Dazed and Confused

I do not understand why Barak Obama has refused public campaign funds. Here are my issues:

1. Earlier in his campaign, Obama promised, if he became the Democratic nominee, he would use public funds and would encourage/challenge his Republican counterpart to follow suit. Now Obama is going back on this promise. Why?

The two main reasons I can think of are both unflattering.

One reason might be that he did not realize how "broken" the system was when he made the original promise. If this is the reason, it makes him look like a political neophyte. Inexperienced. A babe wandering in the woods versus a savvier more knowledgable opponent who knows the landscape. This reason also opens the door to all the questions about Obama's inexperience. Yes, Chicago local politics is not like Honolulu local politics, but c'mon...it's not like being seasoned on the national and international stage. Obama has not served a full term as a U.S. Senator, and most of that term has been spent campaigning.

The second reason may be that Obama did not realize how much more money he can raise if he refused to take the public funding and once he saw that fundraising power, he opted for what he felt would give him the edge over McCain (co-papa of some of the most significant campaign finance reform legislation of our time, even though much did not pass). If this is the reason, Obama looks opportunistic and willing to compromise his "beliefs."

2. I have listened to Obama's reasoning regarding this issue. If I understand him correctly, he is not taking public funding because it is a "broken" system. Well, this raises more questions for me than answers. Does taking private funding eliminate the corruption? Not necessarily. Big business, conglomerations and the like can contribute heavily to Obama's campaign. Will Obama feel less indebted to them because they gave him money directly rather than through the Democratice Party (aka soft monies and slush funds)? I do not think so. Does Obama think so?

And frankly, the only way he could probably get around that is to promise not to accept more than a politically "nominal" amount from any contributor like Ralph Nader or Jerry Brown have in past elections. I have not heard Obama say anything like that.

Furthermore, is Obama saying that public financing of elections is so irrevocably broken that he cannot function at all within its tenents? How does refusing public monies (and its subsequent restrictions) serve to fix or heal the "broken" system? Public campaign financing was supposed to be the great equalizer. Even the playing field. Why not agree to use only public air time? No "purchasing" tv time for political ads. Obama could have called for that and asked McCain to join him. It would have put McCain in a tough spot, because he has served as the champion for reform in this area. Why not do that? You see what I mean about more questions than answers.

I am confused. Someone who understands, please explain it to me, because I do not get it.