It looks like I'm all alone on this one. While other liberal bloggers are giddy at the prospect of Barack Obama opting out of the public financing system in the general election, I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. Oh, I understand the tactical advantages - Obama will be able to outspend the cash-strapped McCain by 2 or 3 to 1. But I've always been a supporter of public financed campaigns, and it seems hypocritical to abandon that position for the sake of a temporary convenience.

Public financing is supposed to level the playing field for all candidates, so that it's campaigning and issues rather than fundraising that determines elections. It doesn't really matter if my candidate is benefiting from the imbalance - it's still wrong.

You don't find my argument from principle convincting> Well how about this one? Do you really think that Democrats will enjoy a permanent small donor advantage? And below the presidential level, what is the likelihood that candidates without big wallets or famous names will be able to raise this kind of cash? It's a disastrous mistake to assume that other candidates will be able to do what Obama has done. In many ways he's a sui generis candidate.