First, as pointed out by fellow Edwards supporters, Edwards has stated that he will only take public funds for the general if he wins the primary if the Republican nominee does so too. This does nothing to damage any percieved fundraising advantage Democrats have in the general election. Unless the Republican takes these funds and is on even footing, then we will still have a fundraising advantage.
I worked for a Congressional campaign for an awesome candidate last year who lost a primary basically because of money. He had the best message and was dedicated to changing things in the Congress. We refused to believe that the biggest bank account will always win on election day. Well, unfortunately we were wrong, and the one with the most money won on primary day and then got smoked by 20% in the general. Even with the national wave to Democrats.
I would like to remind everyone that just because someone raises the most money doesn't mean they are the best candidate. Case in point, Hillary and Obama. Sure, they have raised a buttload of money, but that doesn't mean they are leaders. Despite all this money, they have constantly been behind Edwards on the issues. Whether it is healthcare, urging Congress to fight on Iraq, or the fight against poverty, these candidates have consistently waited for Edwards to realease his plans before they do theirs. They want to make sure it is politically viable before coming off the fence to take a stand. While this may be politically expediant, it IS NOT leadership!!
Now, we have all their supporters telling everyone that John Edwards is a hypocrite for taking public funding. Forget the fact that Hillary and Obama have both publicly stated that they support public financing of elections. Evidently they support it if it doesn't pertain to them. They will keep raking in huge donations, and be beholden to special interests when and if, (a big if), they take office. Edwards has stated that money makes too many decisions in Washington, and I agree. With this move he is showing that the only interest group he wants to be beholden to is the American voter.
All of the money in the world can't change the fact that it is John Edwards, not Hillary or Obama who is out their every day fighting for the Americans like me who have had no voice in their government. Personally, because of my financial situation I have only been able to send $25 this quarter to Edwards, whereas I wish I could've afforded to send $2300. I have solicited 15 donations for Edwards from friends and family, the largest of which was $10. That is the difference between the Hillary and Obama contributors from the Edwards ones. Edwards speaks for the people who CAN'T afford huge contributions.
I still believe that it should not boil down to who has the biggest bank account on election day, but who has the best ideas, vision, and courage to fight for the people who got them elected. We all see how much good all the money we sent the dccc and the dscc did us last year when the people we sent it to have repeatedly stabbed us in the back since then.
I thought Progressives were determined to take the money out of politics. I thought we were electing a leader to change the environment in Washington. That is why it is so disturbing to see John Edwards being crucified for doing just that. So before the Hillary and Obama supporters show too much glee over Edwards excepting public funding maybe you should wonder if your own candidate has become a whore for the system they are supposed to be fighting!!
Comments are closed on this story.