Sunday's issue of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel raises the question of whether Barack Obama will take public financing in the campaign.
From the story:
But while opting out of the public system would likely be a financial boon to Obama - he has proven far better than McCain at raising money - it would open him to sharp criticism.
At the same time that he's running against the influence of money in politics, he would be the first nominee ever to reject public funds and spending limits in the fall election since that system was created more than 30 years ago.
Rival Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton also has left open the possibility of rejecting public financing in the fall. But Clinton has made no prior promises on the issue.
Obama would be going back on a declaration he made in writing last year to a Midwestern campaign reform group that he would accept public financing, provided his GOP opponent did the same.
It's a legitimate point to raise, obviously. But then we get this:
"His word was he'd accept public financing if the Republican candidate did," Republican John McCain said in an interview Monday with the Journal Sentinel. "Obviously, he is now not keeping his word to the American people. I'll keep my word."
Straight-talking John McCain! Thing is, you wouldn't realize from the story that McCain has issues with complying with limits on money. Indeed, it's not unfair to ask to what extent McCain has complied with the election laws -- and to what extent he can be trusted to "keep his word." Did the JS ask him about that? (An election season with a defanged FEC will truly be a thing to behold.) That might complicate the Journal-Sentinel's "Here's a big problem for Obama" narrative arc. And, hey, why not give McCain a free shot?
And for what it's worth, the Brawler sees no reason that Obama (assuming he gets the nom, etc.) should agree to handcuff himself against a guy whose campaign (not a third-party group) has described him as Hamas' candidate. But that's just me.
Now, back to hiatus.