Outmaneuvering the Swift Boats: Obama learns from history.

OK, so you are probably thinking how can I vote for Barack Obama – the change candidate – when he has "flipped" on his pledge and opted out of public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. After all, don’t principles count, and, as Christians, aren’t we supposed to hold those we elect to a higher standard?

While it may seem that Obama has back-peddled on his "pledge" to stick with the public system, let’s review ALL of the facts, shall we. In pertinent order, they are as follows:

1. Yes, Obama did agree to accept public funding for the general election, but, missing from the criticisms of his decision to opt out is his carefully worded statement, addressed to the Federal Elections Commission, indicating that any agreement regarding accepting of public money be tied to an agreement between both presumptive nominees curtailing the spending of independent action groups or 527’s. At present, there is no limit on how much money such groups can raise or spend during the election. In a USA Today article published February 20, 2008, Obama said, "I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." No such agreement was ever entered into by both candidates; in deed, McCain actively campaigned throughout the last two months of the Democratic primaries, taking full advantaged of the blood-letting between Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the memory of John Kerry being attacked by the swift boat ads in 2004 still fresh in everyone’s minds, Obama knows what’s coming. Only a fool would sit back and watch history repeat itself.

2. John McCain can hardly claim the moral high ground here. Throughout the primaries, McCain worked the public financing system like a magician working his magic wand. First, opting in, then, when he got big donors to contribute to his campaign, opting out. He waited until the last minute to accept the financing for the general election, no doubt an acknowledgement that he could not hope to raise sufficient funds on his own to compete in the general election. His refusal to reign in RNC attack dogs, and his tendencies toward running negative ads himself – this despite his "appeal" to Obama to host town-hall debates that concentrated on the "real" issues of the campaign - mean that once more we can expect more of the same mud-slinging throughout the summer and fall months.

3. Almost two thirds of Obama’s contributions come from small donors who contribute $200 or less, ostensibly making his campaign the first of its kind. This grass-roots movement is, as Obama succinctly put it, a form of public financing, as it were. As the New York Times correctly pointed out on June 20, "Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."

Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t lie down in the middle of the street like road kill. Finally, a Democrat who has the resources to effectively combat and, hopefully, defeat the Republican attack machine. Finally, a Democrat who can actually win a general election.

Amen!