• Sumo, you have a point, but as a male in his mid twenties I feel very unqualified to comment on the amount of expenses. I just think some of the expenses were necessary, but will bite Palin in two specific ways: first, in the way Edwards got hit by his comparatively cheap hair cut. And second, that she may have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes on these.

    I think emphasizing her being out of touch only reinforces the culture wars that Democrats really don't want to fight.

    Criticizing Palin on the grounds of faux populism may help win a battle (a battle that's probably already won), but it buys into the GOP's bigger picture outlook.

  • on a comment on Bloggers As Troublemakers? over 5 years ago

    I pretty much agree with your assessment.  Well said.  

    So then my follow up question is: at some point are campaigns going to have to figure out a way to better deal with bloggers and related online media in a better way?  Or, more generally put, what direction are relations between campaigns and online media heading in?

  • comment on a post Bloggers As Troublemakers? over 5 years ago

    Nice.  Please do, I'd be interested in reading it.

  • comment on a post Ask McCain over 6 years ago

    sigh

    The call-in information posted by Americablog (and reposted here) is for the media, not for participants.  Thus, if you call in with this information, you will not be given the opportunity to ask a question.  It's simply not a feature for the above code.

    Just saying is all...

  • I did not offer an incorrect assertion.

    My title was question marked, because at the time, I believed it was open for debate.  At present, I still think that's the case, although, I am inclined to believe that he did in fact fail to satisfy the standard he set for himself and promises he offered to voters on this issue.

    He promised to aggressively pursue an agreement with the GOP nominee.  At present, it is pretty clear that this was not the case.

    Further, he spent a year talking about the need to preserve the system.  Yet, despite no substantive difference in the public financing system between now and February 2007, Obama has declared that it is broken.  Why is the system broken today, but was not broken during 2007?

    I know this may be difficult for a complete partisan to understand, but I am not one of the "bad guys."  I'm one of the good guys.  

    Aside from the information regarding a single meeting that took place between lawyers for the campaigns, no additional information has been presented that significantly undermines the considerations that I put forth in my initial post.  I still intend on putting together a second post on this, but the focus on that post will not be to support Obama's handling of this issue.  Rather, I'll be consolidating information from my original post, comments and additional information for the time line.

    Specifically, what in my original post do you believe needs to retracted?  Perhaps that's a better starting place.

  • Woops, meant to reply directly to your comment.  See my reply below.

  • comment on a post Obama Breaks Campaign Funding Pledge? over 6 years ago

    The reaction to this post, which was well reasoned and explained has been somewhat unbelievable.

    First, just for the record, the new post that you refer to was written by the other co-managing editor of 2008Central.net, not myself.  I realize this wasn't readily apparent, but just wanted to set the record straight.

    That said, I did write another diary on this subject, which provides links to audio of both campaigns' conference calls from this evening that discuss this issue.  This was not intended to replace a followup to this diary, but rather to supplement for those that are interested.

    Now, will I post a follow up? Absolutely.

    I wasn't aware that I was operating a deadline.  I said I'd follow up, give me chance to do so.

    Clearly, you are very concerned about this post and that makes me happy.  I assume you've read my more substantive replies to some of the comments on this thread?  I could understand your frustration if I just up and disappeared after making this post, but I haven't as evidenced by participation in comment discussions, by updating the diary and by posting additional resources on the subject.

    Further, I'm not really sure my post requires significant editing, especially in light of some of my replies in the comment thread.  Yes, I want to put together a new post on this topic, but no, it won't be much different than the original.  It will simply be more informed, since new information has emerged, but my original critique still stands -- I think the situation was mishandled.

    I'm copying two replies to previous commenters for your reference.

    My original issue with Obama's action was not the fact that he opted out of public financing.  It was the smart and necessary decision to make and if he had chosen to do otherwise he would have been hurting himself for no good reason.

    Rather, (and again, based on how everything went with the meeting with the campaigns, this may all be moot), my issue is with Obama's promise to aggressively work out some type of agreement with the GOP nominee on public financing.

    To me, it just doesn't seem that he really went through the effort that he said he would.  Further, I pointed out the inconsistency between saying that the public finance system is worth preserving and saying that the public finance system is broken.

    This diary was not intended to suggest that anyone should decide against supporting Obama on this issue.  I would strongly caution against not supporting him on this alone.  Rather, the post was intended to do a few things:

    1) point out an inconsistency (it's important to do that, regardless of where loyalty lies)

    2) To assess its significance

    3) To point out that there may be political consequences - not for opting out of public finance, but rather, for not doing (or seeming to do) something he said he would do, which is work with the GOP nominee.

    And if he did work with the McCain campaign on this matter, he should have indicated that in his statement today. It would have put him in a significantly better light and stronger position on this issue alone.

    AND

    I was having this conversation earlier with fellow blogger.  From a strategic perspective, even if the Obama campaign met with the McCain campaign in the manner in which it is being reported, I still think they made a strategic blunder (albeit not a particularly big one)...

    Obama said he'd work with the GOP nominee to hammer out some kind of agreement on public financing.  From the outset, it was obvious that the GOP had no intention of reducing 527 attacks this year and that McCain had no intention of pressuring them to do so (I should note that I am not saying this to imply that they are evil or something, but rather to highlight a basic strategic point -- they need the 527s for financial and political purposes much more than the Democrats do this election).

    So, the Obama campaign should have made a slightly stronger and more public showing regarding efforts to hammer out some kind of deal on public financing.  There really is only two ways that such an activity could have played out:

    1) Either McCain looks unwilling to work on public financing in a serious way; OR, 2) He looks too weak to do anything about the 527s; OR, Both.

    As a result, Obama still could have made the same announcement that he did today.  Except, he would have the added benefits of:

    1) including a sentence or two about his efforts and the McCain campaign's stonewalling; AND 2) he would not seem as though he was acting contradictory to positions regarding this issue that he espoused during 2007.

    I suppose in all, my critique is not intended to be some insanely slimy and off base attack (as many seem to think), but rather, something I have done consistently: Look at a situation, point out issues and think about ways it could have been done better.

    I certainly think this was one situation that could have been handled better AND possibly could have been to Obama's benefit.

  • This was not a gratuitous attack.

    See responses to comments above.

  • Certainly.

    I was having this conversation earlier with fellow blogger.  From a strategic perspective, even if the Obama campaign met with the McCain campaign in the manner in which it is being reported, I still think they made a strategic blunder (albeit not a particularly big one)...

    Obama said he'd work with the GOP nominee to hammer out some kind of agreement on public financing.  From the outset, it was obvious that the GOP had no intention of reducing 527 attacks this year and that McCain had no intention of pressuring them to do so (I should note that I am not saying this to imply that they are evil or something, but rather to highlight a basic strategic point -- they need the 527s for financial and political purposes much more than the Democrats do this election).

    So, the Obama campaign should have made a slightly stronger and more public showing regarding efforts to hammer out some kind of deal on public financing.  There really is only two ways that such an activity could have played out:

    1) Either McCain looks unwilling to work on public financing in a serious way; OR, 2) He looks too weak to do anything about the 527s; OR, Both.

    As a result, Obama still could have made the same announcement that he did today.  Except, he would have the added benefits of:

    1) including a sentence or two about his efforts and the McCain campaign's stonewalling; AND 2) he would not seem as though he was acting contradictory to positions regarding this issue that he espoused during 2007.

    I suppose in all, my critique is not intended to be some insanely slimey and off base attack (as many seem to think), but rather, something I have done consistently: Look at a situation, point out issues and think about ways it could have been done better.

    I certainly think this was one situation that could have been handled better AND possibly could have been to Obama's benefit.

  • In my opinion, he really can't bargain on this issue.  Even if he wanted to stop all (or significantly reduce the 527s), he simply doesn't have the political clout at this point to really influence those groups.  Thus, his weakness as a party leader would be even further exposed.

  • Of course.

    All I really care about is getting the information right, regardless of who it benefits.  If it turns out that my original concerns/questions were completely off base, I will gladly indicate that.

    As an aside and in case you missed it, my response to an earlier commenter better summarizes the purpose and intention of my post...

    My original issue with Obama's action was not the fact that he opted out of public financing.  It was the smart and necessary decision to make and if he had chosen to do otherwise he would have been hurting himself for no good reason.

    Rather, (and again, based on how everything went with the meeting with the campaigns, this may all be moot), my issue is with Obama's promise to aggressively work out some type of agreement with the GOP nominee on public financing.

    To me, it just doesn't seem that he really went through the effort that he said he would.  Further, I pointed out the inconsistency between saying that the public finance system is worth preserving and saying that the public finance system is broken.

    This diary was not intended to suggest that anyone should decide against supporting Obama on this issue.  I would strongly caution against not supporting him on this alone.  Rather, the post was intended to do a few things:

    1) point out an inconsistency (it's important to do that, regardless of where loyalty lies)

    2) To assess its significance

    3) To point out that there may be political consequences - not for opting out of public finance, but rather, for not doing (or seeming to do) something he said he would do, which is work with the GOP nominee.

    And if he did work with the McCain campaign on this matter, he should have indicated that in his statement today. It would have put him in a significantly better light and stronger position on this issue alone.

  • No, it doesn't.

    I put the note up.  Any updates that I would make at this point would be pointless as I am still sorting through everything.

    After I am done sorting through the available information, I'll put together another substantive post.

    Until then, the note that is bolded at the very top of the diary and again for the portion that is in question is more than sufficient.

  • Again, see my reply above.

    I was not arguing that Obama should have opted into the public finance system.  I agree with you; it would have been a terrible idea and is unnecessary.

  • Hmmm...

    My original issue with Obama's action was not the fact that he opted out of public financing.  It was the smart and necessary decision to make and if he had chosen to do otherwise he would have been hurting himself for no good reason.

    Rather, (and again, based on how everything went with the meeting with the campaigns, this may all be moot), my issue is with Obama's promise to aggressively work out some type of agreement with the GOP nominee on public financing.

    To me, it just doesn't seem that he really went through the effort that he said he would.  Further, I pointed out the inconsistency between saying that the public finance system is worth preserving and saying that the public finance system is broken.

    This diary was not intended to suggest that anyone should decide against supporting Obama on this issue.  I would strongly caution against not supporting him on this alone.  Rather, the post was intended to do a few things:

    1) point out an inconsistency (it's important to do that, regardless of where loyalty lies)

    2) To assess its significance

    3) To point out that there may be political consequences - not for opting out of public finance, but rather, for not doing (or seeming to do) something he said he would do, which is work with the GOP nominee.

    And if he did work with the McCain campaign on this matter, he should have indicated that in his statement today. It would have put him in a significantly better light and stronger position on this issue alone.

  • You're absolutely right. I'm going to go back over the comments again.

    It's always tempting to respond to the most inflammatory comments immediately, especially because it's fast and easy to respond to them.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads