Times distorts Obama's public financing "pledge"

Here is what Obama said with respect to public financing:

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Here is what the "liberal" New York Times said he said:

If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

The Times article does not quote Obama's actual statement, nor does it link to it. Instead, it continually mischaracterizes it.

The authors are David Kirkpatrick and Jeff Zeleny.  Kirkpatrick, you may remember, "covered" conservatives for the Times for several years.  

The slant of the article is pure McCain spin, for example, stating that Obama's statement constituted a "pledge" to spend only the $85 million public financing if his opponent would do the same. This is not what Obama said.  Saying that he would "aggressively pursue a publicly financed general election" clearly can encompass, for example, limits on Section 527 Swift Boat type groups.  But instead, the Times characterizes these as "new conditions," which Obama is now adding to his initial "pledge."

On the other hand, the article whitewashes McCain's clear violations (e.g, using the pledge as collateral for a loan) as "technicalities."  The impression is therefore created that Obama is the one with the real problem of "reneging" on a "pledge" to support public financing.

Kirkpatrick & Zeleny absurdly state that:

The issue may be more sensitive for Mr. Obama, though, because has run in part on his record as an advocate of stricter government integrity rules, including the public financing system.

I guess they haven't heard that one of McCain's raisons d'etre for being the straight-talkin' "maverick" is his supposed commitment to public financing.

Finally, the Times rolls out the usual "reform" suspects, who have not been troubled by McCain's blatant shenanigans, but are deeply concerned about Obama: The very serious Fred Werthheimer states:

This whole idea started with Senator Obama, and we think he and whoever the Republican nominee is ought to follow through, said Fred Wertheimer, founder of the advocacy group Democracy 21.

Yes, Fred.  The "whole idea" is to have real public financing that would not permit Ari Fleischer's quarter billion dollar smear group to relentlessly go after Obama.

Either now, or shortly after he gets the nomination, Obama should consider laying out his entire conditions for true public financing (which would include muzzling Ari's 2008 version of the Swift Boat liars).  

•  Tips

  The headline on the MSN home page was "Obama's spending promise haunts him" -- an even worse characterization than the biased Times article itself.

  I think the Times needs to be called on this crap. Please consider Rec'ing this.

  Thanks.

  by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:55:42 AM PDT

•  let's contact the public editor

  and ask them to issue a correction to the story.

  by slinkerwink on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:57:08 AM PDT

  •  Good idea.

    by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:27 AM PDT

  •  I already did...

    I even linked to their competitors who got it right in The Washington Post and The Washington Monthly A WHOLE WEEK EARLIER.

    by NotablyZen on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:43:03 AM PDT

•  Despicable!!! Horrible Reporting!!!

  This is a critical issue, and we should trumpet it to the MSM until they report it fairly and correctly!!!

  But I believe you left out a critical element---did not Sen. Obama also call for the provision of free air time for the Candidates???

  Third Rail for the MSM, which takes in boatloads of cash from the campaigns and wants nothing to do w/slowing down this gravy train.  Between these two critical provisions, which these hacks have so conveeeniently left out, it could cost Big Media Big Bux!!!

  by serrano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:07:31 AM PDT

  •  I don't think

    there's any chance that a real comprehensive and true public financing system proposed by Obama will be accepted.  It's really just a matter of spin -- will they be able to get away with saying Obama "broke a pledge."  The last thing we want is for him to be bullied into accepting public financing.

    That's why I think he needs to get out early and make clear what he meant by a truly publicly financed campaign.

    by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:12:09 AM PDT

    •  The Media Shudders at the Prospect

      of Free Air Time and Curbing the 527's Expenditures, and will fight it at every turn.  Sounds like a good project for the Netroots Cavalry!!!

      by serrano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:27:05 AM PDT

      •  Yup.

        It's a huge boondoggle and they'll fight any attempt to derail the gravy train.  Democracy in action.

        by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:29:32 AM PDT

•  I just read that article too

  and I agree with you--it's misleading. To my mind, there has to be a mechanism to deal with swiftboaters and third-party garbage on the airways.

  by bethcf4p on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:07:59 AM PDT

•  I think Obama needs to address this head on....

  sooner rather than later to put an end to this type of speculation and conjecture.

  by AnnieM on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:21:25 AM PDT

  •  agreed

    Hopefully, he will wrap up the nomination next week and then clarify the "pledge."

    by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:27:48 AM PDT

  •  Make influence, not public finance, the issue

    Obama needs to shift the focus here.  The issue is whether campaign finance creates influence.  Obama can point out to the fact that his campaign is unprecedented: a million plus donors averaging barely $100 each.  He owes it to this group that supports him to do what he can to win the election.  By contrast, McCain practically relies on lobbyists to get dressed in the morning.  He's calling on Bush's "Rangers" to rack up big-money donations from fat cats.  If McCain all of a sudden wants a more level playing field, it's because his lobbyist-driven machine can't keep up with Obama's people-driven movement.

    Let McCain cry "flip-flop" if does.  Everytime he does is another opportunity to tell the story of just how corrupt Mr. Straight Talk is.

    In the meantime, I might as well add the link to my "Give527" fundrasing effort, which is simply a donation link to the Obama campaign riffing on 527's by encouraging donations that start or end with the digits 5, 2, and 7:

    by djs on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:07:54 AM PDT

•  im pretty sure a commitment for discussions

  isnt a pledge to take that route, and with the numbers contributing, it IS public financing already

  by TAPayne on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:23:35 AM PDT

  •  But you would never know that

    from reading the Times article.

    by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:28:12 AM PDT

•  letters will not do anything

  I do not believe any letters will do any good.  Any time the right hears anything they do not like they also mail or email letters.  The only thing that will make any difference is canceling news and cable subscriptions and supporting progressive media.  

  by realtime on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:31:20 AM PDT

  •  The Public Editor

    at times has been responsive.  (though I wasn't crazy about his piece on the McCain lobbyist story).

    by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:35:56 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps a press release

      from the campaign to put out the facts and to admonish the Times for sloppy and inaccurate reporting. The campaign needs to stomp on this, now. It looks as though these hacks got all their information from Joan Claybrook since she was the only person quoted in the article. Her group, Public Citizen is very protective of their relationship with John McCain. When the reporters used the term "campaign finance experts" they attached no names. Why not? It's because they were writing a crock of crap and they knew it. The Times editors should be ashamed of themselves. But I wont hold my breath.

    by marvyt on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:49:26 AM PDT

  •  Letters matter

    For example, after Krugman's "cult" column, the Times was flooded with outraged letters (as evidenced by the 7-2 ratio against among those that were printed).  And since then, Krugman has written mostly on the macroeconomic issues he actually knows (and has refrained from cheap shot attacks).

    Secondly, the public editor does take up reader complaints -- witness his response to the McCain lobbyist flap.  Perhaps it is a case of working the refs, but we can and must play that game too.

    by djs on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:59:44 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the inspiration

  As a result I sent emails to the Times editor and public editor.

  I saw the article in the Times today and then I saw your diary. I've been very frustrated by the lack of details in the allegations about Obama's pledge on public financing. I had heard references to what Obama actually said as opposed to what people were saying he said. So I checked out the Midwest Democracy Network which sent out the questionnaire to which Obama was responding. Here are the sites:
  http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.o...
  http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.o...

  The article in the Times seriously misrepresented Obama's position. In response to the questionnaire, as you state above, Obama wrote that if he became the Democratic nominee he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." According to the Midwest Democracy Network neither Clinton nor McCain have responded to the same questionnaire. The article in the Times suggested that somehow Obama's commitment was unconditional and that he is only now adding conditions.

  The Times article was so sloppily written you'd think it was drafted by the Clinton or McCain campaigns.

  by Whitefish on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM PDT

  •  Sloppy by accident

    or intentionally?

    Or just lazy and accept GOP talking points?

    Probably the latter.

    by Upper West on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM PDT