"Obama's request that he be allowed to raise money from private donors for the 2008 general election and later refund the cash and opt into the public financing system should his GOP opponent do the same."

Can someone please explain the significance of this? I do not understand it, I suppose you need to understand the financing process for political campaigns. I am not well informed in that regard.

Is this new, is Obama's request significant, is this a tactical coup?

Can anyone provide perspective on this?

thanks

Nick I think you ought to look at the first hundred days. Look at Reid getting stymied on the war resolutions and Senate Democrats coming back with a resolution that will be tied to war funding. Whether it passes or not depends on the support we give our Dems in congress with letters, emails and phonecalls. What's the ed board of the Post Dispatch gonna say if they're getting 300 letters a day in support of rewriting the AUMF? What're your Repub congressmen gonna do if they get the same? But either way the Republicans are playing defense for a mismanaged war that's only going to get worse.

Here in my suburban Chicago county where we've never been strong we're gaining a lot of ground. Soon congress is going to pass legislation that levels the playing field for union organizers
for the first time since the 1980s.

But none of this will matter unless we the people give our legislators the support they need to make it happen. Obama has said and done the right things so far. We need to keep pushing him and all candidates before and after elections to make sure they don't succumb to making choices that preserve the status quo like the big contributors want them to. They need the big money but they need us more. Oxes are going be gored to change the country. There will be winners and losers. Those 3 million people Obama speaks of who work for Blue Cross and Kaiser are going to need to find new work when we get single payer. We're going to help them.

It is not that he thinks the Republican can raise Bush-like amounts. A Republican can always raise nearly infinite amounts since they will promise to give back much more out of the public trasury to those that give. Obama wants to make the corruption of the system more plain to the American public. Any candidate for President with integrity is in a bind -- they cannot be competitive without taking big money and opting out of the public system. He is the one who appears willing to make an issue of it.

He just got my vote and my money (such as it is).

global citizen

When was the last time a GOP candidate opted out of public financing for the general election? Not even Bush did last time. There isn't much of a need to do so. You get quite a bit with only a short amount of time left after the conventions.

I don't see a need for this other than showmanship.

And what exactly is wrong with showmanship? It is what we are supposed to stand for as Democrats. Obama just served notice that we stand for slowing down the money machine. If you have a problem with that, support one of these old dinosaurs with a D after their name or even support the Republican candidate.

Sure it's an opinion. Why not share yours here instead of trolling this link every time someone mentions Obama in a positive way? Speak up for yourself. Be an individual. Show some backbone.

You know what?

Do you think that link is his signature?

Update: no, it isn't, he sometimes writes Read, instead of Check it out in front ot the link. However, this is the poster who came on the thread Obama's Speech Does More than it Appears, and preceeded to trot out a lot of smears, lies and innuendos.  He was quickly rebutted. Now, he is down to posting this link over and over. 

You may recall that he called folks...Darling? and You people?

I have looked at the first 100 days and the only person who has exhibited any sort of leadership has been Speaker Pelosi. And I also find that she exhibited the leadership in the House that led Democrats to oppose the Iraqi War Resolution. And I appreciate quite strongly what she is doing to muzzle the Democrats in the House who have distressingly sounded like far-right nut jobs and have gotten away with it because "their district is too right wing".

246 votes for the Iraq War resolution. That's all the Dems and more. Somebody else besides just Pelosi had to be doing right thing.

The Senate is full of old Democratic dinosaurs who should be ousted merely because of their lousy votes on the Iraqi War Resolution

One of the oldest, if not the oldest dinosaur in the senate is Robert Byrd. I don't agree with a lot of his votes but in 2002 he not only voted against the AUMF, he offered the competing resolution that would have forced Bush to come back to congress and get a declaration of war before invading Iraq. He's been around long enough to remember voting on the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution and knows more about Senate rules and history than anyone in DC. Sometimes it pays to have dinosaurs around.

We need to be countering what folks are getting in fundamentalist churches with our own strong messages and that's day in and day out and not just revolving around an election.

Yeah you're right. What's stopping ya? In the words of Steve Earle, "In your own backyard
In your own hometown,
So what you doin’ standin’ around?
Just follow your heart
The revolution starts now"

We just got the house and senate back less than two months ago. We still don't have the WH. You're either a troll or the most impatient person in the world.

Zsa Zsa's back? Dahlink we missed you!

Sigh. The 2002 Iraq War Resolution was what I was talking about. 83 Democrats in the House and 29 Senators voted FOR the resolution. (Pelosi led 126 to vote no in the House, joined by 21 Senators.) That's failure of leadership.

I have worked in St. Louis elections for the Democrats because that's what I am right now. And the remnants of the machine are still in control. I've been there when "you can't win" primary candidates WON the primary and then went on to WIN the general election in areas where the GOP had dominated for a long time. And they did it with volunteers they recruited with little assistance from the Party. That has to change.

I view the 2008 election as one that has the potential to be transformational. And I see that shaping around Obama and to a much lesser extent around Edwards. Young folks coming out in the thousands is NOT "business as usual"; the last time I witnessed it was with JFK and then RFK. Is the Democratic Party ready for this? This energy needs to be taken into the Party and nurtured so we can fix a whole shaft of problems. Or are we going to do what I've seen slowly happening over decades--only go to them when we want money or a vote? How much power is the "old guard" in the Party willing to share? I haven't seen much of that ability to share for decades.

Yes, I want more from this party and I've been patient for decades. I don't need a lecture about impatience.

And when the money from the younger crowd (say under 40) and the older liberals is going to Obama, you have to ask the reasons and think about the possible answers.

Young folks coming out in the thousands is NOT "business as usual"; the last time I witnessed it was with JFK and then RFK.

Y'know, I would love to hear from some folks that voted for Nixon at that time. Just to hear what their reasoning was.

You have cited your favorite link so many times, I can only conclude that you are in the employ of zmagazine or whatever the hell it is; that's being charitable, maybe you are the author of the cited piece. That author, Street, loves to cite himself, with such egotistical intros as "This is my best piece," "or this one is really good." He comes off like a bad first date. That's ad hominem, I know, so let's put that aside and get to the merits. I broke down and read Street's piece so others on this site don't have to.

Street is obviously so far to the left that there could not possibly be a candidate in 08 he'd support from either major party; and certainly not one who lacks the supposed "sins" of Obama. Street's brief against Obama would apply to every candidate people on this website seem to be considering supporting: that the candidate does not think American power is necessarily a force for bad in the world if exercised appropriately and with restraint; that democratic capitalism and social democracy are more promising systems to foster third world development than Marxism, Chavezism, or Castroism; and that long-established institutions deserve respect. If Street's point is that in the narrow precincts of extreme leftism and neo-Marxism some people believe Obama is a closet Chavez, and that these people must be disabused of that "Obama Illusion," he's obviously right. But how many here on this site ever thought that of Obama? I've been an ardent supporter (maybe overposting myself a bit), with the full knowledge that Obama is not a disguised extreme lefty. Both his books make that clear. In fact, if it appeared Obama was a trojan horse Chavez, I'd turn to (yuch) Hillary or Edwards.

So the lesson of your favorite link is this: Obama is not a disguised campus leftist enthralled by failed orthodoxies appealling only to graduate students! He actually believes what most Democrats believe!

To a Marxist or hard-core leftie, that does make Obama unworthy, but this site does not strike me as one where the debate over Marxism or neo-Marxism is of interest. So post elsewhere, for goshsakes, or at least stop spamming that link.

Sigh. The 2002 Iraq War Resolution was what I was talking about. 83 Democrats in the House and 29 Senators voted FOR the resolution. (Pelosi led 126 to vote no in the House, joined by 21 Senators.) That's failure of leadership.

Dick Gephardt is gone. Tom Daschle is gone.

That has to change.

That's never gonna change. If you need an engraved invitation to get involved you're out of luck. Are you the kind who thinks you know it all even though you've never taken a poli sci class or organized a campaign?

As for the old guard I'm 51 years old. I spent last fall working for a candidate taking orders from kids, most of whom were just out of college. The campaign manager was 32. The candidate 38. At first they seemed so young. I was concerned they might not know what they were doing. They turned out to be dedicated professionals who worked 16 hour days and I was proud to work with them.

I don't get your generalizations. If it was 2002 you might have a point. But it's 2007. We just took back the house and senate in part because of the energy and commitment of people of all ages. But more importantly because the American people finally got fed up with the Republicans and their Iraq war, scandalous misrule and incompetence. We have a great shot to win the WH and increase our majorities in 2008. You can either step up and join us or you can choose to stay on the sidelines and bitch. I know what I'm going to do.

"A Republican can always raise nearly infinite amounts"

They weren't able to in 2006.

Watching the McLaughlin Report tonight discuss the Hillary/Obama/Geffen contremps I sensed a closing of the pundit ranks around Hillary. The consensus was no/little damage to Hillary and the assumption that Obama's response highlights his hypocrisy and will damage his claims to wanting to change the tone. Basically, they cheered her on and talked about raising $.

It makes me wonder how much an Obama win would threaten their world order.

I should have said Republican Presidential candidate -- they can almost always either deliver corporate welfare (including protection of corporate media giants from reasonable ownership rules), tax cuts or defense contracts or block the removal of the same. That is why any one of them can raise whatever they need.

global citizen

The emergence of the hippie counterculture, the rise of New Left activism, and the emergence of the Black Power movement. Every summer during Johnson's administration major US cities erupted in massive race riots. The assassinations, the violence at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, widespread demonstrations against the Vietnam War.

This would have been after JFK beat Nixon the first go round.

 I was wondering about the 1960 election when Nixon ran against JFK and lost.  As that time would be more analogous to Barack vs. Hillary today. Nixon was perceived as the strongest candidate with the most experience, but JFK insipired the massees, even though he was a rookie Senator.

Nixon ran on "law and order". Humphrey ran on "the politics of joy." That pretty much says it all. (Wallace took votes equally from both of them.)

This was the race for Nixon's re-election, not the intial one.

Many many Americans were scared by the domestic violence, and conservative politicians have been dominant most ever since.

Well if this is prescient, Guiliani will be the President, as all you have to do is change domestic to terrorism and it is what we have in the country right now.

it looks like he, along with HRC who's doing the same want to artificially inflate their fundraising numbers since they can essentially raise twice as much and have the press report the 2x money instead of the 1x primary money

 Help me out. I can't follow your reasoning. What are you saying here? Why would a canidate want to inflate their fundraising dollars?. What purpose does it serve to have the press report the money twice?

 Could you please elaborate more as to how this is a game and who it is benefitting and why it is unwise to opt out of public financing. It also sounds like both Barack and Hilliary are doing this...why would Hilliary do this if as you are asserting 'no one not even big bad Bush' did so?

Where I live our party isn't in decline. And in a lot of other places it isn't either. In MO you just
dumped an incumbunt Republican senator. I just don't get your negativity. Are Dems going to give us everything we want? Hell no, we'll be lucky to get 60%. They're still going to have to raise half their money they need to win from the same K Street
lobbyists and and Wall St. fatcats that the Repubs do. But 60% is sure as hell better than 100% of what we don't want.

I would like to see the Democratic Party get serious about fixing their organizational problems. I would like to see a Democratic message that is not from the 1960s and 1970s.

How about being more specific? Cuz frankly I don't know what you're talking about.

Organizational: Join the Democratic Party here and the only snail mail and e-mail from them are requests for money. Zero information on state and national legislation that the Party opposes or supports. (Unions continue to notify their membership; again, their numbers have been in decline for some time.) I'm an activist and a Democratic Party member and these are my observations. Traditional methods are no longer working as well as they need to work in red states or purple states.

Democratic Party Issues. I'm referring to the Party's identification with issues like civil rights and womens rights...and little else that is positive. This comes from talking to voters in my swing precinct through the years as I've stumped for Democratic candidates. If we have a message, it is certainly not trickling down to voters that we need. More voter contact is needed between election cycles; the unions used to provide this, again, their membership has been declining for decades. I'm not talking about messages from candidates but messages from the Party. Again, these are perspectives in a purple state...and only slightly turning purple, at that.

Those are good ideas. Why not contact Dems on your local county board and state reps and senators and get them to do outreach on what they're working on. That info can be disseminated by your local party. Every DC rep and senator of both parties that I know of periodically sends out updates. Locals ought to do this too.

 an interesting candidate but lackingt enough experience

What experience is Obama lacking in as an elected official that his opponents possess?

The best qualified candidate may be one who has good judgment and not one who has the experience in a resume. We have resume experience with Cheney and Rumsfeld but very poor judgment.

Obama's judgment was sound when it mattered...in 2002 when he came out strongly against the Iraq War Resolution and again when he gave a speech against a "dumb war". Judgment matters.

Obama has been a senator for two years and has no experience on homeland security or defense matters

As an elected official, Obama has far more experience than Hilliary or Edwards. He has actually passed legislation, unlike Hilliary or Edwards. Obama has also taught constitutional law at the UofIllinois. Which will be key to American's maintaining their civil rights when it comes to homeland security measures.

Have you read what Obama has to say regarding Homeland Security? He seems to understand the issue very well.

 Neither, Hilliary or Edwards have homeland security experience and while Hilliary has served on the armed svcs. committee, she cast her vote without regard for the best interest of the nation.

Her experience makes one question her judgment when it comes to matters of defense. Hilliary was in the WH for 8 years, and had to know about Al-Q and that they were in Afghanistan, yet she voted after 9/11 to go to war in Iraq? Hilliary knew that the attack was by Al-Q and was familiar with the group due to the WTC bombing and aircraft carrier attack in the gulf during her husband's administration.  So, why would she vote for the President to have authority to go after 'supposedly our 9/11 attackers' by looking for WMD's in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor Al-Q.  So, whatever experience Hilliary had on this matter did not serve us well. In fact, her error in judgment is even worse given her knowledge on the issue.

Edwards voted for the war and basically has apologize without giving any valid reasoning for casting his vote in the affirmative.

What candidate do you believe has the best  homeland security experience?