Is there some reason why the NY Times can't understand Obama's position on public financing?

[high density]

Today the NY Times has more or less demanded, through their reporting, for Obama to take public financing in the general election. They do not seem to comprehend the offer from Obama to sit down with McCain and come to an agreement with what is going to happen, if he becomes the nominee. Right now I fail to see why Obama should unilaterally put all of his cards on the table when McCain has been shown to be gaming the financing system.

Campaign spending proposal hems in Obama
He's the one with the money — and a vow to accept a general election limit

...
Now his challenge to his rivals has boomeranged into a test of Mr. Obama’s own ability to balance principle and politics in a very different context. After taking in $100 million in donations, Mr. Obama is the one setting fund-raising records, presenting a powerful temptation to find a way out of his own proposal so that he might outspend his Republican opponent. And the all-but-certain Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, is short on cash and eager to take up the fund-raising truce.
...
Campaign finance experts said the issue was a major test of Mr. Obama’s commitment. It is also a first glimpse of what might come in a general election fight between two candidates who have championed public integrity, opening themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.
...
“The fact is, Senator Obama signed a piece of paper and pledged to take public financing for his campaign if I did the same," Mr. McCain said. “I believe that Senator Obama should keep his commitment also, which means taking public financing. The rest of it is ground noise. The rest of it is irrelevant."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23378039
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28obama.html

[leftofcool]

1. Because

"Right now I fail to see why Obama should unilaterally put all of his cards on the table when McCain has been shown to be gaming the financing system."


He promised he would. Doesn't matter what McCain does, Obama needs to keep to the moral high ground. Signed promises should be kept even if the other party does not.

Left of Cool

[KittyWampus]

3. Obama promised nothing. He answered a question on a form. However, what he did say was

strike a deal with his opponent.

[high density]

4. That wasn't the promise

The only people saying he promised this are Clinton, McCain, and now the NY Times.

Here is what Obama has proposed:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

"In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee."

"We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested."

It's inappropriate for the media to be on one hand telling us that the nomination isn't sewed up yet, while on the other hand telling Obama that he needs to fulfill this agreement for the general election.

[KittyWampus]

2. Raising millions of small donations IS public financing. He never made a "vow" except to attempt

striking a deal with McCain. So unless McCain can to make sure Freedom Watch and all the other loaded 527's stay out of the picture, forget it.

[Window]

5. Damn skippy.

They must think Obama's is stupid. Who, in their right mind, would ever believe anything a repub says.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Tarc]

6. It isn't the NYT's fault for reporting on Obama backpedalling on a pledge

The fault lies with the man himself.