<p>McCain is already spending private money on his campaign. Obama said he wouldn’t if McCain didn’t. So McCain made the decision for both of them.</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>The funds for the primaries and general elections are different. It’s primary money until the convention, after that it’s general election money. The private money McCain (and Obama) are spending is primary money and provides no excuse for Obama to break his pledge on general election public funding.</p>
<p>marite, I think if you look, without any doubt at all, each of the gentlemen you referenced had significantly more political and/or military experience than Obama, not to mention leadership experience. I think it is much less a question of age (at least to me) as it is valuable experience. There is no point in comparing him to a president 100+ years ago who may have had little to no experience before being elected. Time have changed in that respect. All of that being said, significant prior military and political experience didn’t serve Jimmy Carter at all.</p>
<p>By refusing the public funds Obama can spend as much money as he can raise privately.</p>
<p>If Obama accepted the public funds he would agree not to raise or spend private funds or use more than $50,000 of his own money.</p>
<p>The public funds come from the $3 tax check off box on individual returns. It does not affect the amount of taxes an individual pays. The program was launched in 1976. </p>
<p>Obama is the first nominee to turn down the government funding.</p>
<p>“The funds for the primaries and general elections are different. It’s primary money until the convention, after that it’s general election money. The private money McCain (and Obama) are spending is primary money and provides no excuse for Obama to break his pledge on general election public funding.”</p>
<p>It provides MORE than an excuse. It provides the reality that McCain’s commitment to public financing is a chimera, and he has gone to extraordinary lengths to get around restrictions to public financing of primary campaigns (which is now under investigation).</p>
<p>westcoast, thank you. I guess I could have looked it up but figured someone would have a good explanation!</p>
<p>pmrlcomm:</p>
<p>I was specifically addressing post #18 :</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve reached an age where being younger than I am is not a sign of immaturity, alas. </p>
<p>As for “inexperienced,” I don’t think Obama compares unfavorably with Clinton (Bill, that is).</p>
<p>I find it pretty ironic and hilarious that conservatives get in a dither about anyone using private money versus taxpayer money to do anything. Isn’t privatization the KEY conservative value?</p>
<p>Nobody cares about the money itself.</p>
<p>That’s what everyone says from their losing vantage point.</p>
<p>Looking at it from a different angle, perhaps Congress can re-allocate the $80 million to buy another few hours of the Iraq occupation. I heard it’s costing us $720 million a day.</p>
<p>marite, I knew exactly what you were referencing. The one things Clinton did have coming in that Obama doesn’t have, that I am aware of, is some (albeit brief) executive experience. I can’t say that I am all that up on Bill’s credentials other than a term as AG and Governor of Arkansas. You could be right in your comparison there. I just haven’t seen anywhere the Obama has ever been in charge of any kind of political or military system. If he gets elected I hope that he does a good job…he’ll be my President at that point…same as McCain will be yours if elected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are missing the point. It’s not who’s money he spends. I think that, when you boil it down, it’s all private money as the “federal” money is from donations anyhow (if I understand it correctly). It’s about the fact that he said one thing and did another. It really isn’t about the money.</p>
<p>Obama ,“The Great Illusionist” will take his act on the road. Money is of no object in conjuring the public. Aided by the deceptive liberal media who pontificates "Do not look behind the curtain " or you might wake from you dream state. Unfortunately, Logic will prevail and we will all come to realize we’re not in Kansas any more!</p>
<p>Even Common Cause said today that although in principle they, like him, are in favor of public financing of all elections (not just presidential), the current public financing system is completely broken and ineffective.</p>
<p>Well, in reality he didn’t agree to accept public financing. He made a long qualified very political statement about it, he stood in the middle. </p>
<p>So he didn’t lie or break a promise, but i do agree that he was very politician-esque.</p>
<p>Pass the popcorn…</p>
<p>pmrlcomm:</p>
<p>I don’t think that Bill Clinton’s previous experience in any way prepared him for the presidency. Few jobs do. But, his personal flaws aside, he did a decent job as president. I assume that both Obama and McCain would also do a decent job–though, of course, their policies would differ. I also think that either of them will do a far better job than the current incumbent. </p>
<p>On the second issue, though I had not commented on it, Obama did equivocate (not quite a flip flop as he’d left himself wriggling room). I’d seen it coming a long time ago, so I’m not surprised. Interestingly, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute defends his decision:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Author</a> Of McCain-Feingold: Obama Smart To Opt Out Of Public Funds - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Author Of McCain-Feingold: Obama Smart To Opt Out Of Public Funds | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>I believe Clinton learned quite a bit from his 2 year stint as governor. He made some really bad decisions and it likely helped him be a more capable leader in the Presidency. I’m not like most conservatives that think Clinton was terrible. I wasn’t a big fan but it could have been worse. I don’t think Obama has ever been put in a situation making policy decisions like this. Not that he isn’t capable. He has no experience or track record at it to judge. He doesn’t even have the military experience…not a prerequisite for the job but again, something that, when you are in a command creates some pressure packed decision making skills. He might be a brilliant Commander-in-Chief…we’ll only know if he is elected. No one we elect is a sure thing.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is anything to defend in his decision. Like any politician things change and you have to do things that you originally didn’t plan on, remember “no new taxes”? I just want it remembered that he said one thing and did another. I’m sure at some point McCain will do the same thing. I’m hopeful y’all will be as forgiving when he does it. Somehow I don’t think so though…</p>
<p>Actually, I would not mind if McCain changed his mind on a number of issues-- those over which I disagree with him, of course ;)</p>
<p>All politicians state positions that they believe will increase they chances of being elected. Afterwards, the facts dictate they compromise their position.</p>
<p>For example, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, never going to happen. There are facts not available to the public that prevents an immediate withdrawal. GWB has already briefed the potential presidential candidates putting what’s good for the country above politics. Thus allowing political wiggle room to back away from previous hard line statements from Obama. If you research you will find that Obama has made such statements.</p>