Edwards needs to show the money

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON - He's well positioned in early polling and organization, but
John Edwards will have to raise some quick cash if he wants to remain in the top tier of contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The former North Carolina senator has collected no donations for a presidential campaign, while three Democratic rivals have more than $10 million in their political accounts.

Fundraising prowess will be one of the chief factors in separating the leaders in a long list of candidates for the White House. The slate is filled with experience, drive and ideas for governing, but there's a limited amount of money available to go around.

Edwards' ability to raise millions of dollars quickly helped separate him during the 2004 presidential campaign, and his team is hoping to surprise skeptics again after announcing a new run for the presidency early in 2007.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

[westcott]

1. Hardball Oct 13 2003

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

[peace13]

2. Ouch.. that is a bit messy I would say. n/t

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. I will NOT vote for anyone

who got duped by the faulty and illegal excuse to go to war. I wasnt duped and I wont vote for a presidential candidate who was NOT as smart as I am or was at the time. I am positive that there will be "someone" who I CAN cast my vote for.

[peace13]

12. I agree with you!

How did WE know that this war would be a debacle and our congress not? I remember yelling at the TV and radio about the huge mistake. I remember calling all senators about this. Why did our elected officials not know? What was in it for them? I had not heard these comments attributed to Edwards before. I had read where he admitted that he was wrong in his vote. We need a candidate that has been against the war from day one in order to win this thing! Ugh. Peace, kim

[GreenArrow]

24. there will be "someone"

but it's not likely to be a "Democrat" or a "Republican".

[Catchawave]

8. wes, you've posted this 3-4 times already

:shrug:

[westcott]

9. only twice

I just happened to notice that a new thread was started and figured it best to be the first thing people read before worrying about John Edwards showing the money and or making up for poor performaance as a VP.

Remember Ned Lamont :)

[Catchawave]

20. Actually it's 5 times now....

There's an Edwards Smear link being passed around DU proving something or other. I was surprised to see it here also, which had nothing to do with campaign financing.

I sent money to Ned Lamont, I'm sorry he lost.

[Larry Allen]

11. that was over three years ago

Edwards is my candidate. He seems to understand the economic basis of injustice. Who else is going after the root of our problems?

[sallyseven]

4. Well he relied on the president

whol lied like a rug. Who would think that the president was such a poop.

[madfloridian]

5. Didn't I just see another post attacking Edwards?

Maybe this is let's go after Edwards day.

He isn't the only one who needs to show money. Check out Open Secrets and fundraising PACs.

[westcott]

6. You kidding

This wil be endlessly repeated on Television.

[Catchawave]

7. It's the 'circular firing squad'

Ready. Fire. Aim. :rofl:

Edwards didn't want us donating to his PAC, but to send money "directly" to the candidates. Maybe that's what's misunderstood about this fundraising thing :shrug:

[GreenArrow]

18. "circular firing squad"

as opposed to the circle jerk?

[Catchawave]

21. Yes, it includes jerks too :)

:sarcasm:

[Mikey929]

10. No Edwards for me

The guy is, at heart, just a plaintiff's attorney who made it rich by suing doctors. That's it. He then parlayed being rich into a senate seat. End of story. The guy has no credentials, no credibility, no experience, and nothing to offer in terms of solutions to any of the world's problems. He's attractive, but empty. And after the failed VP bid, he went to work on Wall Street to make even more money! Why do people like this guy?

[peace13]

13. That plaintiff attorney argument is lame.

Give it up. Would it be better if he were a failed ball team manager? Peace, Kim

[Mikey929]

14. What is lame?

Why is the plaintiff attorney argument lame? I have nothing against attorneys in general. I'm a trial attorney myself, and I know plenty of trial attorneys. Many are decent intelligent people, but that does not make them qualified to be president. Otherwise, there would be thousands of trial attorneys equally qualified to be president. That just isn't the case. Just because you can convince a jury to award millions of dollars to victims of negligence doesn't mean you have the credentials to be president. I just haven't seen anything out of Edwards to make me think he's anything other than an empty suit.

[peace13]

15. Go to Edward's web site and read.

IMO that trial attorney argument came from ignorant right wingers during the 2004 election. Find a new argument for gods sake!

[Catchawave]

19. Hi Mikey!

Please read "Four Trials" . Thanks.

[ultraist]

17. RW smears

Why are you spreading rightwing smears? Are you a Democrat?

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. He didn't have much trouble raising money four years ago

I'm sure that he had kept his list of donors.

[Catchawave]

22. Breaking: John's getting an award

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3005169

:toast:

[Radical Activist]

23. Considering the union support he's getting, I'm sure he'll do fine.

He can raise money better now than last time since he will be starting from a better position.