*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[flufhed]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. Not sure if it kills him, but I think he should stick with the pledge.

 

[adonis]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. Not sure if it kills him, but I think he should stick with the pledge.

He pledged to have his campaign supported by the public, and that's what he has now. Nearly 1 million total donors, no special interest money, and plenty of room to grow.

 

[Sammy3469]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. Not sure if it kills him, but I think he should stick with the pledge.

He pledged to have his campaign supported by the public, and that's what he has now. Nearly 1 million total donors, no special interest money, and plenty of room to grow.

which is exactly what he should say...there's absolutely no reason for him to take public financing...none...zip...zilch. For once the Dems have the $$$ advantage and he should use it especially since it appears he's very good at using it wisely.

 

[adonis]

So there's a lot of talk about Obama supporters drinking kool-aid and thinking that Obama is the next "messiah".

In another thread, I wast just replying in jest to someone who was predicting doom and gloom for the next 4 years if Obama got elected, and I said this:

Obama's gonna have to do some serious miracle working to get us out of what mess Bush has put us in so I hope he's half the "messiah" you guys say we think he is.

I wonder if that can be an effective reply when people accuse us of having near religious zealotry for Obama. What do you think?

 

[Gr00vus]

I wonder if that can be an effective reply when people accuse us of having near religious zealotry for Obama. What do you think?

I honestly don't think it's worth dignifying the original sentiment with a response. Finding fault with policy, voting record, public statements, etc. is worth responding too. Justifying enthusiasm for a candidate you support isn't. We should all be lucky enough to be enthusiastic about a candidate rather than just grimly (and often times blindly) supporting whatever hairball the party we're a member of coughs up.Disclaimer - I'm not on the Obama bandwagon - yet.

 

[Orange Crush]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.

After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. Not sure if it kills him, but I think he should stick with the pledge.

He pledged to have his campaign supported by the public, and that's what he has now. Nearly 1 million total donors, no special interest money, and plenty of room to grow.

which is exactly what he should say...there's absolutely no reason for him to take public financing...none...zip...zilch. For once the Dems have the $$$ advantage and he should use it especially since it appears he's very good at using it wisely.

He should really slam McCain on his public financing flip-flop, and using tax payers money as collateral for a bank loan. McCain's already in trouble with the FEC for this, but the FEC cannot do anything because there's still open seats that won't be filled due to the Republican refusal to nominate anyone other than the vote suppressing Hans Von Spakovsky.McCain Loan Raises FEC Questions:

The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November.

McCain's lawyer, Trevor Potter, said Wednesday evening that McCain has withdrawn from the system and that the FEC can't stop him. Potter, who was FEC chairman in 1994, said the campaign did not encumber the public funds in any way.

"Well, it was done before in another campaign. ... We think it's perfectly legal. One of our advisers is a former chairman of the FEC, and we are confident that it was an appropriate thing to do," McCain told a news conference Thursday.

McCain, a longtime advocate of stricter limits on money in politics, was one of the few leading presidential candidates to seek FEC certification for public money during the primaries. The FEC determined that he was entitled to at least $5.8 million. But McCain did not obtain the money, and he notified the FEC earlier this month that he would bypass the system, freeing him from its spending limits.

But just as McCain was beginning to turn his attention to a likely Democratic opponent, Mason, a Republican appointee to the commission, essentially said, "Not so fast."

By accepting the public money, McCain would be limited to spending about $54 million for the primaries, a ceiling his campaign is near. That would significantly hinder his ability to finance his campaign between now and the Republican National Convention in September.

Complicating the dispute is the FEC's current lack of a quorum. The six-member commission has four vacancies and Senate Democrats and Republicans are at loggerheads over how to fill them.

In his letter, Mason told McCain he would need the votes of four commissioners to accept his withdrawal from the system.

"The commission will consider your request at such a time as it has a quorum," Mason wrote.

Without action by the Senate, McCain could be waiting indefinitely.

"We believe that Senator McCain had a clear legal right to withdraw from the primary matching fund system and he has done so," Potter said. "No FEC action was or is required for withdrawal."

Potter said McCain will continue with his campaign and not adhere to the public financing system's limits on spending. Without a full commission, Mason has little enforcement power. Likewise, without an FEC, McCain has no way to appeal Mason's conclusion.

At issue is the fine print in the loan agreement between McCain and Fidelity & Trust Bank. McCain secured the loan using his list of contributors, his promise to use that list to raise money to pay off the loan and by taking out a life insurance policy.

But the agreement also said that if McCain were to withdraw from the public financing system before the end of 2007 and then were to lose the New Hampshire primary by more than 10 percentage points, he would have had to reapply to the FEC for public matching funds and provide the bank additional collateral for the loan.

In his letter to McCain, Mason said the commission would allow a candidate to withdraw from the public finance system as long as he had not received any public funds and had not pledged the certification of such funds "as security for private financing."

Citing the loan agreement, Mason wrote: "We note that in your letter, you state that neither you nor your (presidential campaign) committee has pledged the certification of matching payment funds as security for private financing. In preparation for commission consideration of your request upon establishment of a quorum, we invite you to expand on the rationale for that conclusion."

...

The dispute comes at an awkward time for McCain. While he has sought to bypass the public financing system for the primaries, he would like to participate in the system for the general election and he is attempting to hold Democrat Barack Obama to his offer to participate in the system too.

If McCain were to face Obama in the general election under public financing rules, each would get about $85 million to spend between September and Election Day in November. McCain would be the clear beneficiary because Obama has become the most prolific fundraiser in presidential politics and likely would be able to amass much more than $85 million from his donors.

 

[flufhed]

This is the take from the Washington Post:

To understand the background to this dispute, it is necessary to go back to February 2007 when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public funds with the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 1, 2007 letter to the FEC, lawyers for Obama asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the contributions if an agreement was reached with other major candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissable, as long as the general election funds were kept in a clearly separate account from the primary election funds. The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the Feb. 1 letter to the FEC that can be fairly interpreted as committing the campaign to accepting public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico on Feb. 28, 2007 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to participating in the public financing system if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. His enthusiasm for public financing was a way of distinguishing himself from his rival Hillary Clinton, who was raising much more private money at the time.The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "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?" You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: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.

Bottom line, Obama needs to quickly come out one way or another on this issue. Adonis, your arguments do not really impress me in light of the facts above, but if he is going to go that route, he needs to do it, lay out his reasons, and put this to bed.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So there's a lot of talk about Obama supporters drinking kool-aid and thinking that Obama is the next "messiah".

Its just the republicans.Its the same thing every time. They try and label their opponents with "dirty" words.It doesnt matter what you do, they will try and make a stigma to anything they are scared of.

 

[adonis]

I wonder if that can be an effective reply when people accuse us of having near religious zealotry for Obama. What do you think?

I honestly don't think it's worth dignifying the original sentiment with a response. Finding fault with policy, voting record, public statements, etc. is worth responding too. Justifying enthusiasm for a candidate you support isn't. We should all be lucky enough to be enthusiastic about a candidate rather than just grimly (and often times blindly) supporting whatever hairball the party we're a member of coughs up.Disclaimer - I'm not on the Obama bandwagon - yet.

Well, you have a seat saved if/when you want to jump on.

 

[adonis]

This is the take from the Washington Post:

To understand the background to this dispute, it is necessary to go back to February 2007 when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public funds with the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 1, 2007 letter to the FEC, lawyers for Obama asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the contributions if an agreement was reached with other major candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissable, as long as the general election funds were kept in a clearly separate account from the primary election funds. The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the Feb. 1 letter to the FEC that can be fairly interpreted as committing the campaign to accepting public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico on Feb. 28, 2007 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to participating in the public financing system if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. His enthusiasm for public financing was a way of distinguishing himself from his rival Hillary Clinton, who was raising much more private money at the time.The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "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?" You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: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.

Bottom line, Obama needs to quickly come out one way or another on this issue. Adonis, your arguments do not really impress me in light of the facts above, but if he is going to go that route, he needs to do it, lay out his reasons, and put this to bed.

I guess I don't understand. He's repeatedly said that he wants to "preserve a publicly financed general election" and he has done that. He is taking money from the public, and not private institutions.But honestly, I don't see any urgent need for him to put this issue to rest. McCain has other nagging things on him than trying to pressure obama here, and that news will fall out of public view soon. It's in obama's best interest to let it fall out, then later, make the comment that "in accordance with my previous pledge to preserve a publicly financed general election, I will only accept donations for hte general election from the public." In that way, he will be preserving his pledge, without being limited by the restrictions of the finance regulations. It's not flip-flopping if the purpose of his original message is still preserved.

 

[aardball44]

Hijack:

My son and I were watching the lunar eclipse last night. The moon was nearly in total eclipse, with just a crest of bright white on the top. I took a picture of it and commented, "It looks just like John McCain."

My son laughed and said, "Wait five minutes and you can get a picture of Barack Obama."

Good times...

 

[Marc Levin]

Hijack:My son and I were watching the lunar eclipse last night. The moon was nearly in total eclipse, with just a crest of bright white on the top. I took a picture of it and commented, "It looks just like John McCain."My son laughed and said, "Wait five minutes and you can get a picture of Barack Obama."Good times...

That is PRICEless!!!!

 

[aardball44]

This is the take from the Washington Post:

To understand the background to this dispute, it is necessary to go back to February 2007 when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public funds with the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 1, 2007 letter to the FEC, lawyers for Obama asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the contributions if an agreement was reached with other major candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissable, as long as the general election funds were kept in a clearly separate account from the primary election funds. The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the Feb. 1 letter to the FEC that can be fairly interpreted as committing the campaign to accepting public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico on Feb. 28, 2007 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to participating in the public financing system if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. His enthusiasm for public financing was a way of distinguishing himself from his rival Hillary Clinton, who was raising much more private money at the time.The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "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?" You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: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.

Bottom line, Obama needs to quickly come out one way or another on this issue. Adonis, your arguments do not really impress me in light of the facts above, but if he is going to go that route, he needs to do it, lay out his reasons, and put this to bed.

I guess I don't understand. He's repeatedly said that he wants to "preserve a publicly financed general election" and he has done that. He is taking money from the public, and not private institutions.But honestly, I don't see any urgent need for him to put this issue to rest. McCain has other nagging things on him than trying to pressure obama here, and that news will fall out of public view soon. It's in obama's best interest to let it fall out, then later, make the comment that "in accordance with my previous pledge to preserve a publicly financed general election, I will only accept donations for hte general election from the public." In that way, he will be preserving his pledge, without being limited by the restrictions of the finance regulations. It's not flip-flopping if the purpose of his original message is still preserved.

I think this would be an astute maneuver on his part.He could also say, "I have the option of having X amount in government-provided money at my campaign's disposal, or Y amount (where Y is substantially higher) of money which was pledged to me by my supporters. I owe it to those supporters to give my best effort in this race using the funds they contributed to advance my campaign. Thank you for that -- game on."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is the take from the Washington Post:

To understand the background to this dispute, it is necessary to go back to February 2007 when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public funds with the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 1, 2007 letter to the FEC, lawyers for Obama asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the contributions if an agreement was reached with other major candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissable, as long as the general election funds were kept in a clearly separate account from the primary election funds. The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the Feb. 1 letter to the FEC that can be fairly interpreted as committing the campaign to accepting public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico on Feb. 28, 2007 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to participating in the public financing system if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. His enthusiasm for public financing was a way of distinguishing himself from his rival Hillary Clinton, who was raising much more private money at the time.The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "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?" You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: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.

Bottom line, Obama needs to quickly come out one way or another on this issue. Adonis, your arguments do not really impress me in light of the facts above, but if he is going to go that route, he needs to do it, lay out his reasons, and put this to bed.

I guess I don't understand. He's repeatedly said that he wants to "preserve a publicly financed general election" and he has done that. He is taking money from the public, and not private institutions.But honestly, I don't see any urgent need for him to put this issue to rest. McCain has other nagging things on him than trying to pressure obama here, and that news will fall out of public view soon. It's in obama's best interest to let it fall out, then later, make the comment that "in accordance with my previous pledge to preserve a publicly financed general election, I will only accept donations for hte general election from the public." In that way, he will be preserving his pledge, without being limited by the restrictions of the finance regulations. It's not flip-flopping if the purpose of his original message is still preserved.

A few posts ago you asked how to dispel the notion that you're a blind Obama homer. One way to accomplish that goal would be to stop with blind homerism. The idea that taking private contributions amounts to public financing is ludicrous.If Obama decides to opt out of the public system while McCain tries to reach an agreement to opt-in, it will be a change of positions on Obama's part. Personally, I have no problem with that, in part because it isn't that big a deal and in part because I don't like public financing in the first place. You're not doing yourself a lot of favors when you try to redefine words into things they don't mean, though.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

He could also say, "I have the option of having X amount in government-provided money at my campaign's disposal, or Y amount (where Y is substantially higher) of money which was pledged to me by my supporters. I owe it to those supporters to give my best effort in this race using the funds they contributed to advance my campaign. Thank you for that -- game on."

This is exactly what I would do if I was Obama.

 

[adonis]

This is the take from the Washington Post:

To understand the background to this dispute, it is necessary to go back to February 2007 when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public funds with the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 1, 2007 letter to the FEC, lawyers for Obama asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the contributions if an agreement was reached with other major candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissable, as long as the general election funds were kept in a clearly separate account from the primary election funds. The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the Feb. 1 letter to the FEC that can be fairly interpreted as committing the campaign to accepting public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico on Feb. 28, 2007 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to participating in the public financing system if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. His enthusiasm for public financing was a way of distinguishing himself from his rival Hillary Clinton, who was raising much more private money at the time.The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "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?" You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: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.

Bottom line, Obama needs to quickly come out one way or another on this issue. Adonis, your arguments do not really impress me in light of the facts above, but if he is going to go that route, he needs to do it, lay out his reasons, and put this to bed.

I guess I don't understand. He's repeatedly said that he wants to "preserve a publicly financed general election" and he has done that. He is taking money from the public, and not private institutions.But honestly, I don't see any urgent need for him to put this issue to rest. McCain has other nagging things on him than trying to pressure obama here, and that news will fall out of public view soon. It's in obama's best interest to let it fall out, then later, make the comment that "in accordance with my previous pledge to preserve a publicly financed general election, I will only accept donations for hte general election from the public." In that way, he will be preserving his pledge, without being limited by the restrictions of the finance regulations. It's not flip-flopping if the purpose of his original message is still preserved.

A few posts ago you asked how to dispel the notion that you're a blind Obama homer. One way to accomplish that goal would be to stop with blind homerism. The idea that taking private contributions amounts to public financing is ludicrous.If Obama decides to opt out of the public system while McCain tries to reach an agreement to opt-in, it will be a change of positions on Obama's part. Personally, I have no problem with that, in part because it isn't that big a deal and in part because I don't like public financing in the first place. You're not doing yourself a lot of favors when you try to redefine words into things they don't mean, though.

So what words am I changing into things they don't mean? I thought we were talking about "public financing" and that meant financed by the public. What was the intent of the public finance restrictions?

 

[Orange Crush]

The party nominations are VERY late this cycle. The publicly financed campaign will give both major candidates $84M to spend over two months. And Obama can continue to raise and spend as much money as he wants until the convention. After the convention, people can still donate to other groups who will run issue ads without any direct contact or direction from the campaign. So all of Obama's supporters can switch their donations to the Democratic National Committee.

I think Obama should do the public financing. He said he would pursue it if the Republican nominee was willing. McCain's willing. Stand by what you said.

Obama can say right now that he hasn't responded yet because he has to be the Democratic party's nominee first. But that's really just an excuse. He really does need to choose one way or the other right now (maybe at the debate tonight?).

 

[Marc Levin]

The party nominations are VERY late this cycle.

Yet they started primaries in f'in January.Makes no damn good sense.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is the take from the Washington Post:

To understand the background to this dispute, it is necessary to go back to February 2007 when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public funds with the Federal Election Commission. In a Feb. 1, 2007 letter to the FEC, lawyers for Obama asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the contributions if an agreement was reached with other major candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissable, as long as the general election funds were kept in a clearly separate account from the primary election funds. The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the Feb. 1 letter to the FEC that can be fairly interpreted as committing the campaign to accepting public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico on Feb. 28, 2007 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to participating in the public financing system if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. His enthusiasm for public financing was a way of distinguishing himself from his rival Hillary Clinton, who was raising much more private money at the time.The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "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?" You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: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.

Bottom line, Obama needs to quickly come out one way or another on this issue. Adonis, your arguments do not really impress me in light of the facts above, but if he is going to go that route, he needs to do it, lay out his reasons, and put this to bed.

I guess I don't understand. He's repeatedly said that he wants to "preserve a publicly financed general election" and he has done that. He is taking money from the public, and not private institutions.But honestly, I don't see any urgent need for him to put this issue to rest. McCain has other nagging things on him than trying to pressure obama here, and that news will fall out of public view soon. It's in obama's best interest to let it fall out, then later, make the comment that "in accordance with my previous pledge to preserve a publicly financed general election, I will only accept donations for hte general election from the public." In that way, he will be preserving his pledge, without being limited by the restrictions of the finance regulations. It's not flip-flopping if the purpose of his original message is still preserved.

A few posts ago you asked how to dispel the notion that you're a blind Obama homer. One way to accomplish that goal would be to stop with blind homerism. The idea that taking private contributions amounts to public financing is ludicrous.If Obama decides to opt out of the public system while McCain tries to reach an agreement to opt-in, it will be a change of positions on Obama's part. Personally, I have no problem with that, in part because it isn't that big a deal and in part because I don't like public financing in the first place. You're not doing yourself a lot of favors when you try to redefine words into things they don't mean, though.

So what words am I changing into things they don't mean? I thought we were talking about "public financing" and that meant financed by the public. What was the intent of the public finance restrictions?

"Public financing" means that candidates run their campaigns with money provided by the government, not private individuals or groups.

 

[adonis]

"Public financing" means that candidates run their campaigns with money provided by the government, not private individuals or groups.

What was the intention of making public funds available for this sort of thing? Honestly, I'm curious. I'm gonna do some research on my own, but wonder what you'll say.

 

[aardball44]

Also Barack can say, "I'm saving the US government -- and American taxpayers -- $84 million dollars today. That's a good start. Put me in the White House, because I'm ready to make that $84 million pay dividends by dedicating it toward [insert popular entitlement program or "one Abrams tank" or whatever]..."

 

[aardball44]

"Public financing" means that candidates run their campaigns with money provided by the government, not private individuals or groups.

What was the intention of making public funds available for this sort of thing? Honestly, I'm curious. I'm gonna do some research on my own, but wonder what you'll say.

It caps the amount of money spent on either campaign, thereby allowing for a level financial playing field for both candidates, and restricting the amount of money that can be spent on negative advertising.It also prevents a gazillionaire from buying the office.Or that's how I've understood it.

 

[Gr00vus]

The party nominations are VERY late this cycle.

Yet they started primaries in f'in January.Makes no damn good sense.

I prefer a shorter election cycle myself. There's very little substance as is, extending the campaign period just makes it worse.

 

[aardball44]

I thought Hillary was responsible for pushing the convention back to late August. Something about it better serving her master plan for winning the election.

Is that not correct?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

He'll take a hit on the public financing thing for sure, but much better to do it tomorrow (after the debate).

The spin will be in his favor because it's not special interest or lobbyist money.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The longer the battle between Obama and Clinton goes on with McCain and conservatives attacking from the sidelines, the worse this will be for the democrats.

If Obama pulls out delegate wins in TX and OH, Clinton needs to step down, for the good of the party. This is what Romney did, knowing that a protracted fight would weaken the Republicans chances. Clinton should do the same, for the good of the party, and not handcuff Obama to fight a battle on two fronts.

If he comes out of the next series of primaries with the most delegates, she needs to step down. Obama needs the freedom to respond to McCain and others as the undisputed democratic nominee, with the full support of the democratic party behind him.

This is the type of conventional wisdom that often ends up simply being wrong. For as much as people want to classify the primary as "negative", it's been notably positive. I see no evidence for the idea that a tough, fair primary fight hurts a nominee in the end. All the primary does is give the eventual nominee more free media coverage that is dramatic in a way that McCain won't be able to match until his convention.I'm supporting Obama, but I'm getting really sick of hearing Obama supporters (not the candidate himself) make these types of veiled threats about superdelegates. Superdelegates were part of the process he signed up for. There's absolutely no way to look at the process in good faith and believe that the superdelegates are required to do anything other than voter their conscience. Obama's supporters should continue to celebrate their candidate and get away from the teeth knashing and veiled threats about burning #### down if the superdelegates break for Hil. It just looks petulant.

What the hell makes you think my threats are "veiled"?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Homer, prepare your match... Hillary's team has indeed started contacting Obama's pledged delegates.

link

Wolfson is dishonest: They are going after pledged delegates

by LoLoLaLa

Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PST

I’m in Vegas and last night myself and a dozen or so other Obama supporters were at the Culinary Union calling our Obama delegates. I probably made about 100 calls and about 95 said Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been calling them "all day" or at least once already.

The fact that they're calling them isn't a big deal, NV's Democratic party put out a list of delegates that doesn't include who the individual is a delegate for. However, we crossed their list, with our list of supporters and we're calling OUR delegates.

What gets me heated is, everyone who said Hillary's campaign called them also said they were encouraged to switch their support from Obama to Hillary . One man even said the person who called him "wouldn't let it go" and when he angrily told them he wasn't going to drop his support for Obama, they just hung up the phone on him.

The Clinton campaign has called me three times already since 2pm yesterday.

Any other Obama supporters in the Las Vegas area, please come to the Culinary Union or SEIU and phone bank with us from 5-9pm. Friday register early for the Clark County Democratic Convention in between the times of 4 and 9pm at Bally's Hotel. You can register the day of the convention at Bally's between 8 and 10am. The convention starts at 10am. There is no registration fee.

If you want to volunteer, show up at bally's 3pm on Friday.

Moving up to DefCon 4. Sig updated.

 

[flufhed]

The idea that taking private contributions amounts to public financing is ludicrous.

Of course it is. Maybe Adonis just doesn't understand the issue.Donations = private financing. End of story. It is be definition.There is no wiggle room around this, and no way to parse words. Even Bill Clinton couldn't pull that one off.

 

[flufhed]

The party nominations are VERY late this cycle. The publicly financed campaign will give both major candidates $84M to spend over two months. And Obama can continue to raise and spend as much money as he wants until the convention. After the convention, people can still donate to other groups who will run issue ads without any direct contact or direction from the campaign. So all of Obama's supporters can switch their donations to the Democratic National Committee.I think Obama should do the public financing. He said he would pursue it if the Republican nominee was willing. McCain's willing. Stand by what you said. Obama can say right now that he hasn't responded yet because he has to be the Democratic party's nominee first. But that's really just an excuse. He really does need to choose one way or the other right now (maybe at the debate tonight?).

Agree 100%. If any year is a year when a huge warchest for the general will not be that hugely important, this is it. He wouldn't have to wrry about being outspent by Mccain, and he has a HUGE advantage in spending all the way through the convention.Just do it, Barack.

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

Don't feel like sifting through 73 pages but anyone put a link of the barack obama supporter on hardball who couldn't name one legislative accomplishment he has done.

if not, here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=***lmXCSRJM

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Don't feel like sifting through 73 pages but anyone put a link of the barack obama supporter on hardball who couldn't name one legislative accomplishment he has done.

if not, here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=***lmXCSRJM

you dont think its been covered in 73 pages?you also think its odd for someone to not have a politicians legaslative history committed to memory?

wake up.

 

[timschochet]

I want to say how much I appreciate most of you who contribute to this thread for trying to keep it interesting and full of good information. I have tried to do the same for the McCain thread, but I get a bunch of people who try to waste time there, like the guy who just copied my entire opening post (which is quite long since it contains a McCain biography plus most of his political positions) then crossed lines through the whole thing, just so he could write the word "fixed" at the end. Stunts like these are incredibly annoying and make people stop wanting to read what should be an important thread, which is too bad. I appreciate that this thread at least is devoid of such ignorant antics.

 

[NCCommish]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. Not sure if it kills him, but I think he should stick with the pledge.

I have looked at this and read all the quotes and there is no flip flop. He said he would negotiate with the GOP candidate on public financing once he was the nominee. He isn't the nominee and the general has not started. McCain is pushing this because he is getting his head handed to him as far as fund raising goes, as did every GOP candidate. The media are just parroting McCains spin.

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

Don't feel like sifting through 73 pages but anyone put a link of the barack obama supporter on hardball who couldn't name one legislative accomplishment he has done.

if not, here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=***lmXCSRJM

you dont think its been covered in 73 pages?you also think its odd for someone to not have a politicians legaslative history committed to memory?

wake up.

I thought it was covered in the 73 pages but didn't know for sure and said i didnt want to sift through it.there's a big difference between not knowing a single legislative accomplishment, and having a politician's entire legislative history commited to memory.

I think most Barack Obama supporters are more informed about their candidate than the guy that went on Hardball in that youtube link (and well you) but it still made for a pretty amusing clip.

 

[flufhed]

From the blog referenced a few posts above, comes this very good piece of advice for the obama camp dealing with taking public financing or not:

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.

After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With almost 500,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more “of the people.” The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. Not sure if it kills him, but I think he should stick with the pledge.

I have looked at this and read all the quotes and there is no flip flop. He said he would negotiate with the GOP candidate on public financing once he was the nominee. He isn't the nominee and the general has not started. McCain is pushing this because he is getting his head handed to him as far as fund raising goes, as did every GOP candidate. The media are just parroting McCains spin.

Well, perception is reality, as they say.

 

[Print Is Dead]

Pic

 

[MrPhoenix]

Pic

OJ's Heisman making the rounds.

 

[NCCommish]

Pic

I get to hold the Heisman, I am doing the pose.

 

[Print Is Dead]

Pic

I get to hold the Heisman, I am doing the pose.

Of course. You have to. I used to work with Ricky Williams mom. I've held it. :heisman:

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

 

[Print Is Dead]

Pic

OJ's Heisman making the rounds.

Actually he's in Austin today and met with the UT football team.

 

[Print Is Dead]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

Like this?

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

Is Obama's media affair ending? by Jitendra Joshi for yahoo news http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080221/ts_al...svoteobamamedia

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Barack Obama, the wunderkind of US politics, has long basked in adulatory press coverage for his historic White House bid -- but a media backlash appears to be building.

Hillary Clinton, Obama's bitter rival for the Democrats' presidential nomination, has long complained that the young Illinois senator is getting a free ride from journalists in thrall to his promise of change.

"Obama is the new story this year and reporters love novel plotlines," said Darrell West, a political scientist and media expert at Brown University in Rhode Island.

"But as it gets closer to the nomination, there is going to be more scrutiny of him. Reporters are going to examine his statements, his votes and his background," he told AFP.

Some Obama supporters fret already that his campaign has the trappings of a messianic cult, as thousands upon thousands pack auditoriums to bask in his uplifting oratory.

"Obamaphilia has gotten creepy," Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein wrote. "The best we Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing ourselves."

But even seasoned Republican commentators have found something refreshing in the 46-year-old Obama's drive to become the first African-American president and turn a page on two decades of political rancor.

MSNBC presenter Joe Scarborough, a former Republican representative, has commented admiringly on Obama's ability to rally independents and even Republicans to his cause. "I've never seen anything like this before," he said.

For a fickle media pack always desperate for the next big thing, the Obama phenomenon has shone beside the tarnished luster of Clinton and her former president husband Bill.

That frustrates Clinton aides such as communications chief Howard Wolfson, who said his boss had been "vetted" thoroughly.

"There is a role that the press plays in vetting candidates and that role is presumably ongoing," he said, arguing that recent disclosures about Obama were better late than never.

The candidate himself denies that he has received an easy ride, noting that for much of last year the coverage was not so excitable when he was focused on nuts-and-bolts stump issues.

"We got good press (at first) because we raised more money than people had expected," Obama said late last month. "And then there was a big stretch of about six months when we couldn't do anything right.

"We were not complaining when other candidates were touted as inevitable and their campaigns were flawless and we were the gang that couldn't shoot straight. So I just think we have to keep it in perspective."

Obama has kept the press at arm's length, giving fewer on-the-record briefings than Clinton, the once "inevitable" nominee who has become more accessible as her campaign has faltered.

Still, Obama brings to mind the original "Teflon president," Ronald Reagan, to whom scandal failed to stick and whose talent for communication lives on in the Illinois senator.

The Clinton campaign has struggled to whip up media interest in Obama's financial links to a Chicago businessman, Antoin Rezko, who is due to go on trial for fraud next month.

The New York senator has gained traction more recently for her accusation that Obama has plagiarized other politicians' speeches, although that piece of spin did nothing to halt Obama's momentum in Wisconsin Tuesday.

Television networks cut away from Clinton mid-speech on the night of the Wisconsin primary as Obama stole her thunder at a victory rally in Texas, a small but telling sign of the shift in media attention from last year.

But Obama hasn't been immune to attack.

Fox News presenters last year relayed false claims by Insight, an online journal published by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, that he attended a radical Islamic school as a child in Indonesia.

Insight had said the Clinton campaign was preparing to assert that Obama had covered up this period of his life, but the New York Times said the report was "quickly discredited" and Fox backtracked.

However, Obama is now under broader fire as his chances of winning the Democratic nomination have surged with victories in 11 contests running.

In an article headlined "The Obama Delusion," Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson said the senator "seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story." "The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't."

all of you obamaphiles

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

Like this?

I still can't believe he was the nominee.Jebus. :shakeshead:

 

[Print Is Dead]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

Like this?

I still can't believe he was the nominee.Jebus. :shakeshead:

He could snowboard really well.

 

[flufhed]

Pic

I get to hold the Heisman, I am doing the pose.

Of course. You have to.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

Like this?

I still can't believe he was the nominee.Jebus. :shakeshead:

He could snowboard really well.

Only adding to his dickishness.

 

[flufhed]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

Like this?

I still can't believe he was the nominee.Jebus. :shakeshead:

He could snowboard really well.

Only adding to his dickishness.

And the wind-surfing wasn't helping, either.

 

[Print Is Dead]

Pic

You have to like the fact that when Obama does stuff like that, he actually looks funny in an intentional, self-deprecating way. If somebody John Kerry tried to pull off that photo, it would be funny in an unintentional, pitiful way.

Like this?

I still can't believe he was the nominee.Jebus. :shakeshead:

He could snowboard really well.

Only adding to his dickishness.

And the wind-surfing wasn't helping, either.

"Reporting for duty...and wind-surfing." :salute:

 

[NCCommish]

Is Obama's media affair ending? by Jitendra Joshi for yahoo news http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080221/ts_al...svoteobamamedia

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Barack Obama, the wunderkind of US politics, has long basked in adulatory press coverage for his historic White House bid -- but a media backlash appears to be building.

Hillary Clinton, Obama's bitter rival for the Democrats' presidential nomination, has long complained that the young Illinois senator is getting a free ride from journalists in thrall to his promise of change.

"Obama is the new story this year and reporters love novel plotlines," said Darrell West, a political scientist and media expert at Brown University in Rhode Island.

"But as it gets closer to the nomination, there is going to be more scrutiny of him. Reporters are going to examine his statements, his votes and his background," he told AFP.

Some Obama supporters fret already that his campaign has the trappings of a messianic cult, as thousands upon thousands pack auditoriums to bask in his uplifting oratory.

"Obamaphilia has gotten creepy," Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein wrote. "The best we Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing ourselves."

But even seasoned Republican commentators have found something refreshing in the 46-year-old Obama's drive to become the first African-American president and turn a page on two decades of political rancor.

MSNBC presenter Joe Scarborough, a former Republican representative, has commented admiringly on Obama's ability to rally independents and even Republicans to his cause. "I've never seen anything like this before," he said.

For a fickle media pack always desperate for the next big thing, the Obama phenomenon has shone beside the tarnished luster of Clinton and her former president husband Bill.

That frustrates Clinton aides such as communications chief Howard Wolfson, who said his boss had been "vetted" thoroughly.

"There is a role that the press plays in vetting candidates and that role is presumably ongoing," he said, arguing that recent disclosures about Obama were better late than never.

The candidate himself denies that he has received an easy ride, noting that for much of last year the coverage was not so excitable when he was focused on nuts-and-bolts stump issues.

"We got good press (at first) because we raised more money than people had expected," Obama said late last month. "And then there was a big stretch of about six months when we couldn't do anything right.

"We were not complaining when other candidates were touted as inevitable and their campaigns were flawless and we were the gang that couldn't shoot straight. So I just think we have to keep it in perspective."

Obama has kept the press at arm's length, giving fewer on-the-record briefings than Clinton, the once "inevitable" nominee who has become more accessible as her campaign has faltered.

Still, Obama brings to mind the original "Teflon president," Ronald Reagan, to whom scandal failed to stick and whose talent for communication lives on in the Illinois senator.

The Clinton campaign has struggled to whip up media interest in Obama's financial links to a Chicago businessman, Antoin Rezko, who is due to go on trial for fraud next month.

The New York senator has gained traction more recently for her accusation that Obama has plagiarized other politicians' speeches, although that piece of spin did nothing to halt Obama's momentum in Wisconsin Tuesday.

Television networks cut away from Clinton mid-speech on the night of the Wisconsin primary as Obama stole her thunder at a victory rally in Texas, a small but telling sign of the shift in media attention from last year.

But Obama hasn't been immune to attack.

Fox News presenters last year relayed false claims by Insight, an online journal published by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, that he attended a radical Islamic school as a child in Indonesia.

Insight had said the Clinton campaign was preparing to assert that Obama had covered up this period of his life, but the New York Times said the report was "quickly discredited" and Fox backtracked.

However, Obama is now under broader fire as his chances of winning the Democratic nomination have surged with victories in 11 contests running.

In an article headlined "The Obama Delusion," Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson said the senator "seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story." "The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't."

all of you obamaphiles

What is there to say? People say he has no plan. All you have to do is look at the first post to dispel that lie. People say he hasn't done aything, once again easily dispelled. This is just an attack with no substance when you get right down to it.