Everybody — from the MSM to the hyperbolic blogosphere — is having conniptions about Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing for the general election. (David Brooks at the NY Times is particularly frothy.)
I just have a couple of thoughts:
1. Obama’s fundraising capabilities were not manifest when the public campaign financing topic initially came up. However, it’s been obvious for quite awhile that the options for the Obama campaign via current and ongoing campaign contributions were going to vastly outnumber those available via public financing funds.
2. The difference is likely to be so enormous, in fact, that Obama would have branded himself a drooling fool to opt in.
Along with those two little tidbits, I should add that in all my years paying taxes, I have never (to my memory) checked that little box asking if I wanted to contribute to the campaign finance fund. I was always concerned that my piddly donation would partially fund some horrendous candidate with whom I agreed on virtually nothing.
Given the level of excitement and engagement this election cycle is generating, I rather prefer this outcome.
Did he break his word? Probably… but holding someone to a statement made under circumstances that bear little resemblance to the current reality is asking for a rigid ideologue.
No thanks. Been there, done that — recently.
Wrt the Brooks’ piece, you say “particularly frothy”, I say “bullseye!.”
Lots of dingers here, although the passing observation about Adlai Stevenson was particularly apt, in that I enjoy historical analogies. Eloquent and highly principled (arguably to a fault), the Illinois Governor was the toast of elites and academia alike. Ideologically, a ’50’s Obama, if you will. Unfortunately for the progressives of the era, he was completely owned by Ike in the ’52 and ’56 general election. Did the ghost of Adlai pay a visit to Obama in the last few days?
Is this the new standard? A politico renounces, in the interest of gross political expediency, a previously and highly publicized idealistic position on an issue and it is called “pragmatism.” Funny, but when Bill Clinton “adjusted to changing circumstances” he was rightfully named Slick Willie, a label that has stuck.
Btw, is Obama now using Al “Just win, baby!” Davis as a campaign advisor? Just askin’. New campaign slogan: Pragmatism You Can Believe In! Funny, but I’m not feeling very inspired just now.
Literature abounds with characters that stick to their word even when it is to their detriment. They are normally referred to as tragic heroes .
As you say, Dyre, literature is positively littered with such tragic heroes. In this particular tale, a tragic hero at the head of a globally-important country would be catastrophic.
Bello — Since your previous comments have indicated something rather distant from “inspired” by Obama, your outrage seems a bit faux here.
With all the press coverage on this we hear very little concerning McCain’s “creative” primary campaign funding which appears to be illegal.
Hi Davebo — I hope you take the time to visit Poliblog, where Dr. Taylor takes up a facet of this question in response to my post yesterday. He has a theory…
Until the day that there is some small party getting part of that cash there is no reason to check those ‘donation’ boxes. If the two parties that have evenly split the country can not manage to get the message out that their candidate is running, then they don’t need to be in office.