Much has been made of John Edwards' decision to accept public financing for the Presidential primary.
The agonizing, much of it nakedly self-interested by supporters of other candidates eager to wipe out a rival, has been deafening. Some of it has even been sincere. Nonetheless, it's been open season on John Edwards for a while now, and the campaign's decision to use public financing has given ammunition to those already looking for it.
I think y'all are missing the forest for the trees, and making the same mistake you always accuse Congressional Democrats of making: you're hesitant to take a stand, even reluctant to try something potentially transformative.
I'm not, and here's why.
Let me just quickly dispense with the followers of the freshman Senator from Illinois. The New York Times:
"Clinton’s blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters," Mr. Panagopoulos said. "It will give the impression of growing Clinton strength — both in terms of dollars and number of donors."
Mr. Panagopoulos worked in Mrs. Clinton’s Senate office in 2004-5
as a congressional fellow of the American Political Science Association; he said he is not supporting or advising her or any other candidate in the
2008 race.
"Obama also raised impressive sums," he added, "but he may be seen as languishing relative to previous quarters. Obama’s lackluster third quarter intake, relative to previous quarters, reflects, at least in part, waning enthusiasm for his candidacy and diminishing prospects for an Obama victory." [Emphasis added]
Lackluster. Languishing. Waning. Diminishing.
That's all twenty million buys you these days. So let's just assume that money isn't going to be the be-all and end-all of the 2008 campaign. And if it is, sorry, Obama is fading. Which is all the more notable since, frankly, the Senator never peaked in the first place, another victim, it appears, of the dry-powder strategy that has generally worked so well in Washington. And imagine, he didn't even need Bob Schrum to pull it off.
But back to John Edwards, public financing, and a campaign move that can change the Democratic Party.
On the face of it, public financing should be something all Democrats embrace as a matter of principle. Me, I've seldom come across a better piece of policy than Clean Money Clean Elections, even if that's not immediately germane to this Presidential election.
What John Edwards is doing is certainly a gamble. And why not? It's the nature of leadership, which he has exercised throughout this campaign, to gamble occasionally. Given that all of us Progressives are enamored of the diagnosis that Democrats aren't bold enough for our tastes, Edwards' move is deserving of more and better than anticipatory, over-enthusiastic dirges.
The only principled argument that can be made against Edwards' decision is this: in practical terms, Democrats will have a nominee after February 5th, or after the battery of state primaries in March. Presumably, the $50 million available to Edwards will have been exhausted, or nearly exhausted, by then. That leaves what can be described as a funding gap between the date when Edwards secures the nomination and the time he actually is designated the nominee, at Denver in August 2008.
One analytical response is this: Catastrophe. A nominee Edwards, penniless and bereft, wouldn't be able to respond to the rightwing hate barrage that is certain to hit our nominee after he - or she - emerges. That would be entirely in line with conventional wisdom.
An alternative view is simply this: that funding gap can and will be filled by the Democratic National Committee, which brings with it several strategic advantages. First of all, the limit for donations to the DNC is $28,500, significantly in excess of the $2,300 limit in contributions to a single candidate in a primary. Of course, as Kos pointed out, contributions to the DNC have historically lagged behind those to the RNC. To this I say, well, duh. Democrats have historically lagged behind republicans, period. However, a situation like this one has not recently arisen; nor will there be competition to the DNC from the fundraising apparatus of our nominee. Past will not be precedent in this instance; certainly not with a sterling candidate like Edwards and a transformative agenda that meets the country's desire for change. All the move to public financing represents is a shift in the location and emphasis of the fundraising apparatus for the later primary, as well as the not inconsiderable benefit of having a candidate freed to do that arcane thing, actually campaigning.
Then, there is the huge ancillary benefit of using this expected flood of DNC funding not just to promote Edwards as our nominee, but to build brand Democrat and other candidates as well. This because the DNC is limited to what the FEC defines, very loosely one might add, as party-building. Long story short, they can run as many ads on behalf of John Edwards as they like - provided such ads also talk about Democrats in general.
That's the crux of it: with Edwards as our nominee, we'll have months of a concerted effort to build up the entire Democratic Party, paid for by the Democratic Party - and that's what's going missing here. Strange that this enormous potential upside to a nominee Edwards has been overlooked, no? If you like the Fifty State strategy, John Edwards is your guy. Neither Obama or Hillary have given any indication whatsoever that they'd be even interested in a similar effort. Rather, they follow the traditional, by-the-books, Beltway-approved candidate-focused approach, while Edwards, creating a virtue out of necessity, will have to lead with a party-centric strategy. This effort will be of enormous value to downticket Democrats.
John Edwards is, in poll after poll after poll, the best general election nominee. Both Hillary and Obama carry significant downside risks, such as, say, polling badly against Rudy Giuliani in at least 31 marginal Congressional Districts. He is also by far the most Progressive candidate. Now, he has created an absolutely unprecedented opportunity to rebuild our party and elevate Democrats everywhere.
I don't know about you, but I'm voting for John Edwards. I hope you join me.