Agree whole-heartedly. Thanks for the post.
Posted by angryman at January 31, 2008 11:33 AMThe cash on hand is old information. Just this month alone BO raised 30 mil. I am not sure how much did Clinton raise. Not all the money that Clinton and BO raised were from pacs or big donors or special interests. Don't just undermine other candidates message.
I think, people did not respond that much to John Edwards message. If his message has caught on, he would have raised money like how BO is doing.
Obama campaign says it added 170,000 new donors this month alone. His campaign says Majority of it is coming from small donors. I think John Edwards so called populist message wasn't that popular. People did not respond to his message.
I just saw the a clip from last nights GOP "debate" featuring the exchange between Mitt and McOld regarding McOld's charge that Mitt had approved the idea of an Iraq withdrawal timetable (which he clearly, from the transcript of the soundbite, did not). Even when the Moderator pointedly read the transcript and directly told McOld that he was incorrect....McOld just grinned and repeated the false charge time after time. He appeared insane and all Mitt could do was shake his head and say no, no, no. There is something wrong with McOld, and I mean mentally. I'm telling you now, if the country decides that maybe now is not the time to elect a woman or a black, McOld will make Bush look normal. You Hillary lovers out there better be damn sure she can win.
Posted by T2 at January 31, 2008 11:54 AMbkk,
do a little research. you don't raise that kind of money from small donors, or people on fixed incomes.
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 11:54 AMI think John Edwards so called populist message wasn't that popular. People did not respond to his message.
Damn it Turkana, you beat me to it.
It was hugely popular. My fixed income parents wanted Edwards. Even my usual apathetic brother wanted Edwards! He's so busy keeping even, he couldn't contribute. I managed 10 dollars.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 31, 2008 12:05 PMTurkana,
If as BO campaign says they added 170,000 new donors to raise more than 30 mil, it comes down to 180 bucks per head avg. That is not an unsurmountable amount for individual to give. I have given 200 bucks to Clinton campaign. If you look at the people who came to caucus for Hillary and Obama 63% and 68% never had voted before and these people may feel strongly for them and donate money. I am no way undermining JE's candidacy or his message and I think he did a great job by steering these two candidates on several important issues. But majority of people did not respond to his message as they did to Obama and HRC. If we do win WH, I hope he is part of the cabinet.
bkk,
first of all, you don't reach that money by averaging. look at the actual numbers of large donors. second of all, look at the official poverty line- how much money it is a year, and how many people fall under it. tell me that people living in poverty can afford $180 donations.
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 12:24 PMYes with the loss of the great John Edwawrds to our progressive agenda all the Hillary lovers on this site should take heart with John Mccain as the Republican nominee and Hillary as the democratic nominee both having almost the same foreign policy we will get war, war, and well emm war Iran is next because well they both said so, with their votes to enable GWB aginst Iran! take cheer war mongers death and destruction will continue peace a distant dream of the big bad hopeful people who beleive in negotiating directly with our ememies.
The Republicans are batshit crazy but so are the democrats if they nominate HRC &WJC to be Presidents.
rmf,
that's what i love about the hillary-haters- the cool, calm, rational argumentation. thanks!
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 12:41 PMBKK: I think John Edwards so called populist message wasn't that popular. People did not respond to his message.
oh, and how did they hear his message when the korporate media refused to cover him???
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 31, 2008 12:47 PMthat's what i love about the hillary-haters- the cool, calm, rational argumentation. thanks!
The "sheer hupspa" of them! *snicker*
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2008 12:56 PMit is the old game of marginalize the liberal one and praise the weak one and cause dissention in the party....right out of Rove's handbook....all this illegality and they have a great chance of winning yet again ....Unreal!!!! and I swear the netroots are making it easier to divide us....I am almost to the point of giving up....
Posted by athyrio at January 31, 2008 01:24 PMThe amazing thing is that anybody at all heard Edwards. I donated money to his campaign over the last several months in small doses as I could afford. They were not high-pressure fund-raisers. They knew full well their base could not provide money in huge lumps. And I agree with those who think he was systematically removed or ignored in coverage. And the reasons are bound up in the simple fact: Edwards was not going to be bought with the usual powerful and mostly corporate interests. That Obama raises $32 million in one day or two is not a "good" sign to me. It's downright scary.
Posted by gtash at January 31, 2008 03:51 PMEdwards ran a populist primary campaign in 2004 and then ran the same type of campaign in this primary season. The common characteristic is that he lost in both primaries.
His message did not and does not resonate: he was unable to raise money in the amount of the Clinton and Obama campaigns because his platform was not appealing to the voter.
Posted by Bagley at January 31, 2008 04:03 PMThe ones that matter.
Y'know, those who have money, and therefore, more free speech and then are more equal than the rest of us.
Bite me, bagley.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 31, 2008 04:14 PMidiosynchronic,
"Y'know, those who have money, and therefore, more free speech and then are more equal than the rest of us."
Well, only people who have money can donate money. Obviously, Edwards' appeal was to people who had / have no money.
I am sorry you have no money: get a job!
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at January 31, 2008 04:33 PMgtash,
agreed- as clinton and obama tout their fundraising prowess, it just depresses me. that money is something to brag about is one of the fundamental problems with the system.
Posted by Turkana at January 31, 2008 04:34 PMmoney-bagless, Level the playing field. Make them all accept a minimum donation. Who wins? I guarantee the populist wins.
Look at Ron Paul!
Public financing for elections = problem solved
If every candidate gets equal air time and equal funding then the candidate with the best ideas will win...not the candidate with the most corporate/PAC/special interest support.
Corporate funding = candidates beholden to the corporations
Public funding = candidates beholden to the public...I thought that was the original intent of our system (of the people, by the people, for the people?)