I saw the baby-bumping Campbell Brown on the Daily Show the other day. I thought she did a decent job in the interview, although I’ve been noticing curious levels of b.s. emanating from the brunette for a bit now.
In the interview, she talks about the “false-equivalency” that the news media often tries to use to portray an air of impartiality. She does a good job of both giving a good example of the practice in the intervew (re: Candidate A and Candidate B).
Sadly, however, she then goes on to forget that when you are going to call bullshit on what Candidate A says over what Candidate B says, you kinda have to first lay out which one is saying what.
Her point was that she was going to do the layout and then call the bullshit.
Sadly, it looks like she is more focused on calling the bullshit.
Her first episode of this tendency was demonstrated when she called out “the media” for focusing on Sarah Palin’s $172,000 wardrobe/hairstyling/make-ups fees. Forget the idiocy of Palin saying the clothes are “borrowed” or the hypocrisy of railing on Hollywood and then hiring their most expensive make-up artist. No, that’s completely unfair. You can’t focus on a woman being a woman. It’s fine for her to charge the State of Alaska $21,000 grand for airfare and $17,000 for staying at home because, you know, she’s a working mom.
I’m sorry, but if any person, man or woman, that I have every worked with tried to pass travel or “amenities” expenses of that magnitude, they would be fired. Flat out. A couple of questions would be asked, and a couple have been, but given the answers (“I’m borrowing the clothes” and “My girls had to fly there and stay in a hotel to pick raffle tickets.“) they would be fired immediately.
John Edwards got raked over the coals for a $400 haircut, and got called a sissy for it. Palin spent 100 TIMES THAT MUCH, and it’s a pass.
But it’s o.k., because she’s a woman. And a working mom.
Sorry, but that’s crap. And it’s biased crap. As a working mom herself, Brown is biased as hell about this. As a working mom who’s income and success is largely dependent on looking fabulous in front of a camera, this is ludicrously biased crap. I’m not saying this is Campbell’s fault, I’m just saying it’s a blind spot, and everyone has one.
They usually become revealed when someone becomes more agressive, as Campbell Brown has become recently. It’s part of the game, welcome to it.
Which brings us to campaign fundraising questions, and the actual point of this article.
Campbell started out with some basics.
CNN) — You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.
He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.
Actually, it’s not his money we are talking about here. I know this is a nitpick, but I think it’s a rather important one. It’s his campaign’s money. End of story. He doesn’t get to keep it.
This is why John Edward’s $400 haircut became a story, it was bought with his campaign’s money. This is why Palin’s wardrobe was a story, it was campaign money. This is why it isn’t Obama’s or McCain’s money, it is campaign money.
And you are wrong about something else, Mrs. Brown, according to tax records (and cars and houses) McCain is the one who is loaded. Obama is the one running the campaign that is inspiring people in record numbers to give “it” (the Campaign) money. More on that later, when you insult us all.
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
Now this is interesting, as one would assume to have a direct quote here. When one is accused to going back on one’s word, it is usually considered polite to point out what the word was.
Campbell, like the hack she is becoming, doesn’t worry about stuff like that. It’s a good thing too, because if she had spent a couple minutes, she would have seen words like this and her whole rant would have fallen apart.
Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would “participate in the presidential public financing system” if his “major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign,” Obama checked the box marked “yes,” then outlined his vision for the 2008 contest.
“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election,” he wrote. “My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
So you have a check box “word” and a bunch “words” that clarify a check-box. I’m not going to split hairs here, but it seems pretty evident that accepting public financing came with some strings.
During the summer we got to see those strings.
At a meeting in Indianapolis on May 2, “top [Obama] fundraisers… asked his campaign donors to refrain from contributing to liberal independent political organizations in hopes of controlling the tone and message of the general-election campaign.”
Meanwhile, McCain has adopted a hands-off stance, telling the Boston Herald earlier this month that he “can’t be a referee of every spot run on television.” The truth is, neither candidate can control what 527s do on their behalf; the groups simply don’t have to answer to federal or state political finance committees.
[source, from a longer article that covers the same question, which Campbell ignored]
What this comes down to is that Obama has asked people to give to his campaign, and not give money to people like MoveOn.org and other groups that can run whatever nasty crap they want. McCain made it clear that he wasn’t going to even make the effort to influence these groups, and by accepting public financing (that $3 checkbox on your tax return) it frees up his regular donors to shower these groups with money.
That was the sticking point. This is illustrated in the press leaks (the, “She said, “He said”” part of the program).
Trevor and I met at my office on June 6, and we discussed the June 18 panel and then, for 45 minutes, the public funding issue.
I asked him to address a serious of issues of concern to the Obama campaign — such as the McCain campaign’s active raising and spending of private money since February for a general election campaign, including for media, while we were still in the middle of a primary contest. He gave me his perspectives — the best arguments he could offer for an agreement on both sides to accept public financing — and it was clear to me that these offered no basis for any further exchange.
Not too long thereafter, John McCain announced he could not and would not “referee” 527 activity.
Potter says this account is not factual “This is not true!” Potter says in an email. “I met with Bob Bauer on a different subject (a joint panel we had yesterday in Rhode Island sponsored by the National Assoc. of Attys General) about 10 days ago. During that meeting, he asked what Sen. McCain’s position was on public general election funding, and I said we were for it, and hoped Sen. Obama would participate as well. There was absolutely NO discussion of ‘negotiations’ about participating—the word was never mentioned.
This all cuminated, BTW, in Obama releasing this video.
Campbell dismisses this video by ignoring CNN’s very own ads (I’m looking for the one that I keep seeing on CNN about how Obama will destroy small businesses…with his lazer eyes, I would assume…can’t find it).
[Obama] broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It’s funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
Really?! Nobody has been using crazy attacks to go after Obama? No attacks at all?
Strange….other people in swing states seem to be seeing them a lot.
John McCain would be wise not to condemn the National Republican Trust PAC’s latest ad regarding Jeremiah Wright. Running in key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, the ad points to Obama’s association with the anti-American pastor. Perhaps more importantly, it points out that Obama had no problem sitting in Wright’s church until doing so became a political liability.
When it became clear that McCain would be following this nutjob blogger’s advice (like he followed that other nutjob blogger’s [Adam Brickley] advice and picked Palin) and not stopping the kinds of attack he himself is too honorable to make, it really became silly for Obama to hamstring his own’s campaign’s ability to respond to the bullshit.
Especially since he had already inspired so many to give.
Campbell then insults a few million people by mischaracterizing “pointing out the obvious” as “courage”.
The courageous among Obama’s own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama’s financial advantage.
Well, that’s true, except for the lie that it is Obama’s money. We want Obama to win. That’s why we’ve given him so much money. We want him and Joe Biden to take the White House. BADLY.
That’s why we’re giving so much money. To fight the bullshit you are saying doesn’t even exist (hmm, kinda “HYPOCRITICAL” isn’t it Campbell?).
What, exactly, are you insinutating, BTW, by your constant assertion that it is Obama, personally, that is raking in the dough.
I mean, you even use that word…
For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign’s final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.
That’s not fairness, Mrs. Brown, that’s bullshit.
Much like this one-sided hit piece.