’)There’s no way a candidate can essentially disarm himself like this during an election. Sure, in an ideal world this money thing is not an issue, but we don’t live in that world.
Former Sen. John Edwards Thursday said he will accept public financing for his presidential campaign, and challenged his chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to follow his lead.
Edwards is the first top-tier Democratic presidential candidate to accept public financing.
“This is not about a money calculation,” Edwards told CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley on his way to an event in Durham, North Carolina. “This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing.”
That kind of decision leads me to believe that the train is just about to leave the station. For a Democrat to be president they must compete and possibly even exceed the amount of money the GOP will/can raise.
UPDATE: Sen. Edwards felt differently in February.
Democrat John Edwards on Monday joined New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in saying he will not use public money for the presidential primary campaign or, if he wins his party’s nomination, for the general election.
The move by the former North Carolina senator is the latest sign of trouble for the public campaign funding system, created after the Watergate scandal to set limits and disclosure rules on contributions to presidential campaigns.
Edwards said in an interview that he expects major candidates in both parties to raise unlimited private dollars rather than participate in the public system. He said he needs to do the same “to have the funds to be competitive.”
See what I mean? I don’t trust him, or Hilary either. He’s too shiny and she’s too plastic.
All it says is that Hilary and Obama have sucked the cash out of the campaign. Remember, Edwards is forgoing corporate big cash already, so he’s just adjusting to the hand he’s dealt.
I still believe a great candidate can win w/o the biggest money. Unfortunately, Edwards is up against the Nineties Nostalgia campaign, thinking that the tech revolution that boosted our economy was the Big Dawg’s doing, and that Hilary can replicate that.
Can anyone compete with that? I mean, the majority is supporting a Dem slightly to the left of Lieberman with a pretty piss poor record. Against that degree of wishful thinking, only a real charismatic personality stands a chance.
1. Edwards will have a horrible 3Q haul.
2. He has slipped a bit in Iowa since earlier in the year.
3. The SEIU, leaning towards Edwards, is holding off on its endorsement.
4. Rumor has it Gore will endorse Obama.
5. Edwards’ entire campaign at this point is premised on “I’ll win Iowa and go from there”.
6. If he does this, he’ll be limited to 50 million for the entire campaign.
7. Advertising for Iowa alone can cost 20 million.
8. ads for 2/5(20+ states), up to 40 million.
9. Some of that potential 50 million has already been spent.
10. He hasn’t really made up any ground in the national polls, if you look at polling trends–if anything, he’s trended downward since Obama jumped in.
Conclusion–Edwards is fooked, as the Irish are wont to say. If he drops out and endorses Obama, he’d have a bigger impact than by staying in.
My guess: he’s dead, he knows he’s dead and doesn’t want to spend any of his own money or that of his friends. There’s “tight third” and “lagging third” and damn does Edwards lag.
The other possibility, and it’s tacky of me to bring it up but I am tacky, is that he may have already decided for family reasons to drop out, even if he thinks he’s not dead.
All I want to know is who decided it’d be a good idea to use this line: “This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing?”
I mean, seriously…a principled stand? If he was so principled, wouldn’t he have opted for public financing to begin with?
Truly, the sky is falling.
I tend to agree with Kevin H on this one. OW, you have pointed out the change in course on JRE’s campaign, but I’m not totally certain it’s a bad one, as you suggest. T Raising obscene amounts of money as Obama and Clinton are doing to play down in the sand box with the Re-thugs is only that. That means they and perhaps many of us Dems have accepted their game rules. I like it that Edwards continues to play outside of DC’s rules.
Another point: if Clinton keeps harping about fiscal responsibility, shouldn’t her campaign should live it as well? JRE’s campaign tends to run on a budget, and I think that is a good thing in the bigger picture of translating this to our own federal gov’ts budget and how to make it work effectively.
I tend to agree with Kevin H on this one. OW, you have pointed out the change in course on JRE’s campaign, but I’m not totally certain it’s a bad one, as you suggest. Raising obscene amounts of money as Obama and Clinton are doing to play down in the sand box with the Re-thugs is only that. That means they and perhaps many of us Dems have accepted their game rules. I like it that Edwards continues to play outside of DC’s rules.
Another point: if Clinton keeps harping about fiscal responsibility, shouldn’t her campaign should live it as well? JRE’s campaign tends to run on a budget, and I think that is a good thing in the bigger picture of translating this to our own federal gov’t budget and how to make it work effectively.
Should Edwards Accept Public Funding?
Have Not:
Dead. He is dead. And if he wins, the Dems are dead.
He’s only able to spend $45 million on the GE from now till September. In that time, the Republican candidate, (unless it’s McCain), would be able to spend as much as they can raise and that would give them an advantage that might not be recoverable from.
Personally I think Edwards is the best candidate of the top three, but this kills his chances.
That said, Clinton still a hundred times better than and of the Republicans and she can win against anyone.
CSS, lest we forget the DNC can promote its nominee as well. That is its job, and I think if it is Edwards (or Dodd or someone else), the DNC will do all in their power to make it happen. They are outraising the Republicans at this point Edwards has longer coat-tails than the other 2 front runners, and I’ve heard rumbles that Dems in red states are worried that a Clinton nomination will bring them down. Moreover, nothing energizes the Re-thug base than a Clinton (unfortunately). Obama, the jury’s out on him.
My apologies for the double post; I was having trouble getting the post to load on this site.
I mean, seriously…a principled stand? If he was so principled, wouldn’t he have opted for public financing to begin with?
Exactly my point.
I may have a double post here as well. Mea culpa.
“CSS, lest we forget the DNC can promote its nominee as well.”
The DNC has no money. Howard Dean as been spending money as fast as he’s been raising it trying to get his 50 State strategy to work. (And it is working. The Democrats could win in Tennessee in ‘08.)
If you take either of the top two Democrats and add in the DNC numbers and compare that to any of the top four Republicans plus the RNC, the Democrats are still ahead. But if you use Edwards plus the RNC, he’s sunk.
Just stepping back a second, here…I can understand how Edwards may be toast in the primary, but let’s make a wild leap of logic and assume he gets the call.
Why would his public financing really be a problem when it’s him versus the Republicans? How much money do you need to run one ad, over and over again, that says:
“You had eight years of Republican rule. It brought you war, joblessness, deception, and corruption. Why would you vote for any of these GOP clowns?”
Frankly, if America is stupid enough to vote for any of these jokers they will have yet again elected the leaders they deserve.
“Why would his public financing really be a problem when it’s him versus the Republicans? How much money do you need to run one ad, over and over again, that says:”
About a million dollars for a single airing on prime time TV.
Yeah, our electoral system is fucked up.
When Bill Clinton won in 92 and 96 he had less money than Dole, so you don’t have good evidence to assert that Dems need more money than the GOP to win. Dems win with less money, but better organizing and GOTV
He’s toast. Not to mention that he’s a noose swinging racist:
“pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”
Wow, William. If you have this little grasp on the difference between what John Edwards said and actual racism, then no wonder conservatives keep getting caught with their foot in their mouth.
This isn’t much different than what Bill Cosby was trying to tell the black community.
Nice edit Willie.
What came immediately before the part you quoted?