Sham "Reformers"

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I agree with Kos about 85% of the time. You have been reading a lot about the 15% we disagree about. Here is one where we agree. Markos wrote:

The "reformer" groups betrayed their idiocy during their efforts to regulate blogs, and now confirm that early prognosis by putting pressure on Obama's law-adhering behavior while continuing to ignore McCain's blatant lawbreaking.

The Common Causes and Democracy 21s and Public Citizens like to rail about "compromised" politicians, but they're proving in vivid color that they, themselves, are not immune to being compromised . . .

More than that, the "reforms" they obsess about are empty platitudes about nothing of substance. But that does not change this fact - Obama is losing and will continue to lose the spin war on public financing in the general election. Rip the scab now Senator Obama while Senator Clinton is your opponent -- break the pledge NOW. The Media will take it easy on you now, not later if you are running against McCain.

< National Security or National Nonsense? | Hillary Raises $35 Million In February >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    All you need is one major crime (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:49:19 PM EST
    Kos may be smart, progressive and right 95%. That matter not at all since he betrayed his progressive beliefs by supporting Obama vehemently, by adopting the MSM line, hook, sinker, tone and verbiage with respect to Hillary. He also did very little to support Edwards.

    So because of one disagreement (none / 0) (#10)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    with Kos, you think he is off the progressive boat?

    Sounds like a GOP line to me.

    Here in Minnesota, 6 GOP state senators broke with the party to overturn the GOP gov's veto of a major transportation bill.

    These guys got stripped of their committee seniority and positions just for voting their conscience.

    Is this the kind of fundamentalist, small tent thinking you want to adopt?

    If someone isn't 100% pure in your book, forget 'em.

    I still don't know why "progressives" think Hillary is better than Obama.

    What in her career makes her better?  If Obama fails your standard, then surely Clinton must as well.


    Video: Obama Doubletalk on Nafta (3.00 / 1) (#2)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    The problem isn't that Obama will lose the "spin war" on public financing; the problem is that Obama equivocates on every subject of any consequence. It's too big a load - like too much dirty laundry - it's too much to spin, let alone come clean.

    The latest expose: Nafta. CTV news reports that Obama's campaign privately reassured Canadian Government officials that his anti-Nafta talk is just "campaign rhetoric".

    YouTube: "CTV on Obama, Clinton and NAFTA"



    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we log out, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.


    Money flowing in (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    I read over at Talking Points Memo where Sen. Clinton announced that she had raised $35,000,000 in February alone.  That is an amazing number, and a testament to her, her campaign and her supporters.

    Sen. Obama's campaign has not disclosed their figure yet, but said it would be north of that.

    Imagine, the two Democratic candidates raising over $70,000,000 in one month.

    The level of support both candidates are generating is nothing short of fantastic.

    Remember that both are probably bringing in new donors since donors from '07 are most likely tapped out by now.

    I don't have Sen. McCain's numbers, but I seriously doubt it is any where close to those numbers.

    Jumping ahead to the GE, either Clinton or Obama will have a far greater number of previous donors to return to than McCain.

    Am I correct that an individual can max out each election cycle, and that the primary is one election cycle and the GE another?

    Now, McCain will be able to go after Bush's donor list, but I can't see Bush's people giving enthusiastically to McCain.

    From a cash perspective, McCain will have to run a focused campaign.  For example, he probably won't spend any money in California freeing up Obama or Clinton to spend money in the "purple", "pink" and even the "deep red" states.

    Of course, McCain will have the millions that will be spent by the 527s on his behalf (and he will say they shouldn't say those sexist or racist things 'cause he's so pure).

    It will be a wonderful irony if McCain is severly handicapped in this race by the very campaign finance laws he helped enact.

    He has an excuse now (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    He can say that no matter what McCain pledges to do, ex-Senators and state GOP committees and the AP and the Washington Times and Fox News and Tim Russert will do McCain's dirty work unofficially; and that there is no way to guarantee an even playing field by agreeing to public financing.

    All the links above are in the last 72 hours...

    To Magster: Why the Lowball Comment Rating? (none / 0) (#4)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:38:19 PM EST
    I see that you were quick to give my upstream post a rating of "1"; at least I'm in good company since you've given BTD his share of "1"s as well.

    Did you not like the video, or was it off topic or something?


    Not only is it off-topic... (none / 0) (#7)
    by jr on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    ...but both the Obama campaign and the Canadian Embassy have denied the unsourced report (see here)

    eeew, eeew, eeew (none / 0) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    To jr, dude your link is to Obama Talking Points Memo and at the top of the page there's a HUGE AD (teeth and all) for the man himself!

    Please, a little warning before you dump me off in that neighborhood.



    Because it was debunked (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    the canadian tv network is saying they (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    stand behind it....so who knows....

    Maybe saying that (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    would have been more appropriate than the troll rating.

    Besides, CTV stands by their story.


    Slightly uprated (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    Just for the sake of general election harmony.  

    It struck me right off the bat as off-topic debunked slander, though.


    Re. CTV Obama NAFTA Video & Comment Rating (none / 0) (#15)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    To TeresaInSnow2, thanks for the thoughts on both subjects. Good to 'keep 'em honest' with the comment ratings thing.

    As for CTV, the story was reported by senior anchor Lloyd Robertson - Lloyd is like the Walter Cronkite of Canadian news and, like Walter, Lloyd don't lie.

    On the issue of the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson said "if we've lost Cronkite, we've lost America". Well, if Obama has lost Lloyd he's lost Canada - and yes  our #1 trading partner should matter.  


    Ari Fleishcer is the best excuse (none / 0) (#5)
    by jr on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    WaPo reported awhile back that "Freedom's Watch" was looking at spending upwards of a quarter of a billion dollars on ads this election.  If the right wing wants to spend astronomical sums attacking him, Obama should be able to respond, and by doing it through his campaign instead of farming it out to 527s and 501(c)4s, he'll be making sure that all HIS contributors are public and that no shadow groups of multimillionaires are funding his communications operation.

    Though I haven't agreed with him on much these past months, BTD is right on this one--rip that band-aid off quick, Barack.


    Obama cannot count on (none / 0) (#12)
    by Grandmother on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    all of the Hillary Clinton donors to jump on his bandwagon if he is the nominee.  I intend to keep on donating to her but I will not donate to the Obama campaign. I just don't like him, won't vote for him, won't donate, won't work on his campaign, won't be a Democrat in November if he is the candidate.

    And if Obama opts out of public financing if McCain goes that route, then he should be pulverized on it.  I expect that he will and he should pay the price for his words. And I really don't care anymore about the so called "progressive" blogs who are just as hateful as any of the right wing blow hards.

    For women in particular (none / 0) (#18)
    by Foxx on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:02:09 PM EST
    it is important that, when these democrats and bloggers and Obama supporters and Obama campaign staff and Obama himself, after insulting and abusing us and collaborating in others doing so, turn around to see us following after them, they will find we are not there.

    True for all the parts of the Democratic party they have despised and insulted and ignored.


    Kos whining (none / 0) (#16)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:55:38 PM EST
    Kos may be whining about what the Republicans are doing to his Obama, but Republicans are doing the same as what Obama has been doing to HRC.  He has differentiated himself from HRC with arguments that have no substance, e.g. his anti-war message.  It's politics and Kos knows it, but want to protect Obama on a non-issue.  I've lost all respect for Kos.