Barack Obama touted the public financing system for political campaigns when it made him sound all fresh faced, honest, and reformist. Now that he knows for sure he can raise huge amounts of money and buy the election, those principles are out the window. The New York Times observes:

The excitement underpinning Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rests considerably on his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has come up short of that standard with his decision to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private financing in the general election….

And David Brooks writes a stinging op-ed piece about this:

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country….

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. ….on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes….

The Caucus is carrying no less than three sequential pieces on this. Sarah Wheaton explores the largely favorable reaction of the liberal bloggers. Michael Cooper notes the disconnect between the McCain and Obaqma campaigns. And Michael Falcone explores the ramifications:

….while Mr. Obama’s advisers say he may be able to raise between $200 and $300 million for the election campaign, far more than the $84 million public financing would have provided, opting out of the system also means that “Mr. Obama will have to spend considerably more time raising money — he will head to California next week to open the effort — at the expense of spending time meeting voters.”

In the WaPo’s popular feature The Fact Checker, Michael Dobbs compares the mis-leading Obama of February with the “Fast Eddie” of June:

Obama Reneges on Public Financing

In February 2007, Barack Obama challenged Republican presidential candidates to agree to public financing of the general election….

Fast forward 16 months. Both Obama and McCain have locked up their party’s nominations for the presidency. Obama announces that the system of public financing “is broken,” and he will rely on his well-oiled private fundraising machine….

Hypocrisy, you say? Here’s a refresher.

All this reminds one of that standard technique used by amateur chess players, who, when they don’t like the way that the game is proceding, stand up suddenly, bumping the board and knocking all the pieces off.

And, as Capital Eye compares, there is a difference between the way Obama describes fundraising to his faithful, and the actual facts. Here’s his inspiring message:

“Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford.”

But, the Eye reminds us:

Obama’s now arguing that running a campaign based on small contributions accomplishes what the public financing system aims to do but falls short of doing: curb the influence of outside interest groups.

But the taxpayer-financed system, administered by the Federal Election Commission, and Obama’s chosen path diverge in significant ways. Obama’s campaign isn’t built entirely on small donors–about 55 percent of his total haul so far has come from big donors….

That’s more than half. This contradicts Obama’s assertion in the video above that 90% of his funds came from small donors. And, as a commenter at YouTube observes:

Keep in mind that foreign billionaires, Islamic sovereign wealth funds, Chinese communist party, and terrorist groups can give WAY more money to Barack Hussein Obama than the US Federal election funding.

Marc Ambinder is taking a poll. Go vote, dear readers. We recommend the first option — “was politically expedient” but it’s a free country (for now).

Update, Saturday morning: WaPo has also noticed the discrepancy between Obama’s rhetoric and fact:

We also cannot rely on the candidates’ rhetoric to match the facts. During a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, for example, Obama said that “we have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50.” His campaign’s own data from January 2007 through January 2008 show that 36 percent of donated funds were from small donors.