EDWARDS could have "risked" some of his 54+ Millions rather than take Matching Funds. Why didn't he?

[FrenchieCat]

If he believes in what he is doing and believes, as his supporters do. that he can really win big?

Why didn't he just use some of his personal fortune like John Kerry did, and turned down matching funds, like he said he would earlier this year? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm


Why would he allow himself and his party to have to deal with his lack of funds if he were to get the nomination. Isn't this supposed to be an important election?

Why isn't the love of his country worth his taking a personal monetary risk? :shrug:

I mean, he's got 24 million in Hedgefund investments alone!

So how is he showing faith in himself and what he believes is important to him?

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Are you opposed to public financing?

If so, then may the richest candidate win.
That doesn't sound like democracy to me.

[cali]

2. I'm opposed to a candidate taking public financing if all the other candidates

both repuke and dem are operating outside of it.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Please unplug your TV, cali: You are the victim of the Bandwagon Fallacy

Just because "everyone" is doing it, doesn't make it right.

[cali]

11. well, I would, but I don't have tv, rufus. haven't in years

don't listen to stupid talk radio- except occasionally for Thom. Don't read such rags as newsweak. Don't tune in to the MSM at all. Haven't for years.

I reach my opinions independently. I get my news from CBC, BBC, Harper's, The Nation, The New Yorker and various other journals.

bzzzt to you for making an assumption without a shred of knowledge. Try again, Mr. Firefly.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Urh.....it might be different IF John Edwards hadn't stated

as recently as earlier this year....

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

How can Edwards change the system, if he's not willing to take the gamble personally. He can't change a thing in reference to public financing if he doesn't get elected. He-Lo?

[Crunchy Frog]

21. No doubt that statement was a "mistake"

and he will soon apologize for it and say how wrong he was. Then everything will be fine. :)

[cascadiance]

109. With public financing as it is in Arizona candidates aren't ALLOWED to finance campaigns themselves!

Which is specifically there to prevent only the rich millionaires to be able to afford it.

So by not financing it himself, he IS following the way publicly financed campaigns should be run!

Now you can say that pragmatically that creates issues, with the way our current laws are set up governing public campaign financing, it is true that there are obstacles he faces other candidates don't. But to question his sincerity when he is in fact following what public campaign financing laws would and should be is not fair.

If he can overcome these barriers and still win despite these limitations, I think it speaks loudly that there is even a greater call for public campaign financing to be improved upon and be made our way of financing campaigns.

[FrenchieCat]

4. It will be very, very difficult for this rich man to win the presidency then........

Also, remember that when you're talking public funds, the downside is that they have spending caps. So however much money Edwards has, his spending in the primary states will be severely restricted (save on field, which doesn't come under the caps). Moreover, the problem with public funding isn't in the primaries, but once they're completed. Kos explains:

Lots of money is spent in January and February. Let's say Edwards emerges the victor -- wins Iowa, and parlays that victory into national momentum. It could really happen, especially if Hillary and Barack beat the crap out of each other.

So he's won, but he's spent his primary money, and he won't get his first general election check until after the Democratic convention. August 25.

So Edwards won't have any money in March, April, May, June, July, and most of August. That's six months of darkness.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=edwards_and_public_funds_1

[avrdream]

5. Yeah, that was one thing that really impressed me about John Kerry.

He put his OWN money at risk to become President.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Gee, so only rich people can run? That's swell. Happy oligarchy! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

9. John Edwards IS rich. Duh!

Yes....MR. JOHN I've-got-24-millions-worth-of-Hedgefund-Investments-plus-20 mil-in-the-bank-and-a-giant-house-but-I-will-take-public-financing-cause I-don't-have-enough-faith-in-my-candidacy-to-self-finance-myself-and-risk-any-of-my-personal-fortune-but-I-do-really-really-care-about-all-of-you-so-much-cause-I-say-so EDWARDS is rich, godnabbit!

Meanwhile, John Kerry mortgaged his house.

Guess which one indicated via action rather than mere words that he was willing to take a personal risk?

[aquart]

15. That seems to be what you have against him. His earned wealth.

A man who earns his money rather than inherits or marries it might look differently at it.

This seems to trouble you terribly.

MY suggestion is that you vote for the candidate you prefer, rather than squirrel out quibbles as excuses to dislike a man who worked for every dime he has.

Because Edwards is not the one who looks ridiculous here.

[cali]

17. I don't have a problem with his being rich.

I have a problem with his hypocrisy. Investing all that dough in a hedge fund speaks volumes. If you don't know why, I suggest you read up on hedge funds.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Yeah, right....I'm just jealous and ridiculous....

That John Edwards likes to run his mouth about how much he cares, but yet he couldn't be smart enough and dedicated to the cause of caring enough to realize that he was sitting on 54 million dollars!

24 million of which are invested in a Hedgefund.

Money that he could use to accomplish his goal of saving this country....

Instead, determined and passionate, Edwards decides to stick others with the price tag and the potential danger that having no money to defend oneself will bring.

Yeah...he's a real fighter, and I'm just a jealous ranting coyote who looks ridiculous! :sarcasm:

Yeah....that's what it is.

[karynnj]

40. The point is that he has $54 million

Kerry risked losing the only major asset he personally had. He was not allowed by law to used THK's money. Had he lost the primary, he would have had difficulty repaying that loan - and it would have been an illegal contribution if THK did.

Are you saying that Kerry's life work as a public servant is somehow less deserving than Edwards work as a lawyer and his work for the Hedge Fund company etc? Also, Kerry did not marry money, he married Teresa. It is an insult to both of them as people to say otherwards. The money that THK has will go, as it should, to the three Heinz sons, not John Kerry. Senator Kerry also did not inherit money until his mother died. He was far poorer through his adult life than Edwards was, because he opted to be a public servant rather than to use his abundant connections to make large sums of money.

[Hieronymus]

50. Thanks .. Edwards stands for what he believes.

[MGKrebs]

64. And he's willing to risk another 8 years of our future in his Quixotic quest.

I hope Huckabee wins the Repub nomination, because he may be the only one of those guys Edwards can beat.

[huskerlaw]

75. Wrong.

Edwards beats ALL of the Republicans. By far wider margins than any of the other Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html

[MGKrebs]

83. Too bad the election isn't tomorrow.

[huskerlaw]

85. Perhaps.

But that doesn't change the fact that all of the polls...this is just the most recent...say your previous statement is patently false. In fact, the exact opposite of what you said is true.

[MGKrebs]

91. As the rest of this thread explains, Edwards is spending ALL of his

money now, before the first primary. He will have essentially NO money for 6 months, during which time he will likely be getting pummeled by a $100 million campaign to discredit, damage, and destroy his credibility, his message, his character, and his candidacy, and he will not be able to fight back. That is the scenario that makes yesterdays' polls irrelevant in this case.

Then he will have to try to go toe to toe for the two months after the convention. There won't be time to mount a sustained campaign to overcome the damage done no matter how much money he has at that point.

[FrenchieCat]

92. And so John Edwards is more unelectable than the other two frontrunners......

Politics is a blood sport, and Edwards running out into the arena without the adequate tools to win the all important match is a great diservice to all Democrats.

There is a real reason that there is as much money as there is in politics at this time......and the reality of the possible results of Edwards' decision to not risk his own should not escape us.

[huskerlaw]

116. That's ridiculous

are the other dem candidates spending all of their own money on their campaigns? No? Huh.

Also, as I said to the other post, unless you're privvy to Edwards' campaign financials...and I'm not just talking about contributions, but also how he plans to spend them, then you're talking out of your ass.

I fail to see how the fact that he isn't bankrolling his campaign himself is a BAD thing.

[FrenchieCat]

129. Which is why you support John Edwards......

because you fail to see......

[huskerlaw]

134. Oh, you're so right

you clearly have a more powerful crystal ball than I do! I bow to your superior knowledge.

Oh. Wait. You still haven't proven that you're not talkin' out your ass.

Nevermind.

[huskerlaw]

114. That's not true either

and unless you're privvy to his exact spending figures and expenditure plan, you're pulling that statement out of your ass as well.

Nice try though.

[MGKrebs]

142. What I know is that Edwards had spent $18 million as of

the end of September. That was almost three months ago. ($8 million in the third quarter alone.) I think it's a pretty safe bet that he has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million since then. I also think it is reasonable to believe that he will spend around another $10 million getting to the Feb. 5th big primary day. I mean after all, is anyone suggesting he can win this without spending any money? if he doesn't spend it to win the primary, the rest is kind of moot, no?

I also know that Kerry and Edwards spent $250 million in the primary last year. (I don't know how to separate out their individual campaigns from when they became a team, but Edwards is shown to have raised $33 million, so one could surmise that all the rest was Kerry and Kerry/Edwards.)

So the history and the evidence would suggest that Edwards will have about $32 million to get from Feb. 6 to August 30. ($70 million estimated cap -18-10-10=32.I believe that is an optimistic estimate.) And the history and the evidence is pretty clear that any opponent will have in excess of $100 million in that same time frame.

I would love for Edwards to have some heretofore unknown method of winning without raising competitive money, but I have seen no clue of it from him yet.

All data from here:
http://www.opensecrets.org /

[RufusTFirefly]

16. Oh yeah. Kerry was just one paycheck away from homelessness

You're missing the point (surprise!). Rich people can be President. (Excuse me, but FDR?) And there's arguably an advantage to being a rich person running for President, namely that you have what we used to call "'Go to Hell' money." In other words, you've got enough that no one can tell you what to do.

But just as it took a rich person (FDR) to say that the country's poor and oppressed deserve respect and empowerment, it takes a rich person (Edwards) to say that our campaign financing setup is bullshit. Money should have absolutely nothing to do with a person's suitably for the country's highest office. (just as your employment -- or lack thereof -- should have nothing to do with whether you are entitled to health care or not.) If you truly believe that how much money you spend on a campaign has any bearing on what sort of President you'll be, then we are screwed.

But then, I already knew that.

Hop in the hand basket and enjoy!

[FrenchieCat]

25. You are the one missing the point......it's called LOSING.

Edwards was not so moral in early 2007....so I'm not quite sure why you feel I'm the one in need of a lecture on this now.

ON the one hand, John Edwards is being sold as being soooo electable. On the other hand, I guess as you see it, he's only running for President to give us the message that public Financing is a good thing.

If you don't understand the difference in priority between handicapping oneself as not to being able to win an election and affect real change vs. understanding the pros on the issue the Public financing...what can I say except for....you're in the wrong thread.

[zalinda]

32. Sorry, then you don't know John Edwards

I just read an article about Edwards http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001600_pf.html I suggest you read it. He doesn't like to lose. He didn't like to lose when he was a kid, and doesn't like to lose now.

He has played it very smart. He hasn't thrown money at the voters, he has gone out to meet them. He has been very careful in his ad buys. Would you rather have a President who throws money at the problem, or one who spends money like it is his own, so he gets the best bang for the buck?

He's a plodder, a thinker, he looks to where he'll have success. And, as Cali so often reminds us, he bought into hedge funds. Now, I don't know about you, but if I won the lottery tomorrow, I wouldn't know who to trust with my money. I would want to have the biggest bang for the buck on where to put it, and I would want to know how the whole system works. If I had the reputation, and they would hire me, I would work at a hedge fund. I would want to know exactly how it works. And yes, you can take a class, but would you really know how it works, or would you know only what they want you to know. For example, I know many people who "put up websites", they got all the books, took classes or hired some company to design their site, but they have absolutely no idea HOW the Internet works. They can't understand why they don't have traffic. Unless you immerse yourself into a field that you are interested in, you miss things. Actually, I have a classic example: my grandmother made the best pineapple upside down cake, she gave the recipe out all the time, but no one's came out exactly like hers. One day I watched as she made it, not only did she not use standard measuring cups and spoons, she did something that was so automatic for her that she never put it down on the recipe card. To this day, I'm the only one who knows the "secret". I don't think she even knew she did it.

I'm trusting Edwards. From what I've read about him, he is a man of his word. If he lets me down, well people have let me down before. But, when a man hates to lose all his life, you have to think, he's got a plan.

zalinda

[cali]

38. lol!

lamest defense ever.

[MGKrebs]

133. It does come down to trust.

In my view, Edwards and Trippi looked at how much money they (weren't) raising, and decided they could get more through the matching system. This would get them to the first primaries, and they would have to just have to deal with the implications later if they won. But they are risking a lot, and it's not like you and a hedge fund- we all have a stake in this. If they don't have a plan to compete- and hopefully if they can't convince a lot of people that they have a plan to compete- he won't win the primary, because we need to see how he plans to overcome this disadvantage.

[karynnj]

42. Not to mention - Did Edwards write even one line of legislation

for public financing? Did he ever speak about it?

[karynnj]

41. Actually, there were times in Kerry's life where he WAS homeless

because he could not afford apartments in both DC and Boston, his children's education and support, and money to travel every week to Boston to be with them. Even so, he was never really without shelter or lacking anything he needed. By the time he ran for President, he was far wealthier and of course married to a wonderful woman, who was extremely wealthy.

Neither Edwards or Kerry ever had to worry about having food or shelter. The Edwards were 2 lawyers, who within years of leaving Law School were upper middle class or better.

Frenchie point is that it is strange that when he could have loaned or given his campaign money he didn't. A better example than Kerry, who had to mortgage his house is Romney, who added substantial amounts of his own money when his fund raising fell. It was a gamble.

[Inspired]

36. Poor John Kerry risked his HOUSE? Where's he living now? His car?

[karynnj]

43. He didn't lose

He wouldn't be living in his car, but he would have lost the only major asset he had. He would, of course, still be living with his wife. Even if Teresa divorced him, he would not have been destitute. He would still have his Senate job and a Senate pension when he retires. What he wouldn't have is any large amount of money to leave his daughters. There were good friends who advised against taking this risk.

The closer example for Edwards is not Kerry, but Romney, who was willing to put a large amount of his money into his campaign. The point is not about Kerry, but that a wealthy man was willing to handicap his campaign rather than use some of his fortue.

[Hieronymus]

51. Kerry was a lousy candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

78. If you think so...but Kerry did put his money where his mouth was.......

which is not something that can be said about Mr. John talk that talk just don't walk the walk Edwards.

[Hieronymus]

122. I really don't think the presidency should be available to those willing to

pay the most for it.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

82. how long you lived in America?

you know anybody that's poor who's had a shot in hell at winning the Presidency?

[RufusTFirefly]

108. That's great. Well let's stay the course then!

Heard of racial justice, women's suffrage, gay rights?
We're not there yet on all of them, but I'm glad we're trying instead of simply throwing up our hands and concluding
"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change."

[Scriptor Ignotus]

140. well you were acting incredulous

that only rich people could run. that's hardly me supporting the status quo.

[FrenchieCat]

8. To me, that means one is serious and is willing to take the risk......

possibly out of some weird thing like believing in oneself and what one is willing to sacrifice for that belief. And John Kerry didn't even have 54 million dollars!

So here's John Edwards, the candidate of the people and for the people who will be sitting on 54 million fucking dollars, and yet......will have no money in March, April, May, June, July, and most of August.


That's six months of darkness.

How stupid is that?

Is that sound political judgment from someone wanting badly to get the job to save us and this nation?

[sandnsea]

10. Ya know Frenchie

I don't know what you do for a living but I would NEVER want to have you put my business in your sites!

:toast:

[FrenchieCat]

13. Ironically, I'm an accountant sandsea.....

So although Edwards decided to act as though he doesn't understand the power of 54 million dollars vs. investing a big fat zero personal risk in his quest to "change" America......I certainly do. :)

[tritsofme]

12. I suppose the DNC would be forced to take a much more active role in the campaign

In such a situation.

Not really a good rock to be sitting under.

[FrenchieCat]

14. or something.....

But of course my point is that John Edwards had the resources....he just didn't "feel" like parting with them.

I guess his causes are not worth to him as much as he oftentime states.

[Inspired]

37. You don't have an open mind to accept what he 'feels',

You've been in Edwards attack mode for a very long time.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Your post doesn't address the issue.......

It only attacks me for my daring to make a point about a presidential candidate.

So how does John Edward reconcile the fact that he calls himself a fighter, and then tied his hands behind his back.....when he didn't have to?

[Inspired]

93. I'm not attacking you.

Addressing any issue you have with Edwards is a waste of time. You really don't want it to be addressed. You just want to attack him. I've seen it over and over again.

If Edwards used his own money, I have no doubt you would find fault with that too. The old Edwards-is-rich-and-now-wants-to-try-to-buy-the-presidency routine. I know it as much as I know anything.

I don't really care if Edwards accepted public financing or not. I don't care if he once said he thought he could campaign without it. I don't care if he has millions. The majority of dems state they are for public financing and when one accepts this financing, some pounce for sport. And that is all it is with you....sport.

The only thing I care about is getting his 80 page booklet, which outlines his plans to change America, into the hands of as many Iowa caucus goers as possible.

[FrenchieCat]

112. You attack me in telling me that I don't have an open mind.....

I point out the handicap that Edwards has foisted upon himself, and you give me various excuses as to why you don't care if Democrats are handicapped.

You tell me that if John Edwards would have used his own money, he would have been criticized nevertheless, but you offer no proof of that. I ask why John Edwards would want to worry about how he is criticized on this anyways, if he knows that in the end, the reason that he would do what Kerry did in 2003 would be for a larger good? He wasn't worried about being criticized when he was going to opt out of public financing in 2007 before his fundraising numbers dropped. He didn't worry about it when he self financed his senate run back in 1998. So why do you cite any concern on being criticized now?

You then accuse me of bringing up this issue of Edwards and his not-at-risk-except-via-hedgefund-investment-risk as a sport. Please know that I don't consider the future of this country to be anything remotely related to a sport, in terms of the seriousness of it all. You can read that 80 page booklet all you want, but know that Edwards chose to put himself in a position that will make it hard for anything published in that booklet to ever get accomplished.

Iowa caucus goers should clearly understand the limitations of an Edwards nomination so that they don't get surprised later on........when we lose, although the CW was always that we could have won it.

[Mythsaje]

18. These attacks are getting more and more pathetic.

This one is the saddest yet.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Why don't you tell me why this attack is sad........

Cause I'd like to know what you really think of me....cause certainly, I'm letting you know what I think of John "Fighter for the Poor" Edwards

[Mythsaje]

28. Because his wealth isn't the issue,

as much as you'd like to make it so.

How much of his own wealth should he have "gambled" to make you trust his sincerity? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?

No, it's not enough that he's speaking out about issues NONE of the other candidates seem to give a damn about, not enough that he's attacking the corporate control of Washington DC in barest terms, not enough that he's speaking to and for those who have had no voice, not enough that he doesn't want the money of the corporate lobbyists who are helping to pollute not only the political landscape, but our physical landscape as well.

You're asking why he isn't spending his own money to in an attempt to buy the candidacy, as if that wouldn't be looked upon with contempt as well.

Yeah, that's pathetic.

[FrenchieCat]

48. You are correct, Edwards' wealth isn't the issue......the issue why

would Edwards not be willing to part with some of his wealth for a cause he truly believes in rather than handicapping himself and the Democratic party as a whole for six months?

The only position in where John Edwards could make the meaningful difference (or so he must believe, as he has been running for President since early 2003) is as President. That is the place where he believes he should be obviously. So why wouldn't he risk some of what he has in order to get there? That is the issue I am raising.

[Mythsaje]

74. Because that's not how it works.

And, maybe, if it comes down to crunch time, he will. You have no idea if he will or not. And, no, he hasn't been running for President since 2003. He ran then, took the VP slot for someone who determined that he wasn't willing to fight for it, and then started from scratch again afterward.

This is a made up issue.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Yeah....right, a made up issue........

Well keep your eyes squeezed tight between February and August....which is when we will be dealing with this "Non issue" if Unelectable John Edwards becomes the nominee.

[Mythsaje]

94. I don't think any of our candidates are "unelectable."

But, if I may ask, how do you prefer your crow served?

[cali]

24. it's axiomatic that people think that criticism of their candidate

is a "sad attack". And funny.

[Mythsaje]

30. When was the last time you contributed anything positive

to any thread about any candidate?

None that I've seen.

Your perogative, of course, but it seems pretty pointless to me. At some point it seems like wild flailing for no other reason that out of sheer frustration that your candidate has about as much chance in the race as a hobbled pheasant tossed into a den of coyotes.

Yeah, this attack is sad, for the very reasons I explained in my response to Frenchie's query. There isn't a damn thing that Edwards could do that would change the tune some people are playing...certainly not by spending his own money and opening him up to charges of trying to "buy" the candidacy.

[cali]

31. you have a selective eye. I've written plenty positive

about all the candidates- even Edwards. I most often write positively about Obama and Kucinich. This morning I posted a thread in GD defending Dennis re his vote on the resolution in the House praising Christianity. A few days ago I posted a thread entitled "I like the sound of President Obama". I've defended and praised and criticized all the the candidates. Try actually looking and not throwing out inaccuracies. You're just wrong.

[Mythsaje]

33. Okay. I admit I have seen you step up to defend

Clinton. And I remember even agreeing with you on one occasion or another, as much as it pains me to do so with regards to her.

But what I'm sick of is this whole-hearted effort on the part of some people here to tear down the ONE candidate trying to get out the single message America most needs to hear and understand. The MSM sure as hell ain't letting him get it out there.

To me, the Class War is the ONLY issue. In it is held the truth about the Iraq War, the myth of the "volunteer" military, rampant outsourcing, the social safety net, the fight against climate change, civil rights, universal healthcare, immigration, and damn near every other issue out there. It's all about the money, and those with the money willing to do just about anything to keep making it hand over fist, even if it means poisoning everything around them, from the political and social dialogue to the land, sea, and air itself.

From my point of view, Clinton seems to be on board with far too much of it. Obama wants to play nice with the same people who've brought us to this state, and the rest of the damn candidates aren't even sucking hind tit at this juncture.

So that leaves Johnny. Perfect he ain't. A savior he ain't. But he's a voice saying things America damn well needs to hear and understand. You reach out and tell some blue-collar factory worker who no longer has a job because it's been shipped to China that the people who planned all of it are living high on the hog at his expense, at his family's expense, and he's going to be PISSED. Especially if you speak his language while doing it.

And that trumps every bullshit smear certain DUers seem to be struggling to devise.

[cali]

34. But what you seem unable to deal with is that some of us don't

see his as sincere. I agree with you about the issue of the class war being of paramount importance. But people truly concerned about this huge divide simply do not invest in hedge funds. They are predatory in nature. Ok, this doesn't bother you, but it bothers me immensely. I can take only so much on faith.

[Mythsaje]

66. I don't think he set out to screw anyone.

Especially not the little guy.

Intent matters.

Even if he isn't sincere, and none of this proves he isn't, it's still that important. If he does win the office, it's with a real mandate for real change. He's not owned by the corporate lobbyists, he's not working for industry, and he'll have done it by appealing directly to the people with positions on issues that really matter.

Of course, as my father says, if he's for real, they'll kill him. So I guess we'll find out, eh?

[Hippo_Tron]

19. For those who don't understand how this works, here's my brief explanation

Primary season technically lasts until the candidates accept the nomination at their respective conventions in August. The reality is that the nominee is decided way before then, this year likely in February.

Edwards has chosen to take matching funds for the primary. Matching funds come with the requirement of following set spending limits. The key here is that the spending limits last until August when the General Election officially starts. As usual, when a candidate wins the number of delegates to become the presumptive nominee, the party will unite behind that candidate and start fundraising for that candidate. The problem is that no matter how much money we raise for Edwards between February and August, he will still be very limited in what he can spend because he took matching funds. The Republican candidate, on the other hand, will not be adhering to such spending limits. The entire GOP donor base will be financing the nominee and he will be able to spend every penny of it.

If Clinton or Obama becomes the presumptive nominee they will not be at this disadvantage between February and August because they did not take matching funds. They will be able to spend every penny that is raised for them.

I have no delusions about the fact that this is a fucked up system that needs reform. Matching funds and spending limits should be required, not discouraged. But until we can figure out how to do that, our least bad option is to stay on a level playing field with the Republicans.

[cali]

23. succinctly said. Some supporters argue that 527s will take up the

slack, but it's not the same thing, because they can't coordinate with the campaign and they can't run positive ads about Edwards. Essentially all they can do is go negative on repuke issues.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. They can run positive ads but just can't say "Vote for John Edwards"

And while 527's can do a lot, the fact that they can't coordinate with the campaign is crucial. Campaigns create their ads to re-enforce the message that they want to deliver to voters. While the 527's can figure out the campaign's message pretty easily, they can't figure out how the campaign wants that message delivered. So in reality what you're saying is pretty much correct. The 527's usually just go negative because digging up dirt and smearing the opponent with it doesn't always go hand in hand with the campaign's message.

Plus the Republicans will have their own 527's as well as the GOP candidate's unlimited spending. The slack can't be picked up any way you look at it.

[tritsofme]

26. Extraordinary measures may need to be taken if he is the nominee.

I have heard the possibility of an informal nomination before the convention floated.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. That's not possible, even if it were...

It would still be a problem. Candidates in the General Election are funded with a pool of public money that comes from people who checked the box on their tax forms to put $3 in the pool. Usually it equals about $70 million per candidate. The candidate is then not allowed to raise or spend any additional money.

Now the candidate can forgo this and raise/spend his or her own money in the General Election. It has never happened before but it may indeed happen this year. Here's the problem. Lets say that Edwards did this. He could start raising/spending General Election money in February. Meanwhile the presumptive Republican Nominee is still raising/spending primary money until August. Until August Edwards and the Republican nominee would be about even. But in August the Republican nominee would get a huge boost. In one scenario he accepts the public funding and gets all of that money without doing anything. Assuming he doesn't take the public money, he gets to move into general election rules and collect another $2300 from everybody that gave him the max amount in the primary. The Republican will be allowed to tap into his donors twice, once for the Primary and once for the General Election. Edwards would only be allowed to tap into them once.

[karynnj]

44. The problem with that is the Republicans will fight it as subverting

campaign laws. This was the concern in 2004, when Kerry floated the (good) idea of agreeing to accept the nomination at a specific date (like the start of the Republican campaign) in the future, rather than accepting it outright at the convention. All it would have required was a tiny change in wording. The reaction, from both Democrats and republicans, was extremely negative. Here, it was McAuliffe choosing an early date for the convention that caused the problem. It was the first Presidential election under McCain/Feingold.

[dsc]

35. Kerry's wife is worth 10 times as much as Edwards

who couldn't possibly self finance a primary let alone a general election even if he spent every cent he has.

[karynnj]

45. Kerry's wife was able to give him $2,300 in each election PERIOD

They were also very closely scrutinized on this - where McCain, whose money comes from his wife, was never hit with similar comments or scrutiny. (Nearly every year since the election, there have been Boston Globe articles including Kerry when Congressional information on accepting plane transportation has been reported - for trips on Teresa's plane.)

[dsc]

54. My point isn't that she could give his campaign money

but she surely could give him money. He was hardly threatened with being on the street.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Yeah, but...

... it's not exactly like Edwards would be either. It is his money and his decision but it's not like he would be homeless if he had lent his campaign five or ten million, he would still have a few dozen millions left in assest. It certainly did not hurt Kerry politically last time when he tapped into his own assests to avoid the public finance caps. There are better arguments to be made for why Edwards chose not to tap his own money than any concern about him becoming pennyless as a result.

Eric Massa, as middle class as they come, mortgaged his house to get money to run for Congress in 2006. He too is passionate about changing the direction of this country, and that man had no cushion.

[Mass]

87. Well, Edwards did it to finance his Senate race. He spent only his own money and it was a little

less than $ 10 Millions. Was he threatened to be on the street if he lost?

I do not exactly understand what the argument is here. Some people think that he should have spent his own money. It is his own problem, IMHO, but certainly, it is not as if he was opposed to the concept. HE DID IT IN EARLIER RACES.

[dsc]

120. He would have to finance about 100 million

to be even with Obama and Clinton. Seeing as he has only 50 million that would be pretty hard to do.

[FrenchieCat]

128. That is incorrect......

Your figures are off.....in that Edwards has raised money, and had not, until fairly recently (september I believe) decided to accept matching funds. The Government has not giving him 50 million, nor will it .....nor would he have to spend that!

Once a nominee becomes a nominee, donations come pouring in.

I believe that Kerry, who was at 6% in the polls in mid December loaned his campain about 8 million...and as the winner, was able to pay himself back at the end of it all.

[sendero]

39. If he'd gone the other way...

.. he'd have been accused of trying to buy the election. You can't please everyone.

[Vickers]

46. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

47. But wouldn't John Edwards not worry about what people might think......

if he was more interested in being able to "fight for us", regardless of the personal sacrifice he might have to make, including having to deal with being accused of "buying" the election. Isn't that what "standing up for your convictions" is truly about. Having a worthwhile goal and doing all required to achieve it?

You see, John Edwards didn't have a problem with deciding to go work for an Hedgefund to learn about poverty, even if it meant that some people would accuse his motives to be about personal rofit rather than his "real intentions"; learning about poverty..... as he has insisted.

[sendero]

107. I don't think...

.... earning money or having a lot of it makes one incapable of being interested in the poor or in leveling the playing field.

The Kennedys certainly didn't let it stop them.

[FrenchieCat]

110. What the good in earning a lot of money if most if any of it isn't going to used

to put one in the position to really make a difference in doing something for the poor, if that is what one is "interested" in doing?

The problem is that Edwards has put himself in a position where he will not be playing on a level playing field although he could have if he would have felt strongly enough to put some of his earning at risk.

The question is, how passionate can someone be not to even want to take a chance to lose a little if it means gaining what they desire in order to do good? :shrug:

[LSK]

52. why did John Edwards give up his multimillion dollar law career??

To take enter politics? Hes actually taking a pay cut by becoming a Senator and/or President.

[cali]

55. not true. He's almost tripled his worth since leaving the Senate.

[LSK]

56. source?

We know he was making millions per year as a lawyer and what does a Senator get per year? Not a million...

How is what I say NOT TRUE?

[cali]

57. Open Secrets

You'll have to download the PDF on his personal finances

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00002283

All I'm saying is that he's almost tripled his worth since he left the Senate. You're acting like he made some big sacrifice going into the Senate.

[LSK]

58. well what do you think?

Was he making millions per year as a top lawyer??? What does the Senate pay???

[FrenchieCat]

61. So why does John Edwards not want to invest his own money

to "fight" for the little people he cares so much about?

It is clear that he believes that the best way he can help them is to run for President...since that is what he has been doing since Feb of 2003. If that is the case, then why does he want to fight about something he professes to care so much about with his hands tied behind his back when he didn't have to?

Does he value his personal wealth over what could have made him truly electable?....because as far as I can see, John Edwards is NOT the most electable as himself and so many of his supporters claim, and a big reason for that is that he has handicaped himself when the non brainer thing that would have solved that "shortcoming" would have been to risk some of his personal fortune. Guess he doesn't think that it would be worth it, hey? :shrug:

But go ahead and close your eyes to something staring you straight in the face, and instead pretend that limited funding for our nominee from Mid Feb to Mid August is not a political issue and that we really don't need sound funding in a Presidential election that is supposed to be so important. Keep on believing that his calculated decision won't affect the ultimate outcome. Go ahead and make believe......since it will make you feel better in supporting St. John.

[LSK]

62. it was explained to you up thread

He is leading by example.

Care to explain to me how my mutual funds in my 401k are not "hedge funds"?

[FrenchieCat]

67. If he was leading by example, why was he willing not to lead on this

issue earlier this year? What changed?

As of his Hedge Fund investments....."John Edwards has reported $29.5 million in personal assets to the FEC, of which his aides have told the Wall Street Journal <1> $16.1 million is invested in Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund that invests in Humana, the health insurance company that comes in for sharp criticism in Michael Moore's blockbuster movie "Sicko."

"Fortress was the single biggest employer of Edwards donors during the first three months of the year. Donors who listed 'Fortress' as their employer contributed $67,450 to Edwards' campaign and supporters who identified their employer as 'Fortress Investment Group' gave $55,200 to the campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records.

"While he resigned as an adviser to Fortress once he decided to run for president," reports the New York Times <3>, Edwards "still has between $11 million and $24 million of his personal wealth invested in Fortress. This represents the bulk of his financial assets. In addition, employees of Fortress are also leading contributors to Mr. Edwards campaign."

Why did Edwards choose to do whatever it is he did for the half-million dollar salary? He told the Associated Press that he "worked for a hedge fund between presidential campaigns to learn about financial markets and their relationship to poverty."

Why did Fortress choose to employ John Edwards? Were his skills as a student that valuable?
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/862/print

[cali]

70. mutual funds are NOT the same as hedge funds.

Unless you have a minimum worth of 10 million or so, you can't even get in a hedge fund. They're risky for one thing, and they employ all kinds of legal dodges such as setting up off shore accounts to avoid taxes.

[LSK]

60. THATS your source???

Come on Cali, DO BETTER THAN THAT!!

Wouldnt you have to show me his worth in 1997 and his worth today from sources???

What the hell is wrong with debate on this forum????

:wtf:

[cali]

63. That's an excellent source

The Center for Responsive politics is the standard for these issues. All I'm saying is that he's made a lot of money since quitting his law practice. And he has 24 million invested in a hedge fund- kind of the opposite of socially responsible investing.

[LSK]

65. yes but your link is talking about CAMPAIGN FUNDING

Not personal wealth.

[cali]

68. there's a personal finance link on the page n/t

[FrenchieCat]

69. Obviously, some folks aren't "concerned" about "winning" the election

as much as they are concerned about covering up what makes their candidate "unelectable".

[cali]

72. that's for sure.

And the fury that Edwards supporters let loose over criticism of their candidate on this issue is just sort of sad. They have a lot invested in his rhetoric, and they don't want to look at anything that pokes holes in it.

[LSK]

73. are you watching the GOP debate right???

My 4 year old niece could wipe the floor with these GOP idiots!

[FrenchieCat]

76. Meaning? That somehow your assurances based on your perception

equals to Dems not having to worry about anything anymore?

Naivete is not a redeeming quality when we are discussing a United States Presidential election.

But go ahead with your optimistic self! :thumbsup:

[LSK]

88. dont take my word for it

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html

[FrenchieCat]

90. Do you remember the one back in 2003 that said that Dean had it all sewn up too?

[Hieronymus]

124. A huge pay cut.

[LSK]

53. that graph does not distinguish hedge fund investments from mutual funds

I guess according to that chart, I am a hedge fund investor too.

[FrenchieCat]

71. The point is taking a risk with one's personal fortune to help the little guys.......

Like John Edwards often professes he is all about.

Once again, John Edward talks the talk, but in terms of walking the walk......he ain't about to go there.

That's what this thread is about.

[frogmarch]

77. This thread is about

dissing the most progressive candidate we have for no reason other than to try to turn Dem voters against him. Who's your candidate, FC? Maybe I'll break my anti-dissing-Dem-candidates vow and diss yours for no good reason.

I fucking hate threads like this, regardless of which Dem candidate is being shit on.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Don't like the thread? Well I don't like the thought that so many

here want to support John-I-keep-on-making-mistakes-but-I-should-be-rewarded-for-that Edwards.

I don't have a candidate...which leaves me free to be critical or defend whomever I choose, and to concentrate on who's is truly electable and who is not (based on rational reality and not myths).
John Edwards is unelectable in my opinion. I have more committed to the Democratic Party winning the general election than I am to playing nicy-nice with Democratic candidates during the primary process.

Whether John Edwards is "the most progressive" candidate is your interpretation of John Edwards. I flatly disagree with you....because I judge more on what one does than what one says.

[frogmarch]

81. And you're doing your best

to try to MAKE SURE JE is unelectable, aren't you?

Shit flingers make me sick.

[FrenchieCat]

84. I'm not the one that decided for John Edwards to continue sitting on his 54 million dollars

while limiting the Democratic party's voice if he were to be the nominee by determining that he need not sacrifice any of his personal fortune in his quest to "Fight for the little guys".

I just made the decision that his decision, since it may affect me, was an issue worth pointing out.

Further, I haven't been on these boards since 2003 for your personal satisfaction. I doubt that any thread that I start will be threads that make you happy. Dem the breaks.

[Clark2008]

96. The most progressive candidate is Kucinich, bar none.

Edwards is a fake progressive-come-lately, if he is at all.

[FrenchieCat]

106. Edwards' is for whatever it takes..........but hands off his moula!

[Beaverhausen]

79. If he used his own money you would find a way to criticize him for it

and as others have said, we shouldn't only have the wealthy running for office.

[FrenchieCat]

86. Plu-EAze......Your logic isn't even sound.

I didn't attack John Edwards when he said he would NOT take Public Financing, then....so I'm not sure why you want to believe what you are saying now that I would have attacked him regardless of his decision.

Maybe it makes you feel better for now, to justify everything John Edwards but when you are left scratching your ass with the rest of us trying to figure out what went wrong on election day in 2008......you will be feeling like the rest of us--feeling like shit.

in otherwords, your Love for John Edwards will have done nothing to set us free!

[Beaverhausen]

95. You don't like anything about Edwards- which is fine. You are entitled to your opinion

But you just seem to try to find any little thing you can that he says or does to pick apart or criticize.

Don't you think your energy would be better spent promoting the candidate that you do support?

[Clark2008]

97. She just said she didn't have a candidate.

Neither do I, for that matter.

[Beaverhausen]

99. Well excuse me for not knowing who she supports

I really couldn't care less.

I just think we'd all do a lot better with more candidate-positive threads around here. But YMMV.

[FrenchieCat]

100. I'm not here to make you happy......

so get over it!

John Edwards is unelectable, and that is no little thing.

[last_texas_dem]

113. Saying that Edwards is "unelectable" over and over

won't make it true.

[FrenchieCat]

119. I consider John Edwards unelectable for very tangible reasons

including the fact that he won't be on a level playing field competing with our opponent.....and if he is the nominee, this affect all of us.

I don't know how many times I have heard it said that John Edwards was the most "electable". I'm just talking about why I don't think this is so.

Edwards Is More Electable. Period.
http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071211/edwards_is_more_electable_period

John Edwards is the Most Electable Democrat
http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/john-edwards-is-the-most-electable-democrat.html

it goes on and on and on.

I'm not sure why I can get equal time? :shrug:

[Inspired]

98. You've got that right.

Frenchie has a thing about Edwards. Nothing you, I, or any supporter can say will change her hatred of him. It's always something.

[Beaverhausen]

101. But her hatred seems more of an obsession

She can hate him all she wants, I don't really care. But this constant bashing, picking apart and shit-flinging is really nuts.

[FrenchieCat]

104. I don't hate unelectable John Edwards........

you just want to think I do. I just believe that he will go down in defeat if he gets the nom. I don't want that for myself or for my country.

And yes, I am as passionate in loving my country's future (I have kids who don't have $417,000 in their non existent trust funds) as you are in loving you some John Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

102. And you have a love jones for John Edwards

and that's ok too!

To each his own.

[Beaverhausen]

103. LOL! I rest my case

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

105. And so you should.

[flyarm]

111. i thought this was only for the primaries..is that not right? i thought he only

did this for the primaries..

maybe i am wrong...

fly

[FrenchieCat]

115. This is until the General Election starts, which is after the conventions are over.

This election season is starting earlier than ever before, and due to the extremely compressed schedule will be over earlier than ever before in term of us knowing who the nominee will be. Edwards will be forced to spend the majority of his money prior to the end of the nomination process....because he is running against candidates who have raise larger amounts of cash than ever before.

From the time the nominee is known until the Late August/early September conventions, whatever spending limit Edwards has, there will be no more money. We are talking about a good six months of time without any real funding beyond 527s....who cannot coordinate their activities with any presidential campaign, and who cannot mention Edwards, or promote him.

Also, remember that when you're talking public funds, the downside is that they have spending caps. So however much money Edwards has, his spending in the primary states will be severely restricted (save on field, which doesn't come under the caps). Moreover, the problem with public funding isn't in the primaries, but once they're completed. Kos explains:

Lots of money is spent in January and February. Let's say Edwards emerges the victor -- wins Iowa, and parlays that victory into national momentum. It could really happen, especially if Hillary and Barack beat the crap out of each other.

So he's won, but he's spent his primary money, and he won't get his first general election check until after the Democratic convention. August 25.

So Edwards won't have any money in March, April, May, June, July, and most of August. That's six months of darkness.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=edwards_and_public_funds_1

There are three major problems with the current system:

It requires participating candidates to agree to spending limits that are dwarfed by the amount privately funded candidates are now able to raise – and further hampers participating candidates by imposing specific limits on how much they can spend in each state;
Participating candidates receive their infusions of cash too late in the campaign; and
The fund is becoming insolvent.
<>
Most experts expect the major parties' nominees to be selected by the end of voting on Feb. 5, 2008, when upwards of 20 states will hold their primaries. That “Super Tuesday” will fall barely a month after publicly funded candidates receive their initial infusions of cash.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/problem.cfm

[ozone_man]

117. Why, so he could buy the primary like Kerry?

With his $6 million personal contribution? No thanks. Win it or not playing fair and square.

[FrenchieCat]

118. It isn't fair and square if one is hamstrung to spending caps

as a whole and per each state, and others aren't.

There is no level playing field for Edwards to play on at this point. The game will not be fair or square if he is the nominee.

And I should correct you in your statement that Kerry bought the primaries. He simply made a smart strategic decision that IF he were to win the primaries, he would not have created a handicap that would have effected the entire Democratic party along with himself.

Kerry mortgaged his home to stay in the race, without knowing at the time whether he would end up losing or winning. I think he was polling like at 6% when he made the determination. The fact that he won means that his gamble paid off.....but if he would have lost, he would still have to pay back the borrowed money. In otherwords, Kerry was willing to take a personal risk to be able to be competitive on a level playing field.
---------------------------------------------
December 19, 2003
SALEM, N. H. -- Senator John F. Kerry recently loaned $850,000 to his struggling presidential campaign to pay staff salaries and other expenses, and is now scouting banks for a multimillion-dollar mortgage package on his Beacon Hill home, campaign officials said yesterday.

Kerry, the first candidate in the presidential race to make a loan to himself, will use the cash to mount an onslaught next month of television advertising, campaign swings, and other efforts to catch up to Howard Dean, his better-funded chief rival for the Democratic nomination, advisers say.

Yet there's also a huge symbolic value to the loans, several top Kerry fund-raisers say: Kerry is sending a signal to donors that they should not walk away from his candidacy, because he is far from giving up on it, in spite of a slew of recent opinion polls showing him trailing Dean.
<>
......a new poll that had Kerry in sixth place among voters nationwide and slightly behind Al Sharpton, whom most Democratic leaders rate as a fringe candidate.
<>
"He's clearly staking a lot on this race," said Cameron Kerry, the senator's brother and another key campaign fund-raiser.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/19/kerry_mortgage_to_help_fund_race/?page=2

[ozone_man]

121. It was $6 million.

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: CAMPAIGN FINANCING; Kerry Takes A Mortgage Of $6 Million On His House

By GLEN JUSTICE
Published: December 24, 2003

Senator John Kerry has borrowed $6.4 million against his house in Boston in an effort to finance his campaign in the early presidential primaries, according to mortgage papers filed on Tuesday and a campaign official.

The money will allow Mr. Kerry, who is lagging behind Howard Dean in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, to spend more in those crucial states, where he must have a strong showing to sustain his campaign.

''Senator Kerry's personal commitment to the race is unquestioned,'' his campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, said in a statement confirming that he planned to lend his campaign more than $6 million.

Mr. Kerry joined Dr. Dean and President Bush in declining public financing this year, a move that allows the candidates to ignore the $45 million overall spending limit in the primaries and exceed the spending limits in each state. Mr. Kerry has agreed to abide by the overall spending limit but has made no such promise on the limits in individual states.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E7D7113FF937A15751C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/P/Primaries

He was losing to Dean and after his home refinance a 529 group was formed by supporters of Kerry and Gephardt launching an attack ad against Dean (Osama). That's all history now, but I don't agree with politicians spending their own money. Let it come form supporters. Kerry used his financial wealth to buy the primary. He would have folded otherwise.

[surfermaw]

123. John Knew he would be the one candidate that could defeat the Rep

When he wins Iowa, the funds will flow....

[Truth2Tell]

125. True, and

these attacks are a pretty good sign that someone is worried he just might win.

Maybe after the convention Hillary and Barak can introduce Edwards to their corporate sugar daddies?

Dumbest thread ever.

[FrenchieCat]

130. spending caps won't let the funds flow!

[MGKrebs]

141. That is exactly the fallacy! THE FUNDS ARE LIMITED FOR EDWARDS.

He has voluntarily chosen to cap his expenditures at what will probably be about $70 million. As of September, he had already spent $30 million, he's surely spent another $10 million since then, and we still have 6 or 7 weeks to go until Super Tuesday. Even if he only spends another $10 million winning the nomination, that will leave him only $20 million to get from Feb 5 to September. Any other candidate will be able to raise and spend as much as they can, but not John Edwards. FYI, Kerry/Edwards spent $250 million in the primaries in 2004, and we are WAY ahead of that this year.

I wish he would explain how he plans to compete, because I don't see it happening.

edit: Correction: Edwards has raised about $30 million as of the end of September, but only spent $18 million. So it's better than I thought, but still not good.

[ginchinchili]

126. Because if he can't be president he wants to at least be a millionaire.

Joe Biden is the only one running who isn't. That's because he's serving to serve the people, not himself like most politicians do.

[Inspired]

138. Or serves MBNA. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

127. You answered your own question.

Because, maybe he feels it is his "best chance to win the nomination.". And so does the author of your post.:woohoo:

Edwards, in order to get a temporary infusion of funds in the short-term that could help him win the primary, is handicapping himself, and his party, in the longer-term. Now, this may be his best chance to win the nomination. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=edwards_and_public_funds_1

[childslibrarian]

131. He has kids

And a wife who is possibly very ill.

[cali]

132. he's worth $54 million

believe me, he could've taken $10 million and self-funded and still have plenty left to care for his wife and children without any appreciable difference.

[asdjrocky]

143. And he would still be about 170 mil down from what the corporate candidates have.

No sale.

[Canuckistanian]

135. The Matching Fund strategy should be encouraged

Regardless of what your personal fortune is.

He is ensuring that future candidates who decide not to take money from corporate special interests can continue to run.

He's doing it for for the principle involved, not for his own personal gain.

Is this to be criticized?

[1932]

136. Because he's going to win doing it this way, and nobody can call him a Charles Foster Kane.

[cali]

139. Maybe. But we could, if so inclined, still call him

Kane. He spent $8 million of his own bucks on his Senate seat.

[ecstatic]

137. Good question. I'm not going to answer though

because I can envision myself getting really mean towards Edwards. Two Americas is right!