y choosing to take public financing and go dark between sewing up the nomination, should Edwards win, and the Democratic convention,

Is that accurate? Can't the DNC spend whatever it wants in that period? Hell, I've cut them off since the MCA debacle (followed by FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, the MoveOn condemnation), but if this Hail Mary pass of Edwards' works out, I'll pony up.

I have one observation: I wonder what color drapes Judith will put in the White House? Actually one more: if we felt like crap in 2000 and 2004, wait until Nov. 5, 2008. Nice job, Democrats.

I believe that your first interpretation is the closest to being correct (the second is unlikely and the third true but largely irrelevant at this point). Edwards understands based on 2004 that, if he picks a fight with Obama prior to Iowa and they engage, Clinton will stay above the fray and destroy them both in Iowa and then New Hampshire. Edwards' only viable strategy, albeit a longshot, is to pick a fight with someone who creates a greater contrast (giving him greater press attention) and currently represents the greatest threat to him in Iowa. As long as Clinton remains at 40% in the polls with roughly the same amount of primary money as Obama, she remains the primary obstacle to Edwards' ambitions. If and when Clinton falters, and Edwards does better in New Hampshire (and more particularly, Nevada and So. Carolina), making the race a two-person struggle with Obama, Edwards then can worry about Obama.

I didn't like any of the conclusions you came to. If John Edwards goes down the Democrats have zero chance of winning in 2008, especially winning without avoiding major casualties in the Senate and House.

Neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would win in a REAL LIFE election, and both would drag down Democrats in the south and midwest in a REAL LIFE election.

Anyone remember those really kick ass John Kerry ad's that ran in the summer of '04?

Anyone?

Anything at all?

Yeah, not going dark in that time period was really helpful... It's not like any negative ads seriously damaged him during that time period...

Seriously? Who the fuck believes the moronic arguments that GFR, Ezra Klein and Kos keep making? It's not like these caps apply to outside interest groups

The above comment is mine.

Of course it is. ;)

It's (a).

First off, Edwards' COH announcement today is $3M higher than what Trippi claimed to the media last week, so either he's an idiot, or you're about to see a lot of debt and layoffs.

Secondly, even at that level of COH, it still means the campaign spent more than it took in last quarter. Basically, their campaign model is unsustainable without public financing in 2008.

Third: they've now spent around $20M of the $50M total available for the next 11 months.

Fourth: the DNC has $4M COH right now. Yes, they can raise a lot post-nomination, but they won't be able to promote Edwards effectively, given the coordination rules.

Oh, one more thing: Kerry didn't go dark post-nomination; he opted out of public financing for the general, and ended up spending more than $175 million dollars before the Convention, and being able to transfer another $40M more to Dem party committees. It was so successful that the campaign briefly floated the idea of delaying acceptance of the nomination until weeks after the Convention before the public funding for the general would apply.

And the SBVFT happened *after* the convention.

The only thing I'd add is that John Edwards' major problem right now is the media is piling up on him, and selectively targeting him with foolish stories in the key first states, linking him and Fortress Investments' subprime lending operations in places like Iowa and South Carolina, as if John Edwards, who worked for Fortress for only a few months, is to blame for EVERY SINGLE THING that Fortress Investments has ever done. But I think it's clever of the media that they are using Fortress to hit John Edwards in Iowa and SC, the two states they will claim that he is supposed to do well in.

You can't be hit with bad news since February like John Edwards has been, and it not eventually start to affect your poll numbers EVERYWHERE, and your money.

What John Edwards needs is good news. He needs some key endorsements, and fast. If he gets that, his poll numbers will climb. Right now, people don't have any reason to believe that he has a chance. He needs some big names showing that they believe in him in order to get many people to take another look at him.

"general election financial viability"

I like how you cut to what's really important. No need concerning ourselves with which candidate might best represent Democratic interests or who, as a result of that, might attract the most votes in the general election, let's focus on who can raise the most money.

I just can't understand why anybody would be turned off by our electoral system, or by the press's coverage of it.

Joe Trippi once again seems to think that actual voters actually care about money and politics in and off itself....Bizarre.

the counter argument to money and politcs is so simple - it goes something like this "I'll take on the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and provide universal health insurance." and then your opponent says, "but you've taken thousands of dollars from them." and then you say, "they gave money to me because they support my agenda, not because I support their agenda."

This is easy - and an unfortunate decision by Edwards

Adam B doesn't know what the heck he's talking about about John Edwards' "spending."

After they raised $23 million in the first 3 quarters, they still had $14 million on hand after the first two quarters, meaning they only spent $9 million in first two quarters.

Obama was the one blowing through money, not John Edwards.

So, what makes you think that they spent more than $7 million the last quarter, when they were only spending $4.5 million the two previous quarters?

Also, when did Joe Trippi say they were only going to raise $4 million. I saw someone's blog say that's what they expected Edwards to raise, around $5 million is what they said. Maybe Trippi was just using reverse psychology to get people to start donating. I'm sure they raised more than $1,000,000 over the last 11 days, which is why they didn't update the total over the last day and a half of fundraising, so you still had people pouring money in even after they only needed $80,000 more dollars 40 hours before the deadline.

So, why the sour grapes? Are you a Richardson supporter?

This should say:

"After they raised $23 million in the first TWO quarters, they still had $14 million on hand after the first two quarters, meaning they only spent $9 million in first two quarters."

Yes, everyone who's in the know, knows ads in May decide the race. That's why we all link to each other, 'cause we're so in the know.

Of course, what Trippi is really doing here is setting up Edwards as the true outsider/change agent. Obama is just Hillary-lite, as his hypocrisy on public finance demonstrates.

"It's not like these caps apply to outside interest groups"

GFR doesn't need a truthful reason to slam Edwards. It's easier for her to just make shit up.

Anything to defend the Clinton machine.

"Adam B doesn't know what the heck he's talking about about John Edwards' "spending." ... So, why the sour grapes? Are you a Richardson supporter?"

Adam B is Markos' lawyer, so he's also in the bag for whoever will slide them the biggest bag of cash.

Dirty, corrupt, pseudo-Democrats out for their careers and eager to whore themselves out to the highest bidder.

Their biggest enemy is campaign finance reform and public financing, not Republicans.

"What John Edwards needs is good news."

What Edwards needs is to get up on TV in Iowa.

He's been dark all year to conserve resources, counting on his considerable goodwill in the state to keep him competitive until he got up on TV.

Given the $22m CoH and the fact that he remains competitive in Iowa, this has been the correct strategy.

Now he'll get to re-introduce himself and be financially competitive the rest of way, despite not having as wealthy a donor base as Clinton and Obama.

Petey: your slur is beneath contempt, as to both me and Markos, and I'm supporting the candidate who gave me B's both seminars I took from him in the mid-1990s.

Framecop: If Edwards had $13.3M coming into this quarter, and has $12M cash on hand now, then he spent more than he took in this quarter. The math isn't that hard.

(And he'll only get $10M if he raises the sufficient amount of qualifying contributions, and I have no idea where they are in relation to that requirement.)

"Petey: your slur is beneath contempt"

Slur? Am I incorrect about your relationship to Markos?

Or is it a "slur" because I'm saying something true that most readers here don't know.

I find your lack of commitment to the truth and to progressive goals to be beneath contempt, so I guess we're on the same page on that one.

"and has $12M cash on hand now"

Edwards has $22m CoH. See Ambinder today.

Just for clarification on the standards here: is this a slur from Petey that's beneath contempt by normal standards, or by Peter-where-Edwards-is-concerned standards?

I know Petey is a smart guy, I've seen his comments elsewhere. But he, and some others, are committed to Edwards in a deeply emotional way that prevents them from making constructive (or even interesting) comments in Edwards threads. This sort of attachment is probably a good thing in lots of ways, and it certainly is sincere, but he frequently gets overwrought and starts arguing ad hominem. I'm not sure what he is trying to accomplish in this thread other than some possibly therapeutic venting of his spleen.

The latest poll from Iowa, the one state that Edwards must win to gain enough momentum to launch a viable national campaign, showed Obama in the lead among likely caucus-goers -- though with a 7 percent margin of error -- and Edwards in third.

GFR needs to learn more about polling.

The margins of error in the Newsweek poll (+/- 7% for Democrats) means that statistically meaningful conclusions are impossible. Had Newsweek not been so cheap, they would have gotten better results.

Mark Blumenthal, Pollster.com:

Since July we have seen 12 public polls released in Iowa by 9 different organizations, and each appears to define and sample the likely caucus-goer universe differently. To the extent that pollsters have revealed the details, their snapshots of the electorate are poles apart, to say nothing of the candidates that those voters support....

Unfortunately, the Newsweek release omits many of the same methodological details left out of the other Iowa polling releases (including, remarkably enough, the number of interviews conducted with likely Democratic and likely Republican caucus goers).

Complicating matters more are the Iowa Caucus rules, which make it impossible to accurately predict before the caucus takes place, who will win.

That makes at least one of your interpretations, (b), unlikely.

Your claim that either Markos or I are biased by money here is contemptible.

Edwards has $12M COH right now; he *hopes* to receive an additional $10M in matching funds in January, but no one has claimed he's actually raised enough qualifying contributions to merit that figure yet.

"and starts arguing ad hominem."

I'm happy to argue ad hominem against folks who have a pattern of anti-progressive bias or anti-progressive corruption.

"Your claim that either Markos or I are biased by money here is contemptible."

Fine. Your motives for agreeing with Newt Gingrich, the GOP, and the most reactionary forces in America that controlling the influence of big money in politics is bad are fundamentally unknown.

Happy now?

The fact that such a stand coincides with yours and Markos' financial interests is not determinative of your motives.

It only suggests them.

Should I take that as 'I'm happy to slur against people against whom I've slurred'?

Look, I don't know Adam B from, well, Adam. I don't care about his history particularly, or even about yours: the question is are his comments here, so far as can be seen, honest and defensible? I don't remember anything he's said that was clearly untrue, though of course his opinions are just that, opinions. On the other hand, you've called him corrupt, GFR and others morons, implied someone suffers from unreasoning bias, without either (1) backing those claims up or (2) apparently realizing that if you engage the personae of posters or commenters, rather than their substance (or even lack of same), all you do is make your own side look unappealing.

Please, make the case for Edwards. I know you want to, after all. But if all you do is impute bad motives to those you've not been able to convince ... well, it's a free internet, but I don't think you're doing your side any favors in this way.

I have been very active on the issue of promoting public financing of campaigns, and especially the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide candidates with enough money to be competitive. But there's not enough money in the presidential financing system to make opting into that a sane decision.

"Look, I don't know Adam B from, well, Adam."

As noted upthread, he's Markos' lawyer.

If you think this is irrelevant in evaluating his opinion, well...

Guys, Petey is an Edwards troll. Don't feed the trolls!

"Guys, Petey is an Edwards troll. Don't feed the trolls!"

So after a majority of Democratic primary voters reveal themselves as Edwards trolls in a few months, is that when you're going to start writing for The Corner, Garance?

PS I advise using the following coda on your Edwards hit piece of the day tomorrow:

As always, feel free to offer your own interpretations in the comments unless your screenname is "Petey".

I'd be happy to respect that.

I lean towards A as well. My neighbor was at a recent fundraising event among highrollers in San Francisco. Edwards claimed that Hillary was the one to beat. I guess he's got that super secret polling data you referred to.

As you like it, Petey. I suspect you're going to find yourself banned from all your favorite blogs by January at the rate you are going. Besides, you seem to have missed the really critical point that this item was about Obama. I know today's Edwards talking points are to pretend he doesn't exist and that it's a battle to the death between him and Clinton, but that's precisely what I was pointing out. Obama exists and his campaign stands a refutation of Edwards' new campaign financing message. As was Howard Dean's, I might add.

Garance, have you considered that the ban on explicit coordination between 527s and campaigns may have Trippi saying a lot less about them than he thinks?

Groups like MoveOn and VoteVets aren't going away, and they'd relish the opportunity to play defense for a candidate. And it's not like this is a state House campaign, where free media opportunities are few and far between.

LOL @ Petey

Anyways, Kos's political judgment is horrible, almost to the extent that the opposite of what he predicts will happen. I was actually a bit depressed when he wrote a post last fall asserting that Obama "couldn't lose" the nomination. So anything Kos says I would take with a big spoonful of salt.

But I have no doubt that he is sincere.LOL @ Petey

Anyways, Kos's political judgment is horrible, almost to the extent that the opposite of what he predicts will happen. I was actually a bit depressed when he wrote a post last fall asserting that Obama "couldn't lose" the nomination. So anything Kos says I would take with a big spoonful of salt.

But I have no doubt that he is sincere.

Your list of choices is incomplete.

The answer is (d) Edwards respects and likes Obama, but thinks he can beat obama one on one, despite Obama's fundraising advantage. The key threat to a truly progressive victory in November is the Clinton machine, and Edwards is going to take it out. He and Obama like each other and agree on much, no need to attack someone you agree with.

Edwards is looking at the two threats and choosing to take out the strongest one first.

Also, you jump to the unwarranted conclusion that Edwards will "go dark" over the summer and that this will be suicidal in the general.

Please tell me, Garance, which of these hapless and inadequate Republican candidates will be in a position to swamp the Democratic party with money?

And how did having oodles of cash over the summer help John Kerry?

"I know today's Edwards talking points are to pretend he doesn't exist and that it's a battle to the death between him and Clinton"

My reason for trying not to attack Obama is that I like Obama.

If Edwards weren't in the race, I'd be supporting Obama. I'm hoping and expecting that Obama ends up as Edwards' VP choice. And if Edwards disappoints in the early states, I'll quickly become an Obama supporter.

As to the Edwards high command's reason for trying to differentiate themselves with Clinton more than they're trying to differentiate themselves with Obama, I'd strongly guess that has to do with the fact that Clinton is on the inside-track to the nomination, and will win unless she is derailed. If someone is on top, and you don't think they're going to fall on their own accord, you have to go at them.

"As you like it, Petey. I suspect you're going to find yourself banned from all your favorite blogs by January at the rate you are going."

I suspect the monotone quality and shoddiness of your almost daily hit pieces on Edwards will become far more widely appreciated by January at the rate you're going.

With the lead she has now, if Clinton finishes third in Iowa, she's done.

Air will never have come more quickly out of a balloon.

So it only makes sense for Edwards to keep Obama close and go to town on Clinton.

Dr F: whoever gets the nomination, they'll rally around. Especially if it's the guy who's worth up to $250 million.

If the "really critical point" was Obama's (and Dean's) "refutation" of the possible success of Edwards' strategy, I would only quietly add that Deans's campaign is a bit of a refutation of itself, seeing as how President Dean isn't running for reelection right now. Same goes for President Kerry, I might add.

Besides, if that was the "really critical point" of this post, you might forgive me (and Petey and Neil, I guess) for missing it - hidden as it was by both the title and body of the post, not to mention the false choice presented in the closing sentence. Suggesting that the Edwards campaign is either [a] "irresponsibly punting," [b] "making a short-term tactical mistake" or [c] redundant and futile, but nobly so? Come on.

"Suggesting that the Edwards campaign is either [a] "irresponsibly punting," [b] "making a short-term tactical mistake" or [c] redundant and futile, but nobly so? Come on."

That's our Garance!

Pick one. Pick any one. The right answer must be one of those three, right?

"Dr F: whoever gets the nomination, they'll rally around. Especially if it's the guy who's worth up to $250 million."

The point here is that Edwards won't be dark during the summer.

The activity will be taking place through third party groups.

If you want to try to make an intellectually honest criticism, you ought to do it on the basis that the lack of formal co-ordination will cripple the effort.

I think that criticism is incorrect, given that the ban on formal co-ordination has been successfully dealt with in the past, but at least it's more plausible than thinking there won't be money to support Edwards on the air during the summer just because checks can't be cut to the formal campaign organization.

Also, field ops are not included in spending caps. So he'll be able to travel the country, drawing press attention and lambasting the Bush administration and Republicans and the Washington system. He'll be heard.

This 54-year old is not 72-year-old Bob Dole who sailed off to a condo in Florida for two weeks over the summer while Bill Clinton used the power of the oval Office to beat the crap out of him.

John Edwards will be up against a non-incumbent, who will lack that tool, and more importantly, will be running as fast as he can away from the current occupant.

Any comparison to Bob Dole's campaign (as Markos did)is simply ridiculous.

There are so many loopholes to these limitations that they essentially do not exist. You can buy airtime in neighboring states that share the same market, and they do not apply. You can buy cable TV ads too, and they will not always apply. They do not apply to non-campaign expenditures. They do not apply to total expenditures. They only apply to specifically to, and limited to, advertising activities within those single states. To an even half-way clever person, these limitations simply do no matter.

My point about John Kerry still stands. His not going dark for the summer made absolutely no different. He still got his reputation destroyed by the swift boat ads.

whoa nellie... again, THIS is why sometimes I just want to skip the fall. Also, when Edwards loses this primary, can he stop running in primaries, so that I can listen again to the Edwards partisans, who are actually generally quite interesting and thoughtful unless they are talking about Edwards, at which point they become irrational and repetitive?

or a 4th possibility (which seems more obvious). Edwards is ignoring Obama's campaign because focusing on it doesn't help him win. Focusing on Clinton does. By now his campaign must be convinced that Obama is not going to take on Clinton directly and so is not going to make a convincing case to be the alternative.

Edwards campaign sees an opening to become that alternative.

About the Obama campaign, it would seem rather stupid of them to go after Edwards at this point, while ignoring Clinton - the point about "political malpractice" in your post here seems to make no sense.

Folks are confusing the state caps -- which are pretty malleable -- with the overall ~$43M cap, which is a hard cap, and includes everything but fundraising expenses and legal/accounting compliance.

Hillary Clinton is a far greater threat to the Democratic Party's future than any of the Republican candidates. Therefore, Edwards is perfectly justified in focusing his efforts on eliminating her from the competition before it's too late.

A Hillary Presidency would be a Presidency of more right-wing union busting (Mark Penn), endless war, and increased income inequality. If we've got to have another Republican, I'd prefer that at least the Republican Party got blamed for the results.

Hillary must be stopped.

"If we've got to have another Republican, I'd prefer that at least the Republican Party got blamed for the results.

Hillary must be stopped."

I also won't enjoy having women getting blamed for it. What are you people thinking?

banned

We can NOT let corporations destroy our party!