Obama Sells Out

This is so disingenuous on so many levels.

Instead of saying that he's found a better way than the public financing system... or that he could never have envisioned the outpouring of support at the beginning of the campaign, etc. etc. he engages in a series of insipid post-haste rationalizations.

First he suggests that not accepting lobbyist and PAC money places him somehow above the fray, and makes it harder for him to raise money... hoping we forget that PACs and lobbyists are a tiny fraction of all campaign funding, and he's already found it a lot easier to raise money than any of his opponents.

Then he suggests the system is "broken"... when it's the exact same system that's been in place in 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. He says that RNC fundraising makes this necessary, when the DNC can raise money in the exact same $28,500 increments.

BTW, I don't know anybody who believes Freedom's Watch will still raise $250 million.

He knows he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

a) at some point even the Saab Socialists will get tapped out and Obama, Inc. will divert funds from local and state Democratic candidates

b) He's going to use this money trying to pry loose states like Georgia and North Carolina and based on the campaign effects to date, soldify the opposition vote in "bitter" areas of those states, again, inuring to the deteriment of local and state Democrats.

Another huge exercise in vanity and narcissism.  

"Deceitful" is not always "illegal."  Legality hardly matters anyway, since there is no FEC right now, and neither candidate is bound by rules that will not be enforced.

It would be helpful if someone with the experience and knowledge of this stuff could post both candidates' previous statements regarding campaign financing, the rules in question, comparative lists of contributors for both candidates, and identify Obama's violations to the rest of us (and to the moribund FEC).

Everything in politics is "compared to what," so figures for one candidate are meaningless without a comparison to the other.  I see the list of corporate contributors to Obama, but in order for that list to make sense, I need to see a similiar list compiled for the McCain campaign.  If you are going to say that McCain is better on an issue, the only way to do so is to show both sides.

Isn't that what blogs are supposed to do that gives them more depth than a drive-by newspaper article or a video sound bite?

Personally, I wouldn't pull the trigger on these groups until after the Dem convention.  Who knows what the Clintons might pull during the convention.  It isn't over till everyone votes.