Brian Beutler is right that, by the standards of past primaries, Edwards has rather a lot of money. But by the standards of this primary, he doesn't have all that much money at all. Compared to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he's far behind. And while the absolute sum on hand may have been sufficient to exceed the saturation point in 2004, in 2008, with the compressed primary schedule where California comes only 3-and-a-half weeks after Iowa, it probably isn't. Indeed, this is why Edwards, a couple months ago, forswore going the public route because he needed to remain "competitive."
Also, remember that when you're talking public funds, the downside is that they have spending caps. So however much money Edwards has, his spending in the primary states will be severely restricted (save on field, which doesn't come under the caps). Moreover, the problem with public funding isn't in the primaries, but once they're completed. Kos explains:
Lots of money is spent in January and February. Let's say Edwards emerges the victor -- wins Iowa, and parlays that victory into national momentum. It could really happen, especially if Hillary and Barack beat the crap out of each other.
So he's won, but he's spent his primary money, and he won't get his first general election check until after the Democratic convention. August 25.
So Edwards won't have any money in March, April, May, June, July, and most of August. That's six months of darkness.
Six months in which the Republicans will be beating the crap out of him, because they won't do anything so foolish. Six months to turn Edwards into the devil incarnate, with no money to hit back.
What's worse is that, for once, the Democrats are outraising the Republicans. We'd be in a position to dominate that period. Edwards, in order to get a temporary infusion of funds in the short-term that could help him win the primary, is handicapping himself, and his party, in the longer-term. Now, this may be his best chance to win the nomination. But it's not the best strategy for the general election, and, to my mind, it strikes a real blow against his "electability" argument.
