“I don’t remember Obama promising to accept public financing… -Rob

Yeah… Sorry dude. Bummer. Selective memory loss is a well known side effect of Kool-Aid poisoning. Fortunately, there is a cure. Try to taper off on the dosage, peel off the blinders, after about six weeks your memory should start to recover. This might help.

On that 527 business… More confusion on your part. It was the Obama Axelrod campaign that got some fawning coverage with a big splashy PR initiative about reigning in the 527’s but then a few months later quietly encouraged them to go on the attack. Its the Chicago way.

I do remember McCain saying he would disavow all attacks from 527’s, that doesn’t seem to be happening.

@L, to clarify, I didn’t figure your post for a talking point. Perhaps I’ve misread you in an attempt to link thoughts. I’d propose that whichever side you’re on, the questions which mw raises about Obama’s fundraising are serious enough that partisan jabs should be irrelevant. Honest Obama supporters should be concerned (or at least intrigued) and reasonable conservatives like mw and Alan probably don’t need to undermine the seriousness of their posts with swipes at, by mw’s own reckoning, one corner of the Obamanation triangle. Lord knows I wouldn’t waste a keystroke in a vain attempt to persuade/castigate a Palinite. It’s been nice to find this site and I especially enjoy the sort of reasoned conservative discourse mw and Alan trade in. I suppose it’s too much to expect them to completely eschew rhetoric.

Say Obama were the Republican and McCain the Democrat, would I be complaining about flip-flops in public finance and the amount of wealth McCain has been generating? Probably. Would mw be defending McCain in similar ways seen here? Probably.

It is only my opinion that the fact that we could just as easily be on other sides of this issue made this post irrelevant, partisan handwringing. I actually wasn’t trying to go for the partisan talking point there.

“Say what you want, he’s run one of the most disciplined campaigns ever…. – Sebastion

That’s exactly what was said about GWB’s campaign. Turned out it wasn’t George. It was Karl.

What we are seeing now is Axelrod’s campaign.

He is even craftier and more effective than Rove.

If this is 80% of how he would run his White House, then we could actually see a politician try to get something done rather than rattle political sabers, or get sexual favors in the Oval Office.

I’d buy that except that I think the voting record is consistently overstated; was McCain all mavericky in his first two years in the Senate, or was he pragmatic and respectful to his party’s seniors? As for bipartisanship, I’ve seen Obama work with Lugar on non-proliferation and the American Fuels Act as well as with Brownback on Darfur and divestment from companies doing business with Iran in his short tenure. Lugar’s not a stretch, but the relationship with Brownback is underreported and impressive imo. I’ll leave Obama’s claims of bipartisanship in the Illinois senate to your own research but do they count?
While I respect your argument –we’re all rationalizing to some degree so it would be churlish not to — I’d maintain that the difference between what McCain has said and done is worth its own examination. And it strikes me as disingenuous to say that McCain is selling himself any differently than Obama, especially as he shamelessly/craftily picked up the change mantra himself. He’s running as a maverick while aping eight years of b.s. campaign tactics, tactics which he denounced when they were used against him. Let’s just say in the promise-breakers sweepstakes that Obama’s pledge to use public financing and McCain’s to run a clean and honorable campaign effectively nullify each other.
Per L’s post, why undermine an otherwise informative and compelling post on Obama’s fundraising with partisan handwringing? It seems counterproductive. And I have to agree with your Obama supporter breakdown and my place in it. I share your reservations about the potential for a liberal tsunami. As you’ve said before, my choice may prove to be hope over reason. Obviously I propose it as more of an educated guess, based on what can only be an irrational faith in my own judgment.

I know…why did everyone get their nose all bent out of shape about that Nixon fellow? Everybody does it.

{/sarcasm}

“I grant that maybe some do care… – L

The reason why people care, or should care, is because Obama set himself up to be something different than your run of the mill money grubbing politician. He has revealed himself to be exactly that. I think it is important for the Obama “true believers” to understand that their “light bringer” -”transformational figure” – “agent of change” – isn’t. He is just a really smart Chicago pol with feet of clay and a great sales pitch.

That said, to a large degree, I concur with the sentiment expressed by Avinash and blackoutyears. Obama supporters seem to be break into three categories – partisans, practical skeptics, and true believers (there can be overlap of course). I’m guessing Blackoutyears is primarily in the practical skeptic category and is voting against the Republicans as much as he is voting for Obama. I understand that. I could have voted that way myself if the Republicans had managed to hold on to either house of congress. But to hand any politician a blank check with no practical opposition in Congress and virtually no constraint on political power is insane. Unless, of course, you are a partisan like Avinash and believe there there should be no opposition to the brave new world of cultural change in which he fervently believes.

To answer your question blockoutyears – No , I am not voting for a slogan. When confronting a discrepancy between what a politician says and what he does, I go with what he does.

McCain’s track record is bipartisanship, bucking his own party (remember the gang of 14?), and moderation. In light of that I can discount what he had to say to the right to get the nomination.

Obama’s track record is pure liberal Democratic partisanship. I have to discount what what he says about “change in Washington” in light of his track record, his propensity to flip flop on core issues, and his campaign fund raising policies.

In both cases, I am looking at what they do, not what they say.

I grant that maybe some do care, but I doubt they see it as anything more than an unfortunate reality of the political process.

Anyone who thinks you can run a presidential campaign without bending rules is incredibly naive.

There is no perfect candidate. There is no perfect man. Perfection cannot be obtained politically or anywhere else.

That leaves imperfections I can live with. I can live with Senator Obama’s imperfections–I’m willing to take that chance that he is most of what he says he is.

Ian: Would a vat of boiling oil be too good for them?