<p>
[Obama</a> opts out of public campaign finance system - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money]Obama”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money)</p>
<p>At least he won’t be wasting my money (collected by taxes) on his campaign.</p>
<p>Obama is just your typical dishonest politician trying to hoodwink the electorate to get to the White House. Bush also campaigned on changing Washington. I have noticed a lot of similarities between Bush 2000 and Obama 2008.</p>
<p>Obama is the left-winger version of Bush with bad economic policies.</p>
<p>McCain can also change his mind.</p>
<p>Obama will be saving 80million in public money that is usually provided by lobbyist and pacs. In other words, I think it means the corporations won’t be able to bribe him for favors.</p>
<p>I’m hopeful someone can clue me in a little. I don’t fully understand the ramifications (I haven’t taken the time to educate myself) of him doing this. I’m sure someone will chime in. </p>
<p>Watch out, I’m sure when the CC Obama-pologists catch wind of this thread you will hear all the evils of McCain and the GOP. It will be interesting to hear their justifications and why it is ok for him to break a promise he made, since he is supposed to be a much more honorable individual than the stinky republican.</p>
<p>He’s saving the U.S. taxpayers $84 million. McCain is not.</p>
<p>Clear enough for you?</p>
<p>And where exactly is the flip-flop in this?</p>
<p>This is Obama in 2006 saying that public finance saves money, Was he wrong then? You can spin all you want.</p>
<p>[Political</a> Punch](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/abc-news-video.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/abc-news-video.html)</p>
<p>“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” - Obama, 2007.</p>
<p>Yeah, I somehow doubt that is the motivation.</p>
<p>I read it. There is no inconsistency there at all.</p>
<p>Actually, I think it is very smart. First, he saves taxpayers a bunch of money. Second, he can spend boat loads in states like Arizona and Texas forcing McCain to defend his territory with finite funds.</p>
<p>So it is ok that, for political expediency, he is going against his word? He agreed that if the GOP candidate would accept the public financing then he would. Then he backs out. I like how the left can always find justification when their candidate does something like this. If McCain did this you would be quite angry and up in arms. I don’t really care how Obama conducts his campaign but let’s try to hold each side to the same standards.</p>
<p>He is not going against his word. He is holding himself to a higher standard.</p>
<p>Yep, it’s a flip-flop. No way, really, to put lipstick on that pig. But, if you were a candidate who during the Primary season, had been able to raise unprecedented amounts of money from nickel and dime donors, (with plenty more where that came from) wouldn’t you withdraw that offer? The only reason why John McCain hasn’t thrown up his hands and jumped on that band wagon, too, is because he can’t even come close to matching Obama’s grassroots fundraising abilities—at least not yet. Now, if Obama were to take Hillary as his running mate, that might galvanize the apathetic Republican based to opening their wallets on McCain’s behalf.</p>
<p>Thank you for acknowledging the fact that he is going against his word (motivations aside). It may be a brilliant strategy move. Who can say at this point. My concern isn’t that he did it but that it is recognized. He’s the sexy candidate and I’m sure he will raise a whole lot more money than McCain ever thought about.</p>
<p>Yeah, he changed his mind about the best strategy he ought to take. I don’t really mind, because he’s announcing the change publicly, and because his previous plan wasn’t a reason I supported him anyway. I don’t think it’s inherently evil to alter your plans when the landscape changes as long as you don’t try to keep it a secret.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh huh:rolleyes: You know as well as I do that The Double Standard has been the stock in trade of political races since they were wearing powdered wigs at the Ole’ Boy’s Club. Certainly here at CC, double standards criss-cross the forums like fighter jets out of Bahrain. You could get whip-lash trying to follow them.:rolleyes: Until you can honestly say that you never apply a different standard to your preferred candidate than you do to the one you disdain, maybe you shouldn’t speak so self-righteously.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with it or evil. Political campaigns have to make strategic changes all the time. It’s not like he’s flip-flopping on abortion or the death penalty.</p>
<p>Where have I applied a standard to one candidate that I wouldn’t apply to the other? Find it and I’ll admit I was wrong. I can’t be responsible if you see something and think it is a double standard when it really isn’t. I try to call a spade a spade and be equally critical of both sides. I have been complimentary of both candidates when I felt it was deserving and critical of both.</p>
<p>All the money in the world shouldn’t matter if the electorate is smart.</p>
<p>Frankly, I have my doubts.</p>
<p>Unless there is a stronger anti-Hillary factor than I previously understood, I can’t fathom how such an inexperienced naive “kid” (he’s younger than I am for Pete’s sake!) could’ve secured the nomination.</p>
<p>The irrationality of it blows my mind.<br>
Guess I need to read up on “psychosis of the masses”.</p>
<p>“yes, we can’t”, accept federal financing.</p>
<p>This is not just a flip-flop by Obama. He is reneging on a promise, which incidentally helped to build the notion that he was a ‘post political’ candidate. The more I look at Obama the more I see just another politician. Some things never change.</p>
<p>presidents younger than Obama:</p>
<p>Teddy Roosevelt (43)
JFK (43)</p>
<p>Same age as Obama:
Bill Clinton (46)</p>