"Senator John McCain 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."

Promise broken.

Well, McCain is working around the edges by using massive amounts private funding and PAC money funneled through the RNC, and Obama has probably figured out he will need all the ammunition he can muster to fend off the 527 swiftboat attacks.

It works for him strategically.

However, I lament the fact that this will only lead to more millions of dollars being spent on silly TV ads rather than accomplishing something useful for society.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Yeah, we're probably looking at a billion dollar election. It's outrageous. The media loves it, though.

Why I'm Voting republican

Today I went to visit a neighbor who's building a new shed on his farm. He had one of those wingnut talk radio hosts polluting the air all morning as he worked.

I just sent him an email thanking him for that. I told him listening to that crap caused me to come straight home and make an online donation to the Obama campaign.

Visit us at

The Home

Hey, it's change you can believe in!

Thanks for being the compassionate conservative. Hey, how's that "reaching across the aisle to bring people together" thing going 8 years later?

Well, it took him six years to get a Democratic majority to reach across to. I suppose it's additional proof of the superiority of the Clinton Presidency that Bill managed that feat in only two.

Bush has rolled Congress every bit of the way. They think he might compromise the next time and foolishly take him at his word that he will (when he never does), and without a veto-proof majority or enough senate votes to end debate they're too worried about being accused of obstructionist, so they just keep bending. It's not bipartisan and surely you don't think the White House is on better terms with Dems than it was 7-1/2 years ago or that Bush has even made any honest attempt to fulfill his promise.

I wasn't talking about within congress, but to the extent bipartisanship has improved there, it's only due to the exit of GOP ideologues like Frist and DeLay.

I'm kinda curious about the difference between "reaching across the aisle" and "rolling." I'm guessing a Dem President reaches, while a Repub President rolls. That about right?

BTW, the House vote on the War Funding resolution was 268-155, which by my math means a lot of Democrats voted for it. That kinda makes it "bipartisan" in my book, but I'm open to different definitions of the term.

And I'm still waiting to hear the evidence that the guy who just won the most contentious Democratic party primary in my memory, unting only about 50% of the Democratic party in the process, is the guy whose going to bring us all together.

"reaching across the aisle" = negotiating and compromising while calling off your political hatchet men like Rove and Bush's Swiftboating friends

"rolling" = making promises not kept, as in "signing statements," for one. (Charlie Brown would always get rolled by Lucy when she promised to hold the football. She held it, alright.)

...the guy whose going to bring us all together.

I don't remember Obama making that promise. There's no hope for some of you. I also didn't notice he divided the Dem party. He actually brought millions of people in (look at the small donations and note they are from small donors).

I would highlight your quote a little differently and ask that you, Bobo, Cheney, and Rush all explain your demonizing of Obama in light of this informed opinion that is 180 degrees contrary to your fear-mongering:

He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."

Hmm - I guess all that fear-mongering was caused by things like this:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator was to say.

But hey, if he's changed his mind, that ok. It's change I can believe in.

"reaching across the aisle" = soliciting input from Dems in congress in good faith (ie, actually taking them seriously) and not nominating extremist idealogues to the Supreme Court. Not lying about admin's use of torture, exaggerated national security threats, etc. etc., ad nauseam

Reaching or rolling?

WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday that could shield phone companies from billions of dollars in lawsuits for their participation in the warrantless surveillance program begun by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Obama said, "I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program ... and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."

Sounds like reaching to me, but maybe Obama just got rolled.

Ringo, do you honestly think that anyone believes that GW Bush has "changed the tone" for the better? What olive branch has he ever even offered? After months of making that promise, as soon as he took office W's whole administration whined for weeks about how the Clintons trashed the White House. Do you remember that after the story reached news saturation, Bush supposedly then asked if we could all just move on? It wasn't until months later that the official report, which didn't really reach the mainstream news, showed there was no trashing or pranks to any greater degree than any other outgoing president has done. Rove and crew were just warming up!

Hell, by the GOP's own gold standard of proof, at least in fair weather it is, Bush's historically low popularity says enough.

It's really amazing that in 2008 any of you sycophants and ditto brain sheep are left defending this man even as a half-assed president, let alone a good one. So many of the loyal rank and file, from W's inner circle all the way to the circle of any neighborhood, have seen the light and long ago deserted W The Worst President in History.

What keeps your loyalty to the smallest minded bully? Remind me of something--anything--he has been right about or successful in doing. I hope you're not a lifetime failure like your hero. I bet you're not.

Oops. Isn't anyone in charge of security?

...Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he did not know how many offices had been hacked but that the House was taking steps to address the security lapses.

Oh, THAT'S reassuring! The party that gloats about its national security strength.

Actually the point is not to defend Bush. I start with the proposition forwarded by folks like you that Bush has been the most partisan and divisive president in memory, and then I ask you to show me any evidence, any at all, that Obama will be less partisan and less divisive. After all, that's one of his supporter's biggest stated rationales for supporting him, and one of the things Obama himself says he brings to the table. So where the proof? Where the big transformational bi-partisan bill that has Obama's name on it? Truth is, it doesn't exist.

And now that Obama has rounded up the nomination by playing to the hard core of the Democratic party left, with promises about respecting the Naderite public election financing system, suggestions of unilaterally withdrawing from NAFTA and getting troops out of Iraq NOW, suddenly he's running in the general and "discovers" that public election finance is a joke (oh I'm sorry - it's "broken"), that NAFTA really isn't so bad and hey - maybe things have changed in Iraq enough that unilateral and immediate pullout isn't such a hot idea.

That's fine. Like Beanster in another column I'm glad that he's not such a rigid ideologue that he would be unwilling to reexamine his position in light of changing facts. Bean is right that it doesn 't matter how noble your plans are, how visionary your ideas are, if you can't get elected there's not much more you can do that write a book and hope someobody notices. It would have been stupid for Obama to remain in the public finance system. I just wish he had been honest about it instead of giving lame and half-assed rationales that tried to make his decision look noble. I'm glad now that he's securing his base he can take notice of the fact that while free trade affects one segment of the economy negatively it has positive effects on others, and it just might be that the positive effects outweigh the negative. And I'm glad that he recognizes, at least tacitly, that the Surge in Iraq has in fact worked, conditions on the ground ARE far better than they were in 2007 when he was calling for an immediate pullout of troops, and that sticking rigidly to that position now could undermine all that progress. I'm glad he has that flexibility.

Obama doesn't scare me, and I don't think an Obama administration would be the end of the world or the end of the country or any of that bollocks. The pendulum of American politics swings back and forth, and it's apparently the left's turn to have a go. What I do find objectionable and creepy (and I'm not at all alone in this, even with folks on the left who are inclined to support him) is this messianic "we are the change we've been waiting for" nonsense that has people swooning at his campaign events.

Get over it. Obama is a Chicago machine pol. His views on political issues are standard-issue liberal Democratic party stuff. His ascension is a remarkable achievement, and if he can manage to run his campaign in such a way that his race truly is incidental rather than central to his candidacy then America will be the better for it. But the portrayal of him by his supporters, with his express or tacit approval, as some sort of "post-racial, post-partisan, transformational" figure in American politics is nonsense. The record just doesn't support it. So popping off about GWB misses the point. He's not going to be on the ballot in 2008. Obama is, and the sooner his supporters are honest with themselves and others about the nature of the man - he's just another politician, albeit a very good one in some ways - the sooner I'll stop the snark.

BTW, I'm playing the Metulj Gambit in this election - I don't like either one of them.

Oh and one other thing. I'm far too old to have "heroes" in politics. That's a game for the young, who still believe in such things. My only hero is my father. Everyone else is just a person, with greater or lesser flaws. If Obama is your hero, I'm glad for you, and hope you maintain such idealism longer than I managed to.

Where the big transformational bi-partisan bill that has Obama's name on it?

Where is that a requisite for the office?

What I do find objectionable and creepy (and I'm not at all alone in this, even with folks on the left who are inclined to support him) is this messianic "we are the change we've been waiting for" nonsense that has people swooning at his campaign events. ... Get over it.

I've been careful not to be in that camp. I kept the door open for Hillary longer than I should have. I had to make a choice, though, and it has become easy. That doesn't mean he's perfect. But he's suffered no more embarrassments than any other candidate I remember ever seeking the office has at this stage. Including Reagan or whoever you want to include. If it sounds like I like Obama, though, I do. Irrespective of policy, ideology, whatever, he is as nearly an ideal candidate as there's been in a LONG time. I've said it before: The GOP would shit their pants with giddiness if Obama represented the right. Demographics, class, ethnicity, style, charisma, oration, --the whole enchilada.

But the portrayal of him by his supporters, with his express or tacit approval, as some sort of "post-racial, post-partisan, transformational" figure in American politics is nonsense.

Again, not me. But he could be that, I hope he is so sue me for that. Though I have no expectations that he will. Just a good president for a change. I think he will be. But I won't coddle him, the way some still coddle Junior, if he's not.