Kos Upset With Obama, Withholds Contribution

Daily Kos:

So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further:

First of all, obviously Obama is a great candidate who is running a great 50-state race. That much cannot be denied. But he's had a rough couple of weeks.

. . .

Obama will be fine without my contribution, and he may even still get it before this thing is said and done, but it would be at a time when he has done something positive. That's called rewarding good behavior. And if that opportunity fails to arise because Obama goes on a Sister Souljah'ing rampage, then no worries. Chances are good that the DNC would get the money instead. But at this time, I simply have no desire to reward bad behavior.

Read the whole story: Daily Kos

Comments

[Meggie]

Wow! Excellent post Kos! I agree completely. Donated to Obama in the primaries, but have not done so yet in the general and also decided recently that I wouldn't until I saw again what I saw before. It's true that if he thinks he can raise money and win the election without maintaining a more liberal view of where this country should go, then more power to him.
I disagree with giving religious organizations taxpayer money. Why aren't we talking about paying down debt first if we're going to raise taxes?
I'm probably most disgusted that all of a sudden the Dems are once again bending over to Repub BS and whining about every remark. MSM is interested in this fight, and there should be Dems somewhere around washington who aren't happy with the way they're being cornered into looking cowardly again by repubs. If not, it's time for even newer Dems!

[PJay1]

I agree with Kos's position. One must be true to oneself and lately, Obama has disappointed. What I thought were principled positions from Obama turned out to be nothing more than pure politics.

The vote in Iraq was a political vote, not a principled one and the results were/are tragic.

We can't afford politics over conscience and principle.
Period!

[sydney01]

Obama has maintained his principles and has not caved to the fringe of the democrats. That is what we need now.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Oh? Since you don't need my vote, you won't mind if I vote for a minor party candidate who's not afraid to stand up for progressive principles and values instead.

[allonfla]

WOW! Now you are saying that a vote against Iraq was political? A vote that was very unpopular at the time? We can't afford another 8 years of republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PJay1]

No, I'm using the Iraq vote as an example of a political vote.
I know Obama was not in the Senate yet.

The vote (by the Democrats) to authorize war WAS political. It was not long after 9/11 and right before the midterm elections. The Democrats were afraid to go against Bush who had high popularity then. Yes, the vote FOR war was political, and again, I was using that as an example and not specifically referring to Obama.

I do think his stance AGAINST the war was and is a principled one and he has been consistent with that. Good on him for it.

[chrissy22]

DID THE VOTE ON FISA HAPPENED YET?

[mysisterskeeper]

I am a strong Obama supporter, but I agree with Kos. I was excited about his candidacy because I was hoping that for once a Democrat would stand on their principals convince the American people why they are right...and not move that way. And after the last 8 years the political environment seems to be poised for that type of arguement. I'm tired of democrats apologizing for being "liberal!" And while I have been more than happy to give up my weekends to do voter registration drives and donate my last dollars to his campaign...now its like "Here we go again"

On a side note....It's interesting how republicans rarely have to "move to the center" on issues and in fact we are seeing John McCain move closer and closer to his base.

[zull2]

Kos is making the same mistake I made last year...hilarious to think that he's no different than I and substantially behind.

For about a week or two after the whole "bomb Pakistan" thing, I had serious doubts about Obama's presidential aspirations. Then I sat down and listened to Obama's speech and compared/contrasted it with what bloggers were writing about it on DailyKos and what the media heads were reporting, and I noticed that his statements were grossly misinterpreted and taken far out of context. Then I thought about the situation at hand, and realized "Hey, Pervez Musharraf IS a military dictator!" Then I did the research, and found out Musharraf's regime has been channeling weapons and money to Al-Qaeda via the whole "whoops, we totally just left that gun warehouse unlocked for a week" gross so-major-it-might-not-just-be-incompetence trick. Kos is doing the same thing, he's hearing the media but not hearing the speech and he's overreacting. It's the same stupid thing I did in 2000 with Gore and it's why I'm still pissed at myself for voting for Nader.

[sydney01]

Great post!

There are so many BRILLIANT ideas in Obama's speeches (see Renewing American Competitiveness from June 16th and Metropolitan Strategy for America's Future from June 21st).

Obama has so many advanced ideas for tackling our complex problems, it is mind boggling that people would withhold support for such minor reasons.

[ProudLiberalDan]

How about the fact that his health care plan was the weakest of all the Democrats who ran. That's enough reason not to give him money.

[kikiva]

Yeah now that Obama has won the primary he doesn't need you 'progressives' anymore. So now you are under the bus! It is your own fault for making Obama into some kind of god when he is only a politician. Get prepared for more of the same.

[leftoflennon]

He can live with FISA telecom immunity; he's flexible on troop withdrawal from Iraq; he's happy with executing child rapists; he doesn't need public financing; he'll out-patriot the Right; he's touting his support for welfare reform; he'll expand Bush's faith-based programs; and he's okay with the Supreme Court's view of the Second Amendment. Oh, and he'll reduce taxes on the middle class, while hiking them for the rich or successful or whatever you'll let me call them.

Does this sound like a man who's happy to lose an election rather than compromise on a few political stands?

[seejake]

I'm with Kos on this one. I was close to maxing out, but have since decided to hold back on any more contributions until Obama returns to the principles that made me support him to begin with. If he wants to throw us progressives/liberals under the bus after we got him where he is, then he'll need to win w/o my money. I'll vote for him, certainly, but I'll be spending my money helping guys like Rick Noriega, Charlie Brown, Joe Garcia, and those candidates who are proud to be called liberal.

[Yola]

Well, I guess I did not get the memo from Obama telling me that since I support him, I now own him and he is obligated to do what I want or else... Darn it! I wish I had known before I made my last minute contribution last night!

[frustratedinohio]

I can understand Obama supporters continuing to support their candidate even if they are disillusioned. Because what's the alternative? But could we all just admit that this is bullshit as usual. Not a "new kind of politics". The only thing he can rise above is the people who supported him. And secondly, Pleeeeeeeeeeze stop sending him your hard-earned money in the midst of a recession. He's got enough to fly to the moon and back three times. He doesn't need it and you do. Now if you're like KOS and you have $2300 lying around, go ahead and give it to the man. Support a millisecond of his campaign. Or better yet, find a charity.

[wanj]

what exactly is your problem with people sending Obama their $. It's very consistent in all your entries. Why does it bother you that people are putting their $ where their mouth is? Sheesh! If you don't wish to give, no one is forcing... but why you're against us contributing is beyond me.
Unless ofcourse you'd like McSame to win...

[Sabreen60]

Who gives you the right to ask people not to donate to Obama. If you don't want to then don't. He's not just another politician, but he has had to make some moves to the center in order to win the White House. I suggest you study the campaigns in America over the last 60 years. You may learn a thing or two.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Who gives you the right to tell someone he doesn't have the right to suggest not making a political contribution? Freedom of political speech applies to even the opinions you don't likes.

[TheNuff]

Should I know who this is??

[j0em0mma]

yes

[meanguy]

should anyone care?

[Sabreen60]

I have not been misled. I read and studied Obama's positions. So Kos and Clinton and some of you are trying to hold him hostage. So you are like Bush all over again -- it's your way or the highway. Keep your money. There are enough of us who trust this man and who understand politics - especially those of us who have been around the block a few times. You wishy washy whiners are why we Dems have not been able to win the WH but 3 out of the last 10 times. Either support your candidate or get off the pot.

[ndolomar]

Recent Obama critics are doing exactly what the msm and Republicans have been hoping for in their skewed coverage of Obama -- "flip-flopping" and "selling out" meme. Because one of his strongest weapons against Republicans has been his ability to out-fundraise, they were genius. They knew they couldn't legally force Obama to opt-in to public financing, no matter how much they misreported that he backed out of an oath (which he didn't). Instead, they used the media to paint him as a run-of-the-mill candidate who sold out his supporters. They knew this would get his supporters to second-guess donations. Anyone who can't see this strategy for what it is either is blind or ignorant. I bet you the reports on his June take will be how his fundraising has "taken a hit" because of his recent "centrist" positions. Sadly, even those people who decry the msm for manipulating voters are the very people who've fallen victim to the simplest of schemes. Anyone notice how the msm is so busy reporting that Obama supports telecomm immunity, that they're "forgetting" to mention the immunity is for CIVIL ACTIONS ONLY -- meaning, the federal government will still be able to try and possibly incarcerate telecomm officials if they've broken the law? Everybody's so quick to believe misinformation from the same sources you claim are lying to you. Maybe the HuffPost blogger a few days ago was right: Maybe Democrats want to lose this election.

[hopeless277]

My sentiments exactly. Obama is a fraud. This country is over.

[wanj]

Ohhh democrats democrats democrats.... We always succeed in losing don't we? Our history books can prove it. 2 presidents in the last 30 years.. TWO!

Kos, this is business, not personal. You and Obama will disagree, not once but many times. Look at McBush, what if he wins? How about that one judge that the next president will surely appoint? A life appointee I should add that will make the supreme court conservative for years and years to come. Keep your eye on the goal. The white house! We'll put pressure on Obama alright, but we need to get him there first. He's human after all and he'll disappoint us sometimes. I've said this before, his support for religious BS won't deter this atheist from doing what I can to get him elected. There's way too much at stake.

Obama '08!

[allonfla]

Let's pretend for a minute that these progressives have a serious influence in the GE. Let's say the attacks cause Obama to lose the GE and John McCain becomes president. Do you guys think for a second that John McCain will listen to anything you have to say? His administration will treat you like an annoying gnat and will squash you out of existence. So go ahead throw Obama, your future and the country's under the bus----it was nice knowing you.