The Two Obamas

[Zguy28]

Well, McCain has flip-flopped on the issue of campaign finance reform as well.

Except the article is not just about Campaign Finance Reform. Its about somebody who is such a great politician that he even has his enemies fooled as to who he really is.

[D'Pablo]

'Flip Flopper'... 'Slick Willie'... 'Fast Eddie'... Please explain to me the necessity of these infantile tag-lines. Much like those labels, I find most of the attacks Brooks aims at Obama to be lacking substance:

1. Obama throws Wright under the bus. Brooks has it backwards; we all saw the disparaging Wright interview that would have caused anyone to 'disown' him.

2. Obama didn't vote a lot on legislation during his term as a senator. However, that doesn't mean that he didn't push for legislation he believed in, nor does it mean he didn't cast votes on divisive issues. Moreover, Obama's record in both DC and Chicago are available for us to see where he stands on the 'tough votes'.

3. Obama elected not to use public funds. Call me crazy, but I don't see how using public funds changes anything under our current system. Private interests will find a way into campaigns, whether through an affiliated party or direct contributions. Thus, it becomes very important to believe in the integrity of candidates and that they will do the right thing, regardless of who is funding their bids.

All in all, a really weak article trying to juxtapose the label of union thug and disconnected professor on Obama. McCain fares far far worse than him on 'flip-floppery'. Once upon a time, I would've actually voted for McCain.

[Zguy28]

3. Obama elected not to use public funds. Call me crazy' date=' but I don't see how using public funds changes anything under our current system. Private interests will find a way into campaigns, whether through an affiliated party or direct contributions. Thus, it becomes very important to believe in the integrity of candidates and that they will do the right thing, regardless of who is funding their bids. [/quote']Ironic that you would use the word integrity when referring to that particular issue.

To me, the right thing would be keeping a promise. Call me crazy...:whoknows:

[TheLongshot]

Eh, he's railing against what has been standard presidential politics for years. The key to getting elected is not to take stands on issues and make enough people believe that you believe in their position on both sides on the fence. Course, all bets are off once you do get elected.

Course, I'd rather have a guy who adjusts his position based on current data, rather than one who does stuff hell or high water.

As for Wright, he threw Obama under the bus first, so he had no choice but to disown Wright.

Jason

[Redskins Diehard]

'Flip Flopper'... 'Slick Willie'... 'Fast Eddie'... Please explain to me the necessity of these infantile tag-lines. Much like those labels' date=' I find most of the attacks Brooks aims at Obama to be lacking substance:

1. Obama throws Wright under the bus. Brooks has it backwards; we all saw the disparaging Wright interview that would have caused anyone to 'disown' him.

[/quote']

I agree those taglines detract from the real substance of the article.

[D'Pablo]

Ironic that you would use the word integrity when referring to that particular issue.

To me, the right thing would be keeping a promise. Call me crazy...:whoknows:

It's not ironic at all. I think integrity is not taking part in financing that Obama calls “broken, and [then] face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.” Preserving "a publicly financed general election," as Obama has said, really comes down to reforming the process, then taking part in it. If the goal is to weed out private influence and make candidates accountable to the public, Obama stands a better chance with private funding than with public funding.

[skinfan133]

Whats sad is that the two guys running now are the best of the best in terms of character. BOTH are very good people that really believe what they are saying.

They both TRULEY believe that they know what is best for the country, and they actually get along (Or at least did).

The challenge is both feel so strongly that they are the best person for the job, that they feel the most important thing is to get elected. After all, the best ideas in the world mean nothing if you can't do anything with them.

So both are now forced to do whatever it takes to get elected. They justify it by saying "It's for the greater good" and "the Ends justify the means".

These aren't two guys going for power, they are two guys that would give their life for the country and the people in the country and want to help. Unfortunately, we don't really listen forcing both candidates to do what ever it takes to make a good sound bit and get people to either vote for them, or vote against the other guy.

what a rosey bunch of bull**** that was. do you honestly think what you just posted? because to me, what it says is that the candidates are saints and the people are the villains. I don't see the logic in the argument that, "the candidates are focred to behave this way because of the people."

[Zguy28]

It's not ironic at all. I think integrity is not taking part in financing that Obama calls “broken' date=' and [then'] face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.” Preserving "a publicly financed general election," as Obama has said, really comes down to reforming the process, then taking part in it. If the goal is to weed out private influence and make candidates accountable to the public,

Wait, but didn't he already reform it with the lobbying ethics bill that he got passed?

So, the system is still broken? Perhaps Mr. Obama needs to stay in the Senate and fix the "broken system" first if it means so much to him.

Obama stands a better chance with private funding than with public funding.

I don't think anybody is doubting that.