First, as some have already pointed out, his "promise" was conditional. People either ignore or gloss over this pretty glibly.

Second, his best defense is the one columnist Carl Rowan, a fervant gun control advocate, used when he shot a intruder: whatever I believe I still have to deal with things the way they are. I would like to change the rules, but the rules being what they are, I'd be an idiot not to take congnizance of them.

That's what's know has having a connection with reality. Instead, moral tinhorns insist on playngl one-upmanship. A promise doesn't have to be a sucide pact.

a promise is your WORD

if your integrity is questioned because you didnt keep your word

it reflects DIRECTLY on his judgement

you know

what he banged hillary over the head for????

i swear you guys make excuses for obama JUST LIKE the cons did for bush.

repeat after me"obama is not perfect and he makes mistakes sometimes"

that would be much more honest than saying his promise didnt MEAN anything....promises DO mean something

What did I say? Why link to me if you're not going to address what I actually say in context?

you said obama's promise to take public financing wasnt REALLY a promise because it wasnt a death bed promise (what ever diff there is on THAT)

i point out that obama DID NOT keep his promise which directly goes to his judgement

boy now THAT is hard to understand huh?

read this

obama did MORE than make a promise

<link>

he didnt seem to think the system of public financing was "broken " back in november 2007

the man could at LEAST tell the truth

he is making money hand over fist and doesnt WANT to be bound by public financing

no, obama has to PRETEND its broken after he said he had been a long time advocate

from jake tapper

<link>

Obama wrote: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

How about this. Obama said he would follow the pledge if his opponent showed he was willing to go the same way.

Now, why should Obama trust a candidate who had already applied for public funding, borrowed money based on the fact he was receiving public funding, then reversed and asked to be opted out of public funding so he could raise and spend more money and not be tied down by limits?

Perhaps Obama didn't realize how broken the system was until a major proponent of campaign finance reform played the system for his own gains.

gosh that MUST be it.............NOT

making excuses again i see

<link>

Obama wrote: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

“If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference in Milwaukee. “It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

This quote comes from this article.

<link>

Now, again, how does McCain's reversal not affect Obama's stand on public financing especially since Obama's stance depended on his opponent's commitment to public funding.

So, please, answer the fact that McCain opting out once already this election cycle doesn't hurt his credibility in keeping his pledge this time around?

if a mans WORD isnt worth anything

he should NOT be president.....imho

mccain DIDNT opt out of pub fin. so im not sure what you are talking about

sry

It's that selective memory that I love much in partisan.

McCain asked for and reserved public funding when he was running out of money. He then borrowed money on the fact that he was receiving public funding. When his fortunes changed, he asked out of public funding.

The reason he wanted out of public funding? So there would not be a spending cap on "primary" spending. Primary spending covers any money until he is the party choice in September.

In fact, he's still in neck deep to the FEC and may have to pay a substantial fine since that haven't said he could not go off of public funding. That fine is based on monies spent over the $50m limit. He's over by about $15m right now. So McCain not only broke his word, but also the law.

So, again, why should Obama trust a man who has already taken funds, used that to his advantage, then reversed that choice once he saw how crippled his pre-September campaign would be by the original decision?

And as Obama has stated in every pledge he has made, his decision would be based on how serious his opponent was about public financing.

I'd rather have a president who was competent and a liar than one who was incompetent and honest. In the immortal words of Tip O'Neill, politics ain't beanbag, and neither is running the most powerful nation on earth. I worry some about Obama being unwilling to make the hard choices that need to be made to get America back on track... but at least Obama is smart enough to see those choices for what they are. McCain frankly terrifies me, because he just doesn't seem to grasp how anything works.

Yes, Obama broke his promise. And his excuses for doing so are pretty feeble. I wish he'd found a better solution. But to do other than what he did would have been idealistic to the point of insanity.

The man is a LIAR. Some of you posters are as arrogant as he is trying to defend a liar.

"I'd rather have a president who was competent and a liar than one who was incompetent and honest."

Isn't this the opposite argument that Obama had against Clinton during the primaries?

I recall her "lying" and willingness to do anything to win as the most horrible character traits a candidate can have.

But if Obama does it, that's OK?

They will somehow make the point that if a candidate exceeds their expectations by gigantic amounts, that same candidate should somehow throw those gains away simply because at the beginning of the process, he displayed a different view and plan. Some are calling him a liar. That is truly priceless. His campaign made public financing immaterial, we should be proud of it and use that as proof of our goodness. But whenever you have a group that still thinks Hillary was not responsible for her own failure you will get some childish backlash. Your post was good and Obama did the right thing. What some disgruntled bra-burning relics think is besides the point.