In what amounts to a tacit admission his fundraising is sucking wind, former Senator John Edwards' campaign has announced it will accept federal matching funds for the primaries. This will give him an infusion of money he apparently can't get elsewhere, but severely restrict his spending. Nedra Pickler has the story for the Associated Press:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards reversed course Thursday by signing onto the public financing system he once rejected with the belief he could raise more money on his own.The 2004 vice presidential nominee claimed higher moral ground in the debate over money in politics while announcing the change. But it is a consequence of him bringing in far fewer dollars than his top rivals Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"It is worrisome seeing the amount of money that is being raised in this campaign," Edwards said on CNN. "This is not healthy. ... This campaign should not be a fundraising contest."
Read it all at the link above. The spinning is laughable. Edwards had been planning to forego public funding (as have most recent successful primary campaigns), he just can't raise enough money to compete with Obama and Clinton. Suddenly, there is some moral high ground in taking taxpayer money to cover what he can't raise.
It's a riverboat gamble, of course. He must believe he can't win Iowa - his must-win state - without the infusion of cash. But now, even if he does manage to take the state, he will be at a huge disadvantage. compared to the frontrunners, in the rest of the primaries. Desperate men take desperate measures.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Campaign Contributions, Democrats, Edwards, Primaries
Tags: campaign contributions, Democrat, Edwards, presidential campaign, primaries
Comments (3)
Let me translate. "This ca... (Below threshold)1. Posted by kim | September 28, 2007 6:23 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Let me translate. "This campaign should not be a fundraising contest" means "No Mas".
======
1. Posted by kim | September 28, 2007 6:23 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 28, 2007 06:23
2. Posted by COgirl | September 28, 2007 11:35 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"This will give him an infusion of money he apparently can't get elsewhere, but severely restrict his spending."
Does this mean no more $400 haircuts?
Will Edwards have to be on a (big gulp). . . budget?
What will Elizabeth have to say about this?
2. Posted by COgirl | September 28, 2007 11:35 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 28, 2007 11:35
3. Posted by Paul Hooson | September 28, 2007 12:22 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
This is the latest misstep by the ill-fated Edwards campaign. This campaign is certainly going nowhere. Political campaigns are simply way too expensive for public funds. Well, in about 13 weeks when the first primary events come, expect the Edwards campaign to be quickly over. You can stick a fork in this campaign, it's done.
3. Posted by Paul Hooson | September 28, 2007 12:22 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 28, 2007 12:22