Edwards Adviser Trippi: Public Financing Would Leave Nominee Like Dukakis -- "Getting the Living Shit Kicked Out of Him All Summer Long"

The Edwards presidential bid may just be over. Just ask Edwards' adviser Joe Trippi.

The Edwards campaign has decided to accept public matching funds in the primary -- and also accept federal spending limits. This gives the campaign a cash infusion of up to $21 million that it must believe it needs to stay competitive for the nomination.

But should Edwards be fortunate enough to topple Hillary and Barrack, the decision also limits his total spending -- through to the convention -- to a mere $50 million. And there's the rub. Edwards is going to need every cent of that $50 million to defeat Clinton Inc. and Obama & Co. Meaning that he would then be a sitting duck for the GOP attack machine from the first days of Spring through August.

That's not just my argument. Listen to Edwards' own adviser, former Dean finance guru Joe Trippi. He told me earlier this year (prior to signing onto the Edwards campaign) 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."

Today's news clearly masks a behind-the-scenes drama.

Trippi is all about raising absurd amounts of money from small-dollar donors. Clearly that hasn't happened yet for the Edwards campaign. But today's decision forecloses the possibility of it ever happening between now and August. Say Edwards catches fire in a month -- an endorsement from Al Gore or a major stumble by/scandal for Hillary could do it -- and the money starts pouring in. At some point, because of this decision, the campaign could actually have to turn away donors.

More absurdly, today's decision also forecloses the possibility that Edwards could self-finance part of his campaign. He's now limited to spending $50,000 of his multimillions.

Trippi must have lost this battle to fellow Edwards' adviser David Bonoir, who today painted the decision in principled terms -- as a rejection of the corrupting influence of establishment money -- and then attempted to reassure the Edwards faithful that it is not hamstringing the would-be nominee.

We are prepared for this campaign to go the distance. We have a comprehensive campaign spending plan ... to ensure that we not only have enough money on hand to clinch the nomination but also have a reserve to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the spring.

How is that possible? Well, says Bonoir, it really means relying on the DNC to do Edwards' defending and dirty work:

Since the party can spend money independently of its Presidential nominee, a stronger Democratic Party will be in a position to meet the challenge of waging an effective campaign on behalf of John Edwards and every other Democratic candidate.

Rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs

Follow Tim Dickinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/7im

Comments

[Kakie]

Edwards is not out of it yet--not by a long-shot.

In 2003, John Kerry was broke and had to put a second mortgage on his house...He was polling at 4% nationally, behind Al Sharpton, and Howard Dean had just been endorsed by Al Gore and several other big wigs in the party.

Once Kerry won Iowa,he won it all...

When Edwards wins Iowa, he will win it all...

Come on, people...we can't let money buy this election...Edwards is the most progressive, AND the most electable-­-Rasmussen Reports just came out with yet another poll showing Edwards as being by far and away the most electable Democrat--he consistently beats all the Republican challengers in head-to-head match-ups, and by the widest margins. He is the only Democrat to do this.

Having traveled extensively in the Midwest and South, I can tell you that Edwards is our only hope.

When you consider all the free press that Billary and Obama have gotten, and how the media has sought to diminish Edwards' campaign (the press and corporate media don't want to lose their tax breaks), Edwards is really doing quite well in the polls--he leads among likely caucus goers in Iowa, according to Time Magazine. He is the only candidate free of Washington lobbyist money. Let's reward the best and most honest guy by giving him our vote...Money should not buy elections.

[Doofus]

John Edwards has had a chance to make his case.

It hasn't worked out. One would hope he could
last til the primaries, but that's up to him.

He's got a few more months, at best, to figure
out how to *resonate* with voters.

The fact that he hasn't got support from John
Kerry, or even Al Gore, has probably not helped
his case. As a veteran contender from the 2004
campaign, that would be expected. What's up
with that?

[rssrai]

Here is the new head to head polls that just came out today:
Survey of 800 Likely Voters
September 26-27, 2007
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs.
John Edwards (D)
Rudy Giuliani (R)
 41%
John Edwards (D)
 50%
Fred Thompson (R) vs.
John Edwards (D)
Fred Thompson (R)
 39%
John Edwards (D)
 49%
I don't think JRE will need a lot of money to stomp the repugs. Not with polls like this.

[Doofus]

That'd be the latest Rasmussen poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_thompson

This suggests that Edwards ought to be expected
to do well in the primaries early next year.


If the 'political process' is going wrong this
time, it's to get way ahead of itself, with
regard to the importance of the primaries,
and to manifest huge promotional expenses
long before people have the opportunity to
do any actual voting.

------------

'Saturday, September 29, 2007
Former Senator John Edwards now attracts 50% support in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey matching him with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He leads Giuliani 50% to 41%. The poll also shows Edwards with a ten-point advantage over former Senator Fred Thompson, 49% to 39%.

One interesting twist to this year’s early Presidential polling is that Edwards typically outperforms other leading Democratic hopefuls in general election match-ups but remains a distant third in the competition for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.' ...

[daniel155]

It is legitimate and legal for Edwards to take public financing but unfortunately his managers try to make it seem like he is doing this for altruistic reasons when anyone with any political savvy knows that he is doing it because he needs the money to compete in the early states and his fundraising on his own was not keeping up with Clinton and Obama.

[JoAnnCr]

An interesting but underreported fact: Edwards has raised more money than any Democratic candidate in history before this race.

Edwards walks the talk and is relentlessly principled. Expect this to continue throughout his life.

Other unpopular but principled things John Edwards has done:

First to come out before the pack with bold strategies.

Asks people to sacrifice.

Focuses on poverty.

Doesn't take money from Federal lobbyists.

Unpopular with the super rich: will take away their Bush tax cut.

Unpopular with Pharmaceuticals and Insurance Companies: will increase the influence of Americans and reduce their influence.

Unpopular with most of us: No Impeachment. Says it distracts Congress from doing critical business. Based on his experience as lead counsel in Clinton impeachment trial.

I strive to be as principled as John Edwards but these are tough times to be principled.

I just donated $250 to Edwards's campaign.

[daniel155]

No matter how fervent and Edwards supporter you are, you surely cannot believe that he is doing

this for anything other than financial reasons. He needs the matching funds to compete in the early states so why can't he just be honest and admit it instead of giving us this song and dance about trying to get money out of politics?

He and his team's attempt to try and spin this as Edwards making a principled stand on public financing are only making matters worse. Just take the money John and move on. Don't try to BS the public on this.

[sheila]

i agree with quad and drk - publicly financed elections with MANDATORY airtime as part of the FCC (free) licenses to commercial broadcasters. now.

edwards just got my vote, by the way.

[OhPlease2007]

If memory serves, John Kerry was massively in debt and lagging in the polls, and he STILL won the Democratic nomination in the '04 presidential election cycle.

I have never seen ONE television commercial for John Edwards and yet he has my vote. Why is that? I closely pay attention to what every candidate has to say in all the debates, then I read, read, read, about their proposed positions online, arriving at a decision as to whom I intend to vote for in the primary and general election.

I can't vote for Hillary because she is a hawk and I don't trust her judgment in foreign policy; she said that we must prepare for the next war and she just voted yes on the neocon worded measure to build support for attacking Iran. I can't vote for Obama, because he is essentially just a kid when it comes to solid Washington D.C. policy experience; the only people who believe that solid experience doesn't count are 'Obama's supporters.' So, that leaves me with, Senator Edwards; a man who pledges to help the working families & poor in our nation, who has the labor endorsements of over 3 million people, and who is a candidate that does not want to further the neocon agenda, but wants to restore the good name of the United States backed up with sound diplomacy in foreign policy.

Elizabeth Edwards was just on MSNBC's Countdown expressing that in the last presidential election cycle, Edwards' campaign was deemed "weak" because the Edwards campaign didn't take public campaign financing. Is the M$M fickle, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, or are they just plain, brain-dead ??? Or, maybe, the M$M are just looking our for their own corporate interests, and trying to snip at the heals of Edwards' campaign, fits the (dollar) bill ?; I don't know. But what I do know is, John Edwards is the only candidate that 'seems sincere to me' about bringing real needed change in our nation, and that is why I WILL vote for John Edwards.

[Raven]

As a big fan of Edwards myself, this whole thing leaves me quite sad.

Sure, we need limits.

Sure, we need public financing to end the whole sellout game.

But just like the failed Repug initiative to change the rules of the game for Democratic electoral votes only - and ignore the big Repug states like Florida and Texas - this is a no-brainer.

Until everyone plays by that rule-book, there's no point in pretending that you're just above the fray.

Rules are there for a reason - to make sure it's fair. By imposing rules on yourself that no one else respects, you're ensuring just the opposite result.

That, in fact, is the problem the Dems are now having as the majority power.

They're trying too hard to compromise while the other side is not compromising one bit. They're playing by altogether different rules.

Any idiot can see how that's going to play out.

And any idiot can see Edwards just lost the game.

Like I said, that leaves me quite sad. I hoped he would go the whole nine yards.

Now it's clear he won't even make it to the real game.

None of us can afford to put our eggs in that basket.

[Zhonni]

Boy! I did believe you for a second.

I thought I could feel your sadness until you said "like I said, that leaves me sad". That would be the second time you mentioned that you're sad.

I don't think anybody reading your piece would forget that you are sad before they finish it.

My verdict is that your comment reeks of sarcasm. You support somebody else, I do too.

Otherwise, you would have said lets rally and send more money. I usually have a nose to smell all thing fishy. I have a smile on my face while responding because I am thinking, yeah right, you were never an Edwards supporter and I gotcha.

[CharlesMac]

I guess I can kiss Edwards goodbye. I hoped that his campaign would be bootstrapped from primary to primary by a growing momentum. At some critical moment, Gore would step in with an active endorsement.

Can you see how hope may make somebody very stupid?

Actually, Bonoir's fiscal strategy has found itself on many discussion tables. The "outsider" can never make the money of the "insider". So blow your money on the primaries and hold the party hostage for the campaign.

No self-respecting strategist would allow his candidate to be beholden to cash flow from any National Committee. He loses control of the campaign because there are too many stupid people with funds distribution approval power. Ones who just want to "tweak" the candidate's strategy.

At least the corporations just fork over the money and let the candidate do the politicking.

Gore is risk averse, and will now only give a cursory endorsement or stand mute on any endorsement.

Edwards was bright enough to become more refined with the seasoning of a long run. What a waste.

After Hillary gets the nomination, I guess I'll just vote for her and join the rest of the mindless mob in what historians will call the Clinton Lemming Election.

Except I will be relieved when it is my turn to be pushed off of the cliff she will build for us.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I don't understand why, now that there's th'innirnit, why people still piss away so
much money on campaigning. McCain did it to
himself in his private tour bus, what kind of
mileage does THAT pig get, 2-3, highway?
'Perks' like that would cost you your budget
in a jiffy...wonder where Edwards wastes all
of his? Hmmm...elections come, and elections
go, but rich people seldom differ...

[unitron]

"Well, says Bonoir, it really means relying on the DNC..."

Oh well, so much for that idea.

[Doofus]

Public financing indeed (once we can see to
it that Big Media is required to provide free tv).

But for now, the implication is that what
public money there is, is better than the
leftovers for Edwards after Clinton & Obama
have collected up their contributions.

[NABNYC]

It is interesting how the Clintons managed to grab up all the corporate money long before the election, or even the primaries, by having Bill Clinton posture as a philanthropist and all-around­-interesti­ng-dude going from one fancy luncheon to the next, having his staff carry wheelbarrows full of money from the corporate donors - money paid to him for giving a speech. For example, he collected $600,000 in April of 2006 for making 4 "speeches." Sounds a lot like campaign contributions to me.

But Bill/Hill wrapped up the big corporate and lobbyist money early on. Then to be extra safe, Barack Obama appears on the scene, just concidentally someone who is also connected to Rahm Emanuel, a Clinton insider, and Obama manages to soak up another big chunk of the money. Money that otherwise might have gone to Edwards.

Who could come up with such an idea? Have a top-tier candidate secretly support another top-tier candidate in order to knock out a third one who would be the real challenger. Does anyone other than me wonder why Obama does almost nothing, and certainly never has a bad word to say about Hillary.

Edwards has been locked out of the money. He's been overtaken by the others and their big-money connections. He'll take the public financing because it's the only way he can stay in the game. I don't think it's a stupid decision, rather it's dictated by the circumstances he faces.

[Californian]

Who could come up with such an idea? A conspiracy? Hillary and Obama, sneakily uniting just to drain poor Edwards dry?

Nobody.

Dear soul, clearly you love your candidate, and that laudable. But he just didn't catch fire, he can't win. I suffered through the same thing with Tsongas. It's emotional and difficult.

I like Edwards a lot. I love Elizabeth. They aren't going to win.

Sadly, Edwards is in the spoiler position now. This thing has come down to Hillary vs. Obama. One of them will win, and one will lose. And lots of people will feel as you do now.

But I thank John Edwards for running, and for his passion. He made a difference, and now doubt he will continue to do so, just as Tsongas did.

[Californian]

now doubt = no doubt

(sometimes we proofread in California, and sometimes we don't)

[SensibleAmerican]

All his posturing has now come to bite him in the tukus! Empty rhetoric and hot air and constant pandering to a certain segment do NOT win a Presidency!

Oh and anyone who mentions how Bush pandered to his base need be reminded that 2000 was rigged and Al Gore won the popular vote as well as the Electoral College sans Florida!

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Dukakis GOT the 'living sh_t' beat out of him. Unfortunately, it was in the general election and not the primaries where he should have been vetted.

[quadman]

Tim, you highlight a reason why McCain/Feingold was a bad idea. When only the wealthy can afford to run, we all lose. It does not matter if it a Republican or a Democrat. Money is the game, and whoever has the most to spend is more likely to win than anybody else.

National campaigns MUST be funded by the government in order to ensure equal opportunity for all who want to run for national office. In our current system we all follow the non-fairy tale golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.