Silky Pony Cries "Uncle" - Takes Public Campaign Funds

In this political climate, when a candidate takes public funds (which imposes limits on their campaign) they are pretty much as screwed as the NY Mets are right now.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee claimed higher moral ground in the debate over money in politics while announcing the change. But it comes after he brought in far fewer dollars than rivals Barack Obama and . Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It is worrisome seeing the amount of money that is being raised in this campaign," Edwards said on CNN. "This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing." Somehow I don't think he'd find it quite as "worrisome" if he was the one doing all that money.

Money for the public financing fund comes from taxpayers who agree to set aside $3 from their income taxes. Candidates who take from the fund must comply with spending limits.

"How else am I going to afford all my beauty products?"

What I find baffling is that Edwards seems (and I could be very wrong here) to be the candidate that the nutroots are the least unenthusiastic about. In fact, I had always thought that his outreach to the Uber-Left was his grand strategy as the candidate of "the base".

Unfortunately for the former Senator and slip-and-fall trial lawyer, the Angry Left is sending all of its money to MoveOn.org and other organizations instead of him. And after Edwards' inability to commit to removing all the troops from Iraq in his hypothetical administration, I doubt he can expect his campaign to start catching fire at the grass-roots level. In fact, it will probably have the opposite effect since the spending limits Edwards would have leading into the general would put him at a major disadvantage against the GOP nominee - making him a weaker candidate.