Had Edwards Done One Thing Differently, He'd Be In A Much Better Position

[cali]

He should never, ever have taken public financing for the primaries. He should have done what JK did and self-financed until he could raise the funds he needs Now he's locked into a very restrictive system of spending caps.

And please, don't suggest that he did this for ethical reasons: He clearly didn't. He said last February that he would NOT accept matching funds. He only changed his mind in September after lack luster funding.

Even if he wins in Iowa, he's fighting an uphill battle to win the nomination. Super Tuesday is super expensive- ground operations GOTV and advertising in the month preceding it, are a black hole.

Yes, the big money it takes to win the nomination- let alone the general- sucks. But pretending it's not vital is nothing but denial.

[Vincardog]

1. This is exactly why we have to take corporate money out of elections and publicly fund them

[cali]

4. I agree.

And the big media companies should donate the tv time.

[Vincardog]

21. The FCC should make it a condition of the license. IF they want to use our airways they should

have to devote xxx number of hours to election coverage. IT would not be a TAX deductible contribution it should be a cost of doing business.

[still_one]

5. and who will do that? Congress that benefits from it?

We need major changes in Congress of personal in Congress, but it is a moot issue unless we can take back Congress in 2008

[Vincardog]

29. What part of "We have to" don't you get? WE is us.

[still_one]

30. I get it, but until the DUMB electorate get it, it won't change.

[MADem]

6. Unfortunately, the Supremes have ruled that Money Is Speech.

So I guess those without money have no voice....

[redqueen]

16. No, they still have a voice... just a reeeeeeeeally quiet one.

While the rich have all the amplification power they can afford!

[Vincardog]

27. When we make it clear that corporations are not people and that they do not have rights

that will no longer be an argument.

[still_one]

2. I agree, but I also think he didn't come out fast enough to distinguish himself on Iraq

If he places at least second in Iowa, that would be extremely positive for his campaign and his chances

[smalll]

3. Also, Not Build That House. /nt

[killbotfactory]

7. Yeah, he grandstands on the public financing issue

and then has to rely on 527s soft-money machines. A real reformer.

[cali]

8. All of them practice a fair degree of hypocrisy

it just grates a little more with JE, because of his rhetoric. But I really don't get why he didn't put $10 million of his own money into it. He could have afforded it without a problem. And I also don't understand the effort most of his supporters put into denying that this is a real problem for him.

[JDPriestly]

10. The 527s that support him are supported by unions

and a poverty advocate. I have no problem with that.

[JDPriestly]

9. Cali, will you support Edwards if he is the candidate?

[cali]

11. I don't know how many times I've answered that in the affirmative.

Dozens. I don't take cheap swipes at Edwards about things. I don't write endless threads criticizing him. I've said repeatedly that I'll not only vote for him, but I'll donate to 527s supporting him and work for him in my state- though any dem candidate has that sewn up. I really find it interesting that there seems to be so much angst over my lack of support for JE in the primary.

[JDPriestly]

12. That is because you never miss a chance to criticize Edwards.

It is as if you were on a personal mission to run Edwards into the ground. You seem very emotional about this.

[cali]

14. Ah, I'm afraid you're the one being emotional. And I understand how

strongly you support your candidate. But that simply isn't true. I don't go into pro-Edwards threads and piss on them. I've posted a grand total of 9 threads about Edwards in the past 2 months- fewer than the number of threads I've posted criticizing Clinton, though more than the number criticizing Obama. And at least two of the threads I've posted have been neutral or positive.

Having strong support for a candidate can shade your perception. You're just wrong here. BTW, this thread is hardly what I'd call an attempt to run Edwards into the ground, and it's a shame you feel incapable of addressing it, and need to resort to attacking me.

Good luck to your candidate tomorrow.

[cascadiance]

13. Even if he has to switch away from public financing in the GE, if he wins he will have made a point!

He will have shown how it is possible to win a primary against heavily spending opponents if he has the right message, and therefore be able hopefully to lead others to want to have this happen at a federal level too. He can note that he switched away in the general election, since he will have felt he already made his earlier point, but that with the current weak state that campaign finance laws are in now, he didn't want to risk for the country letting a Republican win, even if he felt he could overcome that hurdle, and that once in office he would later work to reform the laws so that they are a lot more practical for average "non rich" candidates that want to be of service to America.

[cali]

15. I'm afraid you don't understand the public financing system.

JE will not turn down public financing in the general- and neither will the repuke. No candidate has ever done so. And as someone upthread pointed out, it's almost impossible to reform the system legislatively due to Supreme Court decisions. In any case, my point is that he likely doesn't have the money to win the nomination, and had he done what Kerry did, and what he did in his Senate campaign, he'd be far more competitive.

[cascadiance]

17. Explicitly write law that would take away the court activist "corporate personhood" rights..

Which would be pretty hard for SCOTUS to say is unconstitutional, since the notion of "corporate personhood" is rooted in court clerk activism and not law and is unconstitutional itself. Then a lot of the "corporate free speech" rulings, etc. go away that have kept some of the teeth out of public campaign financing at this point.

[cali]

18. I know about the history of corporate personhood, but alas

I don't think it would be at all hard for SCOTUS to say it's unconstitutional. Nothing has stopped them before. And you can't possibly think that lawyers haven't thought of this. It's about as likely that this SCOTUS will strip coporations of personhood as it is that I'll look out my window and see green lush grass. (It's snowed every single day here since the beginning of December)

[cascadiance]

19. But corporate personhood isn't based on law or the constitution, but a "head note"....

It should be overturned even without congressional law. Noone's challenged it, so they leave sleeping dogs lie. But if the congress wrote exlicit laws challenging it, then they'd be forced to rule on it. And they would have NO basis to say that corporations are persons. NONE!

[cali]

20. But corporate personhood is now rooted in the Constitution

through the 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. It may have been a clerical error, but that's not how it's been considered by the final arbiter of such things; the Supreme Court. I don't like it, but the Court does have a basis to say that corporations are juristic persons. And even if they didn't there's nothing stopping them from finding a constitutional basis. If only it was as easy as merely getting the Court to hear the right case.

[cascadiance]

25. Roe v. Wade is MORE rooted in the constitution by that definition...

JUDGES ruled to support Roe v. Wade. Judges DID NOT rule in favor of corporate personhood on that case. A former railroad exec who was a court clerk inserted the notion that the case in question gave corporations personhood. The Supreme Court DID NOT give them corporate personhood with that case.

If SCOTUS rules that existing case ruling history overrules what's actually law, the constitution or ACTUAL court rulings, then they are setting themselves up for a world of hurt if they want to try and overturn Roe v. Wade, as lawyers will then argue that there's more basis for overturning this ruling than there is Roe v. Wade, which actually was a court DECISION, not a head note error. If they are forced to not overturn Roe v. Wade based on that, that will really hurt the Republicans with their religious base, and might set them up nicely for some justice impeachments, if that becomes necessary later if they don't do the right thing on ruling on subpoenas, etc. on the Bush administration. If they support corporate personhood and overturn Roe v. Wade, then they're setting themselves up for correctly being labeled as THE most judicial activist court in SCOTUS history.

I think the potential cost for trying to support that "decision" of the 1800's would be a lot more than what they are really wanting to give up. Even Rehnquist dissented on a corporate personhood ruling knowing that it wasn't based on solid case law (I think it was Boston vs. Belotti).

The game they are playing now is trying to ignore doing any kind of law-making in this area at this time and try to avoid it being ruled upon by the court at all at this time. And as long as you have enough Republicans and DLC Democrats in the congress, it will probably be kept off the docket. But if you really change the congress in 2008 and also get someone like Edwards in as president, that could be the time to make these kind of laws, which would pave the way for true public campaign finance reform, in addition to other things.

[Lex]

22. Quelle Surpise! Another Edwards thread from you.

nt

[cali]

23. Yes. Wow. I've written 9 or so threads about Edwards over the past 2 months.

The horror of it for poor wittle sensitive Edwards supporters! Get out the smelling salts! And I've never brought up his hair or other inanities. And *gasp* two of them were positive.

This is very mild stuff. God help you if he is the nominee. You'll keel over when the repukes attack himp or run around in hysterics.

[Lex]

24. You have transformed yourself into a caricature.

That post was perfectly so.

[cali]

33. my, your ability to expose me is just

devastating.

:sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

34. More like "highlighting" than exposing.

No sarcasm emoticon here.

[cali]

35. more like people who can't discuss the topic of the OP

and are desperate. That's clearly highlighed by your feeble post.

[Kurovski]

36. The topic of most of your posts is you

and your joy in stirring the shit-pot for it's own sake.

[cali]

37. um, no.

I don't talk about myself in my posts, and most of my posts are much like this one- hardly inflamatory except to those who are spectacularly defensive.

[scarletwoman]

39. "most of my posts are much like this one" -- yes, they are generally pronouncements from on high.

I have long purposely avoided any direct contact with you on this board, and I know there's a good chance that I'll regret breaking my own rule here.

But, geeze, get over your damn self. If someone disagrees with your fucking opinion, that doesn't make them "defensive", it just means they don't find merit in your pronouncements.

My apologies in advance for engaging with you. I'm having a moment of weakness.

sw

[Madam Mossfern]

28. I don't see this as a negative post

Just one assessing an issue that may effect the success of his campaign.

[Sugar Smack]

26. He still gets my vote.

:toast:

[MH1]

31. Good point. May explain Kucinich backing Obama (the viable anti-Hillary).

If Edwards can't afford to compete effectively in super Tuesday, then Obama looks more like the only choice to beat Hillary.

[horsewithnoname]

32. maybe he could have saved a little money

By skipping the $400 haircuts and going to a place where he could have put a few dollars into a struggling single mothers pockets. He says there are 2 americas, maybe he could have spent a few min. in the one most of us live in.

Don't get me wrong....I like him, alot. He is not evil like Bush, he just spends a lot of money.

[HughBeaumont]

38. Wow, and you know . . . THAT'S going to make me want to vote Hillary even MORE.

Because I'm going to be FORCED TO!!!

Fucka that noise.

I'm not hearing ONE compelling reason whatsoever to vote for Hillary Clinton. Not one. All I'm hearing are reasons NOT to vote Republican.

Hillary Clinton is a shitty candidate. A SHITTY candidate. We can do so much better, and we're not going to. We're once again going to let the M$M pick the candidate FOR us.

She has far too many less-than-democratic positions on important issues like free trade, Bewsh oil follies, Health Care, national security, outsourcing, Bankruptcy bill, cluster bomb vote, etc. I cannot vote for someone who supports lousy trade agreements and thinks doing business with Indian outsourcing companies is good business. I cannot vote for someone who believed the worst president this country's ever been disgraced with. Twice.

Not to mention that I'm really having a hard time grasping why her supporters think the former first lady named Clinton, someone who most rural, fence sitter and independent voters have been trained to hate since 1993, is going to provoke a groundswell of these same people to rush to the polls and pull that (D) lever. Man, give me what your smoking so I can sell it to someone dumb enough to buy it. Hillary doesn't even inspire people in her OWN party. The whole "I'll support the Dem nominee even if I have to hold my nose" . . . that's DU. That's not America. America isn't New York.

I'm sorry. I cannot do it. I want to be proud of who I vote for.

I'm not getting behind HRC. The truth is, I don't feel any enthusiasm for Hillary as a candidate. I don't find her to be honest. I think she's completely clueless to the needs of the middle class and the poor and I don't think she's the best person for that aspect of governing. I'm from Ohio, and it's arguable that tons of workers lost jobs here (related to some of them) as a result of her husband's (and his friend 41's) NAFTA, which she supports. I think she would divide the left and center and wouldn't inspire many people to get behind her. I don't think she would turn one 2004 red state. I think she would mobilize Republican voter rolls. I think it would be a repeat of 2004. I think nominating her would be a poor choice. There it is.

This isn't "My Party, Right or Wrong". It'd be just like lying.