Barack Obama has gone back on his word, Barack Obama is a hypocrite ... I couldn't be happier. With Obama turning down public financing, idealist can be heard saying, "Obama promised 'a new kind of politics.'" Well, let him get to that once he's in office.
As for myself, when I heard the news that Senator Obama had done what I'd hoped he'd do, I went to my window and -- to paraphrase Howard Beale -- yelled out, "I'm pleased as hell that Democrats aren't going to take it anymore!" After Swiftboating, Karl Rove, Willie Horton, Lee Atwater -- take it all the way back to Richard Nixon's upside-down, inside-out, "Bring Us Together," I'm thrilled to have a candidate who is a bit more Machiavelli and a little less moralist. Even much less a moralist. This is what the Bush administration has brought me to: "By any means necessary."
And -- comfort for the idealists -- Obama is practicing a "new kind of politics" -- relative to the norm -- in the tone of his campaigns. But -- campaign realpolitik -- that only makes the demand for truckloads of cash all the more essential. If Obama refuses to run 3 A.M style ads against McCain he'll need to spend every penny of $270 million. And, when McCain's allies come up with something that makes the Reverend Wright attacks seems quaint in comparison, he'll need a double that to defend himself. In short, every dollar spent being depraved equals three dollars spent being a "candidate for change."
Truth is, if what's necessary to win in November is some outright cheating, I'd be all for that, too. Maybe the ghosts of "Landslide Lyndon" and the Kennedy brothers will help out by stuffing ballot boxes in Texas and fixing vote totals in Chicago.
I don't mean it. I exaggerate ... maybe. I'm not sure. To paraphrase Joseph Welch talking to Joe McCarthy, maybe not until this moment have I gauged the full extent of my recklessness and -- at long last -- I have no decency.
If so I -- we -- need only remember Florida in 2000. "We should move on." We have -- too much. The election was stolen by a method so without precedent, so brazen, and confronting it was so unlikely to offer closure, let alone success, that even those who were horrified quickly turned the page. Forget the math, the hanging chads, the votes for Buchanan/ Gore, that sort of flim-flam Johnson and the Kennedys would have applauded. But in 2000 the Supreme Court sat in for Boss Tweed. That transgression alone easily justifies, to my thinking, the slight skullduggery of Obama's decision. The consequences of four years of John McCain in the White House? To my mind, that justifies even greater Machiavellian derring-do. If need be, let's get down in the mud.
Finally, I have heard the goofy idea that he -- Obama - -is "trying to buy the White House." The operative word is "he." Michael Bloomberg, Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, John Corzine are "he"s who opened up their checkbooks and tried -- sometimes successfully -- to buy an office. If the Obama campaign funds -- however obscenely huge they hopefully grow -- successfully brings a victory in November, it will be a "them" -- millions of contributors opening up their checkbooks -- who got the job done.
One reason WORKABLE campaign finance reform remains so desperately needed, is to diminish the influence of Pac's 527's, bundlers, soft money contributiors, et. al to whom politicians are then beholden much more so than their overall constituents.
While it may prove unfortunate for future primary candidates that the Obama/Clinton contest so dramaticaly raised the stakes...the type of money Obama raises bodes VERY well for Democracy and citizen involvement in national affairs. If you like representative democracy, and at least ACCEPT our capitalist economy, millions of small donors (I've heard an average of 25$) spontaneously inspired by an inspirational candidate is as close to the TRUE democracy as is possible.
It's hard NOT to be inspired by the prospect of a President beholden NOT to the awl biddness, or the hedge-fund pirates but LITERALLY, for the 1st time in my lifetime TO THE PEOPLE....ordinary Americans!!! It's positively AWE-inspiring.
Every one of us now has the opportunity to be not only a pundit (as here on Huffpo, God love Arianna and her staff)......but , collectively as DONORS with REAL INFLUENCE on the process.
I intend to be one of those sinister out-of-state donors meddling in the affairs of at LEAST Minnesota and Kentucky by kicking in for Al Franken and anyone running against THE VERY FACE of Republican intransigence,...Sen. McConnell. Bright days ahead!!...........................tm
......BTW...........Where is my 40 acres!.........How's that for a race card!
? As I see it, thase millions of small donors represent the people that are tired of the big monied corporate lobbyist useing their money to keep destroying our democratic elections. It would almost be like betraying the people that support him to opt in to that system. Barack Obama represents the little guy, and there are far more of them than tere are millionaires that can afford $2,000 dinners and things like that. Obama has found a
way to materialize this reality into action and I might say he has done a masterful job.The republicans are upset that they can't match what is happening being that they pander to the wealthy. This is a revolution of sorts, and it is time for mainstreet's concerns to be heard over wallstreet's. Lord knows millionaires have been well represented this last 8 years!
I am so glad I had the sense to vote for O. HC supporters openly admit that she practices the same old games to win at all cost. And BC PROVED that he would violate the people's trust while in office and that he knew how to beat Republicans, although his abrasive and divisive wife nearly derailed his campaign.
So under public financing, McCain-Feingold and the rest, these poltiicians of both parties are simply on the active payroll of the corporations and vote for the interests of those corporations in return for the money donated to their campaigns, and the personal guarantees of future wealth after they leave Congress or the White House. That explains why the Dems and Repubs always give the corporations the votes necessary to immunize them from criminal actions they commit, the right to try to steal Iraq's oil at the expense of our kids' lives and limbs, to reward predator credit card companies (the Bankruptcy Act), at the expense of the people, etc. And everyone knows they shamesless take this money.
So Obama's decision to reject public financing might be the first step in ending politicians' voting for corporations against people, even if Obama, who says he'll vote to immunize criminal conduct by the telecoms, is an imperfect vessel to end these practices. Resko shows he's got a bit of thief in him, but not as much as McCain.
If I put the Machiavellian template over the FISA compromise that is where I find I am entangled in logic that goes against hard principle. I am a firm believer in process orientation over goals focused, in that the process of travel delivers one to the arrival place. If one takes an ends justify the means approach to arrival, the result of that may well be a process of arrival that sullies and diminishes the accomplishment of arrival. Some say he will go back and fix what he compromised later. That argument seems hollow to me.
I support Mr. Obama, but he needs to make a stand concerning FISA and I hope he does. I support Mr. Obama but people who break the law should not get a pass. This is not mere idealism this is what the government asks us all to adhere to and I never want to become what I despise no matter the reward. That is just me though, for opinions vary widely.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/20/bipartisanship/index.html
"Nobody should be fooled by Obama's vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this "effort" is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: "Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try." The article continued: "Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to 'express their views.'"
We should continue to demand that amnesty is removed from the bill -- and fight it to the bitter end -- but this whole separate vote they'll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: "Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn't, I decided to support the compromise." It's almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama's support for the bill before unveiling it.
Either way, Obama -- if amnesty isn't removed -- is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate"
*******************************************************
Next, all one has to do is go back to jan 08 and read O's exact words re: this problem. Compare them to yesterday. 100% turnabout? Did he sound more than a tad far right'ish (ohhh, da boogyman!) in his comments yesterday?
Vote for Obama, but be realistic.
Well, I'm pretty sure that our ever-weakening democracy becomes only weaker with this sort of sentiment...
He will say ANYTHING to win.....He is only loyal to himself....
Love the Huff Post crowd...."We dont' care if he acts like NIXON, cuz he is OUR NIXON" He will investigate our ENEMIES and give US those no bid contracts...not those Halliburtron crowd....Check out the Dodd/Conrad mortgage scandal......
This is the change we are waiting for......
Sigh
Who do you recommend we vote for, oh wise one?
more stupid lies!
There needs to be a realization that our elected officials are a reflection of the constituencies that placed them in Washington. Therefore, we should place the blame on those who lacked the diligence and prudence in their choice of elected representatives.
And the dark shadow of Richard Nixon, and _his_ political strategies, and self-justifications.
What do silly rules and promises and integrity matter? Not at all to Senator Obama, it becomes increasingly clear.
In addition to small online contributors to Obama's campaign, "those with wealth and power have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine...."
Where Obama's concerned, people have not been applying Ronald Reagan's advice: "TRUST BUT VERIFY." As David Brooks wrote in Friday's (6/19/2008) N. Y. Times, there are Two Obamas -- a "Dr. Barack" whose oratory makes people swoon, and "Fast Eddie Obama (FEdO)," who operates on the belief that the end justifies the means. People ought to acquaint themselves a bit more with FEdO. readerK.
If he doesn't the next sound you will hear will be that of 20 million checkbooks and wallets slamming Shut!
the reason he had to abandon his ''moral high ground''
is bc he has to pander to
the big money, the neocons & the powerful lobbys
in order to win the election
and once you sell your soul for the office
well,
just try and get it back
from from the panderees
aka, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid
.
Thank you.