Some Candidates put Politics and Compromise above the concerns of the People they say they want to represent -- and some Candidates put the People first!
Some Candidates take the Voters for granted, and have already started their "General Election" rhetoric -- and some Candidates actually believe in meeting with the People, and earning Each Vote!
Since this is another edition of the Edwards Evening News Roundup, I don't suppose you'll need 3 guesses to figure out who is who in those scenarios!
Once again, John Edwards has been speaking with truth and cander, to make it perfectly clear to Voters, and to America too -- that THEY still DO have a choice, in who will lead America in the years ahead -- despite the fact Hillary acts like "it's a done deal."
Today at an announcement event in Dover, New Hampshire, John Edwards won the endorsement of Friends of the Earth Action, one of the leading environmental groups in the country.
Friends of the Earth Action (FOE Action), one of the longest-standing, national environmental organizations in the country, today announced its endorsement of Senator John Edwards for President, citing his leadership on real solutions to combat global warming and his unequivocal position against dangerous and expensive nuclear power.
snip
"John Edwards will bring dramatic, positive change and improvement to our nation's environmental policies. Most importantly, he will bring leadership in the preeminent environmental issue of our time -- the global warming crisis. John Edwards has set the pace among presidential candidates on global warming, and among the leading Democratic candidates, he has the best, most comprehensive global warming program."
At 5:30pm Monday ET in Iowa city, John Edwards will get SEIU-Iowa nod and the endorsement of other state affiliates, according to multiple sources. The endorsement, which the Edwards campaign refused to comment on, is key because it means that SEIU members and resources from other state organizations that endorse Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (think Illinois and New York SEIU chapters) cannot help their respective Iowa campaigns, according to SEIU rules.
Edwards says that he would get all of the combat troops out of Iraq, but he would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in the middle of a civil war. That is not ending the war...
Leaving behind thousands of non-combat troops contradicts Army doctrince and common sense. It is simply irresponsible...
History teaches us that putting undermanned forces in the middle of sectarian conflict, whether in Somalia, Lebanon, or anywhere else, is a recipe for disaster...
Speaking of "undermanned forces", Richardson would only put 1000 non-combat troops to guard the embassy while John Edwards says we need 3000-5000 non-combat troops.
Richardson effectively calls his own plan "a recipe for disaster."
Richardson uses a talking point that does more to defend Clinton's plan of leaving an undetermined number of combat troops in Iraq and carrying out combat missions than it does to defend Richardson's own position.
Richarson's joke of a criticism shows that he is more interested in attacking Edwards than he is in defending his own position. This leads me to believe that Richardson is more interested in being Clinton's VP than he is in winning the election himself.
Todd Bennett was a very harsh critic of John Edwards, until...
Edwards Is Our Best Chance to Avoid War With Iran by Todd Bennett, Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:47:22 PM EST
This forum has been one that in the past, I have used to engage in some hyperbole against candidates not a Senator from New York. I bought into notions about her intelligence and leadership, and then I heard about the Lieberman/Kyl amendment. For purposes of good reporting, I will refer you to a quote from TomP explaining this vile piece of mortar connected to the the continuing building of the corporatists' permanent war:
Let's talk about Iran, because it is all connected, and her recent vote on Iran reveals her underlying philosophy. Last week, Hillary Clinton voted for the terrible Lieberman-Kyl amendment.
By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to "combat, contain and [stop]" Iran via "military instruments." Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment "Cheney's fondest pipe dream" and said it could "read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action."
This is intolerable. It has now become my opinion that Iraq and Iran are not just Bush's war, but the corporatist's war. Sadly, that includes both Democrats and Republicans. Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson of Nebraska, and Clinton have all taken much too hawkish of stands.
Moreover, she seems to be developing a certain cockiness about it, one that is grating on me. I like and respect her, however there are some things I can not swallow, and a permanent for profit war/colonization of the Middle East is one of them.
There is an alternative. Foolishly I bought into memes about Edwards ability to handle the media, and his war vote. Yes, Edwards did at one point promote this war, however I do believe his conversion is genuine. My stomach is in knots over this Iran rhetoric, so as a responsible Democrat I did some research, and here is what I found about John from The American Prospect in an interview with Ezra Klein. I have found much more, but this represents a good sample, and explains the candidate preference I state towards the end of this diary. Far from my enemy, he is more like my Brother on the issues I care about, and that affect so many:
...
In fairness, Hillary has also spoken about the mistake of not exhausting the inspections, however in retrospect, John's leadership since November of 2005 on this issue is clear. The man courageously admits a mistake and learns from it and speaks of the lessons we can take from it. Folks, I was wrong about John. Flat out. I suppose the Obama people would have a claim when speaking about war judgment, however realistically, he has shown little leadership in the Senate on it, and a series of missed votes recently has me questioning his political acumen and intent. I will be deleting my previous Anti-Edwards diaries and barring a late Gore entry, my choice is now clear, and I would like to respectully ask the Edwards folks to welcome me aboard and accept my apologies for my lack of research and due dilligence. It is readily apparent who the best person for the Presidency is: John Reid Edwards.
After answering questions from caucus goers on global warming, middle east peace, solving the nursing shortage and other topics, John walked outside and held a press conference with members of the local and national media.
As John was answering a question from the press, Elizabeth walked up and handed him something.
"Did you find a four leaf clover?" he asked her.
"Yes -- and everything that means," Elizabeth responded with a smile.
“George Bush has a long record of trampling on the Constitution and failing to be straight with the American people. Yesterday we learned that -- even after the Justice Department abandoned its defense of torture -- it continued to write memos endorsing the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA. Today, the president asserted that ‘we don’t torture.’ Pardon me, but I have my doubts that George Bush is finally being straight with us.
“As president, I will work to restore America’s moral authority in the world by upholding the rule of law and safeguarding our civil liberties. I reject the Bush Administration’s twisted logic justifying torture. I will release the legal opinions justifying it, and end the abuse of classification and legal privilege to hide un-American legal judgments. Saying no to torture will protect our troops and our values by upholding the Geneva Conventions anywhere American security forces, military or civilian, are engaged.”
In a scathing attack, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards went after front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Friday, calling her a "corporate Democrat," comparing top Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn to former Bush aide Karl Rove and assailing Penn's ties to Blackwater USA, the embattled private firm of military contractors accused by the Iraqi government of firing upon and killing 11 unarmed Iraqi civilians last month.
"Bush has been a perfect example of cronyism because Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush," Edwards said in an interview with the Associated Press while campaigning in Iowa. "I also saw this morning that Sen. Clinton's primary adviser, Mark Penn, who is like her Karl Rove -- his firm is representing Blackwater."
...
In addition to his role as a top campaign consultant to the Clinton campaign, Mark Penn is the worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller. The firm's lobbying subsidiary BKSH helped Blackwater's top executive, Erik Prince, prepare for his congressional testimony this week.
Penn could not be reached for comment, but Burson-Marsteller spokesman Paul Cordasco said in a statement that "through a personal relationship, BKSH, a subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller, helped Blackwater prepare for their recent hearing before Congress. With the hearing over, BKSH's temporary engagement has ended."
Interesting take from benny06. Always love it when I am quoted :P
Lately I have been in the cross hairs of blogs, some of which are trying to declare that John Edwards campaign is DOA because he is accepting public finance monies. Kos, Taylor Marsh, etc, are saying that Edwards could do without it because the netroots are helping candidates raise more money in general. But Edwards had a bit slower 3rd quarter fundraising than some of the others. No one denies it, and now anyone's contribution, since many of them are smaller than $2300, are matched one for one up to $250. I am one of those who cannot donate like Oprah Winfrey, so my donation is actually worth more because of the match.
JSamuel in his comment at the Daily Kos gave 10 good reasons why Kos is misguided in his views:
1. You criticize Edwards for taking public financing because it benefits him (which I disagree with, but not the point).
2. You however do not criticize Clinton and Obama for not taking public financing because it benefits them.
3. A 527 is not a Washington lobbyist.
4. The DNC is not a Washington lobbyist.
5. Public finanicing is the way to get big money out of our primary.
6. The DNC will only be in use AFTER the primary is held so that it does not conflict with the message of public financing, which you continuously ignore.
7. You have no problem with the Dem nominee having 150M but you have a problem with the DNC having 150M.
8. Do we want to support party building and the 50 state strategy or not?
9. John Edwards does not control, run, or have any responsibility for what 527's do or the money they raise.
10. You only seem to have a problem with 527's when they are brought up by the Edwards campaign.
He is on the mark. Kos says the netroots can help as it did with Dean. But now that Kos has attention of the traditional media, he has become more like them. Taylor wants to be like them. Both are out of the traditional places media writers come from: law, journalism, entertainment, and sometimes academia. Kos is a lawyer, Taylor Marsh is out of the entertainment business and in radio. Both appear more concerned about the "image" of the campaigns rather than the ideology.
The most recent Rasmussen Reports data show that all of the most likely Democratic nominees lead their strongest prospective opponents. At this point John Edwards appears to be strongest in individual match-ups leading Giuliani by 9%, Thompson by 10%, and Romney by 11%.
Hillary Clinton holds almost as big a lead, but falls just short of Edwards' margin. She leads Giuliani by 5%, Thompson by 8%, and Romney by 9%.
Barack Obama holds a more narrow 5% lead over Giuliani, a 6% lead over Thompson, and a 3% lead over Romney. ...
As kossack decider06 said last night on Air America:
Columbus, Kentucky is so rural, it is an hour away from the nearest McDonald's.
In a town of 229, John Edwards drew a crowd of 1800 people. Now, remember this is one of the most rural areas of the country. That is a 800% turnout. While other candidates have boasted their turnouts in cities like Atlanta and New York, you cannot deny the fact that John Edwards is a Democrat that is appealing to rural voters in a way no other Democratic presidential candidate has in a very long time.
Kentucky isn't one of them early primary states, so it's not easy to figure out what "Bank It On Iowa" Edwards is doing here...
Actually, thank Shawn Dixon of Columbia. When the Edwards campaign used the event organizing site "Eventful.com" to run a contest -- Edwards would go where the people wanted him to go -- Dixon led the charge to bring Edwards to Columbus. In doing so, his efforts beat out Los Angeles and Seattle, among other cities.
So here we are.
Other than thanking the good people of Columbus, Edwards wants the news coverage to emphasize his popularity in this rural hamlet in a Southern state won twice by Bill Clinton. The implied message: "Could Hillary Clinton campaign here?"
Far too often small towns like Columbus are ignored during discussion around presidential or national politics. In turn, the needs of citizens in rural America aren’t considered when it comes time for our elected representatives to make important legislative decisions that affect the lives of urban, suburban and rural folk.
Many times politicians swoop in and out of the largest city of a rural state to pick up checks and pose for the requisite airport meet-and-greet photo, ignoring constituents who live outside of the metro area. Thanks to the internet and developing technologies, you and I have the power to change that like never before—the power to organize and demand that our leaders pay attention to the issues that affect rural Americans everyday.
Rural America deserves a new dialogue and new ideas on how to tackle the problems plaguing our towns and communities—extreme poverty, lack of health care coverage, unemployment, high energy costs and access to technology. For example, the poverty rate in Kentucky is well above the national average and persistent poverty is prevalent all across rural America and the South. Persistent poverty areas are defined as areas that have consistently had a poverty rate of above 20 percent. Eighty-eight percent of those areas are located in rural America and of those 82 percent are in the South.
So why is there such a demand for John Edwards in rural Western Kentucky? Because he is the candidate addressing their issues.
Shawn Dixon on why John Edwards excites rural voters.
I started the "demand" for Columbus because too often rural areas are neglected during presidential campaigns and in the important policy debates happening in our federal legislatures. Though Columbus is only a town of 229 people, we represent the tens of millions of citizens who work, live and raise their families in rural America.
We are thrilled that Senator Edwards is coming to our town and take seriously our responsibility to represent rural Americans everywhere. His visit is most exciting for our community because it presents a real opportunity to engage in a substantive dialogue about the everyday challenges facing rural Americans: extreme poverty, lower access to technology, including broadband internet, the disproportionate effect of high energy prices on rural Americans, lower access to healthcare due to doctors leaving rural areas - just to name some of the most pressing challenges.
1. Restore economic fairness to rural America by helping small businesses thrive and grow. Edwards will create the Rural Economic Advancement Challenge (REACH) Fund to bring capital and management expertise to small town America.
2. Create a new energy economy in rural America by establishing the New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart renewable energies. Edwards will create new markets for ethanol, invest in renewable energy research, support locally owned biorefineries and require 25 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2025.
3. Create fairness for family farmers by supporting strong antitrust enforcement, capping farm subsidies for corporate farms and supporting the packer ban and a national moratorium on new and expanded hog lagoons.
4. Strengthen rural schools by improving pay for teachers in rural and other hard-to-staff schools to help attract quality new and experienced teachers, and by creating digital learning opportunities.
5. Improve health care in rural America by rewriting the unfair Medicare and Medicaid funding formulas that punish rural states and communities, and supporting investments in telemedicine. Additionally, Edwards' plan for universal health care will cover the 9 million rural Americans that lack insurance and establish a nationwide network of safety net clinics and public hospitals.
6. Rid rural America of methamphetamines by investing in the enforcement of drug laws in rural areas, help states make meth ingredients more difficult to get and expand programs that successfully treat addicts.
I talked about his plan in a diary months ago as it applies to my home in rural Arkansas and it helped me become a stronger Edwards supporter. John Edwards concentration on rural issues may also help explain why he does so well in state polls against the Republicans like Missouri and Oklahoma.
Richard Greene's show last night was centered around John Edwards' contribution to the Air America Presidential Project, wherein the network offers each and every presidential candidate air time to speak directly to AAR's audience. I've got some audio clips for you.
All of us who think of ourselves as progressives are at a point right now where we can take back the title of "party of ideas" from the GOP. There is no bigger idea than one that holds that viable public institutions and government intervention can, indeed, not only help real people but they may actually be better solutions than those found in the private sector.
But we can't do it if we deride one of our own for choosing to use a public institution to help finance his election campaign.
As flawed as it is, public campaign financing is no less flawed than running campaigns without it and literally turning our democracy into one big "money primary". Just as you should be able to choose whether to use state-sponsored health care or private insurers, a candidate should be able to choose whether or not public campaign financing is preferable given his or her specific circumstances. To deride that choice, to declare the "end of the campaign" simply because a candidate chooses to utilize a public institution, flies in the face of everything that progressives should stand for.
Kos asked for consistency, and with respect, I think I'm giving him a barrel full.
John Edwards' decision last week to participate in public campaign financing set off a qualm-storm in the media about his ranking among the Democratic candidates but, for us, it strongly reaffirmed our confidence in him.
It was deemed a sign of financial weakness by completely fallible political junkies and media critics who've anointed a front-runner despite the fact that the race is too close to call in Iowa, and other candidates have gathered more endorsements and raised more money.
To us, Edwards' decision meant we'd chosen the right candidate, one who prefers public money with its limitations to the complications of accepting donations from donors who prove to be fugitives from justice.
Edwards' move to public financing was principled. It was about his refusal to take corporate campaign contributions -- which he calls corporate bribes. He's got that right.
And we had it right when we endorsed him on Labor Day.
Edwards, Not Hillary, is Dems' Best Chance By Steven Stark
According to the latest conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is threatening to turn the Democratic presidential-nomination race into a rout. Key to her current appeal is the assumption that she's the party's most electable candidate. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 54 percent of Democrats described her as their best hope in 2008. (The other candidates lagged behind.)
There's only one problem with this faith in Clinton's electability: it's wrong. On paper, John Edwards is the party's best chance for a victory, even though his latest fundraising difficulties have made it increasingly unlikely that he will ever be the nominee.
Sure, Clinton often runs ahead of the Democratic pack in polls that track the candidates' strengths against possible GOP opponents. But that's because she has already assumed the role of a nominee, and the others have not. If Edwards or Barack Obama won the nomination, that air of certainty would transfer to either of them.
In truth, Democrats who are supporting Clinton because of her electability probably haven't been reading the latest polls carefully. In current match-ups with Republicans, Clinton isn't looking particularly strong, despite the GOP now being weaker and more divided than it is likely to be a year from now. There are also early warning signs that Clinton's presence at the top of the ticket could be a disaster for her party's congressional candidates in many closely contested races.
Several campaign staffers and supporters - including Elizabeth Edwards - will be guests on Clout, a nightly talk show on Air America Radio hosted by Richard Greene
Edwards Unveils Plan To End The Current System Of Outsourcing Security Missions To Private Contactors
...
"The recent incidents of violence involving Blackwater contractors in Iraq, including the shooting of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last month, have caused tremendous damage to America's battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis," said Edwards. "These incidents hurt America's moral standing, both in Iraq and around the world. And they serve as a tragic reminder of how the Bush Administration has outsourced our military responsibilities to corporate contractors and political cronies who operate outside of the rules of engagement and without any meaningful oversight.
"As president, I will end our current system of outsourcing security missions to private contractors. It is imperative that we do so and return to an all-volunteer military that responds to the will of the American people."
Amazing that John Edwards even beats Giuliani by 9 points in Oklahoma.
Image thanks to BruinKid
Survey USA - October 3, 2007
Oklahoma
vs. Mitt Romney
Clinton - 47% Romney 44%
Obama - 40% Romney - 46%
Edwards - 53% Romney - 32%
Clinton leads by 3%, Obama trails by 6%, Edwards leads by 21%
vs. Fred Thompson
Clinton - 44% Thompson - 50%
Obama - 35% Thompson - 55%
Edwards - 47% Thompson - 41%
Clinton trails by 6%, Obama trails by 20%, Edwards leads by 6%
vs. Rudy Giuliani
Clinton - 44% Giuliani - 47%
Obama - 33% Giuliani - 54%
Edwards - 49% Giuliani - 40%
Clinton trails by 3%, Obama trails by 21%, Edwards leads by 9%
Averages
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 2.00% Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 15.66% Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 9.00%
Another great take on how Edwards can handle fund raising after the primary. If Edwards follows a strategy like this, we will have the biggest majorities in the house and senate in the longest time...
One analytical response is this: Catastrophe. A nominee Edwards, penniless and bereft, wouldn't be able to respond to the rightwing hate barrage that is certain to hit our nominee after he - or she - emerges. That would be entirely in line with conventional wisdom.
An alternative view is simply this: that funding gap can and will be filled by the Democratic National Committee, which brings with it several strategic advantages. First of all, the limit for donations to theDNC is $28,500, significantly in excess of the $2,300 limit in contributions to a single candidate in a primary. Of course, as Kos pointed out, contributions to the DNC have historically lagged behind those to the RNC. To this I say, well, duh. Democrats have historically lagged behind republicans, period. However, a situation like this one has not recently arisen; nor will there be competition to the DNC from the fundraising apparatus of our nominee. Past will not be precedent in this instance; certainly not with a sterling candidate like Edwards and a transformative agenda that meets the country's desire for change. All the move to public financing represents is a shift in the location and emphasis of the fundraising apparatus for the later primary, as well as the not inconsiderable benefit of having a candidate freed to do that arcane thing, actually campaigning.
Then, there is the huge ancillary benefit of using this expected flood of DNC funding not just to promote Edwards as our nominee, but to build brand Democrat and other candidates as well. This because the DNC is limited to what the FEC defines, very loosely one might add, as party-building. Long story short, they can run as many ads on behalf of John Edwards as they like - provided such ads also talk about Democrats in general.
That's the crux of it: with Edwards as our nominee, we'll have months of a concerted effort to build up the entire Democratic Party, paid for by the Democratic Party - and that's what's going missing here. Strange that this enormous potential upside to a nominee Edwards has been overlooked, no? If you like the Fifty State strategy, John Edwards is your guy. Neither Obama or Hillary have given any indication whatsoever that they'd be even interested in a similar effort. Rather, they follow the traditional, by-the-books, Beltway-approved candidate-focused approach, while Edwards, creating a virtue out of necessity, will have to lead with a party-centric strategy. This effort will be of enormous value to downticket Democrats.
... but, but, but, Edwards is doing this to try to win the nomination
One red herring argument that gets tossed into this is the point that this decision is likely to benefit the Edwards campaign.
This is a puzzling point. Ever since mandatory limits were knocked down by the courts, the system was designed so that it would benefit candidates, in order to entice candidates to enter into the system.
So it should not be surprising that even when the fund-raising leaders have pushed themselves well beyond the limits of the system, in a ferocious campaign financing arms-race, there are a large number of candidates who can still gain an advantage from the system.
However, this is a useful debating point for distracting from the question of why else the candidate has made this decision ... knowing that the exact controversy that we are seeing this week would be certain to erupt as a result.
And the simplest answer is that John Edwards has the courage of his convictions, and those convictions are the same as he expressed in the campaign-announcement-announcement above. We can't wait for change to arrive. We need to be the change that we are waiting for. And by joining together, we can build the organization that will bring it about.
Blog outreach head for the Edwards campaign, Tracy Russo, describes how Elizabeth Edwards met with mommy bloggers:
This weekend, while campaigning in California, Elizabeth sat down with 22 writers from the Silicon Valley Moms blog, plus another dozen or so moms joined in via conference call from sister sites Chicago Moms blog and DC Metro Moms blog. Elizabeth sat down with the Silicon Valley moms last year, before John announced his intention to run, so this meeting was both a reunion and a serious discussion of the issues.
If you thought these bloggers would be pitching softballs - think again. The moms came prepared to ask tough questions about John's positions on everything from universal health care to education to tax policy.
Edwards raised $7M, and currently has $12M cash on hand. Including the $10M the campaign is expected to receive in public funds, the unlimited spending that can be made on field, and that Edwards so far has only spent $23K on paid media in Iowa, and he is clearly financially well-posited for the primaries. In fact, the Edwards campaign is still ahead of where Dean was at this point in 2003, and will probably complete non-field fundraising before Iowa given that he has an impressive 150,000 donors. All of this makes me wonder even more why he decided to opt into public financing. Some may argue it was principle, while others argue it was a short-term decision to achieve monetary parity in the primary season. While at one time I leaned toward the latter, after seeing this strong total I now lean toward the former. With $12M cash on hand, he certainly didn't need to opt in to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Whatever it is, it hurts his otherwise strong case for electability. Also, the Edwards campaign will use opting in to public funds as part of its campaign messaging and attacks against other candidates.
Chris Bowers seems to disagree with the narrative as well.
Overlooked by many, it was revealed in a conference call Monday with the Edwards campaign that John Edwards made the decision to adopt Public Financing for the Democratic primary over two months ago after YearlyKos. The decision was made by John Edwards himself after he began to take Clinton on for taking lobbyist money. Clinton claimed that the real solution to the money problem was public financing and not lobbyist money. He felt that instead of just advocating for public financing, he should be a role model for his position.
The idea, said Trippi, was first broached by Edwards roughly two months ago and initially pooh-poohed by his political advisers. Why? Because of the spending strictures the acceptance of public financing places on a candidate in individual states ($1.5 million in Iowa and roughly $820,000 in New Hampshire) as well as more nationally ($50 million for the entire primary season, which lasts until the national party convention in late August).
The timing of this decision directly contradicts the narrative that John Edwards' campaign decided for him that public financing was just a way to make it's fund raising goal for the third quarter.
It was also revealed, contrary to predictions, that the campaign did make it's fund raising goal for the third quarter bringing their total raised to 30 Million without any matching funds through public financing, further dismissing the narrative.
I like Kos, but he isn't always right. His opinion is respected around the blogsphere, but it is just that... his opinion. Now, one problem I have with Kos' declaration of a possible catastrophe is that it has no previous instance to back up his assertion. For this, lets go to the wolf...
I doubt that the spending caps that come with public funds will cripple Edwards in the general election, as Ezra and Markos think. We aren't talking about a congressional campaign here -- we're talking about a race for president, where free media and ads from 527 groups are going to be way more significant than anything the candidates themselves put on air.
...
This really gets to my point. We have data and polls on electability showing John Edwards to be the most electable. Then we have what Kos thinks may happen.
"We must not allow a mineshaft gap!"
As for big money in politics...
"There were those of us who fought against it... We were afraid of a Doomsday Gap... Our source was the New York Times."
"I wish we had one of those" indeed! Do we want big money out of politics or not? Should we build a Doomsday machine to protect us from the Republican's Doomsday machine? I argue no. Not having a doomsday machine is not the same as unilateral disarmament.
Kos himself said this issue is about electability. Well, electibility isn't made up of just advertisement money.
John Edwards simply does best against the Republican candidates in general election polls. My diary addressing this from Saturday:
John Edwards Destroys Giuliani Nationally 50% to 41%
John Edwards 50% to Rudy Giuliani 41% John Edwards 49% to Fred Thompson 39% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_thompson
For comparison:
Clinton 48% to Giuliani 43% Clinton 49% to Thompson 41% http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson
Obama 47% to Giuliani 42% Obama 47% to Thompson 41% http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_obama_vs_giuliani_and_thompson
Richardson 40% to Giuliani 43% Richardson 41% to Thompson 42% http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_richardson_vs_giuliani_and_thompson
And as evidenced by mulitple diaries and polls, John Edwards clearly is leading in most battleground and Southern state polls as well. For a great example of this, see be inspired's diary.
Edwards typically outperforms other leading Democratic hopefuls in general election match-ups
...
Still, Edwards currently leads the top four Republican candidates by an average of nearly nine points. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton leads the top GOP hopefuls by an average of six points while Barack Obama holds an average lead of five points (see a summary of general election match-ups and other key stats for all Democratic and Republican candidates).
Now, the point I am trying to make:
Since John Edwards already is more electable than his Democratic rivals in the general election, does Kos' assertion hold water? If we take the worst case scenario where public financing is going to "sap... all of our precious bodily fluids," would that even be enough to erase the four points that John Edwards already has over his Democratic rivals against the Republicans?
We don't know the answer to that question, but we can look to past examples the best we can to make predictions for the future. If we look at the 2004 election, John Kerry took a big hit during the summer but the money that hit him didn't come from George W. Bush (at least not directly), rather it came from a 527 which is immune from the advertising spending cap. John Kerry is one of my favorite senators, but all the money in the world didn't get Kerry to effectively fight back against these attacks. The fact is that effectively defending oneself and attacking opponents depends more on the candidate than on their money. For example, Barack Obama with all his money has been criticized for his inability to attack Clinton while John Edwards was praised at the last debate for how successful he was at it. And he did not need a multi-million dollar ad campaign to do it.
The most significant ads of election 2004 weren't put out by a campaign, and they didn't hit a candidate who was bound by spending caps. They were the Swift Boat ads, issuing from an independent 527 group and going on air after the Democratic convention. Especially on the negative side, 527 ads are better than candidate ads, because the candidate doesn't have to take responsibility for them. If Edwards winning the nomination means that you and I get to pick the pro-Edwards (or anti-whoever) ads of spring and summer by funding our favorite 527s, that's fine with me.
So by looking at 2004, we see that the biggest hits came from outside the public financing structure. And remember, the spending caps only apply to advertising.
At some point, we must look at what John Edwards as a candidate brings to the table that would make the advertising spending limit not so important.
A presidential candidate -- even one who can't run his own ads -- is one of the most-watched human beings on the planet. Free media opportunities are all over the place. If Edwards wants to hit back against an opposing ad, he just has to go on Larry King's show. And if there's anything that the Edwards campaign has been good at in the Trippi era, it's free media. From the Hair video to the poverty tour to the constant shower of policy proposals to the clear and powerful distinctions between himself and Hillary that caused most observers to call him the winner of the last debate, Edwards has been able to maintain the media profile of a first-tier candidate, without the first-tier money. If there's a campaign that can win the free media game, it's the one that Joe Trippi is running.
With all the punditry over the strategy of public financing, the benefits of what it does are being ignored. At YearlyKos ALL of the candidates endorsed Public Financing as the way to get rid of the special interests. The problem is that we don't want to replace corporate Republicans with Democrats beholden to the same corporations. We have seen the impact big oil and big pharma has on the Republicans and even on the Democrats (anybody remember the energy bill from this year). We cannot assume any Democrat will bring the big bold change we need. We must make sure that we know which one is going to take us there. Public financing takes this money away and frees John Edwards from any corporate entanglements, unlike his Democratic rivals. John Edwards will end the game and end the war.
However, there has also been the goal of electing GOOD Democrats and cleaning house.
Kos admits that John Edwards is right on the merits. Public financing does what we all want, it takes the corporate money out of our elections.
This is the definition of cleaning house. John Edwards is as clean and as GOOD a Democrat as they come.
However, Kos and some other A-list bloggers are deathly afraid of TAKING A CHANCE! The gate-crashers have only crashed one of the gates and are now scared to crash the next one.
Money does not mean everything Kos. We killed Repubs in 2006 and we did NOT have a big money advantage. Money helps, but it does not win elections. Candidates like Jim Webb, John Tester, and John Edwards win elections. Will DailyKos be left following someone else through the gates?
So how about we have some courage?
...
Don't wait... Donate!
http://www.actblue.com/page/4edwards4progress
Donate and your first $250 will be DOUBLED thanks to Public Financing!
Updated - A response to Kos' response: Kos has respectfully responded with a post about public financing. I cannot write two diaries in one day, so I must update the one I have.
He supplies more predictions about public financing:
Tying one arm behind our back If there's one thing we've learned from Republicans, it's that they always bring a howitzer to a gunfight, while Democrats don't even bother bringing a knife -- they bring a spork.
First off, I disagree with the analogy. Public financing is more analogous to tying your middle finger to your pointer finger. It may look a little strange, but what difference does it make? When you point, you use two fingers instead of one.
The truth is that the state spending cap only applies to advertising in the states, otherwise John Edwards presidential campaign would be as well funded as any other campaign not using public financing. One thing people are overlooking is that John Edwards has promised, in the spirit of the 50 State Strategy which has been supported so strongly on DailyKos and by the DNC, to campaign in all 50 states. If you realize that, he can spend his money during these 6 months laying the groundwork for CONGRESS and SENATE victories while simultaneously forcing the Republicans to defend their own turf from his campaign taking over "red states." The DNC will surely be willing to help pay for a presidential campaign to raise the awareness of their candidates in districts that badly need it. Really, we will see a completely different general election campaign than we have seen since JFK visited all the states when he ran for President.
Welcome! I am setting up this blog because I need more posts than some other websites afford me for political blogging. However, I call it the Irregular because I will vary the number of posts made due to my irregular schedule. Well, let's get started!
