Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets
You do realize that statements like this marginalize the good points you make in many of your posts, right?
I don't see this as a betrayal of trust. There were two things he simply didn't know in November that he knows now:
- That he could raise almost half of his money in unbundled contributions of $200 or less.
- That the primary would deeply fracture the Democrat party.
Public funding was instituted after the Watergate scandal (as was the FEC) to remove the appearance of corruption (or actual corruption) by minimizing the role of the big contributor. In the primary, Obama raised almost half of his funds from individual, non-bundled contributions of $200 or less. He didn't have "Rangers" grabbing $2300 from every CEO in Chicago and passing those on in a bundle to curry favor as his sole financial base. Accepting public funding doesn't do much to remove the appearance of a fat-cat pulling strings when you raise money this way.
As for the damage to the party during the primary, it's going to take a lot of money to right that ship.
I'm not sure either is sufficient by itself, but when considered together, I can't say I blame him. It also doesn't destroy his word. |
It doesn't destroy his word, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of all those who defend him by simply saying "He says he's going to bring about change." That's great, but what has he actually done? When you ask the supporters that, too many are left with a blank expression. Which is a shame, because there actually is some stuff (in the brief time he's been in public office) he has done. Seems to me though that several of his supporters can't say much beyond "Well he said..." And I suspect that's in large part due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are young, first-time voters who are just now becoming interested in politics and elections.