*I was having major trouble Copying/Pasting the video. I couldn't get the embedded code to replicate and I wasn't about to type that crap out. Feel free to do it yourself and post it here Reed/Beck/Matt, you can get it from this address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snsnqbq_OCo "
Transcript:
Hi, this is Barack ObamaI have an important announcement and I wanted all of you – the people who built this movement from the bottom-up – to hear it first. We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics – and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We’ve won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that’s the path we will continue in this general election. I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.If we don’t stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That’s why we must act. The stakes are higher than ever, and people are counting on us.Every American who is desperate for a fair economy and affordable healthcare, who wants to bring our troops back from Iraq. Who hopes for a better education and future for his or her child, these people are relying on us. You and me. This is our moment and our country is depending on us. So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before. Now is the time to act. Thank you so much.
Hi, this is Barack ObamaI have an important announcement and I wanted all of you – the people who built this movement from the bottom-up – to hear it first. We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics – and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We’ve won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that’s the path we will continue in this general election. I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.If we don’t stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That’s why we must act. The stakes are higher than ever, and people are counting on us.Every American who is desperate for a fair economy and affordable healthcare, who wants to bring our troops back from Iraq. Who hopes for a better education and future for his or her child, these people are relying on us. You and me. This is our moment and our country is depending on us. So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before. Now is the time to act. Thank you so much.
I have some thoughts on this, but I have to go to work right now. I will express my opinion tonight in the comments section. BTW, I have the internet again - woohoo! I'm back online!
10 comments:
"But Mr. Obama, campaigning on pledges to clean up politics, argued in his filing with the commission that the public financing system had insulated candidates from a corrupting dependence on big donors. He asserted that the system could be preserved for the general election through bipartisan agreement if party nominees returned early contributions.
The plausibility of such an agreement is not clear. One nominee is likely to have a financial edge on the other at the outset of the campaign, and accepting public financing would mean relinquishing that edge." - New York Times
"Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same." - McCain Campaign
From The Washington Post:
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.
I would very much like to see all candidates bound to a public financing system. That is one way to even the playing field. And I have to say I am a little bit disappointed in Barack for reneging. That said, the reason I support a public financing system and oppose the system as it typically operates is that I do not think that dollars are tantamount to free speech. That suggests that whom ever yells loudest get the most input, and this usually means that big business and wealthy individuals have the greatest ability to assert their freedom of speech. That is bullshit.
Ideally, election funding would be about a wide distribution of individuals donating small amounts to support their chosen candidate, and I mean in the magnitude of tens to hundred of dollars, not tens of thousands. What I find fascinating is that Barack has raised a quarter of a fucking BILLION dollars mostly in this way. Yeah, lots of wealthy chumps ponied up thousands and thousands, but the median donation was something in the hundreds, and I find that impressive. That is more the way things should work.
Despite all that, I still am disappointed....but come on, who would give up 266 million dollars and settle for 85 million? Not bloody many people.
Surprisingly, I'm in full agreement with Reed. (BTW, good for you for at least calling him out on it, instead of offering a lame litany of rationalizations, like most of the Obamites in the blogosphere are). I'm glad we're on relatively the same page.
At the end of the day, regardless of the "explanation" Obama offered for his decision (which was a joke, btw), to me, the bottom line is: Obama had a choice between a campaign pledge to compete on a fair playing field, or effectively try and "buy" the presidency with the wealth of campaign contributions he's generated. And he fuckin pussed out. And that's pretty much all there is to it.
So boo, Mr. Obama. Boo.
I could comment but I think you guys said it all.
Does anyone know what McCain's stance has been? Maybe the public finance will double his war chest rather than half it as it would for Obama. I am positive that McCain would have made the same decision (for a maverick and straight shooter that guy sure flops ALOT), but I have not heard so much about whether he will accept public financing. My guess is definitely not now...unless it means he gets more...which is possible.
That's a good question, I'm not entirely sure. I know McCain said that as long as both candidates pledged to use it, they would use public financing. Now that Obama is out, I dunno.
Honestly, I think McCain would probably raise more on his own. However, he has to weigh that against "the high road", and what leverage it might bring him through the rest of the campaign.
Regardless, Obama's camp is practically rolling in dough, and already has a distinct advantage with respect to the fact that the media is constantly slobbing his knob, giving him free positive publicity all day long anyway. I don't think he even *needs* all the money he has in pocket anyway. :|
Ummm, I think the media is hardly slobbing his knob. Have you forgotten the terrorist fist bump, the speculation that he is a closet Muslim, the coverage of him wearing traditional African garb, the refusal to say the pledge, the lack of the lapel pin....? In part it might not be that the media is inventing these issues, but the fact that they cover it when some dumb fuck right wing website mails it to your grandmother is just as bad. The camera may love Obama (at least compared to McCain), but that doesn't mean the media is treating him with kid gloves.
Reed, Reed, Reed... Come on, I *know* you know better than that. Kid gloves would be how critical the news media has been *at best*. The hardest thing the media has ever thrown at Obama was the Rev. Wright "scandal", and even then, every single story was aired with a little bit of commentary about how Obama is likely to emerge mostly unscathed, as the majority of American public won't hold him guilty via association, etc etc. And that’s great and all. I’d just prefer that they present the fact *without* trying to shape my opinion as they deliver them. But that’s not what they choose to do, and gripes me in every way.
And and the other nine-tenths of the stories are about Obama's heritage, how he might be in a unique position to bridge the racial divide as a leader, Obama’s charity work, what he likes to eat for breakfast, what’s on his iPod, the latest viral video espousing love for Obama, or how he's graciously donating $2300 to Clinton's Campaign to help her pay off her debts, etc etc.. Every single one of these have been “major” news items that I’ve seen on most of the major news network sites over the past couple of weeks. And mind you, the last one, about the donation to Clinton’s campaign, was BREAKING NEWS bulletin at the top of the CNN website for almost an hour. You know, the same place they typically reserve to announce natural disasters, terrorist attacks, election results, and the death of presidents. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.
Meanwhile, 9/10s of the articles about McCain are “Is McCain too old to be president?”, “McCain uses his war record as a crutch”, or “Conservatives can’t stand McCain! Yay!”, “Mean old McCain dares criticize Obama. Meanly.” Opinion pieces in disguise. I just fucking hate the way they are trying to lead me around by the news.
Now, I don’t want McCain treated with kid gloves either. I’d prefer the news media maintain the level of scrutiny he’s getting. I just want some parity in the field on how these two candidates are reported, and it isn’t there. Even *remotely*. Yes, Obama is a charismatic and likeable person, and that’s fine. But there’s very, very little critical examination of Obama or his policies at all.
“I am vexed. I am extremely vexed….”
Hmmm, maybe we just read vastly different news sources. I'll grant you the McCain is FUCKING old coverage. But seriously, he is ancient. It is hardly news and no stretch or fabrication. Obama has gotten raked on retarded issues like his patriotism, religion, affiliation with radicals...I am not sure how you can just dismiss that. In fact, it seems a little absurd that you think McCain has had it too rough by comparison. What happen with McCain and Hagey, with most of his advisers being lobbyists, with the fact that one of his key organizers represented the Burma junta? Those things made the news but then evaporated. There were no stories saying that McCain secretly wanted to be a military dictator. That he was a closet radical evangelical. That he was a big fat lying sack for claiming to be a maverick for his whole career and then lying down with lobbyist when the big game was on. The first two weren't issues because that would be stupid. They just are ridiculous. Much like that Obama isn't patriotic or that he is a closet Muslim. But the media saw fit to cover those stories. The latter...well, it looks true. But the media only barely touches it because everyone wants to give the man the benefit of the doubt and like or not people have respect for McCain, so they don't call him out nearly as much they should.
Now, if you want to talk about who really got shafted by the media, it was clearly Hillary. I was not a supporter, but the media ate her alive at every turn. Some of it she deserved, but much of it was just unfair. And, I would argue, much of it was rooted in poor misogyny and sexism. Commentators like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck just loved to rave about she was both too feminist and then not feminine enough in alternating spasm of jackassery and utter assholery. But given your own irrational hatred of Hillary, you might have agreed with them.
I guess I must quote myself, to make sure the point is not lost:
"Now, I don’t want McCain treated with kid gloves either. I’d prefer the news media maintain the level of scrutiny he’s getting." - John Beck, 1 post ago
My point is, every story on McCain is usually presented with a negative spin. Every story I've seen on Obama, even those the "negative" ones, introduce a posative spin by coming to his defense. (something they generally do NOT do with McCain, or Hillary for that matter).
And on the contrary, I agree with you with respect to Hillary: Despite the fact that I can't fucking stand her, I agree that she did not receive fair coverage from the media. Those in the news media and entertainment industry seemed to love Obama, and it showed; Hillary, on the other hand, got the same deal that McCain is getting now.
I'd also like to point out that the tone on McCain didn't really start until it became obvious that he was going to be Republican nominee. Until that point, the news media painted him as an underdog that wouldn't quit! A maverick and a fighter who refused to just walk the party line, running a campaign on Ramen noddles and spaghetti-ohs and blah blah blah! But now that his opponent is Obama instead of Romney, the tone has changed. And the stories on Obama have not.
So if you're pissed about how the media presented the Obama vs. Hillary campaign, there's no logical reason to not be pissed about how they are presenting Obama vs. McCain. I know you're not a McCain fanclub member, and I know you have no intention of voting for him. But you should still want Obama to receive the same level of scrutiny and criticism that McCain receives (and ought to) in the interest of fairness. And that just isn't happening.
Oh, case in point:
cnn.com, front page video as I speak: Is Scarlett the new Obama girl? FFS. *explodes*
Post a Comment