Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences

[metta 0]

Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences

June 23, 2008 9:58 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

In analyzing communications, connections and acceptance by voters in politics or even consumers in business, the most important element is the "brand".

The brand being what is the core value encapsulated in the candidate through which voters accept or reject what is communicated.

In politics, while mechanics/tactics (advertising, mail, grassroots, etc.) are important, they pale in importance to the brand. And what is crucial in any campaign is protecting at all costs the brand of the candidate –- the authentic core of who the person is, why they are running, and how they would lead.

Obama's brand is new to the political marketplace and it is especially in need of protection by him and his campaign.

What is his brand?

From my perspective it is something that involves a new kind of politics, something that doesn't involve political expediency, something that gets past the spin of Washington, something that involves truth and inspiration in order to get the job done.

That is why I believe Obama and his campaign made a blunder flip flopping on public campaign finance for the general election.

Obama had said for many months he would abide by public financing in the fall and now has decided against doing just that. As Liz Sidoti of Associated Press wrote, "Barack Obama chose winning over his word."

Not a good thing at all for his brand. Is it lethal? Probably not, but it's a mistake.

The more interesting thing is that he didn't need to do this.

The way the system works he could have outraised and vastly outspent McCain in the next 90 days before the Democratic convention because primary dollars are still in place. After the convention, he basically only has eight weeks left and spending a little less than $90 million dollars (which is the public finance amount) effectively is going to be all but impossible.

The urban myth in presidential politics (which media consultants don't like to hear) is that paid advertising is key -- it absolutely isn't!

The most important part of the campaign is not gross rating points, but the narrative in the free press. And Obama could have gone along with public financing and still raised millions of dollars for the DNC which could conduct grassroots organizing on behalf of the entire ticket. And if you look at the polls generic Democrats do much better than Obama himself.

Politically, on behalf of both his brand and the effective conduct of the campaign, it was an error for Obama to choose tactics over truth.

By the way, isn't that exactly why most people in this country are upset at the current administration????

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For perspective and balance - metta and dev seem to have problems with that when it comes to the candidate that defeated their preferred choice. So much so that even the most obvious neocon blabber amounts to an issue debate. So, here, consider this reasoning supporting Obama's opting out of public finance.

Cook: Obama right to drop public financing

Cries of 'naive' would be louder than those of 'hypocrite'

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

WASHINGTON - One of this week's big political debates surrounds the decision of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to eschew public financing, a decision that many critics say constitutes him breaking a campaign promise and exposes him to allegations of hypocrisy.

It's a fair guess that an impartial jury might well convict him if this was a criminal offense, rather than a commonplace activity in American politics.

And by opting to stay in the publicly financed campaign system, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earns the right to flail away at the presumptive Democratic nominee for selling out and going back on his word.

One of the byproducts of each major party nominating its most self-righteous and sanctimonious candidate is that with some degree of regularity in the campaign, each will be embarrassed by not adhering to an impossibly high, and politically impractical, standard of moral and ethical perfection.

Obama and McCain have had to jettison talented and experienced people because those people made their livings petitioning the government on behalf of aggrieved people or others with business before the government, or because a vetter didn't maintain the standard that had been set only for the vettee.

Perhaps it is because I am on the wrong side of 50 years of age that I don't understand the concept of "post-partisan," the new buzzword that, as best I can tell, means that your last name is not Bush, Clinton or Dole.

But if Obama is to be elected president, and it would seem at this stage that there is about a 50-50 chance he will be, I am a bit relieved that a potential president would be disinclined to give up a likely three- or four-to-one spending advantage.

I strongly suspect that if Obama had agreed to tie both hands behind his back going into the general election, the word "naive" might be thrown around once or twice, possibly more than "hypocrite" is now.

McCain has every right to question Obama's honesty and integrity for this; he can certainly milk this for some political value. After all, he is going to be seriously outspent and should be able to get what marginal benefit he can get out of this awful situation.

And if there is anyone who believes that if the tables were turned, McCain wouldn't take the extra money and run like a thief, I have some land on the southern tip of Plaquemines Parish, La., that would make for a great beach resort, with a guarantee of no hurricanes hitting.

The Gallup Organization's daily tracking polls for this month show a tight race, rarely moving past the error margins, with both candidates under 50 percent of those surveyed.

Those numbers hardly translate at the moment to an Electoral College majority for either candidate.

With a race this close, it is difficult to imagine anyone giving up a potentially game-changing financial advantage, and it is unrealistic to expect it.

It is equally unreasonable to think that McCain would not make every effort to make Obama pay for taking that advantage and for McCain's campaign to contrast its operations with Obama's largesse and portray McCain as the reformer in the race, for whatever good that might do.

It's still a fair bet that Obama will use some national network advertising over the course of this summer to attempt to drive some national poll numbers his way.

With this, he can shape the public and media perception of the contest and sow discord among Republicans that a Democrat is spending money and drawing more votes out of historically Republican base states -- with everyone knowing that McCain cannot possibly match him.

But there is another reason to opt out of public funding.

Obama has to more fully develop the perception of who he is. The blank spaces on his canvass will be filled, and the only questions are who will fill them and what it will look like.

Will those blanks be filled with flattering colors or pejorative images?

The new Obama 60-second ad that began running in 18 states last week is only the beginning. Voters have to identify with Obama on some level, and feel that they have the same core values that he has, or he will lose this election.

Most voters are being asked, for the first time, to vote for someone in a presidential race who is very different from themselves. But, for Obama to win, they must see something of themselves in him.

The polls very clearly show that voters want change and the political and fiscal advantage for the Democratic Party would seem to favor a Democrat winning the White House.

What isn't clear is whether McCain represents enough change and whether Obama represents too much change, someone so different as to constitute a risk.

With a campaign war chest this large, Obama has a pretty good chance of defining himself better than others who will seek to do it for him.

If the financial playing field were level, the chances of Obama having the opportunity to define himself would be much less. That's why an Obama supporter should be hesitant to criticize this decision and an opponent would be well advised to flail away and try to get some value out of this reversal.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

For perspective and balance - metta and dev seem to have problems with that when it comes to the candidate that defeated their preferred choice. So much so that even the most obvious neocon blabber amounts to an issue debate. So, here, consider this reasoning supporting Obama's opting out of public finance.

Cook: Obama right to drop public financing

Cries of 'naive' would be louder than those of 'hypocrite'

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

WASHINGTON - One of this week's big political debates surrounds the decision of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to eschew public financing, a decision that many critics say constitutes him breaking a campaign promise and exposes him to allegations of hypocrisy.

It's a fair guess that an impartial jury might well convict him if this was a criminal offense, rather than a commonplace activity in American politics.

And by opting to stay in the publicly financed campaign system, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earns the right to flail away at the presumptive Democratic nominee for selling out and going back on his word.

One of the byproducts of each major party nominating its most self-righteous and sanctimonious candidate is that with some degree of regularity in the campaign, each will be embarrassed by not adhering to an impossibly high, and politically impractical, standard of moral and ethical perfection.

Obama and McCain have had to jettison talented and experienced people because those people made their livings petitioning the government on behalf of aggrieved people or others with business before the government, or because a vetter didn't maintain the standard that had been set only for the vettee.

Perhaps it is because I am on the wrong side of 50 years of age that I don't understand the concept of "post-partisan," the new buzzword that, as best I can tell, means that your last name is not Bush, Clinton or Dole.

But if Obama is to be elected president, and it would seem at this stage that there is about a 50-50 chance he will be, I am a bit relieved that a potential president would be disinclined to give up a likely three- or four-to-one spending advantage.

I strongly suspect that if Obama had agreed to tie both hands behind his back going into the general election, the word "naive" might be thrown around once or twice, possibly more than "hypocrite" is now.

McCain has every right to question Obama's honesty and integrity for this; he can certainly milk this for some political value. After all, he is going to be seriously outspent and should be able to get what marginal benefit he can get out of this awful situation.

And if there is anyone who believes that if the tables were turned, McCain wouldn't take the extra money and run like a thief, I have some land on the southern tip of Plaquemines Parish, La., that would make for a great beach resort, with a guarantee of no hurricanes hitting.

The Gallup Organization's daily tracking polls for this month show a tight race, rarely moving past the error margins, with both candidates under 50 percent of those surveyed.

Those numbers hardly translate at the moment to an Electoral College majority for either candidate.

With a race this close, it is difficult to imagine anyone giving up a potentially game-changing financial advantage, and it is unrealistic to expect it.

It is equally unreasonable to think that McCain would not make every effort to make Obama pay for taking that advantage and for McCain's campaign to contrast its operations with Obama's largesse and portray McCain as the reformer in the race, for whatever good that might do.

It's still a fair bet that Obama will use some national network advertising over the course of this summer to attempt to drive some national poll numbers his way.

With this, he can shape the public and media perception of the contest and sow discord among Republicans that a Democrat is spending money and drawing more votes out of historically Republican base states -- with everyone knowing that McCain cannot possibly match him.

But there is another reason to opt out of public funding.

Obama has to more fully develop the perception of who he is. The blank spaces on his canvass will be filled, and the only questions are who will fill them and what it will look like.

Will those blanks be filled with flattering colors or pejorative images?

The new Obama 60-second ad that began running in 18 states last week is only the beginning. Voters have to identify with Obama on some level, and feel that they have the same core values that he has, or he will lose this election.

Most voters are being asked, for the first time, to vote for someone in a presidential race who is very different from themselves. But, for Obama to win, they must see something of themselves in him.

The polls very clearly show that voters want change and the political and fiscal advantage for the Democratic Party would seem to favor a Democrat winning the White House.

What isn't clear is whether McCain represents enough change and whether Obama represents too much change, someone so different as to constitute a risk.

With a campaign war chest this large, Obama has a pretty good chance of defining himself better than others who will seek to do it for him.

If the financial playing field were level, the chances of Obama having the opportunity to define himself would be much less. That's why an Obama supporter should be hesitant to criticize this decision and an opponent would be well advised to flail away and try to get some value out of this reversal.

Some of us consider this Obama blabber.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Cook: Obama right to drop public financing

Cries of 'naive' would be louder than those of 'hypocrite'

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

WASHINGTON - One of this week's big political debates surrounds the decision of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to eschew public financing, a decision that many critics say constitutes him breaking a campaign promise and exposes him to allegations of hypocrisy.

It's a fair guess that an impartial jury might well convict him if this was a criminal offense, rather than a commonplace activity in American politics.

And by opting to stay in the publicly financed campaign system, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earns the right to flail away at the presumptive Democratic nominee for selling out and going back on his word.

One of the byproducts of each major party nominating its most self-righteous and sanctimonious candidate is that with some degree of regularity in the campaign, each will be embarrassed by not adhering to an impossibly high, and politically impractical, standard of moral and ethical perfection.

Obama and McCain have had to jettison talented and experienced people because those people made their livings petitioning the government on behalf of aggrieved people or others with business before the government, or because a vetter didn't maintain the standard that had been set only for the vettee.

Perhaps it is because I am on the wrong side of 50 years of age that I don't understand the concept of "post-partisan," the new buzzword that, as best I can tell, means that your last name is not Bush, Clinton or Dole.

But if Obama is to be elected president, and it would seem at this stage that there is about a 50-50 chance he will be, I am a bit relieved that a potential president would be disinclined to give up a likely three- or four-to-one spending advantage.

I strongly suspect that if Obama had agreed to tie both hands behind his back going into the general election, the word "naive" might be thrown around once or twice, possibly more than "hypocrite" is now.

McCain has every right to question Obama's honesty and integrity for this; he can certainly milk this for some political value. After all, he is going to be seriously outspent and should be able to get what marginal benefit he can get out of this awful situation.

And if there is anyone who believes that if the tables were turned, McCain wouldn't take the extra money and run like a thief, I have some land on the southern tip of Plaquemines Parish, La., that would make for a great beach resort, with a guarantee of no hurricanes hitting.

The Gallup Organization's daily tracking polls for this month show a tight race, rarely moving past the error margins, with both candidates under 50 percent of those surveyed.

Those numbers hardly translate at the moment to an Electoral College majority for either candidate.

With a race this close, it is difficult to imagine anyone giving up a potentially game-changing financial advantage, and it is unrealistic to expect it.

It is equally unreasonable to think that McCain would not make every effort to make Obama pay for taking that advantage and for McCain's campaign to contrast its operations with Obama's largesse and portray McCain as the reformer in the race, for whatever good that might do.

It's still a fair bet that Obama will use some national network advertising over the course of this summer to attempt to drive some national poll numbers his way.

With this, he can shape the public and media perception of the contest and sow discord among Republicans that a Democrat is spending money and drawing more votes out of historically Republican base states -- with everyone knowing that McCain cannot possibly match him.

But there is another reason to opt out of public funding.

Obama has to more fully develop the perception of who he is. The blank spaces on his canvass will be filled, and the only questions are who will fill them and what it will look like.

Will those blanks be filled with flattering colors or pejorative images?

The new Obama 60-second ad that began running in 18 states last week is only the beginning. Voters have to identify with Obama on some level, and feel that they have the same core values that he has, or he will lose this election.

Most voters are being asked, for the first time, to vote for someone in a presidential race who is very different from themselves. But, for Obama to win, they must see something of themselves in him.

The polls very clearly show that voters want change and the political and fiscal advantage for the Democratic Party would seem to favor a Democrat winning the White House.

What isn't clear is whether McCain represents enough change and whether Obama represents too much change, someone so different as to constitute a risk.

With a campaign war chest this large, Obama has a pretty good chance of defining himself better than others who will seek to do it for him.

If the financial playing field were level, the chances of Obama having the opportunity to define himself would be much less. That's why an Obama supporter should be hesitant to criticize this decision and an opponent would be well advised to flail away and try to get some value out of this reversal.

I think the fact that he had out raised Hillary from a large pool of small donors potentially closed a chapter in politics and opened the door to Americans who felt that they couldn't make a difference. Public financing was based on that concept, except Obama made it better because you weren't just donating a few dollars into a pool where any candidate could use your money, you were sending your small donations to the candidate of your choice. That to me is inspiring. Howard Dean started the idea...Obama took that idea and ran with it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For perspective and balance - metta and dev seem to have problems with that when it comes to the candidate that defeated their preferred choice. So much so that even the most obvious neocon blabber amounts to an issue debate. So, here, consider this reasoning supporting Obama's opting out of public finance.

Cook: Obama right to drop public financing

Cries of 'naive' would be louder than those of 'hypocrite'

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

WASHINGTON - One of this week's big political debates surrounds the decision of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to eschew public financing, a decision that many critics say constitutes him breaking a campaign promise and exposes him to allegations of hypocrisy.

It's a fair guess that an impartial jury might well convict him if this was a criminal offense, rather than a commonplace activity in American politics.

And by opting to stay in the publicly financed campaign system, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earns the right to flail away at the presumptive Democratic nominee for selling out and going back on his word.

One of the byproducts of each major party nominating its most self-righteous and sanctimonious candidate is that with some degree of regularity in the campaign, each will be embarrassed by not adhering to an impossibly high, and politically impractical, standard of moral and ethical perfection.

Obama and McCain have had to jettison talented and experienced people because those people made their livings petitioning the government on behalf of aggrieved people or others with business before the government, or because a vetter didn't maintain the standard that had been set only for the vettee.

Perhaps it is because I am on the wrong side of 50 years of age that I don't understand the concept of "post-partisan," the new buzzword that, as best I can tell, means that your last name is not Bush, Clinton or Dole.

But if Obama is to be elected president, and it would seem at this stage that there is about a 50-50 chance he will be, I am a bit relieved that a potential president would be disinclined to give up a likely three- or four-to-one spending advantage.

I strongly suspect that if Obama had agreed to tie both hands behind his back going into the general election, the word "naive" might be thrown around once or twice, possibly more than "hypocrite" is now.

McCain has every right to question Obama's honesty and integrity for this; he can certainly milk this for some political value. After all, he is going to be seriously outspent and should be able to get what marginal benefit he can get out of this awful situation.

And if there is anyone who believes that if the tables were turned, McCain wouldn't take the extra money and run like a thief, I have some land on the southern tip of Plaquemines Parish, La., that would make for a great beach resort, with a guarantee of no hurricanes hitting.

The Gallup Organization's daily tracking polls for this month show a tight race, rarely moving past the error margins, with both candidates under 50 percent of those surveyed.

Those numbers hardly translate at the moment to an Electoral College majority for either candidate.

With a race this close, it is difficult to imagine anyone giving up a potentially game-changing financial advantage, and it is unrealistic to expect it.

It is equally unreasonable to think that McCain would not make every effort to make Obama pay for taking that advantage and for McCain's campaign to contrast its operations with Obama's largesse and portray McCain as the reformer in the race, for whatever good that might do.

It's still a fair bet that Obama will use some national network advertising over the course of this summer to attempt to drive some national poll numbers his way.

With this, he can shape the public and media perception of the contest and sow discord among Republicans that a Democrat is spending money and drawing more votes out of historically Republican base states -- with everyone knowing that McCain cannot possibly match him.

But there is another reason to opt out of public funding.

Obama has to more fully develop the perception of who he is. The blank spaces on his canvass will be filled, and the only questions are who will fill them and what it will look like.

Will those blanks be filled with flattering colors or pejorative images?

The new Obama 60-second ad that began running in 18 states last week is only the beginning. Voters have to identify with Obama on some level, and feel that they have the same core values that he has, or he will lose this election.

Most voters are being asked, for the first time, to vote for someone in a presidential race who is very different from themselves. But, for Obama to win, they must see something of themselves in him.

The polls very clearly show that voters want change and the political and fiscal advantage for the Democratic Party would seem to favor a Democrat winning the White House.

What isn't clear is whether McCain represents enough change and whether Obama represents too much change, someone so different as to constitute a risk.

With a campaign war chest this large, Obama has a pretty good chance of defining himself better than others who will seek to do it for him.

If the financial playing field were level, the chances of Obama having the opportunity to define himself would be much less. That's why an Obama supporter should be hesitant to criticize this decision and an opponent would be well advised to flail away and try to get some value out of this reversal.

Some of us consider this Obama blabber.

Sorry but the neocons have lost whatever credibility they may have had prior to finding some yahoo to actually listen to them.

[HAL 9000 96]

Listen to whom? Remember, you're either with them or you're against them...

Edited June 25, 2008 by maviwaro

[metta 0]

Cook: Obama right to drop public financing

Cries of 'naive' would be louder than those of 'hypocrite'

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

WASHINGTON - One of this week's big political debates surrounds the decision of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to eschew public financing, a decision that many critics say constitutes him breaking a campaign promise and exposes him to allegations of hypocrisy.

It's a fair guess that an impartial jury might well convict him if this was a criminal offense, rather than a commonplace activity in American politics.

And by opting to stay in the publicly financed campaign system, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earns the right to flail away at the presumptive Democratic nominee for selling out and going back on his word.

One of the byproducts of each major party nominating its most self-righteous and sanctimonious candidate is that with some degree of regularity in the campaign, each will be embarrassed by not adhering to an impossibly high, and politically impractical, standard of moral and ethical perfection.

Obama and McCain have had to jettison talented and experienced people because those people made their livings petitioning the government on behalf of aggrieved people or others with business before the government, or because a vetter didn't maintain the standard that had been set only for the vettee.

Perhaps it is because I am on the wrong side of 50 years of age that I don't understand the concept of "post-partisan," the new buzzword that, as best I can tell, means that your last name is not Bush, Clinton or Dole.

But if Obama is to be elected president, and it would seem at this stage that there is about a 50-50 chance he will be, I am a bit relieved that a potential president would be disinclined to give up a likely three- or four-to-one spending advantage.

I strongly suspect that if Obama had agreed to tie both hands behind his back going into the general election, the word "naive" might be thrown around once or twice, possibly more than "hypocrite" is now.

McCain has every right to question Obama's honesty and integrity for this; he can certainly milk this for some political value. After all, he is going to be seriously outspent and should be able to get what marginal benefit he can get out of this awful situation.

And if there is anyone who believes that if the tables were turned, McCain wouldn't take the extra money and run like a thief, I have some land on the southern tip of Plaquemines Parish, La., that would make for a great beach resort, with a guarantee of no hurricanes hitting.

The Gallup Organization's daily tracking polls for this month show a tight race, rarely moving past the error margins, with both candidates under 50 percent of those surveyed.

Those numbers hardly translate at the moment to an Electoral College majority for either candidate.

With a race this close, it is difficult to imagine anyone giving up a potentially game-changing financial advantage, and it is unrealistic to expect it.

It is equally unreasonable to think that McCain would not make every effort to make Obama pay for taking that advantage and for McCain's campaign to contrast its operations with Obama's largesse and portray McCain as the reformer in the race, for whatever good that might do.

It's still a fair bet that Obama will use some national network advertising over the course of this summer to attempt to drive some national poll numbers his way.

With this, he can shape the public and media perception of the contest and sow discord among Republicans that a Democrat is spending money and drawing more votes out of historically Republican base states -- with everyone knowing that McCain cannot possibly match him.

But there is another reason to opt out of public funding.

Obama has to more fully develop the perception of who he is. The blank spaces on his canvass will be filled, and the only questions are who will fill them and what it will look like.

Will those blanks be filled with flattering colors or pejorative images?

The new Obama 60-second ad that began running in 18 states last week is only the beginning. Voters have to identify with Obama on some level, and feel that they have the same core values that he has, or he will lose this election.

Most voters are being asked, for the first time, to vote for someone in a presidential race who is very different from themselves. But, for Obama to win, they must see something of themselves in him.

The polls very clearly show that voters want change and the political and fiscal advantage for the Democratic Party would seem to favor a Democrat winning the White House.

What isn't clear is whether McCain represents enough change and whether Obama represents too much change, someone so different as to constitute a risk.

With a campaign war chest this large, Obama has a pretty good chance of defining himself better than others who will seek to do it for him.

If the financial playing field were level, the chances of Obama having the opportunity to define himself would be much less. That's why an Obama supporter should be hesitant to criticize this decision and an opponent would be well advised to flail away and try to get some value out of this reversal.

I think the fact that he had out raised Hillary from a large pool of small donors potentially closed a chapter in politics and opened the door to Americans who felt that they couldn't make a difference. Public financing was based on that concept, except Obama made it better because you weren't just donating a few dollars into a pool where any candidate could use your money, you were sending your small donations to the candidate of your choice. That to me is inspiring. Howard Dean started the idea...Obama took that idea and ran with it.

This argument over whether the op-eds are Obama blabber or NeoCon blabber is but a canard.

The main issue here is whether Obama's core values and principles are fungible or not.

Why? Because his phenomenal success in the primaries especially with the young folks freshly inducted into the political process, was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change.

This is also what Obamaniacs on this board have emphatically touted at the drop of a hat during the primary season. Correct me if I am wrong, but from the postings of many of you on this board, it meant "O young Lochinvar (read Obama), has come out of the West (read Southside Chicago)", to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old "politics as usual" bums with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

Now your narrative has changed. You are implying that sticking to priciples amounts to naivity. You guys are now echoing Charlie Cooks' pablum that financial advantage trumps professed priciples and promises to the American people. here is what he said and promised to the American people;

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.

Even his respected supporter publicly lamented :''`In terms of undermining the public financing idea for everyone'' the decision ``doesn't help,'' Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said today on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' program. ``It's going to be harder to make the case'' for public financing, he said."

Steve , youy're arguing that most of Obama's donors are small donors i.e. public. yes at this point his campaign claims 80% ( don't have time to dig up source but I noted earlier that the portion of small donors jumped from 28% to 80% almost overnight. Once they claim small donors, I understand that the names need not be reported. I wonder how many of the small donors were employees of big business or unbundled donors. I am not being cynical here because you know and i know that in this 200 year old, mature democracy , we still have dead people donating to campaigns and voting for their favorite candidates By the way, I read in recent news that Obama is courting Hillary's big money donors to contribute to his campaign. Tthat means he is not shunning big money. Also, if you look carefully at his "no money from lobbyist" policy, there is a glaring waiver for relatives and spouses of lobbyists. A glaing loophole I should add. So how long do you think it will take for this innovative so called public financing to slide back to the old practices of private financing? hence Biden's veiled censure.

To go back to Cook's argument that "to imagine anyone giving up a potentially game-changing financial advantage, and it is unrealistic to expect it", he is essentially saying that "Might (in this case financial might) is right"

That to me is nothing other than political opportunism. or shall we say political "realism."

And, talking about realism, I am reminded of Charles Krauthammer, the arch neocon arguing for 'democratic realism" in support of Bush's pre-emptive war on iraq.(here).

actually, he was arguing for "might is right" but sugar coating it with democracy and realism as in democratic realism emphasizing on seizing a "unique advantage " presented to us by the fall of the Soviet Empire.

So my point is Steve, if you go down that path, you're no different from your ideological antagonists the neocons.

From which 9/11 awoke us. It startled us into thinking everything was new. It's not. What is new is what happened not on 9/11 but ten years earlier on December 26, 1991: the emergence of the United States as the world's unipolar power. What is unique is our advantage in this struggle, an advantage we did not have during the struggles of the twentieth century. The question for our time is how to press this advantage, how to exploit our unipolar power, how to deploy it to win the old/new war that exploded upon us on 9/11.

What is the unipolar power to do?

Four schools, four answers.

The isolationists want simply to ignore unipolarity, pull up the drawbridge, and defend Fortress America. Alas, the Fortress has no moat--not after the airplane, the submarine, the ballistic missile--and as for the drawbridge, it was blown up on 9/11.

Then there are the liberal internationalists. They like to dream, and to the extent they are aware of our unipolar power, they don't like it. They see its use for anything other than humanitarianism or reflexive self-defense as an expression of national selfishness. And they don't just want us to ignore our unique power, they want us to yield it piece by piece, by subsuming ourselves in a new global architecture in which America becomes not the arbiter of international events, but a good and tame international citizen.

Then there is realism, which has the clearest understanding of the new unipolarity and its uses--unilateral and preemptive if necessary. But in the end, it fails because it offers no vision. It is all means and no ends. It cannot adequately define our mission.

Hence, the fourth school: democratic globalism. It has, in this decade, rallied the American people to a struggle over values. It seeks to vindicate the American idea by making the spread of democracy, the success of liberty, the ends and means of American foreign policy.

I support that. I applaud that. But I believe it must be tempered in its universalistic aspirations and rhetoric from a democratic globalism to a democratic realism. It must be targeted, focused and limited. We are friends to all, but we come ashore only where it really counts. And where it counts today is that Islamic crescent stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan.

Don't tell me words don't matter!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that if McCain had raised the sort of money that Obama has through internet donations we'd probably be having the same conversation about him. It just goes to show that he's just another career politician - as a lot of people have been saying.

Personally I think the whole "Change we can believe in" rationale was a bit silly - especially given that its backfiring on him again and again when he just demonstrates that he's playing the same game as everyone else.

In itself that wouldn't make me not support him (esp. given the opposition) - but it does and has raised problems for him that ordinarily shouldn't be necessary if he'd just stood on his principles and not tried to pretend to be something he clearly cannot be..

[metta 0]

It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that if McCain had raised the sort of money that Obama has through internet donations we'd probably be having the same conversation about him. It just goes to show that he's just another career politician - as a lot of people have been saying.

Personally I think the whole "Change we can believe in" rationale was a bit silly - especially given that its backfiring on him again and again when he just demonstrates that he's playing the same game as everyone else.

In itself that wouldn't make me not support him (esp. given the opposition) - but it does and has raised problems for him that ordinarily shouldn't be necessary if he'd just stood on his principles and not tried to pretend to be something he clearly cannot be..

That begs the question: what really are his principles?

So, you're accepting the fact that he is no differnt from those 'politics as usual" crowd only minus experience and any known passion for a pet issue such as "healthcare' or "social security" or "campaign reform". Then, what distinguishes him from others and what qualifies him to be elected president?

BTW, McCain for all his flaws stood by his Iraq position knowing full well that almost the entire country was against it. Whether you agree with his position or not, it shows his courage of conviction. Sticking by his principles at the risk of losing the election.

[Peikko 1,575]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

I think that about sums it up...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve , youy're arguing that most of Obama's donors are small donors i.e. public. yes at this point his campaign claims 80% ( don't have time to dig up source but I noted earlier that the portion of small donors jumped from 28% to 80% almost overnight. Once they claim small donors, I understand that the names need not be reported. I wonder how many of the small donors were employees of big business or unbundled donors. I am not being cynical here because you know and i know that in this 200 year old, mature democracy , we still have dead people donating to campaigns and voting for their favorite candidates By the way, I read in recent news that Obama is courting Hillary's big money donors to contribute to his campaign. Tthat means he is not shunning big money.

Are you in favor of public financing for presidential campaigns? If so, how many times did you check the box on your IRS forms?

Voluntary public financing was a noble idea to get big money out of the presidential campaigns, but it's not the end all answer. Our current campaign finance laws limit the amount an individual donor can give to a candidate to $2,000 per election. Now if we were to assume your theory that it's really big donors getting individuals to contribute on their behalf (which is illegal), then why are the averaging about $100?

When Obama signed on to public financing, he had no idea (no one did) that his campaign would be able to raise the kind of money they did from small donors. It had never been done before...most Americans just never gave to campaigns before. Howard Dean showed the potential 4 years ago when he ran. When a large number of voting Americans are involved in the bulk of the financing of these campaigns, we have succeeded further than what public financing had set out to do...because this way, each American gets to choose which candidate they are donating to. That to me is remarkable and inspirational.

As for any large donors - Obama will and should be under heavy scrutiny over those donors, but I'm not aware of who those donors are. I know that Hillary Clinton had donations from people like Rupert Murdoch and Walmart - two donors that most Democrats would not look upon favorably.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't like the campaing funding idea at all Steve. I don't think people should be elected on the strength of their ability to raise funds. Being a good fund raiser and being a good politician are not exactly interchangeable states.

The public funding ideal is still a good one, it's the way elections take place and the absolutely crazy sums of money that are spent on them that are completely wrong in my opinion.

As for the 'he didn't expect...' argument, yes, he's choosing expediency over principles. I get that, do you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

Amen to the first paragraph. As for the second, I don't see what the big issue is when Obama merely furthers his chances to win in November. That's what this is: a simple calculation. Will the benefit of a larger war chest outweigh the fallout from the reversal on this issue? The answer is yes and therefore the reversal took place. I fail to see what's so outrageous about Obama being a politician that runs a campaign which has the ultimate goal of winning him the Presidency.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't like the campaing funding idea at all Steve. I don't think people should be elected on the strength of their ability to raise funds. Being a good fund raiser and being a good politician are not exactly interchangeable states.

The public funding ideal is still a good one, it's the way elections take place and the absolutely crazy sums of money that are spent on them that are completely wrong in my opinion.

As for the 'he didn't expect...' argument, yes, he's choosing expediency over principles. I get that, do you?

I disagree. Limiting the amount each individual can donate while giving them the freedom to choose which candidate they support is optimal. For one, you'll never get enough Americans to agree to taxing people to fund presidential campaigns and as it currently stands, only 1 in 10 American check the box to donate to public financing.

Sure it was expedient for Obama, but I don't think it was an all out abomination of the principle behind public financing. His donations, like public financing, came voluntarily and with limits.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Jabberwocky