Obama raises another 40M in March

[TitanTiger 20,542]

It's not stupid. You say that anytime someone dares criticize your beloved or call him on his own words. It's an important issue: whether Obama really meant what he said when he made the commitment or not. Did he only say it when he thought it might help him even the playing field against a possibly well-financed GOP nominee and is now hedging when it looks like he would be the one with the money advantage.

The issue isn't whether you agree with public financing or not. It's whether Obama truly is a different kind of politician. Does he talk a good game or is he the real deal? Things like this will determine the answer to that question.

[RunInRed 16,528]

It's not stupid. You say that anytime someone dares criticize your beloved or call him on his own words. It's an important issue: whether Obama really meant what he said when he made the commitment or not. Did he only say it when he thought it might help him even the playing field against a possibly well-financed GOP nominee and is now hedging when it looks like he would be the one with the money advantage.

The issue isn't whether you agree with public financing or not. It's whether Obama truly is a different kind of politician. Does he talk a good game or is he the real deal? Things like this will determine the answer to that question.

I agree..and in due time you can have your answer. Patience is a virtue...

Again, I'd bet the ranch that if both candidates can come to agreement on public financing then that's what will happen ... regardless, they will choose the same path.

Finally, the money is not going to matter anyway, McCain is on the wrong side of too many issues, doesn't have the full support of the conservative base, and will be battling against a potential historic moment in our lifetimes. Believe me, if Obama wins the nomination it's over (save this thread).

[pensacola tiger 0]

Well if money can buy votes he has the election sewed up. But if there are enough people out there who think fundraising is not the be all and end all and that the fact this guy obviously has very well to do supporters doesn't necessarily mean he's the correct choice for the leader of our country, then just perhaps there will still be a need for the election to still be held. I for one am not impressed by the amount of money a candidate can raise. I'm impressed by what he has done in the past, especially as it relates to what he says he will do in the future.

A couple of points:

1) By all accounts and as discussed in previous threads, Barack Obama has built a massive grassroots effort. Most of his donations do not come from wealthy donors who are maxing out the $2,300 limit. I believe his average donation amount is around $96. A lot of this money comes from $5, $10, $25 donations.

2) I think the amount of money a candidate is able to raise says a lot. Particulary, it speaks to the strength of his support from the people. It's speaks to a movement. It's speaks to the "working majority" theme that he talks about. Nothing has ever gotten done without the will of the people and this to me looks like the people are rallying to a cause in numbers we have not seen in modern times.

You missed my point.

1) I was not implying that the majority of his contributors were multi-millionaires. But even if every donation he gets is for $5 there are only 3,900,000 contribut0rs. That is far from the number of registered voters in the country. I venture to say that it is even far from the number of registered Democrats. But I'll give you this, it is an impressive number.

2) I will also concede that since he has been able to raise that amount it does indicate a large number of people who are supporting him. I don't think anyone on this board would argue that point.

3) However, my point to begin with was that a thinking person, when deciding for whom to vote, does not follow along like a lemming and vote for the most popular as indicated by the amount of money raised (or for that matter how many primaries the candidate has won). A thinking person who cares what happens to this country pays close attention the everything they can learn about a candidate and what he/she stands for and then votes for the one who seems to represent what the voter is looking for in a president. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. And I hope that, no matter who each and every person in this country chooses to vote for in November, they choose that person based on more than how much money that person has earned, how cute they are, their age, their gender or any reason other than that the voter thinks they will make the best president. And if that were to actually happen, the amount of money collected by each candidate would be a moot point for the beginning.

4) And if you can find any bias in that, have at it.

[RunInRed 16,528]

[3) However, my point to begin with was that a thinking person, when deciding for whom to vote, does not follow along like a lemming and vote for the most popular as indicated by the amount of money raised (or for that matter how many primaries the candidate has won). A thinking person who cares what happens to this country pays close attention the everything they can learn about a candidate and what he/she stands for and then votes for the one who seems to represent what the voter is looking for in a president. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. And I hope that, no matter who each and every person in this country chooses to vote for in November, they choose that person based on more than how much money that person has earned, how cute they are, their age, their gender or any reason other than that the voter thinks they will make the best president. And if that were to actually happen, the amount of money collected by each candidate would be a moot point for the beginning.

Are you suggesting that I am "following the crowd"? I think most on this board can attest to the fact that I have been on the Obama bandwagon for quite awhile. And it has nothing to do with his popularity or how well-funded his campaign is.

I have admired Obama's background, brilliance, restraint, judgment, empathy, and his willingness to speak to uncomfortable issues ever since I first saw him at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Look, the current political system does not work, and the old guards in charge of executing that system have failed us, as a people, numerous times. I support Obama because he is our new guard and he is not tainted by the typical Washington ideology nor does he carry the baggage of political favors that come with a lifetime in they system. He is this generations' Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Kennedy.

Most importantly, after eight years of counterproductive partisanship, I'm not looking for a fight. He has a vision for America that is inclusive, hopeful and "post partisan." His style of leadership is a welcome change.

Lastly, I believe he understands that if all of us simply exercise our constitutional right to participate in the political process, we really can change the world. That is the reason why he's so important, why he gives all of us a reason to hope.

[pensacola tiger 0]

[3) However, my point to begin with was that a thinking person, when deciding for whom to vote, does not follow along like a lemming and vote for the most popular as indicated by the amount of money raised (or for that matter how many primaries the candidate has won). A thinking person who cares what happens to this country pays close attention the everything they can learn about a candidate and what he/she stands for and then votes for the one who seems to represent what the voter is looking for in a president. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. And I hope that, no matter who each and every person in this country chooses to vote for in November, they choose that person based on more than how much money that person has earned, how cute they are, their age, their gender or any reason other than that the voter thinks they will make the best president. And if that were to actually happen, the amount of money collected by each candidate would be a moot point for the beginning.

Are you suggesting that I am "following the crowd"? I think most on this board can attest to the fact that I have been on the Obama bandwagon for quite awhile. And it has nothing to do with his popularity or how well-funded his campaign is.

I have admired Obama's background, brilliance, restraint, judgment, empathy, and his willingness to speak to uncomfortable issues ever since I first saw him at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Look, the current political system does not work, and the old guards in charge of executing that system have failed us, as a people, numerous times. I support Obama because he is our new guard and he is not tainted by the typical Washington ideology nor does he carry the baggage of political favors that come with a lifetime in they system. He is this generations' Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Kennedy.

Most importantly, after eight years of counterproductive partisanship, I'm not looking for a fight. He has a vision for America that is inclusive, hopeful and "post partisan." His style of leadership is a welcome change.

Lastly, I believe he understands that if all of us simply exercise our constitutional right to participate in the political process, we really can change the world. That is the reason why he's so important, why he gives all of us a reason to hope.

No sugar, I was not speaking of you. It is quite obvious that you are a huge Obama fan and that you read about him, believe what you read and agree with it. More power to you. I don't agree with you but I do respect that you seem to be well informed on your cadidate. I'm nor sure that you are as well informed on the other candidates, particularly Senator McCain. But that's not the question here. I was speaking of the voting public in general....every last one of them, not just you. Not every post replying to one of your posts is a shot at you personally. And in fact if you go back and read every post I've made I believe tht you will not find one where I commented on the person making the post but only commented on the content. If we could all keep the sniping at each other out of this perhaps we could have more adult discussions.

Oh yes one thing you said I do need to comment on....he by no means gives ALL of us a reason to hope.

[RunInRed 16,528]

Your posts are better than most on this board.

[AURaptor 1,128]

" He can't win " - Hillary Clinton

[AUTiger1 0]

It's not stupid. You say that anytime someone dares criticize your beloved or call him on his own words. It's an important issue: whether Obama really meant what he said when he made the commitment or not. Did he only say it when he thought it might help him even the playing field against a possibly well-financed GOP nominee and is now hedging when it looks like he would be the one with the money advantage.

The issue isn't whether you agree with public financing or not. It's whether Obama truly is a different kind of politician. Does he talk a good game or is he the real deal? Things like this will determine the answer to that question.

I agree..and in due time you can have your answer. Patience is a virtue...

Again, I'd bet the ranch that if both candidates can come to agreement on public financing then that's what will happen ... regardless, they will choose the same path.

Finally, the money is not going to matter anyway, McCain is on the wrong side of too many issues, doesn't have the full support of the conservative base, and will be battling against a potential historic moment in our lifetimes. Believe me, if Obama wins the nomination it's over (save this thread).

He will by the time November rolls around. I agree with Otter on this one, the conservative base will belly crawl over crushed glass to vote for someone other than Hitlary..er, I mean Hillary or Obama. Make no mistake about it. Even as bad as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh can't stand this guy, once they Dem's get their nominee, they will rally around McCain.

[Tigermike 3,078]

Finally, the money is not going to matter anyway, McCain is on the wrong side of too many issues, doesn't have the full support of the conservative base, and will be battling against a potential historic moment in our lifetimes. Believe me, if Obama wins the nomination it's over (save this thread).

First off it could be argued that Obama is on the wrong side of a lot more issues to a lot more people than John McCain.

If you think that any conservative would vote for the most liberal candidate the dims have offered up in the past fifty years, because they don't agree with John McCain on a particular issue, you are either more naive or drinking a lot more Kool-Aid than I thought.

A historic moment in our lifetimes? So because BO is black the entire nation will and should vote for him and over look his views on a multitude of issues and vote for him?

[RunInRed 16,528]

Finally, the money is not going to matter anyway, McCain is on the wrong side of too many issues, doesn't have the full support of the conservative base, and will be battling against a potential historic moment in our lifetimes. Believe me, if Obama wins the nomination it's over (save this thread).

First off it could be argued that Obama is on the wrong side of a lot more issues to a lot more people than John McCain.

If you think that any conservative would vote for the most liberal candidate the dims have offered up in the past fifty years, because they don't agree with John McCain on a particular issue, you are either more naive or drinking a lot more Kool-Aid than I thought.

A historic moment in our lifetimes? So because BO is black the entire nation will and should vote for him and over look his views on a multitude of issues and vote for him?

Starting with the issues...you are essentially fighting over the middle ground or the so-called independents - the base of each side will vote the party line with minimal cross-over each way. So a couple questions to ask:

Who can better get their base out?

When you look at fundraising (dem candidates significantly have outraised repubs), voter turnout numbers in the primaries (again, even in the reddest of red states, the democratic turnout has been 2 to 3x the republican), and overall participation (25k rallies at arenas were common for Obama) I do not think it is a stretch to say the Democratic party is more engaged, more enthused, and is more likely to turn out in higher numbers.

On the big issues - how does the country feel?

Iraq - 65% disapprove

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Economy - 84% think the economic conditions in the country are getting worse

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106111/Gallup-D...essimistic.aspx

None of this bodes well for McCain with independents as he has basically latched on to Bush's Iraq and Economic policies

How does the current adminstration play into the picture?

Well clearly Bush is not a popular guy with approval ratings around 30%. A vast majority of the country dissaproves of the war in Iraq and is not happy with the economy, rising gas prices at the pump, and rising healthcare costs. If Obama can clearly tie McCain to Bush, it will be a big advantage for the Dems.

So when I say McCain is on the wrong side of the issues...i'm not talking necessarily about conservatives (although many disagree with him on immigration and other issues) but rather the pendulum voters. The numbers above don't lie and don't look good for McCain.

As for historical relevance, it's not just that Obama is black...it has a lot to do with his story, his charisma, and how he attracts voters. Let's look at his story: immigrant parent, single mother, not a well-connected family, diverse background, worked his way up through education and hard work, etc...its the essence of the American dream. Keep in mind, he is largerly viewed as this generations' JFK. Then you couple all of this with the historical significance of the possibility of the nation's first black president and you are starting to understand the tidal wave that will be sweeping the country this summer and fall. To deny this is to not understand the current landscape and how many people are hungry for a different direction than the course Bush has led us on for the last 8yrs. Regardless if you like him or not, Obama is viewed as a much more charismatic, inspirational, hopeful, and unifying candidate than McCain.

You also have to keep in mind that not every one who votes lives in alabama and the deep south and that not every one thinks and acts like you...understand the larger picture. Your far right views aren't near as widespread as you would wish. And just b/c you don't like anything Obama says or does, does not make him as far to the left as you want to paint him. Here's a challenge for you, name one good thing Obama has done. Can you name anything?

A lot can change between now and then...but JM has an uphill battle IMO

[RunInRed 16,528]

I believe TM missed this...a little bump for his viewing pleasure.

[Tigermike 3,078]

I believe TM missed this...a little bump for his viewing pleasure.

I saw it and ignored it for the self serving pile of horse***t it is.

[RunInRed 16,528]

I believe TM missed this...a little bump for his viewing pleasure.

I saw it and ignored it for the self serving pile of horse***t it is.

Guess the truth hurts...there was nothing in there that was not fact. You ignored it b/c you had no counter punch.

[Tigermike 3,078]

I believe TM missed this...a little bump for his viewing pleasure.

I saw it and ignored it for the self serving pile of horse***t it is.

Guess the truth hurts...there was nothing in there that was not fact. You ignored it b/c you had no counter punch.

Once again you jump to conclusions based on your own delusions.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Looks like the Obama campaign is starting to plant the seeds of an excuse not to stick to his public financing promise:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** Is Obama going to opt out? Is Obama setting up the rationale to NOT take public financing in the general election? Here he is at a fundraiser last night, per NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan: "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.” While forgoing public financing would be a PR embarrassment for the campaign -- an increasingly aggressive McCain/RNC press shop will make sure of it -- are the Obama folks realizing that they will HAVE to do this? After all, the DNC isn’t going to have that much money to spend (at least compared with the RNC), and Democratic donors who would ordinarily finance independent 527s probably believe that Obama -- if he’s the nominee -- will have plenty of money. As Politico's Ben Smith reported earlier this week, there are fundraising issues already for some of these indie groups. What will Obama do? Looks like we may already know the answer.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../09/871046.aspx

[RunInRed 16,528]

Looks like the Obama campaign is starting to plant the seeds of an excuse not to stick to his public financing promise:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** Is Obama going to opt out? Is Obama setting up the rationale to NOT take public financing in the general election? Here he is at a fundraiser last night, per NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan: "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.” While forgoing public financing would be a PR embarrassment for the campaign -- an increasingly aggressive McCain/RNC press shop will make sure of it -- are the Obama folks realizing that they will HAVE to do this? After all, the DNC isn’t going to have that much money to spend (at least compared with the RNC), and Democratic donors who would ordinarily finance independent 527s probably believe that Obama -- if he’s the nominee -- will have plenty of money. As Politico's Ben Smith reported earlier this week, there are fundraising issues already for some of these indie groups. What will Obama do? Looks like we may already know the answer.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../09/871046.aspx

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this whole issue. Part of me wants Obama to stick to his word, but another part of me likes the idea of campaigns being funded by choice instead of by the tax payers. And I do want a President who's opinion is able to evolve...if that is what is happening. Who knows. But as I pointed out earlier, the irony for the Republicans is they now basically have to line up behind the public financing mantra to support McCain because he can't match Obama in fundraising. Yet, this is the same group who usually supports less government involvement, self-reliance, etc. ... and now they have to argue for using $170M of tax payer dollars ($85M per candidate) instead of having regular citizens donate to campaigns as they see fit. Should be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

I don't really care about the issue itself, the reason this matters is because of credibility on Obama's part.

[RunInRed 16,528]

I don't really care about the issue itself, the reason this matters is because of credibility on Obama's part.

Hmmm..not so sure I see it the same way. Hey Titan, do you by chance have the original source quote where Obama initially talked about campaign finance and opting for public funds in the general election?

Also, is it fair to say that McCain has also flip-flopped on this issue in regards to how his primary campaign was funded?

[Tigermike 3,078]

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this whole issue. Part of me wants Obama to stick to his word,,,,,,,,,

Very little chance of that.

I don't really care about the issue itself, the reason this matters is because of credibility on Obama's part.

Bingo!

[TitanTiger 20,542]

This is probably the best source out there...a pro-Obama website article citing the NY Times over a year ago:

http://obamarama.org/2007/02/08/sen-obama-...ncing-gauntlet/

And this pro-Obama site praised him for the stance, but indicated McCain would be reluctant to agree:

http://www.draftobama.org/node/845

And here is a NY Times article from March 2007 showing McCain accepting Obama's challenge and agreeing to public financing if both of them were their respective party's nominee's, so I hardly think McCain is only pressing the point because of the fund raising disadvantage. He accepted it a year ago before Obama's fund raising juggernaut even got going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Also, is it fair to say that McCain has also flip-flopped on this issue in regards to how his primary campaign was funded?

Not really. I don't recall McCain pledging to use public financing for the primaries. He simply agreed to accept Obama's challenge for the general election.

[RunInRed 16,528]

And here is a NY Times article from March 2007 showing McCain accepting Obama's challenge and agreeing to public financing if both of them were their respective party's nominee's, so I hardly think McCain is only pressing the point because of the fund raising disadvantage. He accepted it a year ago before Obama's fund raising juggernaut even got going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Perfect. Thanks.

Obama clearly understimated his ability to raise money and what advantage it would have given him...should be interesting to see how this one unfolds.

Not really. I don't recall McCain pledging to use public financing for the primaries. He simply agreed to accept Obama's challenge for the general election.

I thought McCain as an advocate for campaign finance reform had been in favor initially...and even sought it early on when he faced financial troubles?

Of course, the General Election pledge looks like a great decision now for McCain.

With all said, I hope this is not the primary issue the campaign is about in the Fall...we face much bigger problems. Hopefully, the two campaigns can come to some agreement.

[jw 4 au 526]

And here is a NY Times article from March 2007 showing McCain accepting Obama's challenge and agreeing to public financing if both of them were their respective party's nominee's, so I hardly think McCain is only pressing the point because of the fund raising disadvantage. He accepted it a year ago before Obama's fund raising juggernaut even got going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Perfect. Thanks.

Obama clearly understimated his ability to raise money and what advantage it would have given him...should be interesting to see how this one unfolds.

Not really. I don't recall McCain pledging to use public financing for the primaries. He simply agreed to accept Obama's challenge for the general election.

I thought McCain as an advocate for campaign finance reform had been in favor initially...and even sought it early on when he faced financial troubles?

Of course, the General Election pledge looks like a great decision now for McCain.

With all said, I hope this is not the primary issue the campaign is about in the Fall...we face much bigger problems. Hopefully, the two campaigns can come to some agreement.

Geeze, do you hear yourself? Do you really believe what you say (or type)? You are a walking contradiction! In your eyes, Obama can do NO wrong. Now you are trying to 1) attempt to deny he is flip flopping (i.e. where's the quote), 2) blame McCain (i.e. McCain flipped flopped first, what about the primaries, etc.) and 3) now justifying that it would be OK if he just lies and takes the big money (i.e. wouldn't hurt my feelings, look a the silly RNC). Are you serious?

I am sort of being a smart ass here, but do you not see the pattern that is becoming clear to a lot of people in America, Independants (like myself) and moderate Republicans, who could have easily voted Democratic for the right candidate? All the DNC can put forth is Obama and Clinton? That is actually worse than Kerry (the Kennedy puppet), and I didn't think that was possible. First it was crack, then Rezko (oops, I didn't know he was crooked), Michelle (she's a model first lady, ya right), Rev. Wright (20 years and you didn't know?, I might have been born at night, but not last night), and now a campaign finance flip flop on his own suggestion. And you are trying to blame it on the one guy that, as long as the other candidate agrees (which is what he has always said and is only logical), that has truely been a voice for campaign finance reform.

The pattern I see is that it is OK for Obama to say and do things as long as it benefits Obama and his political ambitions. When it's over or no longer works for him, simply change your mind and blame others. Come on, wake up and smell the coffee.

[RunInRed 16,528]

1) He has not done anything yet...as I said lets wait and see

2) If he goes back on his word, I'll be the first to admit it. However, I do believe (and I said this about Kerry in '04 as well) that someone's position should be allowed to evolve. Stubborness to prove you are "a man of your word" is not always a good thing. I think that I know more now than I did a year and half ago and I assume Obama and McCain do as well.

3) Obama might have come out for public financing but personally I'm not sure I agree (and it has nothing to do with politics). It is just I like the idea of grassroots campaigns that are financed by the supporters (as long as individual caps are in place) instead of the taxpayers. i.e., I disagree with Obama's opinion back in '07

4) This issue represents the kind of petty politics we should all work to get passed...its about scoring political points and nothing more...we have bigger problems to tackle

[TitanTiger 20,542]

1) He has not done anything yet...as I said lets wait and see

Agreed, but he does seem to be laying the groundwork to wriggle out of it.

2) If he goes back on his word, I'll be the first to admit it. However, I do believe (and I said this about Kerry in '04 as well) that someone's position should be allowed to evolve. Stubborness to prove you are "a man of your word" is not always a good thing. I think that I know more now than I did a year and half ago and I assume Obama and McCain do as well.

Not when the "evolution" is "I didn't realize when I made that promise that I'd have so much money and now I want to press my advantage." That's not doing what you think is best for the country, that's being self-serving.

3) Obama might have come out for public financing but personally I'm not sure I agree (and it has nothing to do with politics). It is just I like the idea of grassroots campaigns that are financed by the supporters (as long as individual caps are in place) instead of the taxpayers. i.e., I disagree with Obama's opinion back in '07

Which is fine. I actually lean toward the same position (yours) myself. But you and I aren't running. The issue is no longer public vs private financing, it's sticking to your word.

4) This issue represents the kind of petty politics we should all work to get passed...its about scoring political points and nothing more...we have bigger problems to tackle

You say this anytime someone criticizes Obama or calls him on saying one thing then doing or saying something different. It's not petty to ask if someone is espousing certain positions at one time or in front of one group of people, then changing his tune at a later time or in front of different people. Just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean that issues such as credibility and trustworthiness on fairly straightforward matters isn't an issue at all to discuss.

[jw 4 au 526]

1) He has not done anything yet...as I said lets wait and see

Agreed, but if his past actions tell us anything, I think we already know the answer. He may prove me wrong, and I will give him credit for that if he does.

2) If he goes back on his word, I'll be the first to admit it. However, I do believe (and I said this about Kerry in '04 as well) that someone's position should be allowed to evolve. Stubborness to prove you are "a man of your word" is not always a good thing. I think that I know more now than I did a year and half ago and I assume Obama and McCain do as well.

Quit spinning for him. It's not like he is refusing to leave a sinking ship, or is keeping Rumsfeld in place even though he was in over his head, or evolving his views on his Iraq exit strategy. This is a completely different issue. He only "evolves" if it helps him out politically. When he thought it would help him, he jumped at the opportunity to champion the cause. Now that he is a campaign funding machine, he is looking for a way out (he certainly is not being as committed to it as he was at the beginning of his campaign).

3) Obama might have come out for public financing but personally I'm not sure I agree (and it has nothing to do with politics). It is just I like the idea of grassroots campaigns that are financed by the supporters (as long as individual caps are in place) instead of the taxpayers. i.e., I disagree with Obama's opinion back in '07

I'll take you for your word on it. But I would suspect that if the grassroots campaign wasn't generating more money than McCain's camp (which still might not be the case when we get to the GE), I think your opinion would change. I know Obama's would change.

4) This issue represents the kind of petty politics we should all work to get passed...its about scoring political points and nothing more...we have bigger problems to tackle

I agree...if we lived in a Utopia. But isn't that, as unfortunate as it may be, just politics? What I have been trying to say this whole time is that Obama is nothing more than a typical politician, out more for his own personal gain. Someone asked the question here the other day that was something like - Why didn't Obama wait longer until he had more experience before running for President? And the simple answer is that it would have taken away from some of his innocence. Everyone is putting him up on this high pedestal as the only "honest politician" out there, when that is an oxymoron. As more and more comes out, he looks less and less like a Presidential candidate. Imagine four more years from now. Don't get me wrong though, I think he is a good politician and Senator, just not the best candidate to be the next President of the United States of America.