Primary Thread IV: Texas Black Gold or Pennsylvania Coal for Clinton?

[Arrian]

You know exactly what they mean. You don't have to agree with it, but cut the bull****.

Personally, I think the Obama campaign should embrace his full name (and McCain's). Those who actually get worked up about "Hussein" will probably do more good than harm...

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Well I'm trying to avoid the conclusion of bigotry on their part so that maybe clouding my judgement on the issue. Otherwise I can think of no real reason why saying the man's name given to him by his parents might paint him as not being an American citizen or otherwise unamerican. (His friendly relationship with one of the Weather Underground leaders does that just fine for me) Just like I didn't see the point of Hussein Obama getting hysterical over the pic of the silly dress he wore at a diplomatic function.

[Zkribbler]

hysterical?? DD, you are too funny.

[Ramo]

DD, you might want to ask the vile bigots that run the Tennessee GOP. A press release sent out a couple days ago:

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well I'm trying to avoid the conclusion of bigotry on their part so that maybe clouding my judgement on the issue. Otherwise I can think of no real reason why saying the man's name given to him by his parents might paint him as not being an American citizen or otherwise unamerican. (His friendly relationship with one of the Weather Underground leaders does that just fine for me) Just like I didn't see the point of Hussein Obama getting hysterical over the pic of the silly dress he wore at a diplomatic function.

Wow. Takin' it to 11 on the obtuseness scale.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

I live a few blocks away from Farrakhan's mansion

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wow... this attack on McCain by the DNC for withdrawing from the public financing system may just bite the Dems on the ass:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28obama.html

February 28, 2008

Early Obama Promise on Money Becomes Target

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JEFF ZELENY

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

Now his challenge to his rivals has boomeranged into a test of Mr. Obama’s own ability to balance principle and politics in a very different context. After taking in $100 million in donations, Mr. Obama is the one setting fund-raising records, presenting a powerful temptation to find a way out of his own proposal so that he might outspend his Republican opponent. And the all-but-certain Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, is short on cash and eager to take up the fund-raising truce.

Mr. Obama was notably noncommittal about his previous proposal in Tuesday’s Democratic debate, indicating that he would add new conditions, especially on spending by independent groups, to his previous pledges to accept the deal. If nominated, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair to both sides,” Mr. Obama said, alluding to the need to close “loopholes.”

Campaign finance experts said the issue was a major test of Mr. Obama’s commitment. It is also a first glimpse of what might come in a general election fight between two candidates who have championed public integrity, opening themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign stepped up its criticism of Mr. Obama after his statement at the debate.

“The fact is, Senator Obama signed a piece of paper and pledged to take public financing for his campaign if I did the same," Mr. McCain said. “I believe that Senator Obama should keep his commitment also, which means taking public financing. The rest of it is ground noise. The rest of it is irrelevant."

Some Democrats and Obama supporters, meanwhile, have sought to strike back at Mr. McCain by accusing him of exploiting the public financing system. They argue that Mr. McCain may have violated technicalities of the election laws by using his eligibility for public matching funds to help obtain a loan but then opting out of the matching funds at the last minute to avoid the spending restrictions they impose. “People aren’t exactly clear whether all the t’s were crossed and i’s were dotted,” Mr. Obama said in Tuesday’s debate. (The McCain campaign said it followed the law.)

The issue may be more sensitive for Mr. Obama, though, because has run in part on his record as an advocate of stricter government integrity rules, including the public financing system. Last February, he sought the election commission’s blessing on a public financing proposal in part to underscore his support for tighter election rules. (The filing was short of a commitment, but he later went further in a questionnaire from a coalition of government-integrity groups.)

Mr. Obama has argued that his campaign was already meeting the spirit of public financing laws because it had relied overwhelmingly on small donors instead of corporate patrons.

Still, with public financing for the general election phase of the campaign amounting to nearly $10 million a week, Mr. Obama’s hedging puzzles some.

“You ought to be able to run a campaign for two months on $85 million,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, which lobbies for stricter campaign finance laws. She called Mr. Obama’s recent remarks “a very bad signal.”

“This whole idea started with Senator Obama, and we think he and whoever the Republican nominee is ought to follow through,” said Fred Wertheimer, founder of the advocacy group Democracy 21.

David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said the campaign would not make a decision until the Democratic primary is settled. But in a recent column in USA Today, Mr. Obama appeared to set some new conditions. He argued that any bipartisan agreement to accept the limits of public financing would be “meaningless” if there were no provisions to close the “loopholes” that allow unlimited spending during the long primary season or by independent outside groups.

The article cited a possible model for an agreement: one reached by Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, and former Gov. William Weld, a Republican, in the 1996 Senate race in Massachusetts. That deal limited each campaign to spending about $7 million over the last four months of the race and counted any expenditure by an outside group seeking to help a candidate against that candidate’s limit. “We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up,” Mr. Obama wrote. “I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain.”

Although Mr. Kerry and Mr. Weld later praised the deal as a positive step, it ended in accusations that each side had broken its word. With no real enforcement and no clear standard for judging outside spending, there was also no way to address issues until after the election.

[Ramo]

McCain raised hay over Obama backing out of the public system in the general before the DNC raised hay over McCain backing out of the public system in the primary. And the crucial difference, of course, is that McCain used the public system to get a loan and get on state ballots, so may not be able to legally back out, may have broken the law, and at the very least looks like he tried to defraud the American taxpayer.

[Ramo]

Your article cites Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21:

“This whole idea started with Senator Obama, and we think he and whoever the Republican nominee is ought to follow through,” said Fred Wertheimer, founder of the advocacy group Democracy 21.

He also says:

The shut down of the Federal Election Commission has taken center stage because there is no functioning agency to deal with the issue of whether bank loans taken out by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and the collateral provided for those bank loans, means that Senator McCain cannot withdraw from the presidential primary public financing system and is bound by its spending limits for the rest of his primary campaign.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/fred_wertheimer_weighs_in.php

The distinction is breaking a rather loose plege vs. breaking a law with a potential punishment of 5 years in prison.

[Edan]

No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama's middle name.

At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."

"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

Rove also said that Republicans should refer to Hillary Clinton as "Sen. Clinton," rather than "Hillary."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rove_dont_hussein_obama_1.php

[Zkribbler]

Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

DD obviously didn't get the memo.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
for what ever his other faults the guy doesn't fall for the race baiting that's so popular on talk radio.

You know for someone who purports to hate talk radio pundits so much, you seem to know an awful lot about what they have to say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
DD obviously didn't get the memo.

Serious questions:
1) Is it his name?
2) Is he ashamed of it?
3) Are his supporters ashamed of it?
4) If the answers to those are what I suspect, what's the problem with it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
The distinction is breaking a rather loose plege vs. breaking a law with a potential punishment of 5 years in prison.

And yet someone who pushes for the idea that he'll take public funding (if his opponent does) as one of his attempts to reduce the "corrupting influence of money" on politics is not going to be harmed by renegging on the pledge? Especially when said person is running as a "reformer"?

And AFAIK, McCain has broken no laws to date.

[Dinner]

Except the one where he agreed to cap his spending. That one was broken some days ago even if it will not be reported until the next filing date. He had just $5 million to go before hitting the cap on super tuesday and he has had super tuesday plus 10 additional primaries since then. There is no question he has broken the cap and thus violated Federal election laws which he himself helped to write.

To say otherwise is a lie.