I know you are joking, but I didn't have to spin. I believe that there is too much money in politics. I admitted that I thought Edwards did what he did because of how much he could raise, but I didn't care because of the fact that my progressive values include that I don't like the influence of donor money on who gets elected. How that can read as spinning for Edwards- well I don't see it. If Clinton or Obama today accepted the public based system- I would endorse their decision too without regard to their reasons because my values aren't based on who I am supporting.

I am not coming back. Just wanted this to be posted here so others could know.

let it go lori.

just let it go.

"Hey, look over there!"

who knows, and frankly who cares. the statement by many here and on other A list blogs was that he took public finance solely because he wasn't going to meet his projected goals for this quarter AND that he was desperate for money. this fundraising outcome (given when he knew about it) blows that statement out of the water. I could just as easy flip it on you- given what his projected goals are- and the money he has in the bank- his burn rate is far less than Clinton or Obama- why didn't he simply build on that? THe answer is neither of us knows. but one of us thinks we know. if you and others want to now change what you meant so that's a moving target its up to you. i am not going to personally engage in a tic for tac here. i was answering the initial wild assumptions being made both by others, and in my own mind by testing them against actual outcomes. what i have is uncertainty about what his motivation is. thats enough for me to realize that they were assumptions rather than fact. i leave the wilder speculations up to the rest of you who want to be certain. this has been the pattern on line- and frankly why i've ceased to post here and other places. the need to rig the discussion toward certainty where there can be none.

Piuma, out of curiosity, why did Hillary Clinton and Obama vote for Iraq war funding every single time in 2005 and 2006, then all of a sudden, vote against Iraq war funding in May of 2007? And now, Hillary Clinton has changed her mind on the Webb Iran amendment. She decided not to cosponsor that amendment in March, and now six months later, she has decided to cosponsor it. Principles?  Politics? Or a combination of the two? They changed their minds...and eventually did the right thing?

On the public financing issue, I believe this issue is much more complicated than Kos or certain others are portraying it (I guess I will have write a diary).

As for the historical record, Edwards did NOT begin his campaign by opting out of the public financing system. For at least the first month of his campaign, the question remained open for John Edwards.    

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy on January 20th, and immediately announced she was not going to accept any primary spending limits or public financing in her campaign. It was thus Clinton's announcement that essentially began the descent away from public financing.

Following Clinton's historically unprecedented, immediate departure from the public financing system, the Edwards' campaign was no doubt forced to weigh its options. On the one hand, Edwards obviously believed strongly in the public financing system for presidential elections. (He honored that system in 2004, while curiously, other candidates did not.) On the other hand, you had the Clinton campaign brashly convincing the press that they were going to raise up to $400 million.

But could they? If they could, Edwards would conceivably be outspent 10 to 1 by Clinton in the primaries. Could Edwards hope to survive a 10 to 1 ratio? Additionally, could Edwards attract ANY financial support if it were assumed he would be outspent 10 to 1? Maybe 2 to 1, or 3 to 1, but 10 to 1? Did he thus have to opt out to even have a chance?  But what if Clinton could not raise $400 million for the primaries, but instead, only $50-100 million? Why sacrifice your principles if that were the case?

I am sure it was a tough decision with principles, pragmatism, campaign strategy, and guesswork all weighing in, with different weights, on different sides of the balance beam.

To put it succinctly...should Edwards stand completely on principle, and IMMEDIATELY be buried, be written off by the press, or compromise for the moment, for the day, and live to fight another day?

So...two weeks after Hillary forced the issue, in February, Edwards said that the decisions by others to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, had forced him to opt out of the public financing system "to have the funds to remain competitive" with them.

Of course, six months later, that $400 million hammer proved to be illusory. It is clear now that the threat was overstated. So why, then, follow in the footsteps of those who are killing the public financing system?

Certainty is fools gold in politics. The best you can do is skeptical, but a direction in which you lean- that is if you don't want to keep repeating the same mistakes as the American peo tend to do.  There is however a difference between skepticism-- questioning really questioning everything a candidate says- and what I did before- being a cynic. Really this issue is the only reason why I decided to post here. Even on being a cynic its good to be skeptical that one's set of assumptions are the correct one. It's, OT, funny many peo here think I am some ultra liberal but I am actually an old style moderate. Meaning, I have a set of values that I strongly hold on to (strong defense, strong social net, sound macroeconomic policy, etc), but I am skeptical about whether they are always right. The difference between me and a the centrists surrounds whether I believe they have a set of core values other than winning and their tendency to want to bludgeon even moderates who don't go along with them as the radical left. Back on Topic, the idea here that I am suppose to want certainty regarding a candidate would be a bit strange considering my own views are not about always being certain or that I consider the worst of the last 7 years to be result of a candidate and president who never thought he could do no wrong. I like people who can adapt.

The bad rap that he's getting for being involved with Fortress is unfortunate. He wasn't running the company nor does he have a long history for him, but he's been getting blamed for every mean thing they ever did whether he had money directly invested in that area of the fund or not. That's how life is, but it's unfortunate all the same.