John Edwards commits to public financing of his campaign.

[jsamuel]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/edwards.public.financing/index.html

"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."

...

"First of all, I got the money I need to run a serious campaign," he said. "I hope that the other two will join me. As I've said, Sen. Clinton said she is for public financing so she can step forward and show she actually means it."

Boy! Clinton is going to be pissed!

[midnight]

1. I don't know what that means or what it doesn't mean. But

can anybody tell me how he is doing with getting his messages across. I try to keep up, but have some things that I have been working on and didn't see debates last night.

[jsamuel]

3. see here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3555709&mesg_id=3555709

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3553638&mesg_id=3553638

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=57870&mesg_id=57870

[rinsd]

2. Yeah disarm your financial advantage over the Republicans in the GE unilaterally!

Way to go, John!

And this

"Edwards also vigorously defended his wife, Elizabeth, who has been critical of Clinton and her policies.
advertisement

"First of all, I embrace my wife speaking her mind," Edwards said. "She is a strong woman; got her own opinions. She doesn't and should not ask me whether she can express her opinion."

"Does she say some things that are different than what I say? Yeah, of course. We are two different people. We are not the same person. There is nothing unexpected about that. I hope she'll keep speaking her mind"

Give us a fucking break John. You sent her out as attack dog because you were afraid to be seen attacking a woman. Now that that hasn't worked out you feign defending your wife when you finally do the dirty work yourself? What a sleaze.

[saracat]

5. If I called Hillary a "sleaze"you would be all bent out of shape. I expect better of you rinsd.

Elizabeth Edwards seves as an advocate to her husband just as Bill has done for Hillary.To imply that Elizabeth says what she does because she is a "woman" is a sexist remark directed at both Hillary and Elizabeth.

[rinsd]

7. Yes, I would be bent out of shape and you would stick to your guns.

I expect better of me too but I am tired of the nasty attacks not just my candidate but my fellow supporters here.

My candidate is one thing. That is to be expected.

But every fucking day there is some huge thread blasting us a group.

Well I can't attack other candidate's supporters as a group. I know too many of you.

But sometimes we reach our boiling point. And I have reached mine. Edwards just happened to be the first candidate but he likely won't be the last.

[saracat]

15. Thats okay rinsd.I understand.But I hope you understand I would never call Hillary a "sleaze"

I may not support her , or like the way she votes. Some of her positions enrage me, but I wound not demean her with those kind of words .I am trying to be careful what I say about her as I have been misinterpreted in the past.I can't even compliment her anymore for something she has done well, or defend her when she has been wronged without being "attacked".
As with any candidate, Hillary has "some" supporters who are "over the top". But not all and I agree it is wrong to broad brush any candidates supporters.I recognize that some may think I have done this and that has not been my intent.It is just that , like you, sometimes I reach my "boiling point".Its gonna be a looong primary.I guess we better fasten our seat belts and settle down!. ;) :hi:

[rinsd]

20. You'll love this.

Today I was called a Hillary basher. I shit you not.

Lots of new faces in GD-P the last week or so. It is going to be a long long primary season. I just hope enough of us can keep our sanity intact to begin the work after the nomination while being able to water under the bridge remain there.

[saracat]

32. Really ? Amazing! Just amazing! LOL! And some of those "new faces" may

not be what they appear, and others just "jump" tpo conclusions without reading entire posts!I have been called a DLC supporting "conservative" and GOP troll.It happens.Gotta buckle that seatbelt!

[thoughtanarchist]

6. So there's NEVER a good time to approach public financing?

That sucks. Our government will be owned by big business forever.

There is no hope.

We're doomed.

:evilfrown:

[rinsd]

8. Yes thru legislation via Congress, not some pledge during election season.

[thoughtanarchist]

9. We have a majority in congress.

This could be a good catalyst.



...of course I'm not a strategist.

[rinsd]

10. It could but I doubt it.

If you want public financing, it has to be done via legislation.

Unilateral pledges are inviting disaster.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. This isn't just a pledge

Are you aware of the mechanics involved in public financing of campaigns? While it limits what he can and can't spend it on, it does give a nice boost and another issue to work with. I remember that Dean tried to avoid this hurting him in 2004 by putting up to a vote of his supporters as opposed to just saying yes.

[rinsd]

18. Yes, I am aware of the mechanics

And it is foolish to do so when the GOP is under no such constraints.

We learned a hard lesson in 2004 when Kerry didn't have the dough to hit back because of public financing limits and the convention scheduling.

Until public financing becomes required US law, any Democrat would have to be a fool to enter into it before knowing the GOP would also.

[knight_of_the_star]

25. It wasn't just that

It was that not enough other people in the party stepped up to the plate to deal with such attacks knowing what the limitations were.

Incidentally tu quoqe is never a good reason not to do something. Just because the GOP isn't doing it doesn't make it ok, and some things are worth making a principled stand on, even if that stand has pragmatic benefits.

The first part about the mechanics thing is mostly because a LOT people on here don't seem to understand the mechanics of how things like this work, not anything on you.

[be inspired]

34. He's NOT doing it unilaterally.

He hasn't committed to doing this for the general if the Republicans don't. That is being falsely reported.

[rinsd]

36. "That is being falsely reported."

I certainly hope so.

[FrenchieCat]

24. John Kerry and Howard Dean; neither accepted Public financing......in 2003-04

"Now that they have given up matching funds, Kerry and Dean will also be able to break caps on spending in Iowa and New Hampshire, home to the first two major contests of the nominating season.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/elec04.prez.kerry.money/index.html

the article goes on....
Presidential candidates who accept federal matching funds can spend no more than $45 million during the primary season, which lasts up to the Democratic National Convention in July.

Under Kerry's pledge, the monetary cap would apply to the candidates until it is clear who the nominee will be, which could happen as early as March with the front-loaded campaign calendar.

That would leave the winner free to spend money above the $45 million cap between March and July, to better compete with Bush, who has opted out of the public finance system and is expected to raise $170 million to $200 million.

Last Saturday, in announcing he was giving up matching funds, Dean said he was taking that step to better compete with Bush's war chest in the period between the primaries and the party nominating conventions.

After the conventions, both the Republicans and Democrats will get an equal amount of money to run their general election campaigns.

[FrenchieCat]

14. If John Edwards would have pledged this when he first announced.....

I'd believe that this pledge was based on a sincere commitment toward being an example of election reform.....

but a pledge being made just 3 days before 3rd quarter figures will be finalized and made public, and it will become public knowledge that John Edwards raised less this time than the other two quarters prior......seems like this is simply a pledge for the sake of damage control or a coincidence that bears disbelieving. :eyes:

[jefferson_dem]

19. This guy has turned "jumping the shark" into a weekly routine.

n/t

[rinsd]

23. Its just maddening.

Now if he gets the nomination, he'll be fighting with one hand behind his back?

There is no freaking way a GOP nominee who is likely to be behind in the polls is going to opt for public financing. What does he have to lose there? What if its Mitt? He could throw $150M easy into the GE?

And fuck its just the 3rd Q fundraising, its not the end of the world if he saw a dip. Especially since the story is more likely to be about Hillary not keeping up with Obama.

[be inspired]

35. You are wrong on this.

He's not doing it unilaterally. He has committed to this for the primary only. He will challenge the Republicans to do it in the general and then if they don't agree, he has not committed to taking public financing in the general.

[Adelante]

41. Do you have a link?

I haven't read every word on this but I can swear I heard John Edwards say on CNN that he was committing to public financing for both the primary and the GE.

[Placebo]

37. Amen

Finally someone sees it like it is!

[Roxy66]

4. He keeps gaining momentum....

[geek tragedy]

38. Kind of like the Titanic did. eom

[FrenchieCat]

11. Well, if it is as Edwards said...., that "This is not about a money calculation,"

Why didn't he come out for public financing of his campaign like a few months ago? :wtf:

article states:
With the third-quarter fundraising deadline just days away, Edwards emphasized he did not arrive at this decision because his Federal Election Commission report will show a drop-off in contributions from donors.


yeah.....Ok, John! ;)

[knight_of_the_star]

12. While I don't doubt money had nothing to do with it

At the same time being the first one to come out loudly in favor won't hurt him, especially after his performance last night. This honestly feels to me like an Emancipation Proclamation move, keeping something big under wraps until you have a victory to use to lend it momentum.

[Cameron27]

16. It may feel like an Emancipation Proclamation to you,

it sounds like desperation to others. If he honestly wanted to preach about public financing, he would have done it at the onset of his campaign, before he took millions of dollars from trial lawyers and others.

[knight_of_the_star]

22. Except how it works with public financing now is matching funds

That you need something to get the ball rolling to begin with, right now there is NO mechanism in place for any candidate to get the ball rolling with only public financing.

And what's so bad about taking money from trial lawyers? There's plenty of worse people he could be taking funds from than that.

[Cameron27]

27. I never said there was anything wrong

with taking money from trial lawyers, they just happened to make up the bulk of his donations I believe. The question has to be raised about motive when he made no mention of doing this at the beginning of the race. He's very far behind Clinton & Obama in amounts of money he's been able to raise, so it just looks like a clever way of making a virtue out of a necessity.

[knight_of_the_star]

29. If it works more power to him

Shows he knows what he's doing that he can take sour lemons and make some lemonade. That and I don't think its all spin, that and the timing of the announcement makes it seem that he was waiting to see how last night would be received. If things didn't go well he still might be doing it but wouldn't be making so much noise.

[Cameron27]

30. He may be making lemonade out of his own sour lemons,

but challenging Clinton and Obama to do the same is just plain hypocritical.

[knight_of_the_star]

40. Not necessarily

Considering he IS engaging in public financing on his campaign, I don't see the hypocrisy in calling on the other front-runners to do the same.

[Cameron27]

42. That's a stretch,

he's only taking public money because he hasn't gotten enough donations, not because it's the "right thing to do." He wouldn't have made his comment in February if this was anything but a last resort. That's the hypocrisy. Obama & Clinton don't have to make a desperate bid for public funding to stay in the race.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Why do you doubt that money has nothing to do with it......

considering that 3rd quarter ends this Sunday?


What Am I missing? :shrug:

[knight_of_the_star]

21. Sorry poor wording

Going to fix that, what I meant was while I don't doubt that money had nothing to do with it. Was having fun trying to figure out how to say it.

[FrenchieCat]

26. and so you agree that money most likely has quite a bit to do with it.....

although John Edwards is basically stating that it does not....and that it is simply the "principled" thing to do.

I'm not buying into his spin on this.

[knight_of_the_star]

28. It probably had quite a bit to do with it

But that doesn't mean it was the only part of the calculation involved.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I understand the "possibility" that there's possible other reasons for it.....

and if Edwards would have announced something like that at the onset of his candidacy, I certainly could have bought into it simply being an honorable step towards pushing Public Financing. However one must ask, if there's another reason, what is different now than when he first announced that would so coincides with the end of the 3rd quarter but has little to do with money? :shrug:

[be inspired]

33. WAY TO GO!

This is brilliant! Awesome! I'm so happy he's making this challenge to the other candidates to take public financing.

This also gives him all the money he needs to compete in the primary, since his budget has always been $40 million. (By the way, he's raised more money than any primary candidate in history prior to this race.)

[Cameron27]

39. This is what Trippi said in 2003:

... it is difficult to build an election strategy on such a hopscotch board. Joe Trippi, who managed the presidential campaign of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in 2004 and is a senior adviser to Edwards this time, conceded as much in a 2003 interview with the Washington Post.

“This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election,” Trippi said in December of 2003. “There is absolutely no way you can sustain the hits that are going to come from now until August with a $45 million limit.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/27/edwards_accepts_public_financi.html

Maybe Edwards can pull this off, time will tell.