Will Obama's compromise on Super PACs hurt him?

It shows he is just another politician, willing to do whatever it takes to make sure he wins, regardless of the consequences.

blackberry backgrounds
http://imgshowcase.blogspot.com/2012/02/blackberry-backgrounds.html

Thank you so much, Thank you so so much for advocating for women. I don't think a lot of people realize that birth control and abortion are issues that directly affect women's rights. When 2 people have sex, it is the woman who will become pregnant if birth control is not available. The woman will have to carry a child for 9 months, risk her life by giving birth, and then raise the child. I myself have voluntarily had 4 children; but I was able to make the choice of whether to have children and how many children to have thanks to the freedoms of living in America. If anyone takes away the right to use birth control and the right to get an abortion, women will suffer and lose their ability to work, have careers, and even have control over their own bodies.
I don't understand how Santorum is able to rail against birth control. Does he not realize it is almost always the man who initiates sex? Men often force sex on women. Are we going to remove access to birth control and abortion so that not only sex but also pregnancy and motherhood can be forced on women whether they want it or not?
I hate to think how women in the ghetto would suffer if they did not have access to birth control and abortion. Women (and men) are already throwing babies out windows and off of rooftops. We are never going to stop all poor innercity teenage girls from being forced into sex by older men, pimps, gang leaders, even their own fathers sometimes. So now Santorum also wants these young women to bear the fruits of statutory rapes whether they have the resources to support a child or not?
Crazy. It's crazy to me. I will definitely vote for whichever candidate is most in favor of providing women with access to birth control and abortion. I'm going to call Planned Parenthood and offer to volunteer for them during my free time as well.

it shouldn't if he doesnt use it hes limiting his playing field he has to try to fight all the money being thrown at all these right wing idiots!!! win it now fight it later

For now he has to play the "game" in order to survive the election.
What upsets me is the failure of "main stream Media" in adressing the issue of how the wealthy actually Buys and controls the Government...I guess the media itself is part of the hypocrisy.

What would Captain Kirk do? I suspect ideology mixed with pragmatism. This is the pragmatism part.

On Banking and big money Obama is weak.

he is just leveling the playing field.

What is the old saw? Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Probably. but the advantage will outweigh the damage.

YES! In 2008 Obama promised to live within the Campaign Finance System rules; but as soon as he realized how much he could raise OUTSIDE the system, he broke that promise. Did he do THAT to keep up with McCain and the GOP? NO!!! He did it to beat McCain over the head with his greater resources.

What happened that time? Every group that gave big to Obama got protected. Wall Street, Big Pharma, Mulit-Nationals ... When has Obama EVER stood up to his big contributors in favor of his base? Why believe it will be different this time? The SuperPAC donors will own any Obama second term.

To quote that great orator, George W. Bush: "Fool me once, ahhh, shame on you. Fool me twice ... Can't get Fooled Again ..." Well, at least I won't get fooled again by Obama.

Most people don't even know what the SuperPacs are and won't be effected by the fact he uses them.
He'll have to back track and change the law after the election, provided he wins. Then he'll look like a real hypocrite.
He needs the resources though because the playing field is being tilted by all this money.
Sad but true.

No

NO WHY NOT PAY BY THE RULES IN PLACE .DON'T LIKE IT CHANGE THE RULES.

He has to win the election. No matter what his expressed feelings about Super PACs, he has the right, and obligation to his party, to fight with the most effective legal tools against the opposition, while still speaking out against the law itself. Not hypocrisy at all - just common sense.

For any of the idealists out there beating up on the president, how many of you are voluntarily donating large amounts of cash to the US Gov't to support the social programs you believe in?

It's the same thing. In any contest, you play fair, and do your best with the tools available. Hopefully the law can be overturned, but I doubt it'll be overturned if the GOP wins big in November.

Remember that, and no matter your feelings about how compromised you feel president Obama may be, he needs your vote. None of us can have everything we want.

Surely there are independents who are turned of by Citizens United and the shamelessness of the Republican Super PACs. Where will those independents turn now? The President needs independents to be re-elected.

How many billionaires does it take to buy a presidential election? “With so much at stake” wrote Obama campaign manager Jim Messina on the Obama campaign’s blog, Obama couldn’t “unilaterally disarm.”
But would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind: “More of the nation’s wealth and political power is now in the hands of fewer people and large corporations than since the era of the robber barons of the Gilded Age. I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!”
Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard.
The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground. He refused public financing in 2008. Once president, he didn’t go to bat for a system of public financing that would have made it possible for candidates to raise enough money from small donors and matching public funds they wouldn’t need to rely on a few billionaires pumping unlimited sums into super PACS. He hasn’t even fought for public disclosure of super PAC donations.
And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC, and allowing campaign manager Jim Messina and even cabinet officers to speak at his super PAC events. Obama will not appear but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the super PAC.
One Obama adviser says Obama’s decision to endorse his super PAC has had an immediate effect. “Our donors get it,” the official said, adding that they now want to “go fight the other side.”
Exactly. So now a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans. And we call that a democracy.

-- Robert Reich

Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1lomDXhD8

Yes, he is wrong and should stop all Super PACs.

He's playing by the right's rules. Everyone get over it.

No it will not and should not. You don't go to real war with toy tanks and then say the rule were unfair. Fight, win, then change the rule. read more takeallonline dot com.

Fight fire with fire.

Heck no! The more money spent on a candidate the more likely they are to win, of course.

no

no

No it will not and should not. You don't go to real war with toy tanks and then say the rule were unfair. Fight, win, then change the rule.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

If he uses super pacs, then he will be pressured to implement their policy.

Not as long as he keeps saying the practice is wrong and Congress should change the law.