A Ground Shaking Associated Press Story: The Authenticity Contest

Uh-oh, Michael. You quoted 60 words out of an AP story. You owe the AP $25.

Can you really be such an idiot that you think this AP story is important?

If so, what's the explanation? Early onset dementia, childhood exposure to lead paint?

When I saw first saw this post, I thought it must be a joke. I simply can't believe anyone could be stupid enough to regard this as an important story.

Yes more of this MS.
And then in the Dec !st issue of Time write a story about how sad it is that the media focussed on Process over Policy and vow to do better next time.

At times like this we need to revisit the words of journalist Matt Taibbi (link):

If there were any justice at all, every last goddamn one of us would be lowered, head-first, into a wood-chipper. Over Arizona. Shoot a nice red mist over the whole state, make it arable for a year or two. A year's worth of fava beans and endive for the children of Bangladesh: I dare anyone in our business to say that that wouldn't represent a better use of our rotting bodies than the actual fruits of our labor.

Oye Vey.

Repeat after me Michael. Money in politics is not bad.

Large donations bundled together by special interests is bad.

1.5 million from one group is a bad thing. 1.5 million donors giving you $20 each is not.

Steve Benen is counting McCain's flip-flops. He's up to 48 and counting!

In just the last 2 weeks:
"* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite."

There are lots more.
Straight-talker my ass.

As Obama so famously stated many months ago about the "Typical" white people. This is just Obama proving that he is NOT for real change, but "Typical" politics as usual.

But, who is really surprised. Obama's lies and half-truths continue to go on from the primary, why should we expect anything different in the general election from him.

His level of integrity is about as high as a street corner drug dealer selling his crack wares to the children in the playground.

Mike:

If you really believe in your heart of hearts that Obama/public financing story is equal to the McCain/flip flopping on every issue, then you, sir, are a fool.

Either that, or you will do or say anything to get that sweet, sweet press secretary gig in the McCain White House.

Shame on you.

Thanks a pantload, Michael. I just knew you'd use this occasion to document McCain's illegal flip-flopping on his own position, taking public financing for the primary, using the benefits of acceptance, then changing his line – without FEC approval.

Yep, there it is, right there with the story about Phil Gramm, the mortgage collapse and the Enron Loophole.

You must be proud to be such a fine reporter.

Point of clarification: Obama's lawyer says there were negotiations, which is all the candidate actually "vowed to engage." Nobody beyond McCain's campaign – and of course you, Michael – challenged this.

The important thing here is to hold the candidates to their own standards.

This is true (for both candidates!), and the best sentence in the whole piece.

Oh Maverick. You really meant all those things in 2000, that you have flip flopped on now.

You dreamy Straight Talker wouldn't lie to your base (the press) would you?

That loan you secured, promising to use public financing in the primary didn't really happen. You my hunky reformist are 99 44/100th % pure.

"Obama said he would aggressively pursue a public financing agreement, but never really engaged in a negotiation."

Proof? I mean beside what Meghan says.

Another article about accepting federal funds w/o mention of Maverick's campaign finance flim flammery? Shocking!

"But he does have a problem if he wants to maintain at the same time that he is a money-in-politics reformer who is going to do politics differently."

You know Michael, I'm not sure the problem people have w/ money in politics is so much about the lucre itself, but rather WHERE the money comes from exactly. The one area I'd like to see less money in is in the press...I don't know what they're paying you but it is entirely too much.

And we are only just now beginning the general election campaign. Both campaigns would do well to take the Associated Press story as a shot across the bow. To resort to a cliche, the message is this: If you want to keep talking the talk of change, you are going to have to walk the walk.

I laughed out loud when I read this. Really, you're too much!

This is ridiculous, everybody knew he was going to opt out of public as soon as he started raising a million a minute. This is your choice. Do you want a president that is smart and gets elected or a president who is stupid and doesn't get elected.

Also- I agree that this is so not a must read.

What I find shocking is how, it is completely obscured that Senator McCain is having his own problems with the public finance laws. As to the "breaking promises", I don't recall any agreement being set down or reached. Yet it is reported as fact that Senator Obama swore upon a bible that he would be forgoing private fund raising and perform a vaudevillian show with Senator McCain across the U.S. I don't recall such an oath.

I agree that Obama is likely to turn out to be more of a middling political pragmatist than a lot of his supporters are expecting.

But McCain is in a whole different league. He is basically flip-flopping on every policy position he ever had, including his morally profound stance against torture - based on his own personal experience. And lately he's even begun staking out two sides of an issue at once, sometimes in the very same sentence:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200044.php

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/McCain_muffs_description_capandtrade.html

If this election really is about "authenticity", then either Obama wins in a landslide, or this country is as deranged as Matt Taibbi says it is.

If Obama is hoping for 1.5 million people to send in $5, $10, or $25 dollars as the "change" in politics as usual I have some swampland in Florida to sell to you.

"Funding by the people" is really funding by MoveOn.Org and their famous co-founders of that far left liberal extremist group NAMBLA, National Association of Men and Boys in Love of America. Yes these far off the left groups are the real supporters of Mr Obama, and very disturbing.

And we can't forget the #1 Obama monetary supporter, George Soros. His billions are at disposal to Obama and the Democrats to totally undermine the economy of the US of A.

If Obama expects the hard-working American middle class to send in their dollars in support of his campaign, he better recount what they have already been duped out of in the Primary.

Is MS being sarcastic about this AP article? Interesting analysis, maybe. Ground shaking? Maybe I'm not getting it....

Obama said he would aggressively pursue a public financing agreement, but never really engaged in a negotiationbut never really engaged in a negotiation.

Michael,

How do you know for a fact who really engaged in negotiation or what the negotiating even entailed?

NAMBLA? Really? You got a link for that?

Just read the article. I'm not surprised Obama is getting guff for his decision to forego public financing, but I don't understand the argument that this shows that he's "just a normal politician."

My understanding is that every candidate in both Parties has taken public funding since its been available (the 70's). That would mean he's not being a normal politician.

Bush And McCain Try To Steal Credit For Webb’s GI Bill That They Consistently Worked To Defeat

McCain: That has always been my primary concern with respect to the Webb bill. … With the addition of the transferability provisions sought by Senators Graham, Burr, myself and others to give service members the right to transfer earned G.I. Bill benefits to spouses and children, we will have achieved in offering vastly improved educational benefit.

Bush: Throughout the past five months, President Bush and members of his Administration have worked hard to ensure that an expansion of GI benefits includes transferability. … The President is pleased that Congress answered his call.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Rustydog, you sound a bit paranoid. Are you wearing a tinfoil hat?

Hooray for moral equivalence. Obama not giving up his enormous fundraising advantage (that is a function not of big money in politics but of Obama's popularity) is equal to, I dunno, John McCain hiring a lobbyist from UBS to write his mortgage crisis response.

Oh wait, I'm being unfair. You didn't draw that moral equivalency because you've never seen fit to even mention that John McCain hired a UBS lobbyist to write his mortgage crisis response.

Actually, despite Mr. Scherer's baldfaced lie, both campaigns have been negotiating over townhalls and a campaign finance deal for several weeks. The fact that no deal has been agreed does not mean that there were never any negotiations.

Moreover, despite Mr. Scherer's wordchoice, Senator Obama never "vowed" to abide by campaign finance limits. And, given that Mr. Scherer knows this, I'm inclined to call that yet another baldfaced lie.

Seriously, Mr. Scherer's "reporting" is becoming more and more embarrassing. And I actually took him seriously earlier this week and actually typed out 34 real metrics upon which we should judge "success" in Iraq - stupidly thinking that he was serious about a "teaching moment."

Hooray for moral equivalence. Obama not giving up his enormous fundraising advantage (that is a function not of big money in politics but of Obama's popularity) is equal to, I dunno, John McCain hiring a lobbyist from UBS to write his mortgage crisis response.

Oh wait, I'm being unfair. You didn't draw that moral equivalency because you've never seen fit to even mention that John McCain hired a UBS lobbyist to write his mortgage crisis response.

I'm frankly stunned by your post MS. Do you really equate Barack wanting his ground-breaking success with populist fundraising to count for something this general election with McCain pathologically and drastically changing his position whenever it suits him?

This is your logic in shorthand: "Obama flips on public financing to keep the dough he got from so many individuals donating to his campaign. McCain flips on torture, privacy rights, illegals, and more to appease the Republican base. Shape up you two." Can you still follow it with a straight face?

If you have to go after Obama about change-of-hearts, there's always his softening on NAFTA. So why not that? Because McCain's end of that argument (softening rhetoric vs. outright flipping) is even more circumspect here?

"Actually, despite Mr. Scherer's baldfaced lie, both campaigns have been negotiating over townhalls and a campaign finance deal for several weeks."

Michael makes it seem like he was in the room observing. How else could he know?

Ah, I just saw that Rusty is using different words for NAMBLA.
Which is a little bizarre. I'm assuming that he's still referring to the official organization, but I'm also assuming that he realizes what NAMBLA actually stands for.

If it's a joke, it's too abstract for me to get it.

[throwing up hands]

Ground Shaking?

I guess MS needs a little seasoning.

We're just checking in to let you know that Swampland remains the least informative, and possibly the least interesting website on the Internet. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--The Committee

Obama's mother's original Social Security Number Application

www.webofdeception.com

They must be giving away jobs at Time. Ground shaking??

Today is just not your day Mikey.. Or maybe journalism is just not your thing.

I second Paul's post. If you still have a job in December, I'll be waiting on your self-combusting article on how you led the way in "ground shaking" journalism.

I mean, we've been through at least three versions of McCain. He's the least authentic guy I've ever seen in politics. Broder and his buddies praise him because he is so bad at being inauthentic that they dismiss his pandering as obviously false.

He's gamed the campaign finance system he claims to support, is still in questionable legal financial status, and has flipped on literally dozens of issues.

Unbelievable.

I guess when you have millions of dollars now in your back pocket it is very difficult not to give it back to the poor people you swindled it out of in the first place. I suppose you now will LIE in order to hang desparately onto all that money and give up what little bit of integrity you may have in order to avoid public financing.

If he is voted President, I guess he really didn't mean he would NOT have the lobbyist to dinner at the White House throwing more millions at him once he is elected President?

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

Sorry Michael, but to add a little salt to the wound

What's the difference between this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCXOZpwT2ek&feature=related

and this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xjCtQQs8IY

We need an exceptional person in the white house...not another one who will make their friends rich and their enemies richer.

Republicans denounce Communist Cuba and quietly sell our future to Communist China (go Wal-mart). To whom does the United States owe $9 Trillion dollars? When is this debt due...and how will we pay?

The Chinese are pragmatic not democratic. One day we'll be drilling ANWR at the end of a Chinese gun (or maybe our food and resources will be more to their liking), but it will be oh so profitable along the way.

Rusty, I know you are slow and all but Obama already has 1.5 million donors.

It's a fact. I know facts are your enemy. But, them is the breaks.

Trifecta, you got to realize. Rusty doesn't have enemies. He has walls; big thick walls that protect him from the rest of the world. It’s a prison, but as long as he doesn’t ever venture out he gets to do whatever he wants (or so he’s been told.)

Change means that those walls might go away and frankly, Rusty is terrified. So he screams and cries and pouts hoping someone will let him stay in his safe little prison a little longer.

Sorry Rusty, it looks like you're going to have to grow up this Nov. Better get used to it.

What's shocking? Oh, yeah, that Nedra 'Nit' Pickler has an apprentice.

Change Obama Style??

Oh yes, in the Obama World, the "Change" he speaks of is just simply "oh I've changed my mind about that...".

Obama is changing things alright, just like the corner scam artist does with those shell games you play and loose your money when you guess the wrong shell has the ball under it.

Obama's shell game is duping people into believing he is the new Messiah of Politics as usual. BULL CRAP!!!

Obama is only going to change the way we redistribute the wealth in this country, from our pockets to his.

Obama is going to tax the hell out of us all just to fund his far left liberal extremist lobbyist groups who are funding his political campaign for President.

Obama is going to pull out of Iraq, just when things are improving to the point that the Iraqi's become independent and could flood the market with millions of barrels of oil competing with the Saudis, bringing down the price of gasoline you pay at the pump.

Obama is going to put a wind-fall profits tax on the oil companies so that they do not explore for oil reserves in our own country so we can keep our hard earned dollars we spend on gas and other oil based products at home in our pockets instead of the Middle East Islamic Extremist.

Obama is going to meet "unconditionally" with the terrorists who have proclaimed total obliberation of Israel and the United States.

Yes, change is indeed coming with Obama.

Obama, the "Change" we cannot afford.

The important thing here is to hold the candidates to their own standards.

Yes.

Where is Senator Obama on the FISA abortion that the Democrats are sneakily scurrying through passage of Congress right this instant?

Where is Senator Obama when we need leadership?

As posted earlier under "pretty is as Pretty does" What about our PLANET.

$4 gas has finally got people changing...don't see many people now saying, "I'll drive what I want because I'm an American." (although I hear the car companies are pushing the gas guzzlers to China).

What is the overall effect on the planet of siphoning billions & billions of barrels of oil out of the earth? (I'm really asking because as of yet I haven't been able to find a scientific hypothesis for this except that we could see an increase in earthquakes...hmmmmm)

Alaska is very seismically active...is it really wise to be messing around drilling? (estimates I've heard is that ANWR would lower gas prices by 2 cents per gallon, and keep the republican line going...any decade now)

The Cascadia fault line is overdue for UNZIPPING along the entire ring of fire! I live on the West Coast and for all I know it is the oil keeping the SUBDUCTION ZONE! lubricated so stay the hell out.

Put the money into alternatives (good reporting point...what if we put the money into alternatives instead of drilling?) (Or, how much money is BP and big oil spending on this new ad campaign vs. how much they actually spend developing alternatives)

As for nuclear energy...it is the power of the SUN...quit letting man mess around with this unimaginable power and use the SUN! (can't do that though because there's only so much profit in it)

In the China quake zone(which is still having quakes almost daily...lots of others at 10KM...what is that about?) I read the U.S. was monitoring by satellite because the Chinese store nuclear waste in the region? There were two nuclear power plants in the vicinity of the recent Japan quake(s), and I heard mention of a nuclear plant near the mid-west flooding. Will the new plant in South Carolina be in Hurricane territory?

Investigative reporters please help.

Thank you for the post AMC.

In the same way...

How many times do we have to hear this phrase? You know what comes next. Some saintly, above-the-fray , pox-on-both-their-houses story about how one candidate looks the other way on torture, while the other had second thoughts about public financing.

Each worthy of such disdain, while, of course, the reporter is able to keep some sort of saintly beltway establishment repose, condemning both in righteous tones...

I agree Stuart, but what point really are any of the democrats trying to make? They sucked as an opposition party and they can't seem to do anything but suck in the majority.

"Despite Democrats voting nearly two-to-one against a blank check for the Iraq war, oh, and also despite their holding the majority in the United States House of Representatives, another $150 billion-plus has been appropriated for the war that would pay for itself, and give us 50 cents-a-gallon gas."

Oops...previous post should have started...As commented earlier

Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest.

What a f##king joke. Has this reporter ever heard of an issue? Climate change? Health care? Iraq?

How can the reporter even type that sentence, unless they are so marinated in Washington culture, so jaded, that no issue (and there are a lot this election) means sh!t to her?

The press is dissatisfied w/ the Obama campaign...not getting that super duper Maverick access apparantly...wonder why? Here's a memo from 6 of the bigs to the Obama campaign:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/press-dissatisfied-with-t_n_108094.html

The first line is rich w/ irony:
"The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one."
Get it? Candidates misleading the press is bad....the press misleading the public...not so much.

"How can the reporter even type that sentence, unless they are so marinated in Washington culture, so jaded, that no issue (and there are a lot this election) means sh!t to her?"

It just may be because we the public have tolerated their utter incomptence for so long they actually don't know any better. They literally can not tell the difference from the process of an election and the issues that really matter to people. So they report on the process which is much easier to do and ignore the issues because they don't have the ability to do address them.

Rustydog...

Iran knows what North Korea and Pakistan know...the United States will not invade a country with nuclear weapons. Bush & Cheney would have already invaded if Iran didn't leave it a mystery.

Isn't this the tactic used in Iraq...use the U.N. to disarm and sanction...then trump up some B.S. to invade.

Iran knows the entire world would be against them if they attacked Israel.

Maybe Iran would be more cooperative if the United Nations guaranteed protection from an unsactioned invasion by the United States.

Maybe Israel should stop usurping Arab land.

Too bad Christiane Amanpour was born in London she would make a good VP pick.

GySgt213:

If you agree, then you can call the supposedly grass-roots, "Yes, We Can!" campaign up ( 866-675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu] ), and tell Senator Obama what the people who voted for him are desperate for him to do: make a concrete change in the way that Washington works right now when it matters.

What better way to further differentiate himself from John McCain than to stand in opposition to this open gift to George W. Bush and the telecoms (and their lobbyists)?

Where is Senator Clinton when we need leadership?

There you go, Stu, fixed it for ya. No charge.

Your disdain for Senator Obama is obvious. Really, we all get it. It's quite apparent that he won't please you no matter what. But "supposedly grass-roots"? That's low, even for you.

Andy Kubiszewski seems to have nailed it.

How do you know for a fact who really engaged in negotiation or what the negotiating even entailed?

Because the McCain campaign said there weren't any negotiations, duh. And despite discussing, in this very same post, the contents of an AP article that makes it quite clear that John McCain reflexively talks out of both sides of his mouth on virtually everything, another word for such behavior being "lying," Michael is simply unwilling to believe that something the McCain campaign said could be false.

soylent_green:

Now that's class.
I'm so glad to be in the same party with the likes of you. What a great help you are!

Of course, I'm not about to let you change the subject. Glenn Greenwald seems to have nailed it:

The telecom amnesty bill is something that has been engineered by telecom lobbyists from start to finish, while Bush officials engineer the part of the bill to provide full-scale warrantless eavesdropping powers. While the ACLU and other grass-roots groups have been shut out of the negotiation over this bill almost completely -- it's been conducted, like most important government processes, totally in the dark -- telecom lobbyists are not only fully informed about what is going on but have been participating directly in the negotiations. Along with Bush officials, it's the telecoms' lobbyists who are "negotiating" with Congress over how to write the law providing for their own amnesty from breaking the laws passed by Congress.

This is everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger.

None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens -- either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.

But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.

Pressure of that sort should include demanding that he take meaningful action against this Draconian and lawlessness-enabling bill...

Before you question my patriotism again Rustydog know that I fully supported my nineteen-year-old sons decision to join the Army.

I may be against this lie of a war in Iraq, but I am willing to put my family at risk along with everyone else.

Bless his sweet soul...he thinks they're teaching him Arabic words because they're sending him to Kosovo.

If you agree, then you can call the supposedly grass-roots, "Yes, We Can!" campaign up ( 866-675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]

Stuart,

I already have. Obama is opposing the bill and standing with Senator Dodd. However, I don't know how they are getting this information out, nor what Obama is planning to do.

Soylent...I think Stuart thinks you're a Republican!

@soylent_green: I believe that Senator Clinton should support a filibuster of this as well. But Senator Obama is our nominee and is the leader of the party. He should lead. Hillary should support him both because it's the right thing to do and because, as the runner-up, she could heal some rifts by standing fast with her former opponent in the service of a good cause.

@EricWA: Wherever they send your son, we all hope he comes home safely.

Thank-you Mike M.

Here's to hoping for the safe return of all our brave sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives.

A big hug to all those families around the world who have, and will, pay the price for the war that greed built.

Michael,
The author who wrote this piece has kissed McCain's ass.

Read this:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/ap-scribe-who-s.html

Here is a taste:
Mark Halperin points to some incredibly harsh commentary by AP's Liz Sidoti on Barack Obama today. Halperin says that AP is "objective," which must be a joke, because Sidoti's hit piece was anything but objective.

Sidoti hearts McCain...
...with doughnuts.
It opens by emphatically declaring that "Barack Obama chose winning over his word" and concludes with the bitter observation "so much for being a straight shooter."

Normally, I wouldn't waste my time or yours with Sidoti's nonsense, but there's an amusing story to tell involving her that's just too good not to share. It goes back to April 14, when both John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at an event for newspaper editors hosted by the AP. As Dana Milbank wrote in the WaPo:

So much for the liberal media.

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

That's right. The head of AP addressed Barack as "Osama" while John McCain was given a box of Dunkin' Donuts -- with sprinkles. By none other than Liz Sidoti.

"We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said.

You have to watch to fully appreciate Sidoti's obsequiousness (video via Crooks and Liars):

McCain, if you show me where and when you are going to build the first one of your 100 nuclear plants, you have my vote.

patroclus, Obama's past pledges are in the AP story. As for negotiations, the last time I checked, which was Wednesday, there were no ongoing negotiations. All that has happened was a terse exchange of public letters last Friday.

But Michael, how do you respond to Swarty's post which implies that you're basing your interpretation on the work of a seriously conflicted reporter?

It was obvious to me, and just about anyone paying attention, that Obama's promise to consider limits was little more than an unwillingness to dismiss the idea out of hand. I hoped then that he was not terribly serious about it because it would be a stupid thing for him to do. Obama has not broken any promise here, and it is only in opposition to a claim to change the current political system if the only way one can possibly change the system is by opting in to public funds.

The reason Obama is not opting in for public funds is that he's found a Democratic way to at least nullify some of the unGodly imbalance of power held by Big Money through lots of small donations by average blokes. It turns out when enough plebes hand over their small change, it can equal a lot of deep pockets.

To insist that one can only be serious about confronting Big Money is by limiting the average person's power, if you buy the "money is speech argument", is absurd. The people are speaking, and there are enough voices that Obama can demonstrate his principles in other ways - by refusing lobbyist's money, for instance. He doesn't need it. He can finance his campaign through democracy -- if he doesn't opt into campaign finance reform.

Also... not accepting an offer made by McCain that would greatly benefit McCain, and is crafted to help McCain, is not a compromise of any principles I can think of. Again, Obama simply refused to rule the idea out of hand, and to consider it. He didn't promise to accept. He didn't dismiss it out of hand to consider it. After consideration, he refused. What principles were sacrificed? What principle says Obama has to agree to any offer by McCain? The Lieberman rule that says every Democrat must help the Republican cause? That's not why I voted for Obama. I don't expect McCain to accept any offer crafted by the Obama campaign to benefit him, either. And since he never promised to do anything of the sort, I don't see what the problem is.

As for tightening the reins on your profession... it's about time. The Rovians have made it pretty clear what you respond to, and I see no reason to give access to people who thrive on flag-pins and Swiftboaters. The fact that you guys didn't mind the Bush bubble means any complaints about it in Obama's case is just another example of IOKIYAR and the journalistic double-standard.

soylent_green, that's the most obnoxious move I've seen in these comment threads, bar none.

Disagree on the merits if you must. Going further reflects poorly on you, not your opponents.

Michael, I can only hope that you are engaging in performance art when you highlight the claim that the candidates are engaging in "an authenticity contest." There's a little more than that at stake here, don't you think?

Also, given McCain's "am I my brother's keeper?"/"I wash my hands of this" approach to 527s, the groups that changed the 04 election, why in the name of Christ/Tom Brady/Otis Redding should Obama agree to unilaterally disarm?

It doesn't compare to McCain's list of sell-outs/flip-flops, that's for darn sure. A tiny excerpt (more examples, substantiations at the link):

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

McCain gets demolished in an authenticity contest. Fortunately for him, it's something else! But his opinions are, as it turns out, all half-baked and unpopular. Oh well.

MS :

"In the primary, he softened his pro-immigration rhetoric..."

Uhh - isn't everyone like pro-immigration? What a incredibly stupid way to frame that debate.

Like there's supposedly a huge population of people who support illegal immigration.

(actually.. lots of greedy business owners do)

tony, scottsdale

> liberal extremist group NAMBLA, National Association of Men and Boys in Love of America.

Oh, so are Craig and Foley members? How many other GOPs are "closet" members?

> And we can't forget the #1 Obama monetary supporter, George Soros. His billions are at disposal to Obama and the Democrats to totally undermine the economy of the US of A.

Now why would Obama need to resort to Soros, or anyone else? Couldn't he just continue doing what Bush & Cheney started? It's been working so well to thoroughly trash the economy.

> If Obama expects the hard-working American middle class to send in their dollars in support of his campaign, he better recount what they have already been duped out of in the Primary.

New flash for Rusty: people already have donated - big time. Say, why don't you do us all a favor, since MS won't bother, and check the legality of McCain's flip-flopping "opt out" of the campaign finance promise?

MS has been chomping at the bit for weeks to do a one hand/other hand story in order to explain away McCain's 48 reversals.

He finally got one Obama flip to hold up against McCain's stack. Time to celebrate!

Campaign financing was intended to limit rich donor influence in politics. The majority of Obama's donors are all under $100. It's a groundswell of support. He would be a fool to give that up. I don't want a fool as a candidate. I want someone who knows what's at stake. As he said in this video. At this point he has to win. This isn't a child's baseball game:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/8/175428/1158

"Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest." What a joke.

Interesting that even Halperin seems to recognize this piece was a hit job incompatible with an "objective" AP:

http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/19/ap-shocker/

MIchael, I am not sure the AP imitating Fox News is particularly bold. I guess being craven has an element of chutzpah to it, but employing intellectual dishonesty in argument is evidence of weakness, not boldness.

What it is is desperate. The pro-McCain corporate media are grasping at straws as Obama looks better in key battleground states.

I think its just a matter of time before the media manufactures a big feeding frenzy...but the problem is that they have run out of material having beaten the Wright, Ayers, Rezko dead horses over and over. The media blew its anti -Obama load in the primaries and now the media is reduced to thinking that the McCain-Associated Press's attempt to create a narrative of hypocrisy around Obama is ground shaking.

Will Obama be 100% perfectly consistent? Nope. But he is legions better than McCain. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or an exucse to elect the bad.

With this heaping helping of abuse thrown at him, I almost feel bad for MS - which is not the same as saying, "I feel bad for MS" - except he rather set himself up, on this one. Er, in most cases, I meant...

Buck up, Mike. I'm sure, if the people of this country are stupid enough to elect McCain - or if Diebold has anything to say about it - that the Flop-Meister will throw a bone your way.

The rest of us, of course, are hoping that never comes to pass.

"As for negotiations, the last time I checked, which was Wednesday, there were no ongoing negotiations"

Gonna go out on a limb....you checked w/ the McCain campaign didn't you?

But first it's important to actually get elected. While Obama's decision to opt out of public financing may seem on its face to be a backtrack, nowhere did he say that he would absolutely accept public financing, only that he would aggressively pursue an agreement -- an agreement which terms both parties could not agree upon. Good for Obama. Because with the heavily cash-armed Republican 527 that Karl Rove is operating, Obama is going to need all the cash ammunition he can get to effectively counter the many incendiary and destructive "swift boat" tactics that Rove and his 527 posse will use. Senator Obama knows what he is doing. He is not going into this general election unprepared. He will neither be uninformed nor lacking for qualified advisors, nor will he allow himself to be swift-boated.

His will still be a publicly-financed campaign. Except it won't be financed through the usual "check the box for a $3 donation" route. His campaign will be financed by people who will give whatever they can, whenever they can.

This denotes a movement. A movement far outside anything recorded in modern politics (though Howard Dean started that ball rolling). It'll work. Just trust the man. In order to even attempt to chip away at Washington as it is, "Change You Can Believe In" must start with getting elected.

Gonna go out on a limb....you checked w/ the McCain campaign didn't you?

Are you insinuating Mr. McStraight Talk, might...gasp....lie about something?

Okay, Obama is a hypocrite and McCain is too. What didn't we know? They're both politicians trying to pretend not to be politicians as usual. There is nothing new about that. The only change I see in this election cycle is how hard these two jokers throw around the word change (and its synonyms).

Some say McCain lied in the campaign...

Some say Obama lied in the campaign.

The fact is that they are both lying, hypocritical opportunists. Not quite as bad as Al Gore, but pretty bad nonetheless..... They'll probably exceed that master of campaign hyperbole before November.

Okay, one of them will be president.

Which leads to the question: Which one is least offensive to you?

Obama lied. Now his supporters try to deconstruct the meaning of two very simple words -- "public financing" in order to swallow the lie. I read a lot of choking sounds on this one. Accept that he's a political opportunist and move on. He is not change. He is just another pol.

lvee et al. -- this whole idea that getting little donations is the same as a publicly financed campaign is totally bogus. garbage. a lie. If the money isn't coming from the government, then it is not public financing, it is private financing. You can like Obama all you want but don't get caught up in Clintonian uses of language -- it give me a headache.

I don't believe in Obama's change. I believe in Beatles.

BrooklynGurl (shout out from Sleepy Hollow!):

You're right: neither is without sin. But...

Two crimes (both mostly fictional, and not aimed at any candidate):

a) I took a nickel out of the "tips" jar.

b) I used insider-trading to bankrupt Enron and caused thousands of retirement-age people to lose their life savings.

Bit of a difference, there. McCain's various "faux pas" - agreeing to take public money, and then "opting out," which may be illegal; his association with UBS scammer / oil speculation-enabling Gramm - tend to run higher on the scale.

As far as this "agreement" on which Obama "reneged," if you're a lawyer, you know there's no contract until there's an agreement - verbal or otherwise. You can't hold Obama to an agreement that was never made.

Accept that he's a political opportunist and move on. He is not change. He is just another pol.

BrooklynGurl:

This will be proven false when Barack Obama stands up for principle and the Constitution like Chris Dodd did a few months ago during the first FISA crisis in the Senate. It will be a clear demonstration of change in which we can believe when Barack Obama tells the House leadership that he, the current national spokesman for the Democratic Party, its constituents and its values, doesn't believe that there can be a compromise with this or any President when it comes to the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.

Watch and see, BrooklynGurl. This will be the moment when we truly know that Barack Obama is who he says that he is.

Good Morning, Mr. Nice Guy.

I'm not defending McCain. I think he's a, um, hard to believe, at best. I'm really disappointed that he's in the mix. I really find Obama hard to swallow -- snake oil comes to mind for some reason.

I'm not trying to hold Obama to an agreement. He didn't really make an agreement. He, through his surrogates (aka agents), agreed to agree. He also proposed returning all private funds in order to get the clean public funds running the show. I'm trying to reconcile his statements and self-professed leadership on public finance with his actions. It isn't possible unless we erase pieces of his history. Call it a flip, a flop, a lie, or just changing his mind.

oh, stuart, I've got a bridge to sell you straddling the East River.

Obama has compromised to get where he is and will continue to compromise to get where he wants to go. Fortunately for Obama he has such a scant record that he can claim to be all things to all people. He's a crafty pol.

Christ on a crutch. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard.

Obama decided that not taking public financing would be to his advantage. Oh, the horror. Won't somebody please think of the children.

I'm sure that when the Republican 527s launch their false attacks on Obama that the AP and Michael Scherer will be crying crocodile tears about how McCain is breaking his word to run a "clean" campaign.

Michael, what is your address. We need to send you some pearls that you can clutch during the campaign season. I'm sure striving to be the ethics police must be difficult for a man of your delicate sensibilities.

Mr. Scherer: Senator Obama never used the word "vow" (nor "swear" nor "promise"). Your summary of that as "Obama vowed" is, at best, a gross exaggeration and, really, a baldfaced lie. You know you are lying and yet you still do it. As you well know, the Obama campaign's response to the questionaire contained about a paragraph full of caveats that is within your capacity to understand. Reporters should not lie and they should not repeat baldfaced lies.

The last time I checked, both campaigns have been making statements about both townhalls and public financing, including trial balloons about 7/4 and how many to be held (Obama suggested 2 and McCain said 10). Obama and McCain met at the Russert funeral and talked for several minutes. Indeed, often, public figures negotiate publically - not necessarily in formal sitdown meetings. Given that you are well aware of the back-and-forth between the campaigns on these and other issues, your statement that there have been no negotiations is inaccurate. A less biased "reporter" would actually recount the actual back-and-forth concerning townhalls and campaign finance; not draw inaccurate conclusions.

Coupled with the idiotic use of the phrase "Obama vowed" (which bears no relation to the truth), the failure to report the negotiations about townhalls and campaign finance was inexcusable.

But now that you're talking to me, how about some follow-up on the 34 metrics I listed for "success" in Iraq? Or did that "teaching moment" somehow fade into oblivion?

Aha! I now see that Mr. Scherer has edited the original version of the post and changed "vowed" to "said." (without noting that to the readers). Surely one can realize that there is a vast difference in their respective meanings. Kudos for realizing your error!

I am, however, curious as to why, having read my response, and made the edits, Mr. Scherer then responded as he did. He knew that to say "Obama vowed" was wrong and a vast over-statement, he made the correction, and yet he then re-cited to the AP article (which, of course, never contained anything close to the word "vow").

Did Mr. Scherer think that he could get away with it? It's interesting that he has the same attitude towards honest journalism as do Bush and McCain towards the Constitution.

I realize nobody will read this, but I have to add that Lynn Sweet, of the Chicago Sun-Times, on tonight's Hardball, reported on the negotiations between the Obama campaign lawyer and the McCain campaign lawyer concerning campaign finance. She said that there were conflicting accounts as to what was said, and that the talks stalled. So, in fact, when Mr. Scherer said that there were no negotiations, he was wrong. And, when he reiterated that there were no negotiations (as of Wednesday), he was either being very crafty or wrong again.

There were, in fact, contacts between the two campaigns concerning this issue.

Second, I re-read Scherer's post and the word "vowed" remains. Clearly, I erred in giving Mr. Scherer kudos for recognizing his error. He didn't. Obama's actual answer to the Midwest Voters' questionnaire said that if an agreement by both party's campaigns could be reached regarding control of 527's, returning excess donor monies, free TV and radio time, etc..., he would aggressively pursue it and abide by it. That is not, by any definition, "once vowed" to do it, come what may. It is instead a tenuous law-professor answer with several caveats.

I am confident that Mr. Scherer possesses the capacity to distinguish between the two.

In sum, contrary to Mr. Scherer's words, Obama never "vowed" to do anything. Instead, he gave a caveat-filled wishy-washy answer that the McCain campaign wishes, inaccurately, to spin as "vowing". And, contrary to Mr. Scherer's words, (and according to Ms. Sweet), contacts have indeed been made between the campaigns concerning both townhalls and campaign finance.

Is Obama trying to have it both ways? Did he really "aggressively pursue an agreement"? Well, in my view, yes and no. But that is not the same as going back on a sworn oath or failing whatsoever to even attempt to negotiate. Which is how Mr. Scherer (inaccurately) portrayed it.

Why can't Time have writers that actually report on the actual negotiations and that accurately characterize candidates' prior statements?

Another crap story.

Enough said.

Hate to break it to you patroclus, but if I "abide by the law", then I "vow not to break the law". No, it is not a slick lawyer reference, but a bold face lie on Obama's part to make a promise, and then break it. No he didn't break the law, this time. He just broke a major promise to the people he supports. By doing so, his integrity as usual is in great question.

Without a high level of integrity, there is no way anyone can trust this joke for a presidential candidate, period.

Flip-flop is not what this specific instance is about, LYING to the PEOPLE is!

Everyone thinks that Obama is the great orator, but all he is about is selling his snake oil to the first sucker born yesterday.

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for America!!!!!!!!!!!

1. A ground shaking story by a reporter who gives the Saint a box of sprinkle donuts and a coffee as he likes it at an AP event.

2. At this same event Obama is welcomed as Osama.

3. I am quaking in my boots: AP is going to determine the outcome of this election.

4. What I need from Sen Obama is his position on the Amnesty for Telecoms Bill. I would like him to be on the record on that issue.

5. As for Sidoti: I wouldn't waste time on her garbage.

Pat,

LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer is the one that gave McCain the box of donuts with coffee and Obama was referred to as Osama by the head of AP. Michael should have disclosed this when he made reference to a bold article by an obvious in the tank reporter for McCain. How bold does she have to be.

I also don't see why it can't be pointed out that McCain painted himself into a corner by applying for that loan and is having trouble raising funds in the first place. So Obama is supposed to help him by shooting off his own foot?

I kind of enjoy the panic in Rusty's posts. She sees what is coming and and knows she is powerless to stop it.

By the way, the Obama campaign may have gone back on its stated intentions to "aggressively seek an agreement" on public funds, but the McCain campaign is breaking the law regarding public funds:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php

GySgt213: Thanks. Noted. I think Michael's header is a nonsense; and Sidoti's piece a lot of wind. She is a McCain Bussie: one of the pack; and in the top ten on the Saint'st BBQ list. Hwow do I know that? I don't. But these guys draw conclusions from nothing so I am doing my best, too.

Michael sees that as equivalent JJ. That's what makes him the "reporter" he is.

Of course I saw a conservative talking head who was shocked that Obama could "go back on his word" but (in the same breath) said Obama would have been an idiot not to have done it. The moral flexibility of the Republicans...

They sure don't like them Libs when they grow a backbone and talk back. Democrats everywhere take note.

BrooklynGurl exposed her brainwashing by the right-wing when she wrote: "The fact is that they are both lying, hypocritical opportunists. Not quite as bad as Al Gore, but pretty bad nonetheless..... They'll probably exceed that master of campaign hyperbole before November."

Sorry, BG. After writing that, you have no credibility.

BrooklynGurl exposed her brainwashing by the right-wing when she wrote...

Actually, smedley, unfortunately she could have gotten it after listening to main stream media:

http://www.charm.net/~somerby/dh040204.shtml

Erica, my best wishes for your son.

I'm not sure I believe voters really want "change" in Washington. They just want things to get "better" in the country and for the Iraq war to end.

In my opinion it's a mistake for Obama to get caught in the rhetoric of "changing" Washington; he should instead be focusing on the economy and constantly talking about how his plans and policy will create real, tangible change for Americans.

patroclus. Here is the best summary of the so-called "negotiations" between the two campaigns over public financing.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/bauer_v_potter_the_lawyers_spa.php

As for the town halls, the negotiations, as of wednesday, consisted of a counter proposal and a rejection, and name calling last friday. That's it.

As for vowed, you can dicker over my characterization, but there is no bald faced lie here. Obama was asked if he would participate in public financing if his opponent did, and he said "yes" on paper. Here is the full question and response:

QUESTION: “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?”

OBAMA: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. 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.”

He was asked a question on paper, and answered "yes"; I call that a vow. The meeting described in the conference calls and in the Ambinder post above does not, by my lights, describe a candidate who will "aggressively pursue an agreement."

This is what I want to know. How did this AP story become "groundbreaking"? Read this: ( http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/20/hatchet-jobwith-sprinkles/ )

Now, official Washington and the MSM have suddenly decided this "authenticity question" is the defining narrative of the campaign. And as always, the defining narrative is conservative, and meant to open up Obama to all sorts of flag-pin fluff, while the BBQ guest list runs interference for McCain, because we all know who the press will find "authentic".

Authenticity has always been about making trustfund babies like Bush the Ivy league, wayward millionair son of a former President into the regular bloke you'd share a beer with, and Vietnam Vets and the children of single mothers "elite". "Authenticity" is just code journalists use to color all their news stories with their own prejudices.

Rusty, here's a short example for you:

if ( conditions_to_be_met ) ; then
__ action_A;
else
__ action_B;

Now, even first-year comp-sci kids can pick up the overall logic in this.

If you end up taking "action_B," it's not because you went against your word; it's because the "conditions_to_be_met" test failed.

In this case, Obama laid out conditions for accepting public money, and those conditions were not met. Indeed, it would be going against his word if he now accepted public money precisely because he'd be violating his own terms.

Patroclus: I do read your responses. They, along with the responses from jayackroyd, gysgt, 53_3, jj, the Pauls, et al, give me hope that there is intelligent life out there.

MS: You're essentially arguing that Obama said:

OBAMA: “Yes. " ?

That's a little dishonest, if you ask me. At least Franken made it clear he was taking things out of context.

http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649

Dear Mr. Scherer,

Does it not seem to you that Liz Sidoti's history with Senator McCain sort of undermines her credibility with this particular story? She is a regular in the back of the bus and by my own eyes seems awfully casual and chummy. Now I understand that reporters often get close to their subjects, but where do we go from simple closeness to Stockholm Syndrome? I realize that to you it seems like I might be nit picking, but to me I see a system where reporters are way too chummy with their subjects.

Video available here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7EDnW-yns

As far as the article goes, I'm no sot impressed. Isn't Liz the reporter that knows what kind of donuts McCain likes and how he takes his coffee? She's hardly an unbiased participant.

As for McCain trying to hammer away at Obama's "pledge" all I can really say is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing those particular stones. McCain's campaign played fast and loose with the finance rules in the primary taking advantage of the FEC's inability to act. They likely broke the law though strangely very few people seem to be talking about that any more (or even all that much at the time).

change election or not, all politicians bear some resemblance to, well, politicians. Given a choice, I'd rather support a guy who changes his mind and decides to run on the money he raised 100% legally than the guy who broke the law to get where he's at then has the nerve to call out the first guy for finance shenanigans. Seriously, McCain has no high ground here.

Michael S.,

If someone asks you "Are you going to play baseball" you say "yes" because you might assume normal rules and the pitcher is going to hit. The other team assumes pinch hitters for everybody on their side and four strikes and they'll think about being out.

To attain the moral "gotcha" you political hounds assume that everything is implicitly corrupt except when folks are filling sandbags with American flags painted on their homes. In that case you simply take a pretty picture and use it as a "feel good" piece about Americans coming together.

You never bore people with absolutely hard facts about levee design, flood insurance, global warming, FEMA response, or local, state, or federal responsibility. You cherry pick facts based on the political slant of the presidential poll of the day and nobody in the rest of America has a clear idea of any real, practical solution. You point the fingers everywhere and help to solve nothing. Political gaming with people's lives and the flag pin debate always wins with you.

Michael Scherer is a product of MSM. He is plying his craft as he was trained to do. His editors support the product that Scherer produces.

It seems to me that at the end of the day with Obamaaccepting public financing, McCain would have been advanted by having 527s placing ads attacking Obama. Obama now has an advantage because he may be able to raise more funds than McCain and the 527s combined.

MSM is upset that public financing will not be used by Obama, but not that McCain would have 527s. Obama's verbal response to questioning on the issue addresses his concerns about the 527s putting him at a disadvantage.

The issue for me is whether Obama's response to seeing a disadvantage in accepting public financing is a "typical" politician or represents a rational person seeing a possible uneven playing field for November and adjusting. I take the latter position. This is not a big deal for me.

The situation in Georgia and Obama's radio ad for a Blue Dog Democrat, John Barrow, is a real issue. I am more interested in hearing explanations for Obama's support for this particular candidate. There appears to be a Democratic primary involving a candidate, Regina Thomas, who has positions closer to those of Obama himself.

MS: you would do your readers, and the public, and possibly the McCain campaign a greater service if you would delve into the legality of McCain's earlier legally binding agreement to accept public funding, and whether he can, in fact, opt out, or if he is, right now, in violation of the law he helped to draft.

Depending on how that comes out, you might even be able to use it as another wedge against Obama. Some fuel for motivation, if you will.

patroclus: "Actually, despite Mr. Scherer's baldfaced lie, both campaigns have been negotiating over townhalls and a campaign finance deal for several weeks."

Given that the McCain camp denies this, it would be nice to have this confirmed by a source not drawn from the Obama campaign. Does such exist?

One more point for all those who see any criticism of Obama as nothing more than the craven corporate machinations of the MSM and Dunkin Donuts:

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold — who supports Obama — criticized his candidate's move. "This is not a good decision," Feingold said Thursday in a statement. "While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11211.html

I think I found the answer to the John Barrow endorsement. Altough a Blue Dog Democrat, Barrow endorsed Obama early on. Barrow's endorsement came when the battle was beginning, in February of 2008.

Thomas didn't endorse until Obama had iterally wrapped up the nomination.

http://savannahnow.com/node/519033

Given that the McCain camp denies this, it would be nice to have this confirmed by a source not drawn from the Obama campaign. Does such exist?

Robert, are you acknowledging that this becomes a classic "he said/he said," or are you suggesting that McCain's contention should be treated as fact unless independent verification disproves it?

Michael,
I find it insulting that you immediately dismiss any criticism in this way. I think the comments show we are all quite capable of raising very real weaknesses in this kind of thinking, and seem much more aware of the history of how "authenticity" has been abused by people like yourself, with disasterous results.

For example - I don't find Fiengold the ultimate authority on how best to change the influence of Big Money in politics. Nor does it change the fact that Obama never promised to opt out, but to consider it. If you vowed to consider our comments, and ultimately decided we are full of it, that is not a violation of your principles, provided you read in good faith, with an open mind. In fact, vowing to consider a proposal by definition negates any kind of committment to a decision either way because one can't consider something without leaving open the possibility to come down on one side or the other.

Now I understand Fiengold, who has staked his career on Campaign Finance, sticking by it. But that doesn't negate the fact the Fiengold did not forsee how Obama has managed to democratize politics again by relying on small donations by average people and refusing lobbying money.

Even if you are cynical, Obama's model for raising funds makes him accountable to us, not Viacom, because we fund