The John Edwards campaign just held a conference call announcing its respectable but not Clinton or Obama-level expected third quarter fundraising total of $7 million and further explaining its thinking on the question of taking public matching funds for the primary, which will bring in roughly $10 million more. From the sound of what senior adviser Joe Trippi and deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince had to say, the campaign is moving in a direction of intensifying its anti-Washington argument as a way of trying to draw sharper distinctions between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, taking advantage of the recent Norman Hsu fundraising scandal and Clinton's defense of lobbyists to portray her as part of "the corroded busted rigged system of Washington," as Trippi described it.
"We don't believe the Clinton campaign has a deep and abiding interest in having this election framed around money," he said.
Asked about whether the campaign had similar concerns about Barack Obama, who is also rejecting the public financing system during the primary, and whose campaign recently announced more than 350,000 donors making more than 500,000 donations so far this year, Trippi's voice changed and softened. "Up until today Obama has not joined us" in pledging to take public funds, he said. "Obama in the Senate race did take PAC and lobbyist money. In this race he hasn't, but again, the sharpest division is between us and Hillary Clinton on this...At this point in time the American people are going to have a clear choice."
This, I think, is a bit peculiar. By choosing to take public financing and go dark between sewing up the nomination, should Edwards win, and the Democratic convention, the Edwards campaign is threatening to take the Democratic Party back to the bad old days of financial inequality with Republicans. The Obama campaign, on the other hand, represents a real departure from that era, having raised more money from more people than any other campaign during the first two quarters. Further, there is no sign that the major 527 groups that tried to make up the fiscal difference between the parties in 2004 -- America Coming Together, the Media Fund, and so on -- are going to be around in 2008, meaning that there will be fewer, not more, outside groups able to defend the new Democratic contender from GOP attack during the months before the convention. And the Edwards campaign knows this."Were not aware of 527s that are doing anything now on anybody's side in the primary," said Trippi on the call. "And we are not going to encourage them."What, exactly, is the Edwards campaign trying to do then? The latest poll from Iowa, the one state that Edwards must win to gain enough momentum to launch a viable national campaign, showed Obama in the lead among likely caucus-goers -- though with a 7 percent margin of error -- and Edwards in third. It seems to me that it would be political malpractice if the Obama campaign did not try to draw a contrast with Edwards in the months ahead on the topic of general election financial viability, and to sow concerns about Edwards' electability on the very financial ground upon which he has chosen to make his stand against Clinton. The Edwards-Clinton financial fight outlined by the Edwards campaign today would seem to work only in the absence of a third alternative, a candidate (Obama) who is not taking lobbyist money or bringing in the bulk of his donations through bundled large-dollar donations, and who has proved himself eminently financially fit for a general election fight. And so I offer three ways to interpret what's going on here: a) the Edwards campaign is irresponsibly punting on the question of being able to win a general election until it can get through the primary, despite stakes that couldn't be higher for the nation, and has private data that shows Clinton to be its major competitor (call that one the Markos theory); b) the Edwards campaign is making a short-term tactical mistake by ignoring the impending Obama threat while taking on Clinton; or c) Edwards is a person of principle who sees in the Obama campaign more of what he would like in the White House, and is going to go down in such a way as to try to take Clinton with him. As always, feel free to offer your own interpretations in the comments.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
