“Obama Ruling Could Prove Moot, Backfire”
The article makes it clear that Obama (and surrogates) never promised that he would use public funds in the general election. Their promise was to return funds exceeding the limit if both candidates accepted public financing. Different promise. I’m sick of reading all sorts of claims that Obama lied or didn’t keep his word on public financing. His campaign hedged their bets brilliantly and made no promises they aren’t keeping. Still doesn’t look good to the casual observer.
{ 2 } Comments
It does look bad to a casual observer. It’s at least disingenuous even if not dishonest. There was perhaps not a promise, but at least an implication that Obama would use public funding. To weasel out on a technically that was planned from the beginning is deceptive. I’m an Obama supporter, and I think not using public funding is a good thing, but being a weasel about it isn’t the best move. Just my opinion…
My only response is that I think we should look at what the goals with public funding were in the first place. Were they to eliminate the power of moneyed special interests? Increase personal identification with and investment in elections on the part of the broad electorate? Something else? I just want to make sure we’re not fans of publicly-funded campaigns purely for their own sake, or getting to down on Obama for running a campaign that’s meeting both of the possible motives I stated above.
Post a Comment