Cheers for Mark Shields calling them as he sees them. I'm a disappointed admirer of Obama who has canvassed voters in two states and will do more. Confusing his stance on public financing--I read the Midwest Democratic Institute reply and took Obama at his word in my own blog. Obama was crystal clear. His hedging on campaign money weakens Obama's leadership and is stupid politically. As a veteran of campaign finance wars I know that it takes tough political leadership to achieve the basic reforms Obama understands what we need. Let's hope Obama doesn't lose that determined leadership. The choice is his. David Cohen

Mark Shield's 2-23-08 opinion piece criticizing Barak Obama--"Obama--Hedge on Funds" sounds like common sense...Barak, you promised to accept public financing for the general election. You are now reconsidering your apparent straight-forward pledge...Americans "want their government back" and big-monied interests should be kept out of it...not good Barak. Now that you're ahead you're hedging..."

However, let's look at reality. Obama's campaign IS being "publically financed". Approximately 90% of his money is from $100 or less donators--over 1,000,000 people so far! Isn't this exactly what we want? Millions of regular Americans giving a little to a candidate that means so much to them rather than candidates going on bended knee to get the big bucks from a few deep pockets? Isn't the main goal of public financing to sharply reduce the influence of the big-time lobbyists and level the playing field with millionaire candidates?

Barak is also NOT taking money from PACs which also lends credibility to his position . Isn't his participatory fund raising an enormously progressive new paradign that should become the model for all future national campaigns?

Unlike the traditional public financing model it even works if the other party's candidate gets his/her money from the big guys! In this case a true people's candidate can, for the first time, compete financially AND not be beholden to the special interests!

Barak hasn't said "no" to publically financing his campaign if he becomes the party's nominee. He's instead built his own publically-financed campaign realizing that campaign financing isn't necessarily as straight-forward as a simple "yes" or "no" answer in a questionaire. What about rules for dealing with the 527 interest groups? Doesn't it make sense to obtain a comprehensive agreement while protecting the people's interest if the other side says "no". I think so. I also think it's time to give him and his campaign team some credit in opening up the political financing process to the people.

Bill Edgerton

I think Obama should say: the situation has changed and so have I. If he accepts public funding he will be limiting his ability to respond to any swiftboating. Period. He is under no obligation to even the balance sheet when clearly people are voting with their wallets in record numbers for change. Anyone who says a stupid thing in politics ought to have a chance at a do over before anyone gets to stick it on them. Part of the problem of getting anyone elected is that too do business they must some how accept the corruption that is endemic to the process. Hard ball asks what are Obama's legislative accomplishments. His greatest accomplishment is having no history of cooperation in the looting of the country. Unknown may not be much of an asset, but it beats out right hatred by a mile.

I don't know if this is the proper place to raise this question, but I saw you talk of it on the News Hour. It is the question of Mccain and infidelity. I think he was trying to play dumb, and he may have learned that in Vietnam. My bet is that the NYT has an ace in the hole. When we look at it, infidelity, we should ask: is there any difference between an oath of love or an oath of office in regard to the honor involved? How often do we see where people who cannot be faithful to their spouses ask for our faith in them, and we give it. The funny thing about infidelity is this: Most of us look at our own wives and say: What kind of bum would cheat. But then we look at the bum, and his wife, and say geeze; why did he ever marry her. I mean, the thought of looking at Mrs. Mccain for four years is enough to make me want to give up t.v.. Where she got those eyes, and those lips as passionate as a lightning bolt will never take them back.

I am having a hard time believing that all the alleged outlandish contributions being made to Barack Obama's campaign are coming from only serious supporters of his campaign. I would like to know who exactly funded the startup of his campaign and where the current money is really coming from. I am a layperson regarding campaign financing, but from the research I have been doing on the web, it appears that his money is also coming from moneyed interests whose reasons for supporting his candidacy are suspect. Something just isn't adding up for me.

Before reading this article, I honestly believed that it made no difference where Obama got the money as long as he had enough to get his message across. Now I see that it does matter. It matters a lot because accepting public funding is an action that would support his words. Thanks, Mark, for your insight. This also makes Clinton's criticism of Obama as a man of words and not action make more sense. I'm still in his camp, but this round did not go to Obama.

Better to follow the experience than the money:
The nationwide campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are respectively the largest, most complex, resource consuming, people motivating, and open-ended efforts over which either one of them has ever before presided. Obama's has been an inspirational model of good governance; Clinton's is a fractious mess. How come her highly touted experience did not make a difference from day one?

Mark,

I've been a devoted and appreciative reader/viewer of yours for years. But I have to challenge you on this one: campaign finance laws were designed to keep a relatively FEW persons/organizations/industries from indebting a candidate to their special interests. Obama's donations come from OVER ONE MILLION contributers (with the average amount being around $100) and I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of unorganized "special interests" represented. There is a big difference here which you are not allowing for. It's a bit like comparing the participation of citizens in a democracy to that of fat cats in an oligarchy.

Mark Shields needs to stop repeating the myth that Obama "committed" to public funding for his general election. It's simply not true. Obama wrote in response to a questionnaire: "Yes. ... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." He promised to pursue such an agreement once he is the nominee. So when Obama now says he wants to wait until he is the nominee to commit that isn't "waffling," as Shields keeps suggesting, that is entirely consistent with his response to the questionnaire. I don't know who Shields is shilling for here Clinton or McCain, but his misleading statements are offensive.

The problem is that there is no FEC to monitor the campaigns. McCain has already shown that he has no intention of following the rules. The so-called pledge depended upon both candidates agreeing to the same constraints. McCain's actions in gaming the system make any agreement impossible.