Commentary: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance

[Gan]

Commentary: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance
By Campbell Brown
CNN

Editor's note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN's "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull" at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the "Cutting through the Bull" segment of Tuesday night's broadcast.

(CNN) -- You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.

He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.

Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans.

It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html
_______________________________________

Wait a minute.

Did CNN get bought out by Murdoch whilest I was not looking?

:wtf:

[Warriorbird]

Didn't we hear about this an entire campaign ago?

And CNN has a number of conservatives in tow. Unlike Fox they're even allowed to say things.

[Sean]

I guess Campbell Brown got tired of writing op eds about how people are being unfair to Palin and need to stop picking her her.

Anyway it's not like this is new. Everyone knows, or should know by now, that he did an about face on campaign financing. But unless he had a crystal ball how was he supposed to know how effective the conservative attack machine would be in this election. I'm sure John Kerry thought he could handle it too until he got swiftboated.

Although to be fair she did rip into Tucker Bounds.

[Mabus]

No matter what your views are on whether he broke a promise, lied, made a decision, changed his mind; whatever you want to call it...

His decision has ensured the death of public financing for both major parties in at least the next presidential election cycle.

This could be harmful to all of us, and our system.

[Necromancer]

Didn't we hear about this an entire campaign ago?

And CNN has a number of conservatives in tow. Unlike Fox they're even allowed to say things.

It is literally impossible to take anyone seriously if they suggest that Fox censors conservative viewpoints. Reporting is so slanted on Fox that actual studies have been done demonstrating the impact of Fox's reporting style on the opinions and perspectives of its viewers. A documentary was made about it.

Now as far as Obama's campaign- yes he did do a 180 on financing. But let's not obscure one basic fact: one of the primary reasons why Obama has raised so much money is that the nation was so terrified of having another reign of terror (ala Bush) that liberals came out of the wood works to ensure that it didn't happen again.

I don't think conservatives truly understand how liberals have felt the last 8 years. To say we have felt a sense of horror on several occasions is the understatement of the year (8 years in fact). We've watched while our president engaged in two illegal wars, illegally engaged in torture, appointed a man who had opposed voluntary desegregation in the 60s as the head of the DoJ, loaded our highest Court with the sole intention of banning abortion, introducing an amendment into our constitution whose sole purpose was to enforce state sponsored discrimination. Looking back at that list, it's STILL surreal. These were things that we wouldn't have imagined in our worst nightmares 10 years ago, and they became a part of our daily lives. And many of us shut off and shut down during the Bush administration because watching that one man and his zealots do such abominable things to our nation and our world was too painful and frustrating.

Want to know why Obama has so much money? Because we physically and psychologically cannot do it again.

You can be angry at Obama for changing his mind all you want, but it completely misses the actual significance of the amount of money he raised. He's not getting his money from the NRA for gun control or the Christian Coalition to ban gay marriage- he's getting it from groups like moveon.org that represent individuals who *need* to see a change to feel good about the world again.

So god bless this country for coming out in droves and making a difference by giving money and time so that we could have some hope again.

[Mabus]

It is literally impossible to take anyone seriously if they suggest that Fox censors conservative viewpoints. Reporting is so slanted on Fox that actual studies have been done demonstrating the impact of Fox's reporting style on the opinions and perspectives of its viewers. A documentary was made about it.
I often call them FAUX "news" when referring to them.


Now as far as Obama's campaign- yes he did do a 180 on financing.
Agreed.


But let's not obscure one basic fact: one of the primary reasons why Obama has raised so much money is that the nation was so terrified of having another reign of terror (ala Bush) that liberals came out of the wood works to ensure that it didn't happen again.
Considering half of "the nation" voted for GW, I find that portion of the statement a bit hard to handle. I did not vote for him (neither time), so while some here might not believe it, I am rather unbiased in that opinion.


I don't think conservatives truly understand how liberals have felt the last 8 years. To say we have felt a sense of horror on several occasions is the understatement of the year (8 years in fact).
Fear and horror stem from ignorance, most times. You are usually only afraid of what you do not know. Educate yourself, face what you fear and the fear goes away.


We've watched while our president engaged in two illegal wars,
I find any war not specifically declared by Congress to be unconstitutional, but Congressional approval was given to both actions.

When you say "two illegal wars" you are including Afghanistan? I may not be happy with the way it has been conducted, but we had every right to demand the surrender of Bin Laden, and to act in a military fashion when that demand was refused, in my opinion. We were attacked by someone they were protecting.



illegally engaged in torture,
Agreed.

This is also a point that almost made me turn away from McCain. After speaking out strongly against torture, and with the moral authority to do so (as he had been tortured), he then gave in to the administrations proposals. That still bothers me about him.

Before anyone starts pulling out the "ticking time bomb" scenarios, remember that we are signatories on a treaty that bans some of the techniques that we have admitted to using. As treaties carry the force of law the torture is illegal, which was the point raised.


appointed a man who had opposed voluntary desegregation in the 60s as the head of the DoJ,
Ashcroft should have been done when he lost an election to a dead man.

I will stand up for him on one point, he refused to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program even while lying in a hospital bed in intensive care. Some have speculated that he was pushed out of the administration for this decision.


loaded our highest Court with the sole intention of banning abortion,
Not a big fan of Alito, but I can see absolutely no reason that Roberts is not eminently qualified to be on the SCOTUS.

Your opinion of why they were both selected is speculation, but has some basis in their previous rulings. GW made no secret of his stance on the murder of unborn innocent human beings, he won the elections (debatable, for some) and he picked his judges.


introducing an amendment into our constitution whose sole purpose was to enforce state sponsored discrimination.
I voted against Ohio's ban on gay marriage. While I could get into the "why"'s suffice it to say I do not believe the government should be involved in "Love Taxes", and should instead stick to enforcing legal contracts. Let an individual's chosen social institutions perform whatever mumbo-jumbo and ceremonies that they wish.


Looking back at that list, it's STILL surreal. These were things that we wouldn't have imagined in our worst nightmares 10 years ago, and they became a part of our daily lives. And many of us shut off and shut down during the Bush administration because watching that one man and his zealots do such abominable things to our nation and our world was too painful and frustrating.
So now is the time to take revenge, swing the pendulum clear to the far left, and hope that the change will get some sort of fear and sadness revenge on those you consider on the right?

I can see that in several people.


Want to know why Obama has so much money?
I know more of why he has the money then you would believe.


You can be angry at Obama for changing his mind all you want,
I am not angry at him for it, I fully expect him to lie and do whatever it takes to win. I do not doubt that Daley and crew wanted the DNC back from the Clintons, and would pay any price to get it. I am not fooled.


He's not getting his money from the NRA for gun control or the Christian Coalition to ban gay marriage- he's getting it from groups like moveon.org
Yes, because they are certainly not a fringe group with an agenda...

Jesus, you believe MoveOn is somehow "better" then the NRA?


So god bless this country for coming out in droves and making a difference by giving money and time so that we could have some hope again.
I suppose you will should also bless all the other countries that may have illegally donated to the Obama campaign as well.

To not do so would be to deny the "one world" values.

[Daniel]

This is America.

Do we really expect politicians to not do everything they can legally to win?

Suck it the fuck up.

[Parkbandit]

Wait a minute.

Did CNN get bought out by Murdoch whilest I was not looking?

:wtf:


I think many "news" outlets are trying to balance out their stories in the days leading up to the election.. so they can say "Hey, look how unbiased our coverage has been"

It's the same as the "independent" polling companies. As we get closer and closer to the election, they want to cover their bases by making the polling data look more accurate.

[Parkbandit]

This is America.

Do we really expect politicians to not do everything they can legally to win?

Suck it the fuck up.

And there's the problem right there. When a liberal does it, "Oh suck it up" as the conservatives cry foul. When a conservative does it, "Oh suck it up" as the liberals cry foul.

It's a never ending cycle of hypocrisy.

[Daniel]

I didn't really have a problem with bush doing it. It's not the money that's the issue. It's be beholden to special interests that bothers me.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't really have a problem with bush doing it. It's not the money that's the issue. It's be beholden to special interests that bothers me.


The bigger hypocrisy is when the 'winning' side says "I never really had a problem with the {insert other side here} does it.

[Mabus]

Do we really expect politicians to not do everything they can legally to win?
And in the case of Obama's fund raising, possibly several illegal things as well.

Now that the purposeful AVS-shutdown cat is out of the bag several people have been donating using fake names, fake addresses and even foreign credit cards. The system accepts all, and some people are even reporting getting solicited for more donations from the Obama campaign, with the solicitations being sent to the emails they used during the fake/illegal/foreign donations.

So while we should expect them to use all ethical and legal methods, we should not reward the unethical or illegal methods with our votes, or our beliefs in legitimacy.

Suck that the fuck up.

[ElanthianSiren]

For the people who keep crying that the media is liberal biased -- how do you explain their utter lack of fact checking when it came to Iraq pre-strike intelligence?

I've said this a million times -- the media is sensationalist. Apart from finance junkies, what would they gain by boring people with finance statistics? Give America a good "touching little boy pages" scandal or "freebasing coke from a hooker's ass" scandal, and you have the making for copious news coverage.

[Mabus]

For the people who keep crying that the media is liberal biased -- how do you explain their utter lack of fact checking when it came to Iraq pre-strike intelligence?
The military-industrial complex does not discriminate on party affiliation when passing around the cash.

If you do not believe the media is biased, I can only ask:

Have you watched MSDNC lately (or over the last 6 months)?

[Parkbandit]

For the people who keep crying that the media is liberal biased -- how do you explain their utter lack of fact checking when it came to Iraq pre-strike intelligence?

I've said this a million times -- the media is sensationalist. Apart from finance junkies, what would they gain by boring people with finance statistics? Give America a good "touching little boy pages" scandal or "freebasing coke from a hooker's ass" scandal, and you have the making for copious news coverage.

Are you being blissfully ignorant? Are you fucking kidding me really?

If you can't see the OBVIOUS and BLATENT attempt by the media to promote Obama/Biden and tear down McCain/Palin, then I really can't take you serious in any political debate. Hell, it was happening when Clinton was in the Primaries.. but nothing compared to this.

After this election is over, I hope that there will be a look back at the reporting with some statistics about the so called "News"papers of our country and their obvious attempts to sway this election.

[Daniel]

The bigger hypocrisy is when the 'winning' side says "I never really had a problem with the {insert other side here} does it.

feel free to go find the posts from 2004.

[Parkbandit]

The military-industrial complex does not discriminate on party affiliation when passing around the cash.

If you do not believe the media is biased, I can only ask:

Have you watched MSDNC lately (or over the last 6 months)?

I view MSNBC like I do Fox. They both have their obvious slants.

I just expect more from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN.. and they've been obviously slanted as well this election.

[ElanthianSiren]

Are you being blissfully ignorant? Are you fucking kidding me really?

If you can't see the OBVIOUS and BLATENT attempt by the media to promote Obama/Biden and tear down McCain/Palin, then I really can't take you serious in any political debate. Hell, it was happening when Clinton was in the Primaries.. but nothing compared to this.

After this election is over, I hope that there will be a look back at the reporting with some statistics about the so called "News"papers of our country and their obvious attempts to sway this election.

Neither. I'm asking you to provide an example of a point where the media in this country hasn't acted in a self-serving sensationalist manner.

[Parkbandit]

feel free to go find the posts from 2004.

Is that when you voted for Bush?

Yea.. that's a huge leap there.

[Mabus]

I view MSNBC like I do Fox. They both have their obvious slants.

I just expect more from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN.. and they've been obviously slanted as well this election.
I do not expect much from any of the news services. Even the AP is turning more toward "analysis" rather then "just the facts".

One thing I can point to that I found "funny" is in campaign reporting order. If it is straight reporting, Obama plays first, both in pictures and mention. It happens almost every time.

[Daniel]

Is that when you voted for Bush?

Yea.. that's a huge leap there.



Yep. The posts are there. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Keller]

One thing I can point to that I found "funny" is in campaign reporting order. If it is straight reporting, Obama plays first, both in pictures and mention. It happens almost every time.

Is it also "funny" when SportsCenter leads with World Series coverage instead of pre-season basketball highlights?

[TheEschaton]

Campbell Brown isn't a conservative, in fact, I'd say she's fairly left-leaning. However, she wants to be a sensationalist, and she manages to do that by ripping people a new one, on both sides of the aisle. It's self-serving at best, and she even mentions that most Obama surrogates admit that they did what was most to Obama's advantage.

I mean, the show is called "No Bias, No Bull." Really? You're not trying to shock people?

Oh, and Necro, WB was making the insinuation that CNN, which is normally viewed as "liberal", nevertheless has conservatives on it, whom they allow to speak. Whereas Fox has very few liberals on it, and when they are on, they're actually weak-kneed moderates (Colmes) or shouted down by Papa Bear or Sean Hannity to boost his ratings.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Yep. The posts are there. Feel free to prove me wrong.

LOL @ the irony!

[Daniel]

LOL @ the irony!

At?

You won't find posts of me railing against Bush for raising a lot of money. In fact, you'll find posts of me telling dems to quit QQing about it.

You fail.

[Gan]

Campbell Brown isn't a conservative, in fact, I'd say she's fairly left-leaning. However, she wants to be a sensationalist, and she manages to do that by ripping people a new one, on both sides of the aisle. It's self-serving at best, and she even mentions that most Obama surrogates admit that they did what was most to Obama's advantage.

I mean, the show is called "No Bias, No Bull." Really? You're not trying to shock people?
So aside from your personal evaluation (attack) on the author. How does that detract from what she said?

Do you see what I mean about the very first reaction from the left is to discredit the person who's making the point or asking the question?
Joe the plumber ring any bells?
Pick any author of any piece criticizing Obama thats posted here and you'll see what I mean.

How can you not see the pattern and deny being called out on it when you are?



Oh, and Necro, WB was making the insinuation that CNN, which is normally viewed as "liberal", nevertheless has conservatives on it, whom they allow to speak. Whereas Fox has very few liberals on it, and when they are on, they're actually weak-kneed moderates (Colmes) or shouted down by Papa Bear or Sean Hannity to boost his ratings.
-TheE-
...
Case in point.

[Gan]

At?

You won't find posts of me railing against Bush for raising a lot of money. In fact, you'll find posts of me telling dems to quit QQing about it.

You fail.

I"m laughing really hard at you claiming to have voted for Bush. And getting your panties in a bunch when being called out on it.

When you have done the same to me.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

:lol: :lol2:
:rofl:

[Daniel]

I"m laughing really hard at you claiming to have voted for Bush. And getting your panties in a bunch when being called out on it.

When you have done the same to me.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

:lol: :lol2:
:rofl:

Called out for what?

A fact?

Don't confuse what I did for your self induced fantasies of non partisanship.

[Gan]

Called out for what?

A fact?

Don't confuse what I did for your self induced fantasies of non partisanship.

Sure its a fact. We believe you. wink wink, nod nod.

:lol:
so predictable

[Daniel]

Sure its a fact. We believe you. wink wink, nod nod.

:lol:
so predictable

So predictable of me to cite facts while you and the R-team go on a circle jerk parade?

Yea. I find that pretty predictable too.

[Gan]

So predictable of me to cite facts while you and the R-team go on a circle jerk parade?

Yea. I find that pretty predictable too.

What facts?

Are you saying your statement should be considered fact?

:rofl:

[Daniel]

What facts?

Are you saying your statement should be considered fact?

:rofl:

The statement of who I voted for?

Uh. Yea.

[Gan]

The statement of who I voted for?

Uh. Yea.
ROFL

Have any proof Dannyboy? You know, evidence?

[Gan]

<crickets>

[Daniel]

ROFL

Have any proof Dannyboy? You know, evidence?


Are you gay?

Do you have any proof? You know, Evidence?

[Gan]

Are you gay?

Do you have any proof? You know, Evidence?

So taking your word that you voted for Bush suffices for fact and yet taking my word that I was considering voting for Obama earlier on in this election process does not suffice for fact.

Could you be any more of an idiot?

[Gan]

Are you gay?

Do you have any proof? You know, Evidence?

I think I have a cunt hair on my collar from earlier this morning, would that work?

*Gan likes the vajayjay. :)

[Parkbandit]

Except that you're a much bigger partisan hack than he is? I'd be more likely to believe Daniel when he says he voted for the so-called "other side" than you, when you've replaced your blood with neocon kool-aid.

Gotta love how both Gan and PB's general response when they're cornered and look stupid is just to bleat "hypocrite! hypocrite!" over and over again, ignoring the hypocrisy in their declaring other people hypocrites. And their response to this post will be? "Hypocrite!"


You should be less of a hypocrite if you don't like the label. It's a label you seem to wear with great authority though, isn't it Twinkles?

[Necromancer]

And yet another thread dissolves into utter idiocy while people start screaming "ARE NOT!" "ARE TOO!" "UR STOOPID!" back and forth.

[Keller]

And yet another thread dissolves into utter idiocy while people start screaming "ARE NOT!" "ARE TOO!" "UR STOOPID!" back and forth.

Dude, we're just having a discussion. Chill out!

[Daniel]

So taking your word that you voted for Bush suffices for fact and yet taking my word that I was considering voting for Obama earlier on in this election process does not suffice for fact.

Could you be any more of an idiot?

You seem to be having problems with reality.

One thing actually happened. I gain nothing from telling you this fact. If I could go back and change things I would. That's hind sight. If you want to reaffirm it youself, you can go back on these very forums to see where I was supporting Bush. If you don't want to do that, then too bad.

The other is some shit you just made up on the spot to appear like less of a joke. No one believed it then, and no one believes it now. It hasn't served you well. Just let it go.

[Gan]

You seem to be having problems with reality.

One thing actually happened. I gain nothing from telling you this fact. If I could go back and change things I would. That's hind sight. If you want to reaffirm it youself, you can go back on these very forums to see where I was supporting Bush. If you don't want to do that, then too bad.

The other is some shit you just made up on the spot to appear like less of a joke. No one believed it then, and no one believes it now. It hasn't served you well. Just let it go.

:rofl:

Sure buddy. If that fits your little reality then you just run with it.

No proof = no proof

If my word is not good enough for you, then please dont think that somehow your word is good enough for me.

:lol:

[Daniel]

Who said I wanted your trust?

You've already been determined to be full of shit.

:shrug:

[Parkbandit]

Who said I wanted your trust?

You've already been determined to be full of shit.

:shrug:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAa...

Holy shit, thanks for the laugh this morning man. You sure do have a flair for the irony.

[Daniel]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAa...

Holy shit, thanks for the laugh this morning man. You sure do have a flair for the irony.

Damn. PB coming in to rescue Gan. Now there's another shocker.

[Some Rogue]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/7655Shocker-Posters.jpg

[Gan]

Damn. PB coming in to rescue Gan. Now there's another shocker.

Reminds me of you coming in to rescue TheE all the time. ;)

Dont worry Daniel. I have two (3) legs. There's room for more than just you.

[Gan]

Who said I wanted your trust?

You've already been determined to be full of shit.

:shrug:

:rofl:

Funny, I dont need a poll to figure that out with regards to you.

[Parkbandit]

Damn. PB coming in to rescue Gan. Now there's another shocker.


Rescue? From what I've read, Gan can pretty much take care of himself. I just like to laugh at your expense.. especially when you start calling ANYONE full of shit.

You never fail to deliver the laughs.

[Daniel]

Rescue? From what I've read, Gan can pretty much take care of himself. I just like to laugh at your expense.. especially when you start calling ANYONE full of shit.

You never fail to deliver the laughs.

Lol @ Anyone.

No. Just you clowns.