Reply #6: The whole article is worth a read. I found this: [View All]

[LisaM]

~Hillary Clinton, by far. She's not limiting her campaign's ability to raise money (nor her supporters' to give it) by accepting public financing. Obama has opted out for the primary, but has said he'd accept it for the general if the Republican did so as well. Why give Republicans veto power over what the Democrats do? Given our better ability to raise money this cycle, why would Obama willingly surrender that advantage to the Republicans? That's not playing to win. Edwards is the opposite, saying he could opt out of public financing for the general, but already opted in for the primary. That means that unless he's opposite a similarly limited Republican (i.e. McCain), he'll be at a gross disadvantage all summer as he has less than $20 million left to spend until September.~


Unfortunately, there are several documented cases of Obama saying that he would accept public financing for the GE if McCain did. I do not think Obama intends to stick to this, but it's going to look really bad if he doesn't. The latest claim I read was that Obama's camp is now insisting that donations from individuals comprise public financing! One of his huge advantages over Clinton has been his spending power.

I actually support public financing of elections, but since Edwards tanked in the primaries (partly becuause of this) and because one of Obama's main advantages has been his ability to raise record amounts of money, it's going to be an enormous problem for him if he appears to be hypocritical on this issue.