Comments on: Keeping a promise is one thing, flexibility is another

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:10:36 +0000

McBush and the Republicans are at it again...trying to fool the American People....If it is the American People who are financing Barack Obama's Campaign, how can it be that Barack is breaking a promise to the American People by foregoing public financing? It is clear that McBush is not so much concerned about Obama's infidelity towards the public, as he is about his own pathetic inability to convince the public that he is worthy to be president.....I am still waiting for McBush to explain what his "experience" is that qualifies him to be president.

By: Ron Smith

Ron Smith — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:06:00 +0000

There are economy flip flops and social flip flops and environmental flip flops and then there is the trading-$84-million-for-$300-million flip flop. Most flip flops are designed to sway votes but this one is designed to buy votes. It is evil and nasty and republican.

I like it.

By: a.j.joe

a.j.joe — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:46:34 +0000

That Obama chose not to take public financing is great news for the American taxpayers – that McCain *says* he cares so much about.

By: John

John — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:38:28 +0000

I agree with Gergen: Obama needed to do this "flip-flop," given the situation. When Obama agreed to take public funds, he did not yet know that he would have this amazing money-making machine that his campaign has produced. It's been clear the last couple of months that he has been leaning toward foregoing public funds, and he's been trying to find a way to justify this switch.

What bothers me–as an Obama supporter–is that his explanation has been so dishonest. He should have just plain admitted that he changed his mind given the situation, instead of trying to make a pragmatic decision sound grand and noble. And he should have (as he said he would do) "come out" to the McCain campaign before announcing this on his website. I was drawn to Obama the idealist; I don't much like Obama the Machiavellian. (When I believed in Obama the idealist, though, I was pretty sure that he would lose, and I was sad about that. Now I think he will win–and I'm a little sad about that too.)

By: Hd

Hd — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:28:07 +0000

...Oh, and way back on '01, Bush promises us that he would catch the 'terrorists'...and he hasn't caught a single ONE.

By: Hd

Hd — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:24:12 +0000

Look folks...BREAKING NEWS...OBAMA IS NO DUMMY. We can sit and whine about how 'HE LIED' or how 'HE BROKE HIS WORD', we can also commend him in January for keeping his word when HE'S BACK IN THE SENATE. The fact is (is) that Obama's campaign is more publicly funded than the gov version (only like 10% participate in the Income Tax checkoff system) Leave it to the Republicans (or highjackers of the Party) to whine so disingenuously (as Lindsay Graham did on Meet the Press, last Sunday) about how Obama's being dishonest for breaking his (nuanced promised) You think someone kicked his dog. So in the end, this is about S-T-R-A-T-E-G-Y for the win in November.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:20:51 +0000

Correct me if I am worng, but Obama never said we would accept public financing. He said he would accept public financing if a deal could be reached with his republican counterpart. Since a deal was obviously not reached, did he go back on his word?

It would be nice if the media actually looked at what he said rather than regurgitating what they believe to be common knowledge. Afterall, because of the media, it was "common knowledge" that Iraq was behind 9/11, and look where that got us!

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:56:22 +0000

I just read someone say "Sticking to a promise is a true test of character" ... are you serious? Do people honestly say to themselves this is true? Does nobody see that Obama is right? There are to many loopholes in the public financing as it stands now? Loopholes that the Republican party has perfected. It needs to be repaired before it should be used and of course it is not going to be fixed before November. Nothing will be fixed before then. Besides hasn't sticking to a "promise" gotten us into a big enough hole? A hole with 4,106 dead.. thousands without homes/jobs.. a failing dollar.. bush tax cuts and now the idea that drilling offshore might solve our oil dependency... sigh.. The thought that this is happening and might continue scares me.. read the facts people. And on the subject of changing ones mind... maybe you should read what McCain has said himself...

By: LMS

LMS — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:53:11 +0000

Did the Newsweek article mention that she is a felon who stole money from her own humanitarian organization? She IS a Stepford wife. Mr. Gergen, I am disappointed that you are flaunting her.

By: Sean from Orlando

Sean from Orlando — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:41:44 +0000

Soul,

A bigot is someone who attends an all black racist church for 20 years, I would get your facts straight!

By: dwmulenex

dwmulenex — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:31:00 +0000

shouldn't we, just for the novelty, try electing the smartest person in the room instead of the most doggedly obvious? Things do happen in politics and in the presidency. The ability to look for the best solution to the problem at hand, within the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, may be a good thing. The coherence of Obama's policy views is still open to close examination, and ought to be. But the decision to save taxpayers an involuntary contribution of $84 million to his campaign is a decision more respectable on principle than McCain's willingness to take $84 million and use it to pay his small army of lobbyists to think about more corporate giveaways and paths to Charlie Black's wars.

By: Mary,Kansas City

Mary,Kansas City — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:29:32 +0000

What a good article David, just a small bone to pick. "If he makes it to the white house(and that remain a big if)." I know this country has never elected a black President and knew about it, "A Big If" come on, the American people are smart and most of us aren't as bone headed as others. It is time for "Change".
People that think that Obama is inexperienced voted for GW Bush not once but twice, and they have the nerve to complain about Obama. McCain will fail this nation miserably. I hope people think hard and Long before giving so much power to an old , senile angry man. "No, He won't Ever Surrender". And Cindy will always be proud of her country as long as they keep buying her beer. He'll make it.

By: Celeste

Celeste — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:23:20 +0000

Who knew Cindy McCain was a convicted drug addict who stole drugs from her own charity that had to be shut down because she was using it to feed her addiction!

Could you imagine how they would hype that in the media if that was Michelle Obama's story?!

By: buba

buba — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:06:37 +0000

Money is important in U.S politics.I am sure John would have done the same, if he had the abilitty or potential to raise money like Barack. Haven't we seen so far John reverse his stance on off-shore oil drilling ?

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:10:50 +0000

In politics there's always a reason why a sudden shift of position is made. Obama clearly seems a genuine person. Time will show why he made the decision. Politics is also a game of strategy!

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:56:14 +0000

David,

My problem with Obama changing his position on this is that he was a major proponent for campaign finance reform. Now that he is in a position to follow his "reform" message, he backs away from it. That is the true material point. (And, the comparison made of McCain changing his mind on oil drilling is not the same. We are in need of a break and these politicians need to institute change now.)

He wants to be an "agent" for change, yet his decision to break his commitment to this makes him the same as all the others.

Frankly, I'm not happy with either candidate.

By: Bewa

Bewa — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:53:56 +0000

Hello to al. Well, Obama decided not to accept public funding. I think this is not an important matter. THe reason why at first he said candidates should go along with public fundings is to be less dependant on the big corporate and lobbying interests. They re the ones who gives the money and they are the ones who will get favors back while the rest of us are left with leftovers. Well, in this case, Obama got the money from the people, through his internet fundings and so on. He s not as dependant on the corporate interests as McCain is depsites the fact he might accept public fundings. He still relies on fat donners (meaning at least three 0's on every donation)while Obama is getting a few dollars from a lot of people. He's right when taking the decision to refuse public fundings. If he was relying on lobbyists and corporates donnors, it d be another matter and I d be the first to throw him a big fat stone. But in this case, Go Obama and teach those republicans some good politics (they ve played unfair for years now, it s not appropriate for them to complain now anyway....)

By: Billy Kid Cox

Billy Kid Cox — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:52:36 +0000

Have you not figured it out yet? Thisn is the Obama station and it doesnt matter what he does or says. CNN will always find a way to make what ever Osama says to be, the new light of the world.

He is the new press baby, and they will contiue to play to his hand, for fear that they will be considered racisit. Think what you want, But we all know it to be true.

By: Renato

Renato — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:49:40 +0000

Regardless of what anybody says if they were in the position as Obama they would have done the same thing. There's an extreme amount of "perfect " people saying they would have never changed their mind and stayed the course. Basically you're asking Obama to bring a knife to a gun fight, but instead he chose to bring a bigger gun thats pretty American to me. lol

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:37:24 +0000

This is a strategic maneuver to clinch the white house, nothing more. Honestly, there have been so many "independent" conservative organizations shilling for the republicans this doesn't bother me at all. I want Obama to win the election, and given the cost in lives and damage to the united states (and it's reputation) under the republican banner in the last 7 years, I really don't care if he flip flops on an issue of campaign funding.

It's not like McCain hasn't pulled a 180 yet in his campaign yet. Hell, McCain practically has his own news station shilling for him in the form of Fox News and the tons of other associated faux conservative promises. Obama in '08.