My problem here really is that you, without regard to any sort of fundamental basis, tried to not so subtly argue that Obama is not trying to win an election with the ability to fund his campaign through large fundraising, but rather irresponsible fundraising.

No, I took a CBS news report on Obama’s fundraising and used it to raise a fairly typical question about the effect of money on politicians. You did notice how much money Obama has raised from the very financial insitutions that got us into the financial mess and which will be working very closely with the government in our post-bailout world? Again, if the numbers were reversed, a lot of Obama supporters would say that McCain is too cozy with the banks.

And the lack of transparency Obama provides regarding small donors is troubling b/c it’s hard to tell whether the money is coming from Ma and Pa or less reputable sources. McCain does a much more thorough job of vetting and revealing his small donors (although he’s by no means perfect)

As for the sidebar, that’s a nice strawman but it’s not the actual choice presented to us.

Throwing personal diatribes around doesn’t help you prove your point…not at all. Your entire post is feels belittling and full of ill-will. And to project my short statements into a full blown analysis is without merit.
When you don’t know me, or my background, I don’t think its fair to make it personal. I know full well the historical background of fund raising in presidential politics. I am well read in both politics background and history. I’m a libertarian in theory, but not in practice. That said:

Again, Obama is raising money not by maxing out smaller numbers, but by receiving donations from many small amount donors. That cannot, and should not, detract from his huge ability to fundraise.

And that half hour of advertising is only a million, right? That’s not big bucks, especially in this fund raising climate.

Is campaign finance part of a noble experiment gone wrong? Should both sides adhere to equal money, or should money talk? I think Alan’s onto something about power corrupting…especially when such a massive fundraising advantage can simply enable a candidate to buy a half hour of primetime TV on nearly EVERY television station.

Alan, you might as well just call him a douche. Same impact upon his reasoning, more satisfaction for you. :-)

Clearly, you get no credit for even-handedness when it comes to drive-bys. The really sad thing is that even semi-regular visitors fail to notice this. You’re either FER Obama, or you’re AGIN’.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that an election cycle or two from now, folks like your detractor will complain when a Republican opts out of public financing because that candidate can accrue a huge financing advantage via private donations.

Personally, I think Obama would have been politically foolish to stick with public financing given his potential to outraise McCain. Had he done so, I would have had to question his political judgement and toughness.

That said, you are 100% correct that Obama, by opting out of public financing, showed that his principles are subject to change for the sake of expedience. Now, I hapopen to think that public financing for major Presidential candidates is simply a waste of our money. But it sure would have been nice if major liberal proponents of this system (and its alleged rationale!!) had the basic reasonable decency to acknowledge that Obama’s 180 demonstrates that he is capable of making decisions based primarily upon electoral expediency.

By the way, Eric? I’m voting for Obama. I for one will manage to do so without turning off my cerebral cortex and operating on lizard brain stem.

So is the argument really how dare he outraise McCain?

Excellent attempt to delegitimze the entire post.

I keep forgetting that if I compare a negative McCain action to a negative Obama action, that’s a false equivilancy. But if I mention a negative Obama action without clearly stating a negative McCain action, that’s some form of trickery. (I seem to be off the hook if I just talk negatively about McCain).

Obama lost credibility on fundraising when he broke his promise about taking public funds. McCain did not break that promise. If the roles were reversed, Obama supporters would be accusing McCain of trying to steal the election with ill-gotten donations.

As it is, I’m not accusing Obama of anything but opening himself up to the corrupting influence of money. It’s a topic worth discussing. Don’t dismiss it because he’s “your” guy.