Barack Obama went back on his Word!!!

At least that's what I'm hearing all over the media.

Can anyone tell me where or when Obama promised to accept public financing?

Anyone?


:crickets:

:popcorn:

Plenty for everyone!

I really hope this blows up in WetStart McNasty's face.

sorry, repukes, ain't no rollin' over going on this time around...

...dispelling the big lie...just horrible.

Try again.

Thank you.

It's just not the cut+dried case the media is making it out to be. That's all.

...his word but the MsM is telling the big lie and it'll take MONTHS for the Obama campaign to straighten this out.

My GOODNESS DNC!!

You guys STILL haven't figured out bumper sticker politics!!!

I've written to them about this, but I'm only one person.

I wish folks here who seem to like to type a lot would do the same!

Much left to do.

It's time we started calling them on all the lies they spew.

Boosh has spent 8 years going back on every fuckin thing he promised. McCain "flip flopped" on the whole public financing issue.

I don't give a shit if Obama "went back on his word" on this issue. He is saving the taxpayers bazillions of dollars by what he is doing.

Good for him. I like him even better now.

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "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 wrote: "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."

As of today, McCain has not backed away from this "pledge." Not that he won't, mind you - he just hasn't as of today.

If anyone can tell me when he (Obama) plans to begin this "aggressive pursuit" I will be most appreciative.

If you plan on spinning 527 crap on me however, don't bother. I've already seen it, and it's not real convincing.

You haven't yet.

Kthnxbai.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6125337#6125481

In case you didn't notice, he did make his agreement contingent upon certain factors... ones that, as far as we know, have not been met. He also explained, pretty thoroughly, how the public financing system is flawed.

I'm for public financing of elections because of the unfortunate influence of corporations and special interests. In case it may have escaped you; the vast majority of Obama's funds come from the public already.

Cheers!

Wow, not.

Sure I'm still here - at least for today.

Tomorrow, who knows?

I can only take so much walking in lock step before it makes my knees hurt. :)

I do find it curious that The Boston Globe ran a front page story on the public financing "change of heart", and the Globe will never be confused with the Murdoch model trash-fest that is The Boston Herald. If the story didn't have "legs" then only the Herald would have splashed it on the cover. Independent of how you feel about Obama it (the fund raising) really is a complete about face.

If you could, please provide me with any and all information that shows that Obama did indeed make good on his campaign promise and aggressively lobby McCain to partake in public financing. I think you may have a tough time with that request.

P.S. Might want to re-check that donor list - seems as if Obama is number 3 ($ wise) on the list for political contributions from Exxon Mobil.

We won't even begin to get into the "lobbyists who aren't lobbyists" money - that loophole is a doozy!

As for how 'aggressively he tried to lobby McCain', that's about as crucial as knowing how 'aggressively' McCain did the same.

But this is the funny part; You see, saying that Exxon Mobil is his #3 donor is a pretty blatant lie. Or are you saying he's received the '3rd most' donations from Exxon Mobil?

Here's what's disingenuous about that; You're trying to cleverly suggest that he's a 'corporate' candidate by putting him at "#3 ($ wise) on the list for Exxon Mobil".

That may work on stupid people, but let me show you how the facts punch a tunnel in that little 'insinuation' of yours.

Here's the list of Obama's top 20 bundled contributors;
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Note how it says; "This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

Notice also that Exxon Mobil is not on that list. What does that mean?

It means that Exxon Mobil likely isn't in the top 20. Also of note is that the only money that can be said to come from Exxon Mobil came from individual employees and their family members, not from 'Exxon Mobil' per se. How much was that? Well, as of the end of March, it was $30,850.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

So, even if we could say that Barack Obama was 'beholden' to Exxon, by how much would that be?

Well, given that he's raised a little more than $265,000,000 dollars from individual donors, and we'll give you the BOTD and assume that 'Exxon Mobil' is up to $60,000 by now, that means that Obama is .002% beholden to Exxon, and at least 99.9% beholden to the American People who donated individually.

Oh, I'm sure there are some margins not accounted for there, but the funny thing is being accused of spinning by a guy who tries to stretch a little piece of bullshit over a whole field of reality.

Nice try though.


Tell you what though, I'd really like to simplify things, and you seem like you may have a streak of principle in you. So, in the interest of cutting the shit, let me ask you;

"Do you wish for Obama to defeat McCain in November"

It's a simple yes/no question, no spin, no evasion, just answer it. After that, we can proceed as though your concerns are genuine.

K?


Oh, and I really meant it when I said this to you a while ago; "Now, obviously you're not interested in fooling anyone, so I'll ask you; Do you want to stick around and learn some things about the true nature of of the problem we face as a nation, or are you only planning on staying a short while?"

There are serious issues threatening our nation that transcend petty concerns about the fitness of the one candidate that is most likely to fix them. I highly recommend posting more to the threads about the corporate media, election reform, and a few of the other threads about the violation of the Constitution by Bush et al.

I should think that's pretty fair.

anything..if you don't want to work to get Obama elected President than this board is not for you.

I got the email from Obama Team on this and I trust them..not what you need to be convinced of.

from the primary.

He's been studiously laying low and posting potholes wherever he can get away with it... as though he were "concerned" that Obama is 'too corporate'.

He didn't make this list yet;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6388900&mesg_id=6390777

But hopefully I'm wrong, he'll learn something, and work with us instead of against us to save our nation.

lived through that and now it's time to all work together to elect Obama.

And, if they don't want to follow the rules then a speedy pizza delivery will be in their future..as we can see by your links.

sooner or later.

and grace shine through every post.

We all know the Repukes have plenty of 527's up their sleeve whether you like it or not.

The Republicans haven't played fair and won't. Ever.

Obama '08.

why in the hell do they care what he does to run his campaign. The RepubliCONS and mccain are crying because he will have more money than mccain, isn't the objective to win.

The media has been waiting to see if he would accept it and now that he hasn't they are trying to pretend as if this is an issue,they have been bringing this up for months and have been waiting so they could pounce,.

Especially when that support is overwhelming.

Senator Obama did not go back on his word and never agreed to accept public financing. Listen to Keith http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25273881#25273881

Imagine that?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

Olbermann because he is the ONLY one out there telling the God's honest TRUTH!!!

Parsing his statement and getting into a lawyerly entanglement with the GOP about his agreement is a political loser. Best to let it blow over in the next few days and clobber McSame with a $200 million dollar cluster bomb until November. Any politician would have done the same thing. Here's news for some of you; that's what he is, a politician - but he's a good one.

:)

:)

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6388900

We knew it was coming.

I think there are about 7 still on my 'active' list. Don't look now... (but there might be some here too!) :hide:

Wish I coulda been there for the meltdown. :D :hi:

MIDWEST DEMOCRACY NETWORK
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

Question I-B:
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?
Yes No ___ (He answered YES)

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

Two Pinocchios for the land-of-Lincolner.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html


:crickets:

:kick:

Either way, even if it could be said that he 'broke a promise' (even though the original question had a lot of 'ifs' in it), what, precisely, would you like to say that means about him?

Shall we not vote for him now? Is this perceived breach so egregious? Perhaps we'd prefer the woman-hating warmonger?

Even if this rose to the level of 'breaking a promise', it pales to nothing when held up against two things; the advantage he'd lose by taking public financing, and the monumental disaster that would be "President McCain".

Do you disagree?

you implied that he never committed to taking public campaign financing. I merely pointed out when and where he did.

I don't want to say anything about what that means about him. You, however, sound a little bit defensive.

are attacking him for 'breaking' a promise he never made, is there much other option than countering them?

Alerting on them?

I tend not to do that, but the militant holdovers with a childish grudge against a candidate who never actually wronged them make the option viable.

He said that he would agree to accepting public funds under circumstances that were never met. McCain didn't declare that he would take Public Funds until after Obama decided otherwise. He did not, in fact, make a 'committment'.

If you call that 'breaking a promise', then I suppose if the pizza guy refuses to give me the pizza just because I didn't pay him, then that's 'breaking his promise too'?

Nuh-uh.


It's obvious that there are holdovers whose childishness pits them against the Democratic nominee here. I've been watching them get TS'd as they let their vindictive and childish nature get in the way of the good of the nation. There are many more to come.

If we want Obama to have a better chance of winning, it would help if his supporters stood up and shot down the charges, especially charges over ambiguous 'committments', by the M$M which is already pitted against him.

There will be plenty of time to hold him to account after he's the President.

Can you wait that long, or will you be shooting at him along with the media and the 'right' until then? Oh, I know, it doesn't 'feel' like that's what you're doing, but you've chosen to see a 'committment' where there really wasn't one, thus revealing your disposition towards him.

I want him to win, and I'm willing to fight against nebulous characterizations by the M$M in order to help where I can on line and in public.

Are you?

Glad you have the "LOL" escape pod. Care to tell us why you're so clever?

I'm all ears.

Other than that, later.

Just asking.

for intellect.