Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i prefer his wife. though she mutated afterwards.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

at any rate, the only duh-worthy thing here is your implication that obama got any public financing (he hasn't) and that he's returning it (there's nothing to return) so he can get some PAC money (he won't).


MAGOO is the one who got public financing. he got it when his campaign was bankrupt.

the story goes like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us...ics/23fec.html
(that's from february 2007)

what this calls for, were obama the nominee, is that he returns the money he's received and sticks to $85 mil from public financing.

magoo, who is stuck with public financing now, is callign for obama to do as him
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-attack-1.html

recently obama showed a bit of caution saying he'll "sit down with mccain to hammer out an agreement"-- he'll have to do that or eat his words or find a way out. but this has nothing to do with PACs-- his success has been with the small contributions online-- $50, $100, etc.

at any rate, magoo has no incentive to stay stuck with public financing and he's looking for a way out, but he'll face some troubles in the process
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23362651/

Originally Posted by L.A. Times 3 Mar 2008

Obama too experienced what might be called a contribution conversion. Last year, when he was still an underdog to Clinton, a spokesman for his campaign reacted positively to a proposal by McCain that he would accept federal financing in the general election if the Democratic nominee did. But with his new front-runner status -- and facing the prospect of raising more private money than McCain in a general election -- Obama has begun to waver. Asked in the last Democratic debate if he was waffling on a promise to accept public financing, he dodged, saying that, if nominated, he wants to "sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides." That sounds like the "old politics" that Obama inveighs against.

Both candidates should get over their buyer's remorse. What they gain by abandoning public financing, they may lose in credibility.

Originally Posted by atari 2600

a) you're a freakazoid

Originally Posted by atari 2600

b) the NY Times article you quote is from February of last year. Since then Obama has accepted the 85 million in public financing, but like McCain is now second guessing the move and plans to return it. Each are hoping to maintain a campaign financing edge over the other.

Originally Posted by atari 2600

c) L.A. Times
March 3, 2008
Flip-flopping on public financing
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5382351.story

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Obama has been talking as if he already took public financing or was going to take public financing and now he probably isn't. And Obama is already starting to blame his change of heart on keeping up with the McCain McCampaign.

I hardly see how I deserve to be flamed over and over just for pointing out that Obama is a politician and not a savior. So will ya please stop frothing at the mouth now?

Originally Posted by atari 2600

To be fair, Obama is starting to show his stripes.

The one thing that was real, that I could count on as a tangible testament to his character, was that, like John Edwards, Obama was refusing campaign contributions from political action committees.

But now that things are rolling for him, Obama's already backed-off from this. He is in the process of returning the eighty-five million in funding he got from the Federal government for his campaign so that he will be free to take contributions from PACs.

So, I've stated it before when Edwards dropped out, and I'll state it again. America has once again fucked up and screwed themselves.
Now that Edwards is out of the running, unfortunately so is a chance for a better America, and a better world.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yeah rob but hillary is always followed by scandal & if that is the case obama will be as tainted as gore was in 2000.

plus hillary's experience as first lady of the u.s. and arkansas has taught her a lot about being an unprincipled weasel.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Hillary is smart, efficient, MEAN, opinionated, diplomatic, and heavily experienced in both foreign affairs and homeland affairs

Obama is smart, eloquent, charismatic, but very very inexperienced.

with the threat of Russia reverting back to it's soviet era totalitarianism, I would much rather have Clinton as president, and Obama as vice president, giving Obama time to learna nd get experience and achieve quite a lot of things, so when Hillary cannot run anymore, if she does a good job, then he can step in and continue. In 8 years he will be in his early 50's. Perfect for a president.

Clinton/Obama 2008
kicking McCain in his turkey gullet.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

scandal always follows her husband, not Hillary. She is much more self-controlled than him. I doubt that anything new will come up for her, while Obama, however, has all the makings of an inexperienced one term president.

he needs to learn first hand, and vice president would let him lead the house of representatives, and take part in a lot of policy decisions, as long as Clinto is cool with it.

I like how Obama was "Barry" in school. dumb crackas couldn't say barrack I guess. ;)

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

scandal always follows her husband, not Hillary. She is much more self-controlled than him. I doubt that anything new will come up for her, while Obama, however, has all the makings of an inexperienced one term president.

he needs to learn first hand, and vice president would let him lead the house of representatives, and take part in a lot of policy decisions, as long as Clinto is cool with it.

I like how Obama was "Barry" in school. dumb crackas couldn't say barrack I guess. ;)