Should Obama reconsider his public financing decision?

I worry that many of his contributors were motivated more by an anti-Hillary or, in some cases, anti-woman sentiment or had ignored the facts to believe that Obama was more liberal than he claimed to be. A lot of Obama supporters are now surprised that he's a moderate, and there seems to be less anti-McCain sentiment from some Obama supporters than there was anti-Clinton sentiment. Certainly, the comments in DU are not nearly as bitter and angry against McCain as they were against Clinton. In a poll here yesterday, 30% of DUers said they plan to give the Obama campaign nothing, and DU is having difficulty at this moment raising in one month for Obama what it raised for Kerry. (That said, I know that many of us donate through other channels than DU.)

I wonder if the Obama campaign will be able to raise the kind of money that it was able to raise during the primary. And, given the bad press he's getting for turning down public financing, I wonder if the decision to do so was wise. At the same, changing his mind again be even worse, given that the MSM seems more interested in this one flipflop than in McCain's many. Maybe it's just summertime blues and when the campaign starts in earnest, the donations will start rolling in.

need money to fight the 527 smears.

The average voter will see a tax payer funded war chest as coming out of their pockets.

to Obama regarding their displeasure at his signaled support of the FISA legislation. If he gets the message, and rejects the legislation as he initially said he would during the primary campaign then I would bet the donations will pick up once again. By opting out of public financing he gave his supporters a direct means of effectively signaling their support or displeasure, as the case may be, of his actions.

Before he was running among Democrats, now he's running among the entire electorate. The typical campaign moves to the center for the general election in order to get independents and some Republicans. Also, what did he say during the primary that made anyone think he was running as a liberal? He's believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, he favors an insurance-industry friendly healthcare plan that doesn't help a lot of adults, he's promised to go after bin Laden with a vengeance, etc. Weren't people paying attention? He's a great candidate, but not a great man. (Though we can hope he'll be more liberal once he gets in the White House.)

:rofl:

As far as your imaginings are concerned, well...

egregiously piss us off, like with his FISA decision.

I honestly don't see how that is going to motivate anyone to donate.

McCain will REALLY accomplish the things you want him too. Go for it!

That's how I landed up giving a bunch of money to Howard Dean. Frankly, when I totalled it up I was amazed how much I gave.

I've always done my donations on a "reward system" basis. That's why Robert Wexler and my local Rep got donations when they never did before.

I give when the spirit moves me.

Don't confuse "us" with the vast majority of the electorate who are not pissed off and worked up about the FISA decision. Most all Obama supporters do love the Constitution and realize that if he is elected that next January Bush will be gone and things will get better. Most realize that refusing to support Obama and thus helping to potentially elect McCain does absolutely nothing to protect constitutional rights in the long run.

I don't think that Obama's forgoing public finance or the FISA situation will hurt his donation by the overwhelming majority of his supporters. When you see "us" you see a tree, a few trees, or a grove. Don't mistake it for the entire great forest.

This is must a make-weight argument that McCain is jumping on right now cuz the old SOB has nothing else. IMO, this will die down and be forgotten. Most people have nearly -0- interest in how a campaign is financed.

JMHO

.... Americans don't give two shits about this, it is a media tempest in a teapot.

Obama said he'd not bring a knife to a gunfight and he isn't.

He needs the extra cash to fight the RW smear machine.

For one thing, we have already raised $11,000 in nine days, so the numbers are comparable. But I think there are some important differences that should be considered.

Many DUers have already donated lots and lots of money to the Obama campaign. Obama has been the most popular presidential candidate here on DU for months -- at least since John Edwards dropped out -- and many DUers have been donating through other channels throughout the primary season. In 2004, John Kerry had very few supporters during the primary -- and the primary was much shorter -- so very few DUers had already donated by the time DU started asking for donations.

Another issue is that we did our one month of fundraising for John Kerry in October -- when the general election was in full swing. It was by far the biggest thing on everyone's mind.

Also, when we were fundraising in October, there wasn't any time left for people to procrastinate. It was put-up-or-shut-up time. This time we are starting much earlier, so people have five months to donate. A lot of people are putting off donating until later -- because they can.

Obama made the right decision. He will have piles and piles of cash.

For one thing, this is the off-season for campaigning. Let's hope once the campaign gets into full swing, Obama really will have enough to compete in 50 states so that the white party permanently fractures.

but i take pride in being a warner democrat

as far as the kerry comparison, though, between then and now the whole democratic online fundraising operation has vastly grown and sophisticated, so i think your quick observation is right (in terms of having many, many choices through which to donate)

Really?

What a curious idea...

'Anti-woman sentiment' is just silly; I suppose Clinton supporters and donors were motivated by 'anti-black sentiment' (see how that sword cuts both ways?).

Also, DU is not the real world and does not broadly represent the reality of American politics or even Democratic politics (consider that a no-hoper like Dennis Kucinich, who has no chance at all of winning a national election, was DU's favoured candidate at one time). Pragmatists outnumber ideologues out in reality.

And the answer to your question is 'fuck, no!' and the reason is simple: Republican 527's and McCain's failure to meet the conditions Obama had set for taking public financing.

friggin primary and now in the GE. Talk about a MO.

It's sort of the problem to begin with, that many Obama supporters imagined him and his campaign to be something it wasn't: liberal. Those of us who supported Obama for pragmatic, realistic reasons continue to support him with enthusiasm. That some "liberals" believe that there was no sexist backlash to Clinton is as disappointing as those who believe there is no "race" backlash to Obama. How insensitive some liberals have become to feminism. Very sad.

I think he can get the do-re-mi and that AFTER we have a Dem in the WH we can talk about campaign finance reform.

Besides - this hasn't been his "issue" - this is something that McCain has been waxing poetic about for years. Now he's crying and whining 'no fair' because Cindy couldn't buy him the election and he has to go neck and neck with a contender.

Fair is fair and so is going for the jugular. If Obama goes for McCain's jugular and wins it - I'm not going to have one iota of empathy or sympathy for McCain.

The implication that most of Obama's contributions were anti-Hillary or anti-woman is insulting. Obama has generated tremendous enthusiasm among many people: the young, African-Americans, people who want change. That is where his money came from. It will be there this fall.

The FISA comments on DU don't reflect the real world too well, because DU doesn't reflect the real world. The people here are much more liberal and much more activist than out there. They only represent a small part of Obama's 1.5 million contributors.

So I see no need for "concern" over fund raising.

Geez, think it through, make a freaking decision and stick with it!!!

he was committed to public financing? All along, he has stated that "if he were the nominee" he would get together with John McCain and see if they could come to a decision on public financing that would be fair to all. He specifically mentioned 527's. If we had not donated the money we did, Obama would not have been able to fight back effectively against the smear campaigns. Why would anyone want the Democratic candidate to fight with one hand held behind his back?

He'll need lots of cash if he gets hit with summer swiftboaters like Kerry did.

People who supported Obama were not doing so because they were anti-woman, they were not deluded into believing that Obama was a hard-core liberal, and he did not "change his mind" regarding public financing (I will give you the anti-Hillary motivation). You sound like a concern troll to me. Obama was wise to forego public financing, because McCain has demonstrated that he will subvert the letter and the spirit of the law (the one with his name on it).

He would be a fool to go for public financing if he wants to win.

But he's also a fool to support FISA. It was McCain's position on FISA that finally got me to support Obama with my vote instead of voting third party. Now I am surprised I find that I actually had more hope invested in Obama than I thought I had. I am bitterly disappointed in his decision to support FISA.

I was not planning to support him with my money simply because I don't have that much money (living on SSA) and anything that goes to a candidate means I have to give something up that month (like food). So I have to be really invested in a candidate to donate. I donated to Kucinich and I donated to Hillary.

That decision to donate to Obama MIGHT have been changed if Obama had remained the candidate for Change (as his supporters insisted he was) as opposed to the candidate who changes his position (as I was sure he was).

He still gets my vote because once again we are stuck with the lessor of two evils.

I had issues with Dean doing it-especially since he loves AZ's system of public financing.

So what if it costs more to run a campaign, that is not why you do it!

you defended your candidate during the primaries. So your concern/purity is noted and now we'll move on.

Because I cannot believe that it is random chance that you always seem to answer MY posts.

And yes, in 2004 I defended Howard Dean but I still did not like it. He should have stayed within the public financing even though he was able to raise a lot of money.

what I want. Sorry, you're paranoid but spare us your hypocrital bullshit on your concern and purity for Obama when you defended hilary no matter what she did.

That does not mean I support the person-it means I wanted some fairness.

Why do you feel the need to "note" what I do? You could do what others do and ignore a poster you dislike or disagree with. Instead, you choose to "note" what I do. And then you claim I am being paranoid when I say I do not like being tracked like you claim you are doing.

want the Democratic candidate to fight with one hand tied behind his back. The 527's along with the media will kill him, and he won't have any money to respond. I guess we can email and phone the media when they crucify him. That will work right?

he is leaving tax dollars in the coffer at a time when it most counts. He should also mention that McCain has been in violation of the election funding laws by flip flopping on public/private/public funding.

If he changed his position his critics would label him a flip-flopper.

The money is rolling in and will continue to do so.

what's the best way to run his campaign? God's grief! We'll never get anywhere if everyone keeps second guessing the guy. Give him a break why don't ya?

So I would say yes.

Obama still needs to say Go Fuck Yourself.

We're in this to win it, not to settle for Miss Congeniality.