I watched the analysis of Shields and Brooks on the Newshour this evening. I hadn’t bothered to tune in for months because I couldn’t tolerate the obvious contempt of both the esteemed liberal and conservative male pundits for a female presidential candidate. So it felt kind of gratifying to see the two regular Friday night boys on the NewsHour rake Obama over the coals for opting for money over principle in rejecting public funding in the general election.
Shields mentioned that Obama had made history by being the first candidate since Nixon to choose private fundraising to fill his coffers; Brooks called the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee a “political hack.”
Just to stay on top of things, I scanned Google News minutes ago and tracked this headline from the Guardian: “Obama tarnished by rejecting public funds for election fight.”
The Guardian's Ewen MacAskill sums up the response to Obama’s latest blockbuster decision: “Barack Obama faced widespread condemnation yesterday from both right and left for reneging on a promise on election campaign financing.
“The Democratic presidential candidate found himself in the unusual position of being attacked not only by his Republican rival, John McCain, but by papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post, thinktanks committed to election reform, and even his own supporters.”
MacAskill tells us about the ad Obama released yesterday and an article he wrote for USA Today:
“Obama aired his first general election ad yesterday across 18 states, in a demonstration of his spending power. In an article for USA Today, Obama wrote: "The decision wasn't an easy one ... but the public financing of presidential elections... is broken - and the Republican party has mastered the art of gaming this broken system."
Shields and Brooks weren’t buying Obama’s excuses in their Newshour analysis this evening, and if you read MacAskill’s article in its entirety, it doesn’t sound as if anyone else was buying them either.