Donations pour into Kerry campaign after Iowa win

[rodbarnett]

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign is "taking off" with a dramatic increase in donations, a campaign aide said Tuesday, following the Massachusetts Democrat's come-from-behind victory in the Iowa caucuses.

Contributions to the Kerry campaign have soared 40 percent in the past week, and about $250,000 in donations was received through campaign Web site since his Iowa win, the adviser said.

The senator's campaign also picked up the tactical support of 20 prominent Democratic advisers in New Hampshire who had planned to work for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. But he dropped out of the race Tuesday after a disappointed fourth-place finish in Iowa.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/21/elec04.prez.kerry.donations/

[aquart]

1. Of course.

And he's so tall and presidential LOOKING.

And no boat rocker. People can feel really safe in his hands.

Let me know when he makes an independent decision.

[rodbarnett]

2. He was pretty independent in his younger days

aquart wrote:

"Let me know when he makes an independent decision."

Kerry was pretty independent in his younger days.

Just look at the book he wrote. There is more to Kerry than meets the eye. Under that refined calm image is a true Liberal. Go Kerry!!

[Voltaire99]

9. From opposing Vietnam to endorsing the Iraq invasion...

...is a measure not of Kerry's strength but of his sad decline.

Too many compromises. Too much acquiescence in Bush policy. That's how I see him.

[jpgray]

3. Election 2000--who was standing by the recount? Kerry.

He also has the best liberal record in the Senate after Wellstone. Isn't that a little unique?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. Very True. When Tommy Daschle told Gore to quit the recount...

John Kerry supported his efforts 100%!!!

John Kerry acts moderate and can be reassuring to voters, that's why he did so well in Iowa. Also, Kerry is a TRUE LIBERAL as compared to Howard Dean who has Governor had a very CONSERVATIVE record on such issues as Drug Treatment, Medicaid, and Social Programs.

Wes Clark is my choice and John Kerry is a very CLOSE second!

Go John Go!!!!!!!

:kick:

[hey2370]

5. IWR vote - why?

Shouldn't Kerry's vote for the IWR be looked at as significant?

Kerry had to chose between giving Bush power to take the country into an unnecessary war or not, and he made his decision about how to vote based on how it would play in his future Presidential campaign. Then, once he realized that there was a lot of anti-war sentiment in the primaries, he voted against the $87 billion for show, knowing that this vote would not defeat that funding but that it would make him look good to the Dem anti-war voters.

Kerry has proven to be so totally malleable as a politician that it is difficult to know what he would stand and fight for besides his own political future.

[dolstein]

6. If you want to lose respectably, nominate Kerry . . .

but if you want to win, the party needs to nominate Edwards or Clark.

Sorry, but the last thing we should do is nominate a patrician to run against Bush. At least FDR and JFK had wit and charm. But Kerry has neither.

[MaineDem]

7. That's your opinion, of course

And I respect it but don't share it.

[stickdog]

8. Of Clark, Kerry & Edward, I like Kerry best on the issues.

However, when it comes to winning, he's everything that was bad about Gore turned up a notch.

[Voltaire99]

10. On the issues...

...his record of support for Bush sinks him. Those disgusted with Bush but confronted with Kerry's votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act aren't going to be motivated.

But it's his wooden persona and stilted, academic delivery that would cost him the election. Dukakis could give Kerry charm lessons.

As for corporate money, no wonder it's pouring in. The establishment wants to head off Dean with a right-leaning centrist like Kerry, which is why you'll find Goldman Sachs and AOL/Time Warner among his big-ticket benefactors. The Wall Street scandals have barely settled and already Kerry is drawing support from a) disgraced financiers and b) the media that worked hand in hand with disgraced financiers to swindle Americans on the stock market.