OK, tell me why this Edwards flip-flop is being celebrated?

[MethuenProgressive]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?ref=politics
Edwards to Accept Public Financing for Primaries

Former Senator John Edwards said Thursday that he would accept public financing for the Democratic primaries, reversing his previous plans to raise and spend money without being subject to the public system’s spending limits.

Isn't it all just a matter of political convince?
Now that he needs the dough, he'll take it?

[Pirate Smile]

1. I've seen a lot of people saying it is a big problem, not celebrating it but then

I haven't dived into the DU threads on it.

[Cameron27]

2. There are quite a few who are treating this

as if it was some kind of heroic stance against the high cost of campaign spending. That's pretty much the way Trippi and Edwards are spinning this.

[movonne]

15. Don't you think all of our candidates spin...how is hillery spinning

her vote for the Lieberman bill??

[Cameron27]

17. Of course they spin,

but when Edwards challenged Obama and Clinton to do the same thing for some "noble" purpose, he went beyond spinning and landed right into the hypocritical.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. "I haven't dived into the DU threads on it." Hit the 'greatest' button....

...and hold your nose.

[jmp]

4. If I never read the term "flip-flop" again ...

American politics will have taken a turn for the better.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Hillary and Obama are celebrating because this means that

Edwards hasn't been able to raise enough money.

[Cameron27]

6. You mean Obama.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Yep. Thanks

:hi:

[William769]

7. As a Hillary Supporter, I don't get your comment.

I think Edwards made the right decision.

[Cameron27]

12. I think it means that accepting public funding

usually means a campaign's in trouble, remember when John McCain did it. This won't be treated as bad news by Obama & Clinton.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. He origanally announced that he would forgo public financing

Now, suddenly, he wants to take the moral high road. He is just adjusting to the reality that he can't keep up with Hillary and Obama in the fundraising department.

[Adelante]

14. I think he did, too - the right tactical decision

But he shouldn't pretend he's on some kind of righteous campaign all of a sudden against not taking public money. In February he happily said he wouldn't take it; in September he will. That only means he changed his mind because he has to take public money to get through Iowa. But it doesn't mean he gets to issue a bullshit moral challenge to his opponents.

[Ninga]

8. I do not want autocratic leaders who can not adjust to the eb and flow of change.

If that were the case, then the leader would defeat the purpose of leadership.

Some who would be leaders, find ways to not answer questions.
Some who would be leaders, do not heed the call of their followers.
Some who would be leaders, have never gotten people to follow them.

Some people ask questions of everyone else but themselves.

Some leaders think that if they are running a strong 3rd after all of this time, then maybe it would be smart to take public funding.

[Cameron27]

10. Of course it's smart to take public funding

if you don't have a choice, just don't try to spin it into something it isn't and then call on your rivals to do the same thing.

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Edwards has said he will not accept money from PACs

and has given back any donations from such groups. I believe that is much different than accepting the public financing which is a matching of the funds a candidate has raised.

So, how is that flip-flopping? ...or am I missing something or a piece of information that makes Edwards a flip-flopper...?

[movonne]

16. Thank you....

[Cameron27]

18. He reversed his position on public funding from

February. Then he said he wouldn't take it because he couldn't stay competitive, now he says he's taking it, but not because he needs the money.

[Whoa_Nelly]

21. Found a Feb. article--you are correct

Here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm

But by taking public funding, he will be limiting his spending:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070928/D8RU4BFO0.html


The public funding for presidential campaigns has been in use/available for a long time.

I am actually glad to see Edwards reverse his stand on this. I still think he is showing the courage to go forward in seeking to become our next president. I also heartily congratulate him for NOT taking PAC money as that implies tacit agreement to support those private entities seeking to curry favor should the person who does accept them become the next president. I see PAC donations as making deals with the corporate, as well as complicating the issues in regard to unions and companies that wield power not only nationally, but ultimately driving the market and non-issues on a more global scale, thus obfuscating and usurping the real issues at hand that need attention within our country.

Too many lines are crossed in accepting PAC funding. I don't see any lines crossed in accepting public funding. it's actually commendable to put limits in place, and am glad he's doing that. Am tired of of looking at political races won by those who have the most money to create the greatest one-way dialogue with the public, which, in essence, keeps the public out of the picture and allows for the corporations and industries to be the voting voice.

As the Democratic candidates move forward in their race to the WH, I still stand behind Edwards, with Kucinich as the only other Democrat I feel I can support and appreciate, as a person who will actually bring back substance and integrity, (and actually real intellect), to an office and a nation that has been chipped away at and shredded by the current bastard fascists now in place.

[Cameron27]

22. Thanks,

I never knowingly lie, and if I criticize, I always have some facts to back me up. I'd never question your interpretation, although mine is very different.

[jsamuel]

19. You hit the nail on the head. This is consistent with John Edwards' message.

That in itself is one of the reasons he is now doing public financing.

[FrenchieCat]

20. There is no "consistency".....only a need on his part now that wasn't present then.....

To call it anything else is just a bunch of spinning bullshit and should be called exactly that!

BTW, Trippi is not very consistent either...as he didn't think that public financing was such a good thing the last time he was managing a campaign.

"But entering federal financing system has two major drawbacks. There's an overall spending limit for the primaries, so a campaign that blows through its money would be bankrupt until after its convention, allowing the opposing party's candidate to air television ads without rebuttal.

As Edwards adviser-then-Dean-manager Joe Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/edwards.public.financing/index.html