weak. I don't want my taxes to go to a campaign I don't agree with. Obama's is more Democratic, and democracy doesn't have to be financially fair. If McCains' message is right, it shouldn't matter how much money he has to get it out there; $84.1 million is enough to get it out there. Why do you want to penalize Obama's supporters for showing their FINANCIAL support of their candidate and cry foul just because McCain's supporters are more fiancially lukewarm towards him? How is that the fault of Obamabots or Clintonistas? The RNC and DNC are held to the same rigorous standards (and the last I checked the RNC (with large donor contributions) is outfunding the DNC, funds McCain will have at his disposal; Obama only outfundraises McCain PERSONALLY as a person/candidate), and that is enough. So there goes your argument about influence. The RNC has PLENTY of large donors; John McCain just doesn't have that much grassroots support. If Obama's grassroots make up 45% to 55% big donors, than surely, McCain's support will be more along the lines of 85% big donors to 15% grassroots. And, the public tax election fund system IS broken; only 10% of taxpayers checked the box last year to give $3 to the election fund, so so much for Obama's fund-raising not being public as well (it's just that the tax public one isn't as efficient); plus, Romano, your article is biased as usual, in that you don't point out the CONDITIONAL nature of Obama's so-called promise, and McCain failing to meet those conditions, by his prior reversals on this issue. You're only talking about him not more diligently pursuing agreement through meeting with McCain camp. [McCain's] actions speak louder than words. Why can't EVERY journalist tell the WHOLE story so that bloggers don't have to get part from one and some more from another, etc.? Check out Keith Olbermann's Countdown on this topic and Fineman's (also from Newsweek) response. The $300 million Obama COULD raise towards the GE that you speak of Andrew is not promised; it's dependent upon his supporters. The $84.1 is a GUARANTEE if you opt in, so Obama's position IS risky, and in that he's the first to do it in 30 years, it's new politics as well. And Obama's pledge to fix that public tax election fund this time, is to bypass it; next time, more time will be spent, once in office, on true reform.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

The Eagle Spirit — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:48:29 GMT

I am now turned off in the most serious way of Promoting Barack Obama For President Of The United States. When he starts meeting with the Cliintons and campaigning with a Clinton. shows me he is not for "Change" he preaches. It shows me this campaign is leading to more of the same. I definitly am not promoting him any longer. He should have already chosen his running mate (and not Clinton) who will be his down fall. Once his running mate was picked (excluding Clinton) that running mate is who he should be campaigning with.

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

paulte — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:25:04 GMT

I've thought about it a little more and now I hope his funds start to dry up. I think they will once the buzz or the novelty of the first black candidiate wears off. They say he intends to campaign with hillary. I'm sure some of his supporters will not be pleased with that.

His list for VP seems to be establishment white guys. So much for change! Two on the list Edwards & Gore lost in previous Presidential runs (Edwards as a VP). Is it a good idea to ask a guy to be VP who has lost at it previously? Gore at least got a majority of the popular vote and some would say had the election stolen from him. I thought it was just great to see the Supremes screw a Liberal! If Obama names a woman for VP other than hillary, hillary's ladies will abandon him (those who already haven't)!

And if he helps hillary pay off her debts, many of his supporters will stop contributing. I don't blame them! I overheard a guy at work say that it is only a matter of time before Obama self-destructs and I thought to myself yes, that is probably true! I hopr so anyway! NOBAMA!

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

ronniehester57 — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:13:36 GMT

Are we just stupid, or are we so apt to believe a lie, that it has become our detriment to believe the truth. As Obama continues to be contrary to traditional and "bad" politics, some silly and dumb founded people are just not getting it. Obama is defying the very laws of dirty and traditional politics, and he does this by changing his mind to agree with a system that now (during an ecomomic demiss) is contributing to the poor conditions our United States. To question the integrity of this man's position is arkward and an outright disdain for correcting wrong for right. Have we been so deceived by former politics that is so difficult to believe the truth when it hits us in the face. To all those Obama haters, my prayer for you is that some form of righteousness overcome you, and you'll understand it better by and by. If God himself could change his mind, providing he wanted to, why shouldn't Obama change his mind (not lie) about something needing a serious makeover for the best of our US. Are we nuts, or is it something deeper about not loving Obama's position on retaining the US's supremacy in the world?

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

repaite@msn.com — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:43:38 GMT

We have been telling you for many months that Nobama was a liar and would flip flop many times. If he will break his promise this early in the game, what makes you think he won't do it if (hahaha) he gets into office. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can toss his "Now I love America" wife!

I am one of those democrats that will now vote for McCain. And everytime you bad mouth Hillary you will lose many more. Although I don't completely agree with McCain, I'd vote for him before I'd vote for the Anti-Christ !

re: Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means

Futurama — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:35:30 GMT

Your article is Too Long Winded....Get to the point and forget thge novewl style..