McCain - Boston Herald, Mark Shields And David Brooks On Barack Obama Breaking Public Financing Pledge

"We occasionally grow weary of the term 'flip-flop' during political campaigns. In this case we're satisfied to use 'broken promise.'" -- The Boston Herald

"It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test." -- Mark Shields

"It would have at least been honest, as opposed to sort of operatic, which that video was. He treated it as if some noble decision to finalize democracy. It was ludicrous. I do think it's the low point of the Obama candidacy. And so, in some ways, this is terrible because it's epic hypocrisy." -- David Brooks

Agent Of 'Reform' Follows The Money
Editorial
Boston Herald
June 21, 2008

Barack Obama's decision to reject public financing of his presidential campaign comes down, of course, to basic arithmetic. The man is a private fund-raising machine. He expects to raise at least two or three times the $84 million he would be allowed to spend under the public financing system and he knows a political advantage when he sees one.

But given his professed support for public financing not just in general but in this very election cycle, Obama and his handlers obviously felt his decision required a high-minded video explanation.

And it was as tortured as one might expect from a candidate who has based his entire campaign on being an agent of reform.

We learned that in fact, it's John McCain's fault that Obama has been forced to go this route.

"We face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system," Obama proclaimed in the video, adding that McCain "won't stop the smears and attacks from his allies" in independent groups that can raise funds without limits.

That's a truly remarkable political contortion. We've yet to hear much of anything from independent GOP groups in this election cycle. And in fact Obama's announcement came in the same week that MoveOn.org and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees launched a national television ad that wildly distorts McCain's statements on Iraq. Apparently if the baby in the ad is cute enough, it doesn't count as a smear from a political ally.

Ah, but Obama has washed his hands of the independents, hasn't he? In fact he has rejected donations from lobbyists and political action committees to his campaign and the Democratic Party, which we supported. But frankly when you're Barack Obama, who needs 'em? And he has discouraged his supporters from donating to outside groups but then again, so has John McCain.

Another defense for rejecting public financing and the spending limits that go with it: The majority of his donors have given his campaign less than $100 apiece and in Obama's world that amounts to a new kind of public financing, free of special interests. Note that this year the prime beneficiary of that "system" is ... Barack Obama.

The public financing system, adopted in the wake of Watergate, may indeed be imperfect and in need of reform. But for Barack Obama that is a problem best dealt with, conveniently enough, after the election.

We occasionally grow weary of the term "flip-flop" during political campaigns. In this case we're satisfied to use "broken promise."

Read The Boston Herald Editorial.

PBS' "NewsHour"
June 20, 2008

Mark Shields: "Barack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.

"It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test.

"I mean, coming up with this bogus argument the Republicans have so much more money -- the Republicans don't have so much more money. He's raised three times as much as John McCain has.

"He has every possible committee, except Republican National Committee, Democrats at the Senate level, congressional level have this lopsided edge over Republicans. They spent three times as much, did Democratic leaning 527s, in the last election as did Republicans.

"So what Obama didn't admit was, up until February of this year, when he told Tim Russert that not only would he aggressively seek an agreement on public financing, that he personally would sit down with John McCain and work it out, then, all of a sudden, they realized that all these small contributions were coming in and he was going to have a financial advantage in the fall against the Republican, and they grabbed it."

Judy Woodruff: "Well, David, would it have helped Obama if he had just come out and said, 'Look, I think I'm raising more money, and I'm raising small contributions, and I've just changed my mind?'"

David Brooks: "It would have at least been honest, as opposed to sort of operatic, which that video was. He treated it as if some noble decision to finalize democracy. It was ludicrous.

"I do think it's the low point of the Obama candidacy, and I think it for this reason. His entire career he has put political reform at the center of it. In the Illinois legislature, in the Senate, political reform has been the essence of who he has been. And so for him to betray this, to sell out this issue, what won't he sell out?

"And it really reveals something about his conscience. It reveals that he has this idealistic side, which is a serious policy side, but he also has a tough Machiavellian side, a political hack side, and he wants to win.

"And so, in some ways, this is terrible because it's epic hypocrisy."

Watch The "NewsHour".