PUBLIC FINANCING = "getting the living shit kicked out of him all summer long”- Joe TRIPPI

[FrenchieCat]

Said former Dean finance guru Joe Trippi during an interview in February of 2007, right prior to signing up onto the Edwards' campaign.

He specifically said that....
that opting for the limits of public financing would leave any nominee “flat broke like Mike Dukakis — getting the living shit kicked out of him all summer long.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/09/28/trippi-oping-out-of-public-financing-would-leave-nominee-like-dukakis-getting-the-living-shit-kicked-out-of-him-all-summer-long

He echoed John Edwards, who with high hopes in February of 2007 talked about why he was opting out of public financing.
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

Were they right then?

I think so, although ass will be getting kicked longer than just for the summer....and here's why.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3918280&mesg_id=3918280

[last1standing]

1. So we should just go with the person who gets the most corporate sponsorship?

That's a great reason to support someone we expect to work for the lower and middle classes after all these years of corporate sellouts. :sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

3. Just quoting from the expert and the candidate and what they said....

about their current situation.

If you believe that Edwards is the 2nd coming....then you will not mind seeing him having the living shit kicked out of him from February 7th until September 29th if he happens to win the nomination, and then go down in what I would assume you would claim to be Unexplicable defeat.

I personally am not about to put that kind of stock into one person to the extend that I will want that. I want someone who can win, and the simple fact is that Edwards chose to handicap himself and has tied his hands behind his back.

You seem pretty idealistic in what you say...while, I am looking at the realities of what Trippi said when he was being frank and not paid by the Edwards campaign, and no one man is worth all of that pain for me to have to endure after what will have been 8 years of hell. Sorry. :shrug:

[last1standing]

5. How very crass and jaded you are to think that money makes the candidate.

And to also make such snide remarks concerning my support for Edwards. I didn't slur your support of your candidate, I only commented on your apparent belief that those who can suck up the most corporate sponsorship must be the best candidates.

Why don't we just start tattooing "Exxon" and "GE" on the candidates foreheads so that we can root for them as if they were NASCAR contenders? Personally, I think that we should expect more from our Democratic candidates but you seem to think that only money matters. I guess that's why you support who you do and I support someone else. I'm much happier for my candidate to lose with honor than to win by selling out. I'll support whomever wins the primaries but I'll be damned if I'll join the ranks of sycophants more interested in winning than supporting the best candidate.

So you go ahead with your smearing and silly, out of context posts. Those of us who care about the people we support will continue to do what's right.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. With all due respect

It's a childlike innocence that would presume otherwise; the system is money driven and public financing only leaves you swinging in the wind all summer.

If you think things should be otherwise. let's work to change it.
As soon as Obama is sworn in in 2008, that's my next goal; the playing field will be ready.

[last1standing]

68. My own opinion is that the time to make changes is when you have some control.

Not after you've given it away but that's not even the point. I've said this repeatedly, but I'll say it again:

The primary season is the time to vote for the greater good, not the lesser evil. If Obama is the best possible candidate to represent your views then I support you 100% in your choice regardless of my own views on him or Edwards. Once, the primary season is over and we have a nominee chosen, I will support that person wholeheartedly as the better of two candidates in the general election and hope you join me in that. Money just doesn't enter into it right now.

[LeftCoast]

8. I suppose we could stand on principle and get the snot knocked out of us all summer

and then lose in the fall. But whatever.

[last1standing]

9. Or we could "win" by selling ourselves out. I guess we all have to make our own decisions.

I just figure that winning by selling out is really losing anyway. By supporting the best person at least I stand a chance of winning, while you lose from the outset by basing your vote strictly on who can pull in the most corporate sponsorship.

But you do what you need to do.....

[MGKrebs]

23. So can I assume that you only shop at the local farmers market,

not the big chain grocery store, and you don't buy anything made in China, and you generate your own power, and operate your (American made) car on recycled vegetable oil, and don't support anything else that adds to the corporate hegemony?

Why do you pick this issue (campaign finance reform), this moment, and this venue to assert your idealism? If you can see the gray areas and necessary compromises in your own life, will you not accept that they exist in politics as well? Can we not continue to fight the battles that mean so much to us in other arenas without needlessly sacrificing this one?

[last1standing]

28. That makes absolutely no sense.

You accuse me of thinking only in terms of black/white then give me a black/white choice to consider? I'm supporting Edwards because I prefer his platform to that of the other candidates regardless of how much cash they can rake in. I would have thought that obvious, but I guess it has to be spelled out for some people.

By your logic we should all just vote for repub candidates as they usually outraise Dems by a 2-1 margin. After all, voting for the candidate with less money is just idealism and cash rules. :sarcasm:

[MGKrebs]

30. I am just saying there are other criteria besides anti-corporate gestures to consider.

Some people seem to pick a candidate based on some arbitrary criteria to the exclusion of everything else. I think we get so caught up in the primary battle sometimes that we lose sight of the bigger war ahead.

It just seems bizarre to me that all of the sudden, as of July 2007, campaign finance reform is like the biggest issue for some people.

[last1standing]

31. And I considered them, thank you.

I'm voting for the candidate who's platform best represents my views. If it had been Clinton, Obama or Gravel I would vote for one of them, but it's not and jumping to the conclusion that it was without asking first was rather offensive.

This is the Democratic primary, we should each work to elect the best possible candidate based upon our views with the understanding that whoever wins will have sufficient funds and support to make it into August. To do anything else is just cynical maneuvering.

[MGKrebs]

32. Well I didn't mean to offend.

I must have misread your post about not being so interested in winning.
But it doesn't matter anyway. If I misread it, others might too, so my comments might be helpful to them.

[last1standing]

35. Maybe I should have been more clear then.

I'm a very strong proponent of voting the for greater of goods (as each of us sees them) in the primary and for the lesser of evils in the general election. In other words, there's a time to vote with your heart and a time to vote with your head. On rare occasion, they may even end up being the same thing. As a former supporter of Paul Simon/Gary Hart, Tsongas, Bradley and Dean it's not likely, but I was also there to vote for Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum if Clinton gets the nomination, but I'm not going to cast my primary vote for someone I feel less able to lead this country just because she can pull in money from corporations.

[Prophet 451]

22. You already do

In most recent elections, the winner is the person who spent most money on their campaign and that usually involves corporate contributions.

In the words of Greg Palast: Is this an election or an auction?

[surfermaw]

73. With a lot of help from supporters he can make it

look at what he has done in Iowa with little money and many workers. Money not everything the support of the people is. after Iowa the money will flow in so fast it will be hard to keep up with

[tkmorris]

2. Then we are just gonna have to work harder for him

Cause I gotta tell ya, the alternatives suck.

Hillary is owned by big business and Obama thinks Republicans are just misunderstood. No one else has a shot.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Well, that is your opinion, and I welcome you to it.....

But me, I ain't ready to be made to pay for one totally non competitive (as he himself described his current situation) AND imperfect candidate (just cause he promised me the moon) and his decision.

If you don't understand that Kerry/Bush spent a total of over 500 million dollars combined during the primaries (and we're talking about an incumbent), and yet Edwards will have a pitiful 50 million (much of it already spent), than I don't know what to say....other than you must worship John Edwards at some altar, and don't believe that winning is what it's about in the end.

Please note that I have many other reasons for not supporting Edwards, but those are strictly my personal opinions that don't have to be shared by others and are certainly debatable...but the matching funds thingie is more or less the straw that breaks the camels' back....or however that saying goes....regardless of how great a candidate one could think he was. :shrug:

[last1standing]

7. Yep, money makes the candidate, huh?

Whatever you need to justify yourself.....

[UpInArms]

12. a picture for you

since words seem to fail -

[FrenchieCat]

40. Thanks for that pic.....

and here's one for you!

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp30397+this-sucks-this-sucks-more-david-goliath-poster.jpg

[JDPriestly]

6. Seriously, Frenchiecat

Are you a Democrat? Do you want public financing of elections? Or do you prefer corporate financing of elections? It boils down to that. You may think you are smart and honest, but I personally believe that the corporate dominance of our politics and our elections is destroying our nation. I would vote for Edwards only because he has accepted the limitations of public financing. That is enough reason for me.

Do you know who owns those corporations who fund the elections? Well, Saudi Arabia is one big owner. Another is the UK.

I'm an American, first, foremost and always. I've lived in other countries, and I love some other countries, but I love America most. That is why I want the guys who accept the limitations of public financing to win. That's why I work for Edwards. That's why I will vote for Edwards. Because I'm an American, and I know that behind all those huge fund raising totals that Ob ama and Hillary are adding up there are a lot of "donors' who aren't American at all, and who don't want American values to prevail. So, Frenched when it all boils down to basics, that is why I don't like the candidates who feed at the trough of the corporations.

Do you understand once and for all. I believe in American values, not those of Saudi Arabia or England, but those of America. That's why I want public funding for American presidents.

[weeve]

10. Hear , Hear !!

So very well said.

A sad state when someone who "says" they are a Democrat, continually brings up in thread after thread here how backing the candidate(s) with the biggest Corporate backers is the way to go. Maybe you've been "encouraged" to do so, but for true Democrats, a candidate who has Archer-Daniells-Midlands, the Nuclear Energy lobby (O), and then Big Pharma , Big Military, etc. (H) backing them ... well, I'm just saying that a TRUE Democrat should be very wary at the least, and exceedingly sceptical to boot.

If you pseudo-Democrats want more of the same , by all means support these Corporate-friendly candidates. me ... I'm oh so ready for the pendulum to swing.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Seriously.....you want to question my party affiliation

because I dare to print John Edwards and Joe Trippi's words?

I want public financing too, but not if it means getting the "living shit kicked out" of our candidate for 7 months.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm not stupid. :shrug:

[Donnachaidh]

16. so your *solution* is to vote for the corporate assclown?

Wow.

You'd prefer the American Middle Class to get the *living shit kicked out of them* for at least another 4 years - rather than back a candidate who has the cajones to put himself in that position?

I think the other poster was correct in questioning your party affiliation. Absolutely DEAD ON to question it. Especially with all the other postings you've been doing. WHY only Edwards?

[cali]

17. So Obama is a corporate assclown?

Shows where your head is firmly planted. And what "cajones" has Edwards demonstrated? Talk, as they say, is cheap.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Just because you support Edwards, doesn't mean that there is

no other Dems running. You speak as though if one doesn't support Edwards, one is not a Democrat. Sounds like Bushbot mentality! How dare you!

I think you need to check yourself in attempting to malign me. I've been on these boards for a long time now. The fact that I don't want Edwards as the Dem nominee makes me as much of a Democrat as you might claim to be.

Maybe it is those who support the IWR co-sponsoring china trade supporting bankruptcy law voting talks a lot but has little to show for it John Edwards who should be suspect. I mean, I'm not sure what makes one like you so pure that Edwards and Trippi's words would make you point your bony finger at me with your stupid ass accusations? :shrug:

[MGKrebs]

21. The difference is that so many self-proclaimed "idealists" only seem to see

the world in black-and-white, all-or-nothing. It's either a corporate sellout or public financing. As if we can't work towards public financing in between elections. We have to HAVE IT ALL RIGHT NOW. Is there really NO DIFFERENCE between, say, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee? How naive does one have to be to believe that?

George Bush has been a bad president, and most, if not all, of the Repub candidates will continue that badness.
We can do better. We CAN consider the best strategy to defeat Republicans along with our other criteria. Candidates have to win elections, and we voters don't have to pretend that we are electing Jesus. We can use our ideology as a guide to measure candidates against, but I think it is irresponsible to do so to the exclusion of ability to win. This isn't a fairy tale or a theoretical experiment. This is politics. You don't die a noble death if you lose. We go on living in a nightmare. To me, the first criteria isn't "who is the most perfect?", it's "of those who can win, who is the most perfect?".

If John Edwards is so passionate about campaign finance reform and poverty remediation, he can continue to be a powerful advocate for those issues without being President. Besides, accepting matching funds isn't indicative of anything other than accepting matching funds anyway. It does not, by itself, mean that John Edwards is somehow sticking up for the little guy, or taking the money out of politics, or leading a revolution. It is a tactical campaign decision, and it has consequences that must be considered. To the extent that it does reduce corporate influence, it also damages the voice of labor, choice groups, environmental groups, and many other groups of citizens who have organized themselves so they can speak with a collective message. In fact, I would say that it damages those groups worse than it does the corporations. Are we to believe that if the head of GM calls, John Edwards won't talk to him? That Warren Buffet will have less influence because he wasn't allowed to donate $2300?

Besides, like I often say, it's not the "quid" that's the problem. It's the "pro quo". I question John Edwards willpower and sincerity. Why can't he just say "just because you give me money, doesn't mean I am going to do your bidding. Give to me if you want to, but only under those circumstances"?

[last1standing]

29. STRAWMAN ALERT!

Because we don't support your candidate we're "idealists" and see only in black/white, huh? When you're entire argument rests on the idea that "your candidate will sell out, too, so why not take the one who already has?", there really isn't much more that can be debated.

By the way, if Edwards can beat out Clinton and Obama in the primaries it'll show that he's able to take on the well financed repubs in the general election. If he can't then we can all still vote for the lesser of evils you're asking us to choose today. Is that so tough to understand?

[MGKrebs]

70. Not at all. Look at the post I was responding to.

"Do you want public financing of elections? Or do you prefer corporate financing of elections? It boils down to that."

"You may think you are smart and honest, but I personally believe that the corporate dominance of our politics and our elections is destroying our nation. I would vote for Edwards only because he has accepted the limitations of public financing. That is enough reason for me."

There is nothing in there about other reasons, or any gray area between electing Edwards and "destroying our nation". That is very black and white and also, I believe, very idealistic. I reject such arguments and thought a rebuttal was in order.

I would just urge people to consider the big picture. We are humans with big brains and we can actually evaluate complicated situations. We may even come to different conclusions. If you see the funding gap and still think that Edwards can pull it off somehow, then fine. But if you try to rationalize ignoring that gap by claiming some ideological higher ground, you might get challenged by me.

[ChiciB1]

26. I Second, Third & Fourth THAT!! This Has Been Posted Too Much & I

find it ONLY helps all the BIG GUYS more! When even Democrats holler about how "money" WILL always win the day we are doomed to NEVER changing it at all!

I KNOW MONEY talks, SHIT walks, but I STILL would FIGHT against it!! Public financing SHOULD be OUR FIGHT!!!

[killbotfactory]

27. Edwards, who has to rely on 527s and their unlimited soft money

has no room to talk about the virtues of public financing and campaign finance reform.

[girl gone mad]

11. That was one of Kerry's big selling points...

last time out.

It was dumb then and it's dumber now.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Tell 'em the truth via John Edwards and his trusted advisor

and they'll think its hell.

That's what is unreal about some of the reactions.

Question my fidelity if you like. Call me a corporate this and a corporate that.

Bottomline is:
Public financing is wonderful, beautiful even.....IF the playing field is level,
otherwise,
get ready to get the "living shit kicked out of you".

Don't blame me.

Those are the facts according to Joe Trippi.
John Edwards agrees.

[robbedvoter]

15. FEC can't even disburse the money owed as it lacks a quorum

I heard on Air America - Rachel Madow - that FEC is as of now inoperative (until senate reconvenes? until nominations are made?) Anyway, there'll be some time before they can disburse that money for candidate, party conventions etc

[rucky]

18. Sucks, huh?

But so far, Iowa's proving that money=votes. If Iowans want to make a statement, they can by turning off the tube and taking an hour to learn about all the candidates. But the polls consistently put their rankings in nearly exact order of their fundraising dollars.

Huckster's been the only one to buck the system, so far. And Edwards seems to have the highest support-per-dollar among the dems. Trouble is, he can't spend a year in every other state to do the general on the cheap.

People need to get savvy to these slimeball professional campaign managers, and ignore the media and the big-bucks spent by these grotesque campaigns.

[The River]

19. After Edwards Wins In Iowa

the money will start rolling in from small donors
all over the country. He will have all he needs.

[cali]

20. I'll try and explain this briefly: He's limited to spending $50 million

He's already raised at least $35 million. He's accepted $8 million in matching funds. That totals $43 million. He can only raise $7 million more. He's spent somewhere in the range of $25 to $30 million. That leaves him with $25 million top to spend through August.

[Texas_Kat]

41. Cali's right... the 'money rolling in' meme isn't any good

when the Edwards campaign won't be able to accept it. I don't understand why it's so hard for some of these people to understand.

Edwards has hog-tied himself to ONLY being able to spend $50 Million dollars -- whether it comes from small donors, the FEC or trial lawyer largess makes absolutely no difference.

Once he hits the $50 M mark, he can't accept anything else. It's that simple, believe it or not.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Well, Edwards can accept more donations for the General Election.....

but won't be able to use those funds until after August 28th.

but you are certainly right,Edwards won't be able to use any donations past the $50 million dollar mark from the time he announced his candidacy officially till August 29th.

[Texas_Kat]

49. You're correct, but then, it's essentially Democratic Party money

[Ineedchange]

42. The Money

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

How much money Edwards has after the primaries will only be important if the DEMs don't have a declared presidential candidate after the primaries.

[Texas_Kat]

48. Nope, the candidate doesn't get any more money till after the convention

in August. $50M won't even get him to Feb 5.

[The River]

24. I See A Reply By "Ignored"

so I'll have to respond to myself to tell you
that whatever ever little bit of snark you posted
has been for naught.

[Cameron27]

25. I want a Democrat to win,

I'd like my particular favorite to win, but a Democrat has to win and I don't want the nominee to be handicapped in anyway during this election. We can take on campaign finance reform when we get one of our guys/gals in office.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Right. Let's just stick with Buying an Office and to heck with actual elections

[FrenchieCat]

37. I don't feel like losing this time around......

and I believe that Edwards and Trippi's words speak specifically about the importance of being competitive in order to win.

Odd that not one anti-Corporate "Campaign Finance" eager beaver here has bothered to acknowledge that it is Edwards who stated that accepting matching funds makes a candidate less competitive, and it is his advisor that said that any candidate accepting public funding will get the living shit kicked out of them.

It is fine for you to determine that we should have to fight against our opponents with our hands tied behind our backs. I believe that it ain't about "buying" the office, it is about not being hamstrung which will lead to us not being able to change a thing.

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. Sorry, but to me it just smaks of RWism. That the richest are the fittest

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

45. Sorry, but to me, I believe that I am providing important information

in reference to Edwards and his claims of being most electable out of all of the Democrats. He has stated this time and time again.

You don't have to believe that money is part and parcel of our elections at this time. I disagree with you on that, and I'm not so foolish to believe that Edwards limitations in that respect should be left ignored.

Odd that poster after poster don't comment on the fact that John Edwards certainly wanted to opt out of public financing until he realized that he couldn't due to lackluster fundraising.

I'm not sure why I'm being called out as not being a Democrat simply because I prefer to support a Democrat in the presidential primaries that can compete, win, and then change what is required. I consider it smart electoral strategy, and I'm not sure why posters are attempting to make me feel as though I am out of line in my beliefs that accepting matching funds in an enviroment where others are not is not the way to reform the system. :shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. I am not calling you out as not being a dem. *hugs* I am simply saying that

the fact that mainly the most well-funded candidates win bothers me because we assume that the monetary value has a direct correlation as to whether or not that candidate is the best person for the job.

Now, if someone wants to play the system as it is now but is honestly willing to reform the whole campaign process for everyone ie use only public funds, equal air time, and so forth then I would be interested in backing that person because it would be at least a shot at seeing what I want done accomplished.

[FrenchieCat]

53. I realize that you didn't call me out......but others on this thread did.....

And yes, I agree with you that campaign reform is really something that we must have ASAP, because the money is becoming insane, BUT I just don't believe that we can ever get there if we die on the battlefield with our hands tied behind our backs.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. Yeah, I see what you are saying. :^)

[FrenchieCat]

55. Kewl!

:toast:

[cali]

50. LOL! Considering that personally Edwards is indeed one of the richest

that's just bizarre. The truth is that Obama raised his funds from 450,000 small donors. That's the kind of thing we should get behind. And just like Edwards, Obama didn't take lobbyist donations.

[MGKrebs]

75. The point here is not that you should vote for the candidate with the most money,

but that choosing to be DRAMATICALLY underfunded is going to be a big problem. It is a fact that should be taken into consideration in the mix of criteria. One could make the case that Edwards has basically disqualified himself, regardless of whatever policies he stands for.

[Beaverhausen]

38. I personally don't think the GOP is going to have a candidate by summer

They aren't raising a whole lot of money themselves, or haven't you noticed?

And no matter how many times you post this, my friend friend, you aren't changing my mind. I will not vote for someone just because they raised the most money.

[FrenchieCat]

43. I'm not here to change your mind, and I also respect that your mind

is made up. I have no problem with that....and nowhere have I implied that someone like you should change what you think. :shrug:

Still, for those who are looking at what "electable" truly means in the way that Edwards touts it for himself, I'm just insuring that this important information is out there.

Edwards and his supporters have often spoken about how Edwards is the one that can beat all of the Republicans and link to a particular poll (one year out of any election, one has to wonder what that point is about?), and that the Republicans are most afraid of John Edwards, etc......

Considering that I'm simply posting Edwards and Trippi's words on what "competitive" means moneywise with this post, and yes, I have also taken the time to post at some other times what accepting Public Financing actually means. I'm not sure why this should bother anyone......in particular those that believe that Edwards will still be competitive no matter what.

[Beaverhausen]

44. Can you address my point that the GOP might not have a candidate by summer?

And, I think I heard McCain also accepted public financing? If he ends up being the nominee this is really a moot point, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

46. Although McCain is eligible for public funds, he has not yet accepted

them, and is waiting to see how he does in New Hampshire.

McCain obviously understands the limits that public funding brings with it, and realizes the importance of keeping his options open as long as possible.

Republican John McCain illustrates the dilemma. He has been certified to receive $5.8 million in matching funds but is keeping his options open. He has a $3 million line of credit, secured with future fundraising and the value of his mailing list. McCain can wait to see how he performs in the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8 before deciding whether he wants to collect the public funds or capture a surge of new donor money.

"Candidates are adopting whatever approach can get them the greatest amount of money," said Anthony Corrado, an expert on political money at Colby College in Maine. "Romney is willing to tap into his personal fortune to remain competitive.
<>
McCain, though certified to receive his share of matching public money, doesn't have to accept it and can technically wait until March, when the money would officially become available, to decide. To do that, however, he has to abide by the spending limits now.

That opens some options and closes others. McCain can use his existing funds, including the line of credit he obtained, to cover campaign costs through the New Hampshire primary. If he wins there, he would likely see a significant influx of new campaign money, forcing a reconsideration of whether he needs the public matching funds.

"We've stayed under the caps, so that if necessary, that we can" collect the public money, he said Sunday on ABC. "We bought all the media that's necessary and all we can in New Hampshire."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1230campaignmoney.html

[cali]

51. They'll have a candidate by the night of Super Tuesday

That's how the primaries are designed. And the RNC is actually raising more than the DNC. Once they have a candidate, expect the floodgates to open- as long as it's not the huckster. Finally, no one is suggesting you vote for someone simply because they raised the most money.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. It's possible you could be right, but that is the best case scenario

I'd rather be prepared for the worst case scenario.

[gmudem]

57. This is just more of a reason to support Edwards

It's hilarious that the same people who claim he's a phony also criticize him for taking public financing. You really can't have it both ways. Edwards acceptance of public financing shows that he truly is a candidate for the people and is refusing to be a pawn in the corporations game.

I'm sorry but if the best reason you have to vote for Obama or Clinton is that they can raise the most corporate money, that is not nearly enough to convince me to vote for them.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Edwards accepted public funding out of necessity,

as his earlier words which I posted as part of the OP evidences.

You can spin why he accepted matching funds at the time that he did after stating that he would not....if you want to, and if will make you feel better, but just I'm not so easily fooled.

Further, whatever the reason (and I don't believe that it was as altruistic as you want to believe), it doesn't change what we would be faced with if he were the nominee.

Again, I just want folks touting Edwards' elect-ability to get the whole picture, and not just buy into what John Edwards sells to be "elect-ability" factors.

[gmudem]

62. So once again

Your main argument against voting for Edwards is that he is not a corporate candidate. I don't think that strategy will work on me or any other Edwards supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

64. My intent is not to have something "work" on you.......

and that kind of self importance is unbecoming.

FACT: Edwards touts that he is the most electable of all of the Dem candidates.
FACT: Edwards supporters have been quoting a poll ad nauseum that shows Edwards (a year out and without understanding that Edwards has yet to be defined) winning against Republicans better than other Dem Candidates.


My argument for not voting for Edwards has to do with the fact that I don't believe what he says and believe him to be positioning himself everytime he opens his mouth, and that his record doesn't match his rethoric.

I actually don't consider Edwards to be as progressive and anti-corporate as you do. My reasons stem from watching him and his actions over the years as opposed to believing what he said yesterday.

[gmudem]

67. And out comes the condescension.

I am aware of the actions of his past and I'm not just supporting him on a whim. I have been closely following this campaign from the start and I am aware of the records of all of our candidates. I have come to believe that Edwards is our best candidate and I frankly don't give a shit if you think differently.

[FrenchieCat]

72. and that's the beauty of Democracy......and the primary process....

as I don't give a shit what you think either.

Now, that's real condescension; simply repeating your words backattcha! :hi:

[gmudem]

74. Uh not really

Condescension is saying people are voting for somebody even though you know better and that you wouldn't dare vote for him.

It's time for Democrats to stand up for public financing and not just keep saying we'll do it when we have the chance. And did it ever occur to you that people might like a candidate not funding his campaign on millions and millions of corporate dollars? It's time for a change in the way elections happen in this country, and Edwards will start that change.

[FrenchieCat]

76. It's more like you saying what it's time for us to do......

And in re-iterating your originally condescending statement to me once again; I don't give a shit what you think.

Edwards didn't start anything, he just did what he felt he had to do to stay competitive, as he had earlier said....and then attempted to justify his move as any good politician would.

The truth is that your candidate has consistently said one thing and then changed to say something quite different and has left his supporters to hang their hats on what they want to believe. He is working it as he might in a courtroom with a jury, and for that I will give him credit; he's pretty good at what he does best.

[cali]

60. the only reason he took public funding was because he couldn't

raise the money he needed. He originally said he would NOT take it, and changed his tune when his fund raising proved lacking. I think it's too funny for words that some Edwards supporters deny the facts. Talk about massive denial and idolizing of a candidate. You guys take the cake. And you're obviously sadly ignorant about the money that Obama has raised. The vast majority of it comes from small donors.

Edwards blew it. And he didn't even have the guts to put his own money into it. Pathetic.

[last1standing]

79. Didn't take you long to go back to being your usual rude self, Cali.

I never said that I supported Edwards because he took public funding, I said it as asinine to vote for someone based on how much corporate sponsorship they could suck in. Do you notice the difference at all? Probably not.....

[Jai4WKC08]

58. I think he intends to use 527s to make up the difference

The fact that there is a LAW against him or his campaign coordinating with them is merely an inconvenient detail.

[cali]

61. More than an incovenient detail.

527s cannot put up candidate ads.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Yep, that sure stopped the swiftboaters, didn't it?

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

66. But I think that Govt group will be more vigilent this time.....

especially if it involves any Democratic 527s going against a GOP candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

63. But he has denounced 527s as special interest groups......

and so using them to his advantage would make him a hypocrite.

I'm sure those posters here at DU in favor of Public financing to the point that all other Dem candidates are to be called Corporate candidates would recoil to have Edwards turn around and do something like that....even if it meant that it would provide him with a bit of an better edge to combat his choosing matching funds.....I guess. :shrug:

[maximusveritas]

69. Elizabeth is suprised and disappointed in you FrenchieCat

Well, maybe not surprised.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Yes....I'm in league with Michelle......

Which isn't a bad place to be.

Michelle is my sister in the disappointment arena of the Edwards campaign...as you well know! LOL!

[AP]

71. Rather get shit kicked out of me all summer and win in the fall, then have Obama or Clinton lose in

November.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Yeah...sure....OK......we'll see

just like we did before. Even spending 255 million wasn't quite enough for the JE ticket in 2004. So, I'm not sure why 1/2 of the last losing ticket is now going to win big with 7 months of attack to defend with hands tied behind the back and with 1/4 of the money spent then.

I'll speculate the future utilizing known and logical information, while you can speculate based on sheer faith for your candidate (and AP, I will say that faith for John Edwards is something you do not lack). And so again, the beauty of it all is that we shall see. Just be ready to pay for what you wished for if it doesn't turn out as rosy as you are predicting that it will all be.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you and me and for our nation that if Edwards does gain the nomination, your faith will not have to be tested.