The good news for Barack Obama is that John McCain is already acting like he will be the Democratic presidential nominee, which in turn may feed the “inevitability” narrative. The bad news for Obama is that McCain has decided to kick off his general-election strategy by picking an incredibly dumb fight.
John McCain is accusing Barack Obama of backing away from a promise to participate in a public financing program that would force him to turn off his free-flowing spigot of campaign cash, foreshadowing a likely flash point if the two are pitted in a general election battle for the presidency. […]
During an informal press briefing Thursday on his campaign plane, McCain, an Arizona senator who is the presumptive Republican nominee, told reporters he and Obama “had an agreement, as I recall, months ago that if he were the candidate and I were the candidate we would both accept public funding for the general election. That still holds. I didn’t know of any resistance.”
McCain was referring to statements made through the media and not an in-person discussion, according to his campaign, which followed up with a statement further hammering Obama. “Unlike Sen. Obama, John McCain is a man of his word and will keep his pledge to the American people,” the statement said.
It’s mid-February and the presumptive Republican nominee is already attacking Obama’s integrity, before Obama even comes close to winning the Democratic nomination. A sign of things to come, to be sure.
But the closer one looks at the facts here, the more ridiculous these charges appear.
First, Obama cannot break a “pledge” he did not make. He never committed to participating in the public financing program.** Indeed, he’s already raised $6 million for a general election campaign (about triple McCain’s total).
Second, for the McCain campaign to criticize anyone for breaking a commitment to the public financing system is deeply ironic. Yesterday, the Arizona senator boasted, “I made the commitment to the American people that if I were the nominee of my party, I would accept public financing.” McCain apparently hopes we’re not paying attention to what his campaign said as recently as a few days ago: “Mr. McCain’s advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year’s general campaign.” Indeed, for those keeping score at home, McCain has been for and against public primary funds, and for and against public general-election funds — all within the span of a single year.
Given this, I think the appropriate response from the Obama campaign should be: “Sen. McCain has flip-flopped on this issue so many times, he seems to change his ‘commitments’ depending on the day. Maybe after the senator has figured out his newest position, he can get back to us. In the meantime, I’ll pick up the ‘straight-talk’ mantle Sen. McCain no longer wants.”
And third, there’s no real mystery here. McCain is panicked that Obama will have vastly more resources for the general election than he will, and he’s hoping to goad Obama into giving up one of his biggest advantages. There is simply no reason in the world for Obama to do so.
It’s possible Obama is worried that McCain’s attacks on un-made “pledges” will take their toll, but he need not be concerned. As Markos put it, “Look, no one gives a shit if Obama takes public financing or not…. This is such a process story with zero relevance to the public that there’s no benefit to be gained by taking public financing.”
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I’m fairly confident that most Americans don’t even know there is a public-financing system, and certainly don’t care who participates in it.
This should be an easy one for the Obama campaign: 1) Remind reporters that Obama didn’t make a pledge; 2) remind reporters that the McCain campaign has been all over the map on this issue; and 3) let McCain blather endlessly about a subject no one cares about anyway.
** Update: In comments, there appears to be some controversy about whether or not Obama did, in fact, make a “pledge” (including some classy commenters who feel comfortable accusing me of “lying”). I drew the conclusion that I did based on this report…
Last year, Mr. Obama sought an advisory ruling from the Federal Election Commission to see whether his campaign could opt out of public financing in the primary season and accept it in the general election. It was merely an inquiry, he said, not a pledge to accept the financing.
If he wins the Democratic nominating fight with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama said, “My folks will sit down and see if we can arrive at a common set of ground rules.”
…and this report.
McCain was the only candidate who responded by agreeing to take public funding if his general election opponent did the same. And their public statements on the matter, which at the time were celebrated by editorial boards and good government groups as efforts to save an embattled good government program, were alternately presented by the press as matching “promises” or “pledges.”
Obama’s campaign did nothing to correct that impression at the time. But now, his campaign points out that he never actually committed to participating in the public financing program.
That said, one commenter raises a particularly good point about a letter from the League of Women Voters, detailing Obama comments on the issue.
So, allow me to clarify: if the Obama campaign believes there was no pledge, it should make the case. If the Obama campaign did, in fact, make a pledge, it should break it. (Lord knows McCain has flip-flopped on enough issues, including, just this week, waterboarding.)