I will definately agree with you that the concept of the public funded candidate is a great ideal, yet it still hasn't really worked yet.  Obama doesn't really need the public funding, because the public is already supporting him.  I guess what I'm getting at is the point that a candidate who inspires the people earns their support, rather than getting it automatically.  It is clear that because Obama recieves smaller donations and he has broken records with his fundraising, that AMERICANS support him.  It is not just private lobbyists.  He would not be setting any new standards if it were just a bunch of top end donations.  That's not new...When we get candidates like Ralph Nader as the independent front-runner, I just have to question how well that public money is actually being spent.  Maybe seeing the process run so terribly so many times has just made me question how well  public funding via taxes actually works.  Especiall y when we have the ability to nominate candidates on a mass scale now.  I definately think that if public funding is used, people should be able to vote on a candidate before the primaries.  There is no reason that this process cannot involve the public at every point now.  We have been too apathetic, and left the responsibilities to Congress, and the various commitees that vote on these nominations.  How can the DNC be democratic if they don't check up with their base first???  Rant aside, I still see the ideologies behind public funding, I just have not seen it work yet. 

by chrisandyasemin on 02/28/2008 10:37:05 AM EST