Barack Obama's decision to opt of the public financing system for the general election

Marc, why are these polls always about Barack Obama?

How could something be BOTH courageous and expedient? Doesn't courage generally entail doing something that would not be politically expedient? Not surprisingly, the Obamaniacs voting here want to have it both ways.

an action of political expediency can still require a set of stones to execute

What's the point of this poll? Are you trying to prove to yourself that an audience of left-leaning internet users mostly supports the Democratic candidate? If so, big surprise!--mission accomplished. It's hard to know what to make of this poll otherwise, because *surely* a nonpartisan reporter like you couldn't be trying to make some kind of point about Barack Obama.

Now how about some polls on John McCain's innumerable flip-flops? His position on "deep sea drilling" would be one place to start.

It was courageous because it reveals just how cold and ruthless Obama is willing to be to win this election. I supported Obama because he has the right goals in mind of getting his juggernaut built and his legislation passed. I support this wholeheartedly, though I was curious to know whether he had the gumption(lacking in so many Democrats) to run over his opponent with a truck should he get the opportunity.

Oh, he has the gumption. Good job, Senator, good job.

Marc, let's leave aside the one eyed nature of your post I've linked to. It's bad enough you have given up even acting objective, you also seem to have given up writing coherent sentences - or even spelling correctly. in this ONE post - we have at least five spelling errors. "naughy", "berudges" and "ambitoins" in one sentence alone. This is a disgrace that the Atlantic has someone who can't even write to a high school level. Vannevar Bush would be delighted, I'm sure.

The point of public financing is to remove the influence of big donors who control the candidate. During this election, Obama has raised money from millions of individuals in small amounts much moreso than big donors. So Obama will be influenced by individual Americans, not big donors. Why rhetorically tie him to a system that protects from problems he has already taken care of?

Such a hamfisted blog - what about McCain's flirting with opting out of federal law altogether regarding public financing?

By the way, Ambinder's 6/23 reference to McCain as "a guy with decades of national security experience" -- um, that's often alluded to, but WHAT IS that alleged nat'l security experience? (Other than being a POW, which is very terrible I'm sure, but not "nat'l security experience.)