DNC abandons neutrality

by souvarine, Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:40:56 PM EST

Or did Obama punk Howard Dean?

The DNC and the Obama campaign are proceeding with a plan to set up a primary joint victory fund, where donors can donate up to $30,800 with $2,300 going to Obama and $28,500 to the DNC. Kerry did the same in 2004, and McCain has set one up with the RNC, but to do so before the nomination is settled is unprecedented. The DNC may have been driven to this by necessity, their fundraising has been abysmal compared to the DCCC, DSCC and RNC, and this kind of primary fund can only raise money before the convention. But getting this story out before arranging a deal with Clinton, or doing a deal Obama but not with Clinton, flies in the face of Chairman Dean's personal commitment to be a fair arbiter of the primary. It is hard to claim neutrality when the bulk of your revenue is coming in through a big donor deal with one candidate.

It does support the inevitability story Obama is pushing, so it may be that the Obama campaign leaked this early. The deal also demonstrates the hypocrisy of Obama's campaign finance reform claims, but he largely abandoned that issue when he decided to break his public financing deal with Mr. McCain/Feingold.

Update: I should credit The Confluence for pointing me to Time's story.




Tags: dnc, howard dean, barack obama, hillary clinton (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 111 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 4)

The Page said that the Clinton campaign was approached about this idea but they haven't moved on it.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

Here's the quote, from the story you linked to:

"Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton's campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck.

The fact that the Obama campaign is moving forward and Clinton is not at this time reflects certain important realities: Obama's team is more confident that he will win the nomination than is Clinton's -- and Obama's campaign has the necessity and luxury of thinking about and planning for the general election to come."


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You got to love selective reading (2.00 / 2)

Reading is fundamental.  When you post these diaries you should quote your sources correctly.  No, Hillary wasn't left out of the loop.  She couldn't find her way into it, she had the chance, and she couldn't monopolize.  The story of her campaign.  Don't blame Obama for Hillary's inability to work it out with the DNC.  Shameful.


by SovSov on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, for obvious reasons, the Clinton campaign needs money more than Obama does and so have their hands full raising money for her. That doesn't make this move any smarter for the DNC, in fact it suggests that Dean really isn't neutral.

It is a smart tactical move for Obama, it gives him leverage over Dean before the convention. But to rank and file Democrats it stinks to high heaven. Strategically it shows Obama once again ignoring most Democrats and using his elite establishment advantage to steal the nomination using his big-money donors.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

I see how this benefits the DNC (and thusly all Democrats), but I fail to see what Obama is supposed to get out of this deal that makes it "stick to high heaven" to "rank and file Democrats"?

Why should said "rank and file Democrats" care in any way, shape or form?


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The rank and file cares. (2.00 / 3)

They absolutely love it.  This is where a 50-state strategy leads--we combine resources where we're allowed to and press our advantages everywhere, and then some.

This is guaranteed to put a smile on the face of uncommitted superdelegates.  I think that's what the diarist considers unfair, since Senator Clinton did not announce a similar deal.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

Since most Democrats have voted for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton is running for president most Democrats are likely to object when the DNC makes an exclusive deal with her opponent.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 4)

Do you read anything????

This isn't an "exclusive deal", the same "deal" is offered to Clinton.  Making it, in plain english, NOT EXCLUSIVE

Secondly, this "deal" only benefits the DNC and does nothing to help Obama get the nomination.

Can you explain to me exactly how Clinton is harmed in this "deal"?


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It does help Obama, (2.00 / 2)

in that superdelegates are exactly the people who will hear about this, and see what it means to downticket races.  It clearly does help Senator Obama in that respect--which I'm guessing is why this diary was extruded.  Although the deal is still much more altruistic than self-serving, I would argue.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)

i'd have to disagree with your reasoning here.  the deal with the obama campaign is exclusive with the dnc.  no one has offered to help hillary raise money.

secondly, obama's ability to raise money and thus accept this "deal" does benefit barack and his campaign.  elections are all about perceptions, and this move makes obama appear magnanimous and above the fray.  and it does suggest inevitability (although it's obvious that he is the likely nominee).

likewise, clinton is harmed because she appears selfish, focused only on herself and her own fund-raising while barack appears gracious and willing to help the democratic collective.  i'd have thought that obvious...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well... (2.00 / 3)

the deal with the obama campaign is exclusive with the dnc.

No, that's wrong.  An "exclusive deal" would mean that it was only offered to Senator Obama, or that the DNC stopped talking with team Clinton once Senator Obama signed up.  As the sole source states, they're still talking to Senator Clinton about this arrangement.

no one has offered to help hillary raise money.

You want the DNC to raise money for Senator Clinton now?  Do you understand the nature of the fundraising agreement we're discussing?  It is not going to help Senator Obama raise more money for his campaign; quite the opposite.

I know it's Friday afternoon, but try to caffeinate a few more brain cells before you comment again, mmmkay?


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i didn't mean to comment over your head... (none / 0)

let's try this:

Main Entry:
    1ex·clu·sive Listen to the pronunciation of 1exclusive
Pronunciation:
    iks-ˈklü-siv, -ziv\
Function:
    adjective
Date:
    1515

1 a: excluding or having power to exclude b: limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group2 a: excluding others from participation

now, given this definition, feel free to show where the deal the obama campaign made includes anyone else besides the dnc.  only a moron would argue that this deal from the obama campaign was not exclusively with the dnc.  but if you are inclined to argue otherwise (as you infer above), i'd love to see actual reasoning instead of idiotic comments that show nothing but your contempt for language.

until we get through the first part, replying to the second part would be useless.  but if you want to argue that obama has agreed to now raise funds for hillary, i simply can't wait!  it's the exclusive agreement thing that you seem to want to argue from both sides (and obviously not understanding what you're arguing)...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i didn't mean to comment over your head... (none / 0)


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i didn't mean to comment over your head... (none / 0)

Grrr.  sorry about the empty comment above, it was unintentional.

excluding others from participation

I think the deal is not exclusive because others were not excluded from participating.  Rather, the Clinton campaign has chosen not to at this point in time.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i don't disagree... (none / 0)

the diarist and i do not agree on who would be best as our next president but we do agree that the party is a vital and central institution to taking back the white house.  her entry posits that this conclusion of a deal with one candidate but not the other (for whatever reason) can and will be perceived as the party taking sides in the presidential race.  perceptions matter in politics.  

so the question is not whether clinton was offered the same deal.  the question is whether the perception of one side starting a joint fund-raising effort with the party -- something that only the "eventual nominee" typically does -- will sway the opinions of those superd's who are truly undecided.  i happen to agree that (if there are any really undecided super delegates) it could.  those who have yet to choose sides could be swayed by obama's fund-raising prowess for the party.  it highlights a strength he has that she does not (currently).

we need to move beyond the petty bickering that this long primary season has reduced us to.  acknowledging that the two remaining democrats are party heavyweights each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses costs us nothing.  while i don't think we can yet unify around a single candidate, we can prepare to unify.  in this surprising matchup of two political heavyweights, we should all be able to agree that anything that tilts the balance in favor of one candidate or the other may affect the race.  the diarist's view is perfectly valid and should be accepted as such.  accepting that does not mean that we agree with her pick for who would be the best president.  it merely acknowledges that we are all democrats (jerome might disagree), and we must unify in order to win in the fall...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

"Most" Democrats have not voted for Hillary Clinton, unless you engage in contortionist math.  And once you have, that false lead is far from commanding, so please don't try to posit Senator Clinton as the clear consensus candidate--it flies in the face of logic.

The deal is only "exclusive" currently because Senator Clinton has not (yet) worked out the details of a similar agreement.  You're being dishonest with your choice of words, trying to imply that this was a backdoor deal not offered to Senator Clinton.  That's not what the article you cited says; quite the opposite.

Shut off the computer and go have a beer.  That's what I'm going to do now.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (1.00 / 1)

Absolutely. By far more democrats have voted for Hillary. It is the no Democratic participants that are voting for Obama not to mention Democrat for a day such as Bogle who announced on CNBC that he was voting for obama and then switching back his registration to R


by rocky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Staying home, baking cookies. (2.00 / 3)

By far more democrats have voted for Hillary.

Ok, now I'm convinced.  You type with such authority!

It is the no Democratic participants that are voting for Obama not to mention Democrat for a day such as Bogle who announced on CNBC that he was voting for obama and then switching back his registration to R

Again, your unassailable logic prevails.  At least I assume it does.  I'll have someone translate it to English for me later.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ROFL (2.00 / 1)

"Since most Democrats have voted for Hillary Clinton"


by ogre on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 4)

Oh, and this:

Strategically it shows Obama once again ignoring most Democrats and using his elite establishment advantage to steal the nomination using his big-money donors.

Is just patent nonsense and completely false in several different ways.

Actually, it looks like pure cognitive dissonance to me.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not even close. (2.00 / 3)

So the DNC has talked with both candidates about joint fundraising.  McSame's already set it up with RNC.

Obama signs up.  Clinton's still working out details.  To rank-and-file Democrats, this is an unqualified positive development.  Should the DNC force itself and Obama to keep silent about this news while waiting to see if Senator Clinton does the same?  How would that demonstrate "neutrality?"


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

you're right.  it does stink.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

Huh my interpetation is that it shows that Obama cares more about the party than Hillary, that's why he's willing to give money to the party, and its why he's donated more to canidates since he's been in the Senate. Frankly, its just one more time the Clinton's have placed themselves above the party.


by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nonsense. (2.00 / 4)

Since the same offer was made to the Clinton campaign, charging non-neutrality of the DNC is patently specious.

Second, while HRC is busy knee-capping and attacking Obama every which way she can, McCain is going scot-free getting a free-ride. It's the responsibility of Dean and the DNC to go after McCain.

Since the prolonged wild goose chase by Clinton (while having no prayer of catching Obama in pledged delegates and hence highly unlikely to get the nomination) is making it hard for the DNC to raise money for either taking on McCain or to help in congressional races. Therefore, Dean probably had no choice but to make the offer to both Obama and Clinton.

It seems that Clinton supporters such as yourself are obsessed and blinded beyond reason in your negativity towards Obama that you'd throw baseless charges and spins/smears you have done here with no regard for the consequence to the Democratic party (forget about progressive goals; let's not even go there as it pertains to the behaviour in discussion). I am ashamed of your behavior.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Best comment of the day. (2.00 / 5)

It seems that Clinton supporters such as yourself are obsessed and blinded beyond reason in your negativity towards Obama that you'd throw baseless charges and spins/smears you have done here with no regard for the consequence to the Democratic party (forget about progressive goals; let's not even go there as it pertains to the behaviour in discussion). I am ashamed of your behavior.

I sadly agree.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

"But to rank and file Democrats it stinks to high heaven"

No, not really. Obama's campaign is helping the DNC raise money. That helps Democrats across the country. Most Democrats like that.

Of course, if helping Democrats happens to give a tiny PR victory to the Obama campaign, the Clintons are steadfastly opposed to helping Democrats!

See - this is why people think the Clintons are all out for themselves (and not the party). Their billionaire donors petulantly threaten the DNC and demand their money back. Their supports protest outside the DNC.

Meanwhile, Obama is working to build the party...


by Democratic Unity on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just so there's no egg/face. They tried to do this (2.00 / 5)

with Sen. Clinton as well.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST

Oops. Too late. (2.00 / 3)


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You tried. (2.00 / 3)

If they let me rate people around here, I'd give you mojo for your attempt.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's dishonest for the diarist not mention (2.00 / 3)

it (I didn't know until I saw your comment and then clicked the link to read the post there):


Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton's campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundra ising-deal/

It's this type of dishonest spinning (and specious smears stacked  based onthose spins) that's been the hallmark of the attacks against Obama by the Clintons and their surrogates and supporters. They're duplicating the RWNM inside the Democratic party with such dirty tactics.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The CogDis, it hurts. (2.00 / 4)

Cherry-picking quotes and facts has risen to a new level here.  This diary is particularly dishonest.  Look at how souvarine continues to call this an "exclusive deal."

I often think the only way these diarists sleep at night is by knowing they've done the best for their preferred candidate...John McCain.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

so your point being?

we should all be outraged because the DNC seems to have chosen a nominee?

they are the superdelegates and we have been saying for months that the superdelegates will decide so what exactly is your point?

and it also said that they contacted Hillary to set one up but she didn't want to, so I mean what? Obama wants to Hillary doesn't they asked both of them

how is that not neutral?


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

It is a judgment call that was up to Dean. Usually the DNC will not make an arrangement with a single candidate in the primary because they do not want to be biased. If they can get two or more primary candidates to  agree then they will proceed.

Obviously this is a unique case, there are only two candidates and time is running out. I think Dean made the wrong call.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

Clinton didn't want to make the deal. So should Dean not go ahead and make one with Obama?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (none / 0)

If Dean did not want to appear to be in Barack Obama's debt, no, he should not have made this deal with Obama. Given Dean's stand on MI and FL this gives Clinton's supporters a pretty compelling case that Dean is manipulating the process to favor Obama.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Compelling, no. (2.00 / 2)

Feverish, yes.

So you really think Governor Dean should have turned down the money for DNC grassroots organizing rather than allow Obama to get positive press?  Did you read the part where they've been working on the same deal with Senator Clinton, but haven't inked it yet?

If the price for amping up the 50-state strategy is mild (and hopefully temporary) embarrassment for Clinton supporters, then I'd call that a bargain.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Several people here (2.00 / 2)

have now posted that this was not an exclusive deal, but also offered to Tam Clinton, which is apparently still deciding how to proceed.

By definition, something offered to both parties in a competition is not "choosing sides".

So your diary is false.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Several people here (none / 0)

Who knows, the Clinton campaign may do a similar deal with Dean tomorrow and save him from appearing biased.

Regardless sealing a deal and getting this story out before both camps have agreed looks like Dean doing favors for Obama, which is why I speculate that this is Obama punking Dean. If in the end Clinton does not do a deal then Dean will be dependent on Obama for money, and Dean will lose most of his claim to be neutral.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just to be clear, (2.00 / 1)

unless an exactly similar deal could have been closed with Senator Clinton, resulting in a joint press release, souvarine does not want the DNC to get this money.  Unless the appearance of favoritism could have been avoided, souvarine would rather the DNC continue without the additional funds.

I hope I have summarized your perspective correctly.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does it even get through to you (2.00 / 4)

that there are Democratic Party goals other than getting Hillary the nomination?

The DNC needs to raise money for the general. McCain already has a similar deal with the RNC. The DNC was scrupulous in reaching out to both of our campaigns, but because the Clinton people haven't responded yet, the DNC needs to wait?

Why? Why, in God's name, why?

Let's be really clear: to hold off on raising money now directly and measurably hurts the party. You are willing and indeed eager for that to occur to secure what you perceive as an advantage for your primary candidate. Worse yet, instead of congratulating her opponent for working on a common cause for all of us, you blame him for it and create a source of division.

And needless to say, in this perfect all-about-me world of yours, you don't even consider that maybe you might want to blame her campaign for acting less quickly than Obama's.

That about sums it up. Just appalling.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does it even get through to you (none / 0)

Yes it does, the DNC has an obligation to the members of the party as a whole, not to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. When the DNC makes a deal with Barack Obama but not Hillary Clinton it looks like the DNC is working against the choice of most  registered Democrats. That is a very dangerous thing for the national committee to do, and it makes it more difficult for the committee to help achieve party unity once a nominee is selected.

Healing the party's wounds is much more critical to success in November than a short term cash crunch.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dead horse beaten. (2.00 / 3)

So again, the DNC should have refused the money unless Senator Clinton agreed to the same deal, and both candidates received side-by-side credits on the press release.  You'd rather scuttle the deal than risk creating any appearance of favoritism, justified or not.

If such a plan were not amenable to Senator Clinton, however, would we Obama supporters then be able to chastise her for holding the DNC hostage?  Or does it not work that way?


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead horse beaten. (none / 0)

It depends on what is most important to Dean. If he really cares about party unity and winning in November, but his cash situation is so desperate that he needs money now, then he should have pushed harder to make a deal with Clinton before sealing a deal with Obama. As it is this looks like he just wants the money, and damn party unity.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And of course (2.00 / 2)

the fact that Team Obama got its act together by now and Team Clinton did not is all the fault of

(drumroll)

Howard Dean!

Team Clinton - It's never our fault! Ready on Day One!

Try not sprain something, because you're reaching for victimhood awfully hard.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And of course (none / 0)

Again, what "Team Clinton" feels or did about this is irrelevant. The danger is that voters will view Obama and the DNC as corrupting the primary process, making it more difficult to persuade them to support a nominee they view as illegitimate.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nonsense. (none / 0)

The people who view this process as illegitimate are not going to be swayed just because the DNC gives up millions of dollars. Nor can the DNC make its fundraising push contingent on the appeasement of some dead-enders who won't treat any process as legitimate that doesn't produce the outcome they want.

I put the onus here on her campaign. If that's a reaction you're expecting, then for the good of the party, she should address it - and then tell her team to get on the ball and conclude its own DNC agreement.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In other words (none / 0)

you're willing to give Team Clinton practical veto power over a large part of DNC fundraising. You're further willing to hold your own party hostage to secure a small advantage for your candidate in a primary trying to lead said party.

And of course, all of this is the DNC's fault, not that of the eternal victim, Hillary and her incompetent campaign, who probably couldn't do the freaking paperwork on time. Ready on Day One - as freaking if.

Worst-case scenario: this goes to the convention and Hillary doesn't come to an agreement with the DNC. Under your logic, you would stop the DNC from tapping into Obama's fundraising network until Denver, right?

I really should thank you. I've never seen any Clinton follower lay out this clearly and starkly where your priorities are. If forced to choose between your party and your candidate, you'll go with the candidate. You'll give up potentially millions or dozens of millions of dollars just so people don't get the wrong idea, that the DNC might favor your competitor, even if the DNC approached her to do the same thing.

Thanks for clearing that up.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Delusional (2.00 / 1)

Dan offers a deal to BOTH candidates that is fundamentally about... what Dean's supposed to be doing, building up the party, funding the DNC.

Hillary declines (not wanting to build up the party?  not wanting to fund the DNC?  not willing ot ask the people who've already tapped out to her to donate to the Party?).

Your logic is that because Hillary declined, or is still dithering, Dean should withdraw the proposal also made to Obama?  Riiiight.  

You think that it looks like the DNC is favoring Obama, that this hurts Hillary?  Well... that's her choice.  She could have taken the same deal... and maybe even gotten some funds raised for her dear-dry well coffers.

But she's made the choice.  So she either doesn't feel like she can benefit from saying yes, or doesn't care about the Party and is willing to play the pity party card that waaaaaaah! mean Dean is favoring Obama by letting Barack play anyway even after Hillary said no!


by ogre on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can you show us (2.00 / 1)

an example of this?

Usually the DNC will not make an arrangement with a single candidate in the primary because they do not want to be biased.

I'm not being facetious, I'd just like some proof that announcing the joint fundraising with only one willing candidate is somehow a break with the past.  Did we end up with similar arrangements in 2000 or 2004, and with whom?


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you show us (none / 0)

No. But having observed the DNC in 1992 and 2004 I'm just reporting what I saw. In 2004 the DNC did not form a joint committee until Kerry was the presumptive nominee. In 1992 there were issues with Jerry Brown late in the campaign but since he had no chance the DNC coordinated pretty closely with the Bill Clinton campaign, once he was clearly the winner.

Staying out of presidential primary fights is the rule for people who want to maintain the national committee as an institution.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with your last sentence. (2.00 / 1)

But it doesn't seem there's an actual precedent for this particular type of arrangement being made only if all candidates buy in to it.  Although it seems that the DNC has been pursuing the same goal in both camps.

I just don't see how this is part of a "presidential primary fight."  It's a good thing for all of us.  It will be even better if and when Senator Clinton joins in.  I think you'd have to have a very jaundiced view to see this as a conspiracy against Senator Clinton somehow.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

regardless... (2.00 / 1)

we both know that this is exactly the time of the election cycle when these agreements are made.  that the dnc moved ahead on its pre-planned schedule here shows a certain amount of gutsy resolve to not allow this bitter primary to divide the party (yeah, right).

and i think we'd both agree that the dnc has been involved in the primary fight this year because of its rules about florida and michigan.  enforcing its rules hurt hillary here...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 5)

He made the absolute right call.

Especially because the DNC needs money NOW to fight McCain while Obama and Clinton are focused on each other.

Both candidates should do this so that the DNC can go on the air to counter McCain's nonsense.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

Excuse me, but Hillary wants this campaign to go on until August. Do you think the DNC should refrain from raising money until then?

That would cripple the party...


by Democratic Unity on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:36:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

Another faux outrage diary based upon inaccurate facts.

This is just ridiculous now.


by mefck on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST

How the game is played: (2.00 / 3)

As soon as you've read enough words that could be cut up or rearranged to somehow make Senator Clinton look like the victim of something, stop reading and paste those words into a diary.

I'm learning...


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How the game is played: (2.00 / 2)

Yup.  Victimhood at its finest.  Just one diary after another.


by mefck on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

The DNC did NOT abandon neutrality. The same proposal was made to Senator Clinton.

"A month ago, the DNC approached both campaigns about the idea. The immediate reaction inside the Clinton campaign was skeptical: they did not feel that their donors would jump up and down to support the DNC without a sense that the DNC had a plan to deal with the votes and delegations from Florida and Michigan. Nonetheless, staff level discussions were held, but none involving the key decision maker: indeed, a call between DNC executive director Tom McMahon"

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2008/04/no_dncclinton_fundraising_a gre.php


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:46:02 PM EST

Shorter form (none / 0)

Hillary's campaign tried to use this as a lever to get their way with the DNC over the MI and FL illegal votes.  Told no, she took her ball and went home.

Now... she'll want to rail about the unfairness of Obama getting to play anyway, when she isn't.


by ogre on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

He is the better fundraiser, and, his deal got done first (assuming hers will ever be).

It's about advantages to the Party.  Our Party.

"Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton's campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck."  

Would you suggest that they forego this fundraising advantage in order to placate the Clinton campaign?


by mady on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. How can Hillary strike a deal with the DNC? She probably owes them money!


by Democratic Unity on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

I will never donate to the the DNC ever again if this happens. This is the bar none, most ridiculous and unfair thing I have seen in party politics in the last 8 years, and drops any sense of the neutrality that the DNC is supposed to hold. Just another reason why I'm glad I switched my party registration.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:46:19 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

Read past the title and you'll see the only thing to be outraged over is the diarist's reading comprehension skills.


by mefck on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you donate before? (2.00 / 2)

Did you?  I've given $50/month since Governor Dean took over, BTW.


by McNasty on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Snark? (1.71 / 7)


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Troll rated for that huh? That's really funny. (2.00 / 3)


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

you didn't even read the article did you?

you read the title, read the post saw you were suppose to be outraged and boom you are outraged right? I mean really wow, Hillary Clinton was asked to do it as well, she said no, Obama said yes. you are outraged because Obama is agreeing to help the DNC raise money? exactly what should happen? he should have said no I refuse to help you raise money right now? would it not have been just as fair for Hillary to say yes and HELP the DNC raise money?

you are seriously outraged that Obama is willing to Help the DNC when Hillary isn't and you are surprised why it may seem they back Obama?


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

Did you bother reading any of the comments above saying that Clinton was offered the deal also?


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

...so, you're a Republican?


by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

switched (your) party registration (2.00 / 2)

Pardon me then while I ignore you.  I'm really not interested in the opinions of Republicans (and even non-Democrats) on how the Democratic Party's national committee operates.

Don't let the doorknob, etc., etc.


by ogre on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 8)

Shame on you Barack Obama! How dare you help your party financially! Enough with the donating and the voter registering!


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:08 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

I hear he even wants Independents to vote for him! Oh, the shame!


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 4)

The tide is turning!


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

That clip kills me. Plus, looking at that, Senator Obama is the one that looks down on voters?


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

Rocky should have listened to Mick...


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

As for your claim as to the hypocrisy, you should note that McCain has already set up a similar fund with the RNC. In fact, candidates almost always do this once they are the presumptive nominee. Since its not effective if you don't have the time to fundraise, it is necessary for the Democrats to set this up now. Obama agreed. Clinton has not, yet, presumably because she cannot afford to have some of her fundraising siphoned off to the DNC at this point. Obama could probably make it through the primaries with little extra fundraising at this point, so he can afford to have his supporters start donating to the DNC.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

I noted all of that in the diary.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

OK, Clinton can't afford it now, with the $10 million owed to vendors and the $5 million loan. But Clinton could agree to it in principle, once she won the nomination and paid off her debt. But she didn't even go that far.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

Don't be fooled...there are many GOP trolls among us....


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:40 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 5)

And btw, Obama's campaign already IS publicly financed....1,443,017 unique individual donors....Now THAT is public financing.


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:52:15 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

When SD's decide they are looking at two things...
Votes and Money (yeah those two words could be reversed...)

Howard Dean is the head of the DNC...he knows and cares about "Every District..Every State".

As for the Clinton DLC?

(with a slight pronoun change)

"Like a steam locomotive
rolling down the track
They're gone
They're gone
and northing's gonna bring them back
They're gone" ....Grateful Dead


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:59:13 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

This is also occurring with most of the State Parties holding meeting about funding with the Obama campaign.  I know a lot of folks at state and DNC levels, and frankly everybody is frustrated.  The PUSA nominee usually spends the summer raising money, and raising money for the party - the PUSA campaign usually takes over the DNC.  They have reached a point where they have to face the facts.  Obama is the overwhelming favorite for the nomination...and plans need to be made.  Consulting and media firms are being hired and want to know how they will be paid, etc.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM EST

Finally some Cohonas! (2.00 / 2)

For a party known for it's incredible weakness, we might be showing some backbone.

Our need to win the GE and other important contests this fall, then we need as much human and financial resources available.


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:59:32 PM EST

Inappropriate timing (2.00 / 2)

and of course Obama will brag about it as if he has the nomination locked up.  

Reasonable people know right now that Obama does not have the nomination locked up, so he is going to try to use every bit of influence he can, and right now, it's money.

So, ok, now let's see how and what he expects or receives from the DNC on MI and Florida.  If it goes Obama's way, and people are disenfranchised, there will be big problems for the dems now, in the convention, and through the loss of the general.

Sounds like the DNC just jumped anyway, and has done nothing to disavow its bias.  Judgment issues, all the way around!


by 4justice on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST

this is suicidal (1.25 / 4)

if Dean can turn me in to someone who thinks he is a complete asshole, he can lose everything and he will with this move.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:06:55 PM EST

Re: this is suicidal (2.00 / 2)

Troll rating speaks for itself. How about you explain yours.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is suicidal (2.00 / 1)

Explain please?  You're not making much sense.  How could fundraising with either candidate possibly be suicidal.  


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is suicidal (2.00 / 6)

Why?

This was offered to both candidates.

It is needed because the candidates can't fight McCain right now, so the DNC needs to run a national ad campaign against him until the nomination is resolved.

This does nothing to further either Obama's or Clinton's nomination chance.  it doesn't affect it in any way.

All it does is allow the DNC to piggyback off of the candidate's fundraising prowess.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

with all due respect... (2.00 / 2)

i don't think the dnc ever demonstrated neutrality.  the clintons have dominated the dnc for two decades and every dnc-related meeting i've been to over the last year always had many more clinton supporters than obama supporters present.

i agree that the dnc has had an awful fund-raising year, but i don't know that this is a surprise.  the dnc is "the president's" committee (or presidential nominee), and the fund-raising race by hillary and barack has clearly cut into the fund-raising of many committees (both candidate and party).

i'm more interested in your perception that the dnc has moved from being a clinton-dominated organization to an obama-dominated one.  i would certainly be grateful if that was true, of course, but i've yet to see evidence of such.  and i don't see this particular action as evidence of that.  i think it's smart for the dnc (and any other political committee) to ride the obama wave.

it does, indeed, benefit both parties, if it is successful.  barack gets to take credit for helping revive the dnc's fortunes while the committee gets money (this is especially fortunate in light of recent hillary supporters' requests for a return of their contributions and pledges to stop contributing to the committee).  one has to question whether hillary is actually interested in the democrat's national organization given the seemingly organized efforts on the part of her supporters to undermine it.  sure, i agree that it was an attempt at blatant manipulation (or extortion), but i'm more focused on the fact that hillary and her supporters were willing to risk the future of the democratic party -- and then proceeded to act upon it.

in the fight over the future and soul of the democratic party, at least one side is willing to support the party before the outcome of that battle is decided.  and, yes, i'd imagine there is more than one super-delegate who will look very kindly on that...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:27:32 PM EST

Re: with all due respect... (none / 0)

Ickes was pretty pivotal in getting Dean elected chairman, but once Dean was in he turned pretty harshly against Ickes and anyone else associated with Bill or Hillary Clinton. The stories I've seen were related to 2006 spending and the national voter files. Obviously some of Dean's staff were Clinton people, there are very few people in national Democratic politics who did not get their start during the eight years of the Clinton administration. But despite that bad blood Dean seems to have maintained neutrality for most of the campaign, probably because he was not close to any of the candidates. The Obama campaign did pick up a number of Dean campaign and DNC alums, in terms of staff Obama probably had the closest connections of all the campaigns.

So my claim is not that the DNC is Obama dominated but that Dean has made an error by appearing to choose sides in the primary. Dean may feel he was forced into it, and obviously this is a good hit for the Obama campaign, but it does look like Dean and Obama are corrupting the primary process. That does not bode well for party unity in 2008, and it really puts the future of the party at risk.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: with all due respect... (none / 0)

i was unaware of ickes work towards electing dean, but dean was successful in putting forward a specific vision for the dnc under his chairmanship.  i don't believe that you'd argue that the clintons agreed with that vision.  ickes has been in a peculiar position as he's tried to navigate both positions (loyak dnc member and clinton loyalist) with a bit of impartiality that hasn't always been appreciated by the other side.

i'm very familiar with the argument over the database(s), and we may not agree about the background.  my strong impression has always been that the clintons were intent on building their own version of the voter vault, which ickes has basically overseen.  there has been a lot of huffing and puffing over the database wars and i'd suggest that the clintons didn't trust the party to build an effective database while the party didn't want to wait until hillary was the nominee.  thus we have multiple versions of a democratic database.  while i do have a dog in that fight, i don't necessarily oppose (philosophically) the building of multiple, competing databases on the electorate because it gives us the opportunity to learn things far more quickly than republicans did (the genesis of the voter vault went back to 1983).

i'm sure that ickes has been the subject of rough treatment over this, as i know that he's dished it out.  we also both know that he's got a fairly thick skin and strong opinions about how things should be done.  and i got your point about appearances from the diary, and i don't disagree.  i just don't know that i agree that the dnc should have waited for the primary to formally end, even if it does actually end in early june.  i also think the 1992 analogy is somewhat interesting.  hillary is a stronger candidate than brown, but still.

i'm not sure that it does foretell the future of party unity, though.  if hillary's campaign argues what you argue above, then i'd agree that it does not augur well.  as much as we'd like for one candidate to put away the other, it does seem that this thing is going to come down to points.  if that's the case, how the "losing" heavyweight perceives their loss will be more important than anything else.  no matter who wins (and obviously i think barack will be the nominee), someone's supporters are going to feel aggrieved.  

unfortunately, these two candidates represent two fundamental bases in the democratic party, bases that we cannot win without keeping.  it's an interesting quandary.  the obama campaign (as the winner) is going to have to do a lot more to reach out to hillary's supporters (to me, more her female supporters than the lower-income white men that conventional wisdom has focused on) and soothe their disappointment than they've attempted hither to this point...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: with all due respect... (none / 0)

Dean's 50 state strategy is a compelling vision, and the Clintons et al were at best ambivalent toward it. At this point it is clear that Dean has had some deep problems executing it. And the last thing I'm worried about is Harold Ickes' feelings, Dean's hostility was self-defeating.

But the databases is an interesting question, which ties directly back to the 50 state strategy's execution and Dean's trouble raising money. There have been separate party and non-party databases since 2003, so Dean's complaints about that are a red herring. The change Dean introduced was to effectively put the voter data in the control of state parties, to be consistent with the 50 state strategy. As a result the DNC could no longer search for new donors in a national database and its fundraising stopped growing. The state parties derived no real benefit from this "ownership", but they were happier. The sister committees used the DNC data for a while and then switched to the competing source, and as a result their donor bases have continued to grow and they have been out-raising their Republican counterparts. So in a sense Dean's execution of the 50 state strategy has put him in a position where the DNC is forced to abandon neutrality so that it can fill its coffers for the general.

I agree with your last point, if the Obama campaign were really so confident of victory they would be doing a lot more to win over Hillary supporters. I disagree with you on working class white men, they are a natural part of our constituency, even Obama can compete for them if he tries.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my point... (none / 0)

was that i think barack will appeal to "working class white men" more naturally than to some of the women in hillary's coalition.  they will not be as bitter about hillary's loss...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 3)

Well of course the DNC made the deal.  Barack Obama is going to be the democratic nominee for President of the United States, and some of us still want to see a democrat get elected in November


Continue the discussion: http://westernfieldsreport.blogspot.com
by SheriffChris on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

I don't agree with the premise of this diary.  I am happy the primary is continuing, but the DNC has fundraising problems and the party can't afford to wait until August to start working in concert with the nominee.

As long as the same basic opportunity has been extended to both campaigns, and the news reports sure make it sound like it was, then I don't see the problem.  Frankly, my sense is that this deal is far more helpful to the DNC than to the campaigns; certainly, Obama doesn't look like he needs a lot of fundraising help.  And I'm a little skeptical that the DNC has much fundraising information that is off limits to Team Clinton.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

I was going to write a very reasoned response to this and then I read the end of it where you complained about Obama not taking public financing... all I say in response to that is WE WANT TO WIN and his fundraising machine has people driven. He would be stupid to tie one hand behind his back to support public financing when McCain is clearly a hypocrite on the subject himself.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:04:10 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (none / 0)

Yes, it was stupid of Obama to make a deal with John McCain on public financing in the general and then use that commitment to attack Hillary Clinton. He should not have tied his hands like that. But now that he has decided to renege on the deal he has taken one of the planks of his platform and handed it to McCain to beat him with. That was pretty stupid too.


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 1)

McCain is not going to be able to touch either of our candidates on Campaign Finance. He in violation of those rules- which is far worse than our candidate changing his mind.

I know that many here seem to live in a world where John McCain cannot be effectively attacked, but in the real world he can be and will be.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More Republican lies from souvarine. (2.00 / 1)

Obama never made such a deal with McCain.  McCain is lying, and so are you.


Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.
by tbetz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Republican lies from souvarine. (none / 0)

I really don't like being put in the position of defending McCain, and I think running on campaign finance is just a trap that makes Democrats look like hypocrites, but as I read the Obama letter you link he said:

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

McCain agreed, and he is taking public financing in the general election. Has Obama passed that test?


by souvarine on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Republican lies from souvarine. (2.00 / 1)

McCain has shown willingness to use Public Financing to get what he wants and then drop out of it, breaking FEC rules in the process, when it suits him.

You cannot make a deal with a man who can't be trusted; therefore no proposed deal with McCain matters at this point.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (none / 0)

I'm not going to get into the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign when it comes to financing, but I have a specific question and I would appreciate some factual answers:

I was under the impression that $4600 was a hard-cap limit to the political contributions an individual can make.  How do they get around that and propose a new $30,800 cap?  I thought these caps were set in law.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST

Re: DNC abandons neutrality (2.00 / 2)

Donation to PARTY is not a donation to CANDIDATE.

The proposal is to fund raise for BOTH a candidate AND the party at the same time.  Feed off the approval of the candidate's supporters for the candidate for the party's benefit.

Nothing violated.