The Edwards campaign has asked me for money more often than any other campaign -- even more than all of the panhandlers I see in this town in any given week combined.

If public financing requires that the candidate not spend more than $50K of their own money, we should set Pony Boy on fire, because that MFer has $50K under the cushions of the futon in his pool house, and if he ain't spending it on his own race, why the crap should I?

Wow. This is a real switcheroo from Joe Trippi. During the Dean Daze Mr T was all about refusing the public financing. His reasons were compelling then and remain so today.

If, like Gore in 2000, Senator Edwards were to prevail in the caucuses and primaries and become the de-facto nominee prior to the convention he could easily find himself holed-up in his 30,000 SF house unable to get on plane, hold a rally, send a postcard, or make a phone call because he's spent his limit. Meanwhile the Republican marketing machine will be hammering him day and night.

If having Senator Edwards as the nominee is more important to you than electing a Democrat in 2008 then keep supporting him. But, if you want a Democratic President, your support should be shifting now to a different candidate.

It's absolutely fabulous jujitsu, though. He's third in fundraising (even though its true that he trails by something like $10M, he still has an *assload* of money). He can run a pretty heavy-duty campaign on that cash load up until the ridiculous TV spending that is on the way due to Hillary and Obama's fat stacks.

Meanwhile, going public gives him an opportunity to jawbone his adversaries into willingly entering parity with him. If not, he gets to siphon away progressive votes (and possibly replace Obama as the anti-Hillary and continue to suck away his support) for quite some time.

Now, the final point of jujitsu available. He talks about reforming the Dem party and pushing it left. Having a huge pile of now unusable cash gives him a lot of leverage to do so. Think of all the campaigns down the ticket that he will be able to prop him and boost. This patronage will also make it a bit easier to unify White House and Congress behind a solid Democratic agenda.

So yes, he's out to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The arguments about spending the money on field also goes with a public funding prediction I've long had.

Although the use of the airwaves to bludgeon people into un-democratic (little d) candidates would be greatly reduced by public funding, the field is where the corruption and graft will move. The courts will never make it illegal to hire "supporters" and corporate-funding private armies for campaigns because doing so will get to be too dangerously close to limiting free speech. They are already loathe to restrict commercials under the First Amendment, so stopping the use of mercenaries for campaigns will likely never happen.

As long as it is possible to get billions of dollars in revenue from sub-million dollar "investments," this trough is going to look *way* too good not to feed from. Ways will be found.

If this was just about Democrats, you'd have a point, Odin. But it's not. If a leader comes out of the primaries and caucuses, it will become a General election well before the convention (which is the marker for the end of primary spending). At that point, the Democratic leader will be running against the Republicans and all their cash. So, if they don't have enough money to fight back they'll be a sitting duck. That's what happened in 2000 (among other things).

By the way, everything costs money. Everything. A phone call, a rally, driving across town to meet with a volunteer. Everything.

um the other thing about money... it has a tendency to also buy you professional services.

I am constantly amazed by the number of candidates who declare and then just "assume" all these services should be free. I'm not really talking about the "show" aka Prez candidates, but the down ticket crew.

Well if you want professional services you really should expect to pay for them.

Honest to pete it's really frustrating to have so called "highly professional" folks, lawyers, IT, teachers, etc all expect that while they deserve to get paid, you the "volunteer" should just suck it up for free.

I've done my fair share of free, and likely will still do some, however, you just might get what you pay for.

Catherine,

There actually appears to be a ginormous asterisk attached to this plan. Like Obama with the general, the "going public" plan depends on a similar commitment from the Republican (which, unless he's John McCain, is unlikely).

"Aides said Edwards would accept public funds for the general campaign as well, as long as his Republican opponent did the same."

I also understand that everything costs money. But why should it cost the maximal amount possible? With the private funding, we encourage an arms race where the candidate that pulls the most cash seriously ups their chances of winning.

The public model requires that to win, the money must be used as efficiently as possible, and real choices have to be made.

No, it shouldn't be about what it's about. But, it is. If you want it to to change you'll need to get millions of people to push legislation to change it. Trying to change it in the middle of a campaign is a losing strategy.

If the Democratic nominee opts for public financing in the primary and is determined early, the Republicans WILL WIN in November 2008. Count. On. That.

Catherine makes a good point. It is likely that we will know who the nominee is after Super Tuesday. However, the General Election doesn't "begin" until the convention and since the Republican convention is held after the Democratic one, their "general election" is shorter than ours.

In '04, Bush pushed the GOP convention to as late as possible, then accepted public funds for the general. It made sense, he gets the same amount in public funding no matter when the election starts, and with a compressed schedule those dollars went pretty far. Meanwhile, Kerry had the same amount of money but a longer period to spend it, which reduced its affectiveness.

One thing that changes the primary calculation that Catherine talks about a little is the DNC. The DNC is under no similar restrictions with public funding and if Edwards were to become the nominee the DNC could take over much of the spending for the presumptive nominee to even the gap.

Whatever it's about, the way the Edwards campaign is being so g-damn high and mighty about it is such a freaking insult. Oooooh, another self-righteous "challenge" to the other candidates! Look at me, I'm sooooo above your special interest money! I would've been above it even if I could actually compete for it, really! My failure to keep up has nothing to do with this, it's about principles, which I learned growing up as a poor emancipated slave with a cleft palate!

God, if this guy got any phonier he'd be covered in lead paint and have magnetic choking hazards falling off him.

Well, on one hand, I'd say the masks that a person chooses to wear says as much about the person as if they wore no mask at all.

Edwards is choosing to be the out-of-the-system, cool kids don't like me so fuck 'em, ready to fight in the gutters type.

Obama is playing the "hey, I like God too," hug out our differences, everyone can play type.

Clinton is playing the "I'm centrist and sane," keep you safe at night from the foreign-speaking boogeymen, CEOs and Republicans are people too, polished Hyper-Woman.

The masks are also likely predictors of who will be credited for an eventual victory. Like Bush with his religious nutjobs, if Edwards came to believe that he was put on earth to declare a new War on Poverty and shiv the new Gilded Age in the kidneys, I'd be pretty damned happy with that.

And if he can stay holier-than-thou about the "oh, don't hurt us, we give people (shitty) jobs" crowd, I'd be pretty happy about that as well.

As I said to a friend earlier - once he's out of money he can't make a flyer without breaking the law. This is a move made only by someone who doesn't expect to be running in the General.

jeeze and I thought it was the DNC's job to run a 50 state campaign not bail out just one freaking candidate who is trying to "prove somethin" niiiiice responsiblity shift.

BTW: KOS busted out over on his site on the very same...he ain't buying what they are selling either..eeewww not a good day for John. Hope his "principles" keep him warm at night next spring.. cause it might a bit lonely.

Oh, and won't it be awkward should he win to go asking all those evil evil pacs for earned media and their mailing lists... hummmm NARAL, PP, all those unions, etc...seems like he might need them if he's thin on funds. Such a tangled web..

"If having Senator Edwards as the nominee is more important to you than electing a Democrat in 2008 then keep supporting him. But, if you want a Democratic President, your support should be shifting now to a different candidate."

If your candidate is so terrible that the reason to vote for her is her money, then she'll lose no matter how much she has.

So I'll stick with Edwards, efforts to intimidate ("vote Clinton or the Republican will win - like in 2000!") notwithstanding.

(Oh, yeah - and who won the popular vote in 2000? I forget.)

Fact is, if John Edwards can defeat Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the primary, in spite of their ridiculous financial and political connections, then he has a much better shot at the general than either of them.

Really, if their money can't buy them the primary, then how the hell is it going to buy them the general?

And Jules, to clarify I think it is the DNC's responsibility and mission to supplement the campaign of its presidential nominee no matter who it is and I suspect its donors will feel the same way since many of them will start funding the DNC once the candidate that they maxed out to becomes the nominee.

For me its truly about the principle. Not the principles that John Edwards now claims to have found (like Michael Vick suddenly finding God when he was convicted of dog fighting).

In Feb., Edwards said he wasn't going to use public financing. 7 months later, he know says that it is the "principled" thing to do. Yesterday he told CNN that it wasn't about the money. Now today his campaign sends out a memo saying it was about calculating the money.

Now he's all high and mighty and want the other campaigns to also use public financing just because he's piss poor and can't afford a window to throw it out of.

If he would have have started the game doing public financing that would have been one thing; but now when his money numbers don't add up he's all of sudden Mr. Public Finance. The dude is and will always be the "Pony Man" - his shit doesn't add up.

Keep hope alive cause John Edwards will continue to feed the masses more horse manure.

"As I said to a friend earlier - once he's out of money he can't make a flyer without breaking the law. This is a move made only by someone who doesn't expect to be running in the General."

Right cause no one in the dem community would give moeny to the DNC or related groups to get him elected.

If he runs out of money, just as much will be given to get him elected than if he were not taking public funds

OK. One more time. I have not given any money to any candidate running for President in 2008. For absolutely clarity I will say that I may be making a modest contribution so that I may attend the Richardson event next week, but that will be my first. I have not pledged to any candidate. In fact, as I've said a number of times, I believe that any of the current candidates (except for Gravel) would make a President I could be very proud to support. So, is that clear enough, Drew?

My comments today are not about the General election but about the primary. Should a candidate become the likely nominee prior to the convention, they will be, by all intents and purposes, running in the General election prior to the convention. In order to do that they must have more than the funds allowed by public financing. If they choose to accept public financing, the Republicans will hammer them until they spend it all and are then unable to spend.

Sure, the DNC can help, but the DNC has other obligations, as well. At least we hope they do, right? Surely, we all want a larger majority in the House and Senate in 2008, yes?

Yes, Gore did win the popular vote in 2000. However, if he had money to spend prior to the convention he might have been able to ultimately prevail by winning a greater margin and not had it snatched away by Bush & Co.

Preach on sister Catherine! (having just gotten home from the revival myself... lol)

Catherine, I think the DSCC and the DCCC should be operating under the assumption that they will not receive financial assistance from the DNC in a Presidential election cycle, at least not significant assistance.

They seem to be doing an ok job of raising money right now. As such, I think the money will find a way to be raised and spent no matter who the nominee is and whether or not they take public funds. Each candidate should make that decision on their own based on how they think their path to victory might come about.

Catherine i think your fears about money parity are unfounded for two reasons.

A) there will be tons of other groups raising money for Edwards if he is the nominee so total money is not an issue

B) there is nothing to suggest that the republicans will have close to as much money as we will have. i think kos said obama's small donors have raised more than the GOP field combined. add to that the lack of money in NRSC RNC and other groups, i think we will be ok.

I still find it crazy that this is a race in which 2nd quarter numbers of $23M raised and $13M on hand is considered "piss poor."

Another part of the jujitsu that may be interesting is that Edwards may also be calculating that his field and town meeting formats are better suited for his campaign style than Clinton or Obama. He may believe that he fights better on the ground (dealing with the questions of normal Americans) rather than on the air (where cash and the punditocracy rule).

And yes, I would like to see this kind of style in the White House if he sticks around. Claiming the high ground, moving first and moving loud, and all of the fabulous rhetorical tricks that change the framing. If he can be holier-than-thou now, just wait until the general. We may finally hear someone say what scumbags Republicans really are.

Compare this to Hillary's brand of phoniness, which is simply to try and go for small-bore things and hide behind quadruple re-parsings of a given manuever. To offend the minimum rather than excite the maximum.

We'll see how it goes. I'd like to see what the next Crazy Ivan to get to the front is going to be.

Riddle me this, boys and girls:

I hear repeatedly from this chorus that the DNC will help Edwards out. Can the DNC pitch in before the convention?

My concern is about the time between the primaries/caucuses and the convention.

catherine

You are acting as if every democratic group up until the convention will be paralyzed voiceless and un able to do anything, while the GOPers will be able to do whatever they want with their pools of cash.

both of those are simply not the case.

no one on the GOP side will have any money after their primary and their donor pool is really f ing small..

so yea, there is NO reason to think in three weeks we will somehow lose the election. its almost crazy talk.

If, as many believe, a leader comes out of the February 5 primaries, it will be 5 months until the convention.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the DNC can do candidate specific spending prior to the convention. Many state and county parties may be limited as well.

So, I guess Senator Edwards will be counting on the PACs, Unions, and other groups to help him out?

Alrighty, then.

he doesn't have to accept their money.

point is, you still seem to think the GOP will have a lot of money, that will not be the case

we could actually be silent (meaning no one does anything) for the six months prior to the election and ill be teh GOP would *still* lose.

I thought Edwards also wanted the DNC to stop taking money from lobbyists. So will Edwards refuse to take the DNC's help if the DNC continues to take make from lobbyists?

I'm pretty sure the DNC can spend whatever they want on whomever they want whenever they want. If they decided they wanted to start supporting someone tomorrow it would probably make us angry but I don't believe there is a legal prohibition.

The point of all of this is, if Edwards becomes the nominee, many of the Hillary and Obama donors will shift to him. If he can't accept or spend the money they want to donate, he'll simply direct that they contribute to the DNC instead.

Accepting public funds may be seen as a somewhat desperate move at this point, but if he is able to win the primary it will have made sense, and they can worry about how they spend their money at that point, and they'll have multiple options.

Say what you will about the message it sends or whatever else but I'm sure from a strictly financial calculation it made sense and you really have to do whatever it takes (legally) to win when you're running one of these races.

"you really have to do whatever it takes (legally) to win when you're running one of these races." - hmmm...I thought it was all about principles. Silly me.

This is also why Edwards can get attention even as media writers wish to limit this to a two-person race. He's obviously stirred up a hornet's nest or two by throwing a gear into the works.

At a time where we can't get Dems to win a vote except to condemn a newspaper ad - by one of *our* groups - it's really nice to have someone willing to shoot everyone the bird. And rather than, say, Kucinich or Gravel grumbling on the sidelines, he's in the hunt enough to actually make some waves when he does something like this.

So, I'm sorry so many feelings got hurt by the no lobbyist thing (which appears to be an underlying theme coming to the surface), but we're going to peel back the many non-Constitutional layers between us and our government how again? Just because we've adapted doesn't mean the system benefits us.

The other question is, will the Republicans get unity in time for their own Convention? Or will the wingnut right (especially Dobson et al) be too busy trying to pull another Reagan to defy the selection of Romney or Guliani as the main guy?

I personally can't wait for this televised event: "Or will the wingnut right (especially Dobson et al) be too busy trying to pull another Reagan to defy the selection of Romney or Guliani as the main guy?" fun, fun, fun - nothing like Christians and hypocrites fighting in the same arena.

I think some of the crazy talk is that all the other campaign supporters line up behind whomever is the nominee...not for nothing, but I'm not buying this.

Way too many examples of folks who took their toys and played else where after a primary.
Frankly if I where a Edwards supporter, I'd be all about the coalition building right now and not the bridge burning. Obama's army of small donors may or may not want to play with you. Clinton's supporters may or may not forgive the War vote attacks.

I'm just saying you'll might want to keep the flame a bit lower is all.

Asked about the general election, Mr. Edwards told CNN, “We are talking about through the campaign, period.”

“It’s not about a money calculation,” he said. “This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, for what’s right. I believe in public financing.”

All you Edwards supporters - pick a lane, any lane.

Outside track for me, all the way.

Edwards and Trippi better get a unified story though - I keep hearing both versions of the story, whether the public funding is conditional on Republican moves or not.

I have yet to figure out all of the calculus as to how much cash this all brings out, when it can be spent and so on and so forth, though.

The man's keeping his narrative straight though. He also appears to have learned from W and Rove - if you have a disadvantage, make it a strength. We'll see how this one goes.

"I'm just saying you'll might want to keep the flame a bit lower is all."

Uh-huh. From my perspective, that's better advice for those on this thread who like to refer to John Edwards as having "principles" rather than principles.

I may not prefer Clinton and Obama, but damn if I'm gonna let their supporters lecture me on civility, any more than I'm gonna let Larry Craig lecture me on chastity.

what all this proves is that Bill Richardson is the best candidate for potus becuase he would never be caught up in a scandal like this.

just sayin...

Don't forget Biden, IRE. There's a guy that's going down swinging on real core convictions, not this phony no-tag-backs horseshit.

And I think you're being too optimistic about what kind of money the Repubs will cough up in 2Q08. They aren't spending it now, but they still have it in their pockets. They're hoarding it b/c none of the candidates thrill them, but once they *have* a candidate squared away, you can bet they're going to buy the big guns for him.

I love Drew's notion that "Fact is, if John Edwards can defeat Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the primary, in spite of their ridiculous financial and political connections, then he has a much better shot at the general than either of them." Let's not notice the main point of all this crap that Edwards is seeking public money IN ORDER TO have an influx of January cash that will put him on the same level of ridiculous financial standing as Clinton and Obama. And at least with their machinations, it's been transparent from the get-go, not this sudden "Oh look I found my principles in my other pants!" crap.

Drew...since I wasn't either candidates supporter I suppose I'm not offended by your remark. However, at this point bewtween the flamers on KOS and your comments I'm done considering your guy. Yep, I am that fickle

Its more like "Oh look I found my principles in my other empty pocket" crap.

"Don't forget Biden, IRE. There's a guy that's going down swinging on real core convictions, not this phony no-tag-backs horseshit."

Same re: Kucinich, Gravel, etc.

Some like their Deciders. Edwards has run populist all campaign, and this does actually fit in with that narrative. One should also note that his public financing weapon will only be half effective if he can't manage to shame Hillary and Obama into playing along.

And yes, it's a smart play for the primaries. He gets to make a real advance (cash), while having something to harass his opponents with in the meantime. The only trick for switching back in the general is that he probably underestimates how strong the "phoney" meme is.

And yeah, it's a desperate crazy move. But there's a reason this is a three-way and not a two-way race just yet.

Twas only a matter of time anyway, Jules.

"Edwards is seeking public money IN ORDER TO have an influx of January cash that will put him on the same level of ridiculous financial standing as Clinton and Obama."

True that, shelby, but even with that helpful influx of cash, he'll still have less than either.

Point is, the assumption that Edwards cannot win an election because of a financial handicap ignores the fact that for Edwards to even have a shot at that election, he'll have had to win an election . . . in spite of a financial handicap. That logic doesn't work for me.

Marc Ambinder parses John Edwards' decision to accept public financing.

----

angel

Car Loans