Barack, We Hardly Knew You!

Dear Mr. Shields,
As a longtime great admirer, I am just so disappointed with the thrust of your column. What, the Dem's have outspent the Rs ONCE in the last TEN elections? This is the first time political contests for THE GOVERNMENT OF, BY, AND FOR the PEOPLE, have been paid for BY THE PEOPLE. And why do campaigns cost so much anyway? Are not they THE PEOPLE'S airwaves? With all due respect, what are you really defending Mr. Shields, the right of corporationts to buy elections?

I wonder what you would be writing if Obama had been stupid enought to seek public monies for his campaign. For the past two presidential elections of Gore and Kerry, both these men lay down as the Republican party rolled over them loosing both elections. Now we have a candidate who is receiving money in small amounts from people across the nation who are not tied to corporations or 725 organizations and you attack Obama. As a fellow Massachusetts man, I am dishearted by your appearance on The News Hour last night. Thank God Obama has the sense to change his mind, and if this is Machiavellian so be it. I'd rather have Obama in The White House any day ther than McCain who seems out of touch and attempting to pander on every issue to every audience.

Mark, I can see your concern that Sen. Obama has changed his position. I do not agree that we should have public financing. It does not surprise me that Sen. Obama has this record number of contributions when you consider that for the first time the African-American community has the ability to contribute to one of their own. This would excite many people who have voted but never contributed before. It should all be open and all contributers names published for what ever the amount of the contribution. I am far more concerned with the candidates core beliefs. It appears to me that he leans twards socialism. This would account for his desire to raise taxes in this economy. It would also answer the question as to why he believes that the government should tell us what cars we drive (if any), how much food we CAN have, and even what temperature we can have our homes.

"...the most famous 527 group of all, the 2004 "Swift boats" attack ads questioning John Kerry's bravery in Vietnam."

The "Swift Boat" group did not question John Kerry's bravery in Vietnam --

they questioned his honesty about his service in Vietnam. You know, like that he was in Cambodia during

during Christmas, 1968.

Mr Shields,
Your usually level headed analysis gave way last night and today to a sanctimonious rant that would do Vice proud. What is the difference between "breaking his word", and a strategic decision reversing a previously disastrous, (for the US),plan. It is vital that John McCain be defeated. It is vital that the new administration stop empowering criminal gangs as has Bush by elevating them to the category of "fighters", or "jihadis", ( a term of respect in the Middle East by the way). The coward from Crawford seldom changes his mind, and see where that has taken us. Please lighten up.
tt

"It is vital that John McCain be defeated."

With this one line, you confirm the worst we could have thought of the Democrats' focus.

You may as well have said "it is vital that WE be placed in charge - that OUR ideas prevail, and that OUR values be protected - and if we cannot accomplish this honestly, if we cannot win this election with honor, then we will win it another way, we will win it any way we can, because honor and truthfulness and American traditions of democratic rule cannot stand in the way of OUR desires."

Wouldn't it be cheaper to raise an army and kill off the current government and simply take over? If honor cannot stand in your way, a coup would seem appropriate.

Mark, I can't fault you on the history, as usual, and I note you called this one in a column long ago when you first challenged Obama to remember his ill-considered promise. You're also right though perhaps not pristinely original to invoke Johnny, and one can practically hear the melody in the background. It seems we will always be haunted by that guaranteed-to-lose coin flip for presidential candidates: Speak honestly about how you think and feel and know you'll never get elected, or take path incognito to the White House and learn to coexist with that amnesiac monster staring back at you from every mirror you will ever encounter. ................................................................................................................................................................................................
However, I think you are wrong to equate issues that are substantive with those that are merely procedural, i.e., where to steer this country as opposed to how to get chance at the helm. Obama may have flip-flopped as you say, but McCain has Obama beat hands down when it comes to substantive inconsistencies and inexcusable capitulations on policy, most of which have consisted of reversions to the Republican party line McCain is supposed to have been rebelling against. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Obama had no responsible choice but to do what he did on the money. His error was to make that dopey statement in the first place, and we're just going to have to chalk that up to the experience factor or to his lack of self-confidence. But he can't admit that, can he? (See first paragraph above, coin flip no. 1.) I'm hoping and praying that Obama's calculations remain focused on meeting the great responsibility he now has as a historical figure, one in whom so many of us small donors have so heavily invested. He must make decisions now not for Barack Obama the individual, but for those behind him, the survival of the Obama candidacy, and the historical imperative to get our country and the world out of this mess. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
To opt for public financing and sacrifice his lifeline structure of financing by ordinary individuals would be to value an act of meaningless symbolism over the most powerful election campaign weapon the Obama campaign has in its arsenal. It would force him into a Jimmy Carteresque marathon he need not run and might not finish. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mark, you yourself have observed how much antipathy there is to this candidate due to false and deliberately misleading information, something to which he is uniquely vulnerable. He will be swift-boated like no other candidate in history, and he'll need a huge pile of money simply to counter the allegation that he must be a terrorist just because of his name, let alone all of the other right-wing refuse that will be thrown at him. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
The public financing system and its rat-infested legal infrastructure have never recovered from Buckley v. Valeo. That tragic supreme court decision twisted our First Amendment into serving as cover for the idiotic notions that freedom to spend money is the same thing as freedom of speech, and that the government can't turn down the volume on big spenders with louder voices as a means of giving smaller voices a chance to be heard. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
This country has paid the price over and over again in decades of Republican-dominated plundering of everything there is to steal as a result. What is now left of the government's regulation of campaign spending is nothing but a sorry patchwork of rotting fig leaves, and any fool who thinks the country is going to benefit by having a candidate shed his clothes and waltz around in that silly costume fully deserves to live in a country with a Republican president for four more years. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
That all being said, when it comes to the soul of Barack Obama, I'm keeping a watchful eye on that flag lapel pin of his. (See first paragraph above, coin flip no. 2.)

Mark - it is about winning. The system is broke. That is why every potentially successful primary candidate has eschewed the matching system and the current amount set aside for the general is not adequate. The goal of a campaign is not to have equal resources, it is to have enough resources to do the job that needs to be done. Obama is planning to spend huge sums to wake up the electorate much of which avoids elections like the plague.
If he is successful the result will be a lot more important to this country than whether he adheres to a broken system for the sake of sticking to the sytem.

Thank you Mark Shields for reminding the world of the value of honest speech, and fair play. Don't we all wish the democrats could go up against the republicans and know there would be no swift boating or red baiting or dirty tricks. If a democrat want to be president he should be presidential, and that means winning. America loves a winner and hates a loser, and if winning means breaking a few promises, having a good right, and a good left and money in ones pocket then god bless the democrats for filling up their ideals with hard cash. The danger as I see it is not that Mr. Obama shows himself a white liar, but that democrats are all played out of their nickles and dimes. The primary was costly. The general election will be costly, but intellectuals do not have a lot of money. I have seen a lot of democrats in baggy britches needing dental work, and if they cannot afford nice teeth, then they cannot afford to play politics. If they are digging deep now, it is an act of desparation, done out of the belief that we could not, as a country, get much closer to disaster than another republican president. Let me ask: Is anything more important than the government of this country? Isn't the government of a country the equal of the head of a person? If this is so; and our government is alternately running around like a chicken without a head, and a madman with a weapon, why is it the people cannot manage to throw a net over it, or cook it for dinner? Part of the reason is the cost, which is extreme, and part of the extreme cost is the result of the public media selling a public property to politicians. Why should government, or those seeking a voice in government have to pay to be heard when it is essential that government freely communicate with the people? I have seen many times where the people could not be heard by the government no matter how much they shouted. I have seen often where the government could not, or would not educate the people on the essential issues before them. It is as though ones hand were on fire, and the eyes can see it but the brain does not get the message. So the problem is not that Mr. Obama is playing to win, and it is not going to be solved by his winning. In the larger picture we are seeing the result of a poorly designed government which from the beginning became encumbered by extra governmental organizations called parties which have ever added inertia between the force of the people and the natural immobility of their government. Parties are shock absorbers. Parties are not the only problem we have, but they are no solution at all. Whether the democrats win or lose is immaterial. The only way the people can win is for each party to lose, and until the people figure that fact out they will continually flip the two party coin expecting a different result from the same behavior. Thank you. And keep up the good work. Sweeney.

Re: Bob Alan
Sir; I would challenge you to explain to me why so much money is required to win an election, because this one simple fact holds the political process hostage to money and to those who have enough money to buy a positive public image. I think it is a disgrace that print and broadcast media can be put in private hands when to do so means buying silence rather than a free exchange of ideas. We own the airwaves. Why is it that those who lead this country must protrate themselves before those who have been made masters of this public property for a pittance? Is anything more essential to a democracy than our ability to communicate with our government? But lies and general prevarication is not communication. For advertizing to be communication it must be truth, and the vast dissemination of lies is not communication, and is not democracy, and is not freedom; but is the destruction of these qualities by immitation. At no time in the history of this country has there been a greater need for the people to be heard. And the people need to hear each other. Not one man in Washington could survive full disclosure. If they could not each and all hide behind the very rights they deny to us they would be whipped. When they claim the right of privacy to assure to themselves the money to make themselves look good before people they do not serve they are stealing our right to know the facts. All of these public servants cringe before sunlight like a herd of vampires. And that is what drives up the cost of elections. It costs nothing to tell the truth. The lies our leaders tell to us are expensive to tell and ruinous to hear. Thanks

All this frenzy about Obama's decision to forego public financing completely ignores the real reason why he is doing this, why it makes sense, and why the decision is completely consistent with his past approach and reputation. All of the conventional wisdom (and the last several decades of presidential politics) boils down the election to a few swing states - Michigan, Ohio, Florida, W. Virginia, etc. Obama's decision slices the issue in a completely different way. His 50-state strategy doesn't cede republican strongholds to McCain. Instead, he's going to try for a broader victory, including in areas that democrats don't usually take. Should he have spelled this out? Yes. His message should have been that he was going to challenge the traditional, Washington insider view about his chances of winning by taking nothing for granted, and looking for votes in all states. His strategy would make John McCain defend and fight for votes in areas that otherwise might be a walk for him. This is an aggressive, bold decision that challenges the republican orthodoxy about states they consider "theirs". And it shows democrats that he won't be passive, as John Kerry was in the last election. His mistake wasn't the decision to not accept the public financing. His mistake was to go on the defensive about this decision, and instead try and couch it in the context of his earlier statements.

Try reading Adriana Huffington's more honest assessment.
See all posts »

BIO

Arianna Huffington: McCain's Campaign Funding Hypocrisy: Why Are the Media Looking the Other Way?
The mainstream media's overheated response to Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the public campaign finance system is prime evidence of the media's ongoing membership in the John McCain Protection Society and its offshoot, the Swift Boat Media for McCain, and of how their highly motivated efforts are affecting the presidential race. McCain called Obama's decision "a big deal." What's actually a big deal is the Swift Boat Media's complete indifference to McCain's bald-faced hypocrisy on the same issue. Amidst all the attacks on Obama's "flip-flop," how much have you read in the old media about the fact that McCain has "completely reversed himself" on public financing -- and is currently breaking campaign finance law on a daily basis?

Re: Martha Minter
Ma'am; there are a lot of people in this country saying we have met the enemy and they are us. This is a bald faced lie. But one group that consistently puts forward that message is the media, and they are the enemy. Now, you tell me why they try to be fair and balanced even when the questions before us are not. Tell me why they hoorayed this country into war when of all people they should have known it was not a bright Idea. The media do not have the right to freedom of the press. The press has the privilage to often be wrong, and to shine a light into the recesses of government or business to scare a rat. It is not just a license to make money on the public misery. It is a privilage granted in the hope of a public benefit. So where is the benefit? I believe a lot of privilages granted by our constitution should be defended with good results. There ought to be a positive public purpose proved for every privilage to be maintained. So far, with press, and religion these positive purposes are few and far between. And I'm sick of it. I am sick of the press muddying the waters of truth. I am sick of the churches trying to govern the country with a small majority when they will not be governed by any majority. If the billionaires who own this nations media can pervert the whole democracy for a few dollars more then they are traitors and have made themselves ineligible to have the public trust. I don't doubt that kerry was a coward. Any fool being shot at who is not scared is certifiable. But he took fire more than myself and many others, and for the media to get behind swift boating him is a crime against us all. And the same goes for Valery Plame. If the government and the media get behind endangering a single individual to maintain their power and position, they are criminal. We have to learn to judge our government, and judge our institutions rather than standing for their judgement, which is clearly flawed.

Mark, you're out to lunch today.

1. Because of 527s, both candidates agreeing to public financing does not equate to a level playing field.
2. While you've said there are no substantial Republican 527s this year, the fact is we don't know what 527s will materialize. The swift boat assassins didn't surface til August.
3. More so than any candidate in my adult life, by rejecting PAC and federal lobbyist money and accepting only private donations, Obama's campaign is indeed public financed, in the very best spirit of the notion.

But rather than point these things out, you huffed all manner of ill-considered indignation. You blew the call on this one, big time.

Re: AuntSally; Ma'am, the idea of fair, honest, and equal elections is good, but illogical in this time and place. If Native Americans could govern themselves democratically and talk every important subject into the ground, giving time for all voices to be heard, considering, in the case of the Iroquois what the effects might be through seven generations, then why can't we? Why can we have honest debates about every subject. Is it not the role of government to do the people's will as well as to educate the people as to options, and obligations, and conditions. So much that government does is swept beneith the carpet only to emerge later as monsters. So much is done in Washington that is the will of money, and is blown out of the media horn with no benefit to the people. I do not wonder that government should be so fouled up. It was designed with more flaws than one civil war could not fix. And I am a democrat. I am a democrat that believes the people are always right. And I am a democrat that believes the country will be not one step closer to democracy with a democratic president. Only when the people have the final say, and so, must be educated and consulted will we be a democracy. Until that time, you know, and I know, that nothing Mr. Bush did was possible without the consent of the democratic party, and that nothing will change, and we are doomed to squander all our wealth in the vain pursuit of empire. From my perspective, a change is as good as a vacation, and I would like a short vacation from the republicans.