Stephanie and Somebody

Obama never verbally committed to not taking public financing, nor did he commit in writing.

On Nov 17th, He was asked on an emailed questionaire from the Midwest Democracy Network if he would they would forgo private funding... he emailed back that he was for it (that is not a commitment)if the other candidate would agree

On Feb 26, during a discussion with Tim Russert he said he would sit down and discuss it with McCain (bearing in mind, he was NOT the candidate at that point)... they never did. His representative, campaign counsel Bob Bauer did meet with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter. No agreement was reached. It was unofficially reported that during that discussion, the Obama campaign wanted McCain to put a stop the 527's groups with his name associated with them... 527's were responsible for the "swift-boat" attacks on Kerry

There was no verbal or signed agreement to indicate that he wouldn't accept public financing, he was favorable towards it but did not commit either way, so I don't know how you can hold him responsible for changing what he said he was going to do, when he never said he was going to do it.

(source for those facts: Fact Check.org)

2. Earmarks are highly politicized right now, but MANY MANY MANY earmarks go to vitally needed infrastructure. The money is out there, it is the job of a senator to get the money flowing into his state. Much like a grant writers job is to bring grants to his organization, I would challenge you tofind so earmarks that went to questionable items that Obama asked for. Like, for example, a bridge to nowhere.

3. I hadn't heard that. So I dunno, but my best guess is... he might consider it a states-rights issue or dislikes amending a constitution to deal with a predominately religious function such as marriage.

1. Obama opted out of public funding because he said the system was broken, not because of McCain. Why not recognize the system as broken before? Whatever the system was failing to provide, is that good accomplished by one candidate spending hundreds of millions of dollars? It still looks like he was for it until it couldn't help him.

2. If the broken system of public funding is reason enough to opt out, why is the broken system of earmarks not enough to opt out? Is your argument really that Obama is better than an indicted Senator? The point is that Obama's promise of a new kind of politics seems inconsistent with his earmark spending. McCain hasn't asked for earmarks in his however many years career, but Arizona's infrastructure seems about as good as Illinois's. Plus, Obama seems to favor line item veto power to confront just this kind of thing.

3. You're right on both counts, actually. But is his newfound deference to states part of his governing philosophy, or does he recognize that giving a soft answer will help him with rural voters in places like Virginia? The test will come in a year or two when a Democratic Congress passes a federal law redefining marriage--will Obama sign it?

I know I am really arguing with you on this. I should probably create a similar list for McCain. To be honest, that would be pretty easy--or maybe difficult, if I wanted to keep it to three points.

You asked: "I'd like to hear how people have dealt with these specific issues." I answered from that perspective; re: this is how I dealt with those issues. Addressing the second set of comments is sort of different, that deals with if the decisions he made were correct, not how we dealt with our feelings of what he did... so it becomes a question of not if you trust Obama, but rather do *I* think he made the right decisions in those specific occasions. How do I justify his decision making.

I think addressing those issues in a vacuum is a bad idea, since neither candidate is perfect, or really even reasonably AWESOME. It becomes about me justifying the worst in a candidate (although I confess, I don't think this is the worst in O) and justifying why I would vote for them. But nonetheless, I am up for a challenge, here are my answers (I c/p your questions so I didn't have to scrolling up):

1. Obama opted out of public funding because he said the system was broken, not because of McCain. Why not recognize the system as broken before? Whatever the system was failing to provide, is that good accomplished by one candidate spending hundreds of millions of dollars? It still looks like he was for it until it couldn't help him.

Stay with me here, because I am probably not going to be as concise as you. I gather what you are asking is why didn't he stick with his principals at the sacrifice of his whole campaign. Sometimes I think sometimes it is wiser to play with in the system in order to make a greater change in the long run (If you are playing the "change" + Obama drinking game, everyone DRINK) I don't believe in affirmative action, but I am not sure I was wise to say no to scholarships for being Black, because in retrospect the sticking to my guns hurt me and made no point and no change (DRINK!), as opposed to making a change from inside the system. In this case, I am not sure why the so-called change of mind is even relevant, I see no problem in accessing what will help me v. what will hurt me and operating accordingly. I like that in a leader, always paying attention, flexible enough to realize when sticking to principal is seriously going to hinder and/or if sticking to principal helps achieve the greater vision. In this case, poverty, healthcare and getting us out of the war seemed to be the goal, letting yourself get "swift-boated" for principal is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. "At least I stuck to my principals, of course, I now have a horrible reputation based on lies, the economy is crap, but I feel good about my principals." I am not so sure in this specific instance that this principal was even worth sticking to. This could, of course, be because I think public financing of campaigns is a crock of ish... Aside, why is it that Obama is held to a higher standard than McCain, who has changed his mind and his vote professionally and personally numerous times. Why not just consider that politics is much like a business, where you are constantly evaluating opportunities etc, and acting accordingly. President isn't position of principals, it is a position (to some levels) of practicality and functionality. That is probably why we haven't had an true idea presidents in the last, I dunno, roughly 50 years.

2. If the broken system of public funding is reason enough to opt out, why is the broken system of earmarks not enough to opt out? Is your argument really that Obama is better than an indicted Senator? The point is that Obama's promise of a new kind of politics seems inconsistent with his earmark spending. McCain hasn't asked for earmarks in his however many years career, but Arizona's infrastructure seems about as good as Illinois's. Plus, Obama seems to favor line item veto power to confront just this kind of thing.

What. What.... indicted senator. My arguement is that I don't think earmarks are unilaterally bad, and to it is a mischaracterization to make them out to be. Obama never identified earmarks as something that was unilaterally horrible, pork is, but not all earmarks are considered porkbarrel spending.

Obama has promised change (DRINK) but not a completely new political system and style... I think there are many good things about our political system there just are some kinks that need to be ironed out, I think he is more trying to iron than trying to reinvent the wheel. At least this is my interpretation.

McCain hasn't asked for earmarks, that doesn;t mean the other senator or congressmen hadn't. Unless you have proof that I don't that Arizona has not gotten any earmarks in the last 25 years, because I don't have that information. Arizona has less people than Illinois so it is not an applicable comparison

I don't know what you mean by that plus, Obama wants line item veto comment. You mean he wants to be able to eliminate certain lines without tossing out a whole bill, seems like a good idea to me, it would make it easier to get bills passed without them being rewritten constantly and having to fight each round instead of just lining out the bad items on the first round of legislation.

3. You're right on both counts, actually. But is his newfound deference to states part of his governing philosophy, or does he recognize that giving a soft answer will help him with rural voters in places like Virginia? The test will come in a year or two when a Democratic Congress passes a federal law redefining marriage--will Obama sign it?

I don't know. Maybe he is being altruistic about gay marriage and prop 8, maybe strategic, but since I havent heard he is against prop 8, I don't know. I would need to see his press release or an interview to see if he says why.... I still don't want gov't defining marriage, separation of church and state and all that. Regarding Obama, Marriage isn't something I feel I should have to be voting on, nor is it as pivotal to me that traditional marriage is protected when compared to my larger issues of social justice for the poor and getting us out of this war.


I hope this made sense. Let me know if I need to clarify.

I apologize for the grammar errors in that response.

Thanks, Shanelle. Nicely done.

I been so good about getting to bed early as of late, but I find myself up at 12:30am, the night before the election, still not sure who to vote for. I guess I am glad I am not alone, and hope that you figure it out in the next few hours. I probably should have started by praying, but now that I write this, that seems an obvious answer.

Yay for the undecideds!! I mean it's Election Day now, so I hope we've all finally made up our minds, but still. Like Katie, I also made up my mind late last night, and I'm glad that I'm not alone. (And I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind while standing in line at my polling place if necessary.) To all those who called undecideds foolish or uncaring (Mr. Stephanopoulos), I say boo! We're just extremely conscientious, thoughtful, and reflective. Have fun voting everyone!