Edwards Tries to Benefit From Dean's Woes

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040130/ap_on_el_pr/edwards&cid=694&ncid=2043

GREENVILLE, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) is trying to take advantage of two unexpected political developments: Howard Dean (news - web sites)'s misfortunes and a surge in campaign contributions triggered by his own strong showing in Iowa.


It's enabled the North Carolina senator to look beyond his Southern base and pay for advertising in some states with delegate contests after Feb. 3, allowing him to compete more effectively against front-runner John Kerry (news - web sites), Edwards' strategists said.


While Dean is facing a serious financial crunch, Edwards' campaign said Thursday it had taken in $1 million in new contributions since Edwards' surprise second-place finish in Iowa's Jan. 19 caucuses.


Of that, $700,000 was raised over the Internet.


"The boomlet has let us build resources for states beyond February 3," said Edwards campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri.

more

[MercutioATC]

1. Not to pick nits, and I know you're just the messenger,

but Dean's raised over a Mil since Iowa, too...

[jenk]

2. for what though, covering debts?

it's pretty clear though that dean isn't really ready to compete on feb. 3

[MercutioATC]

3. You have info that the campaign is in debt? I just read in another

thread here that Dean has a "mere" 7-figure balance in the bank (that's $1M to $9.9M).

There's no doubt that things haven't gone as well as planned and that spending has been cut back, but Dean's still getting $1M/week in contributions (the same as before Iowa).

[spooky3]

6. I think people get concerned when they hear about staffers being asked

not to take their salary checks for 2 weeks.

[MercutioATC]

11. Understandable, but that doesn't mean the campaign's in debt.

I've seen absolutely nothing suggesting he's below a couple of mil (and, as I said, possibly almost $10M).

[anti-bush]

7. Not to mention

Edwards gets matching funds. Anybody know when the next disbursement for matching funds is? Also, is there any truth to the rumors that the matching funds that the matching funds shorted some of the candidates at the last disbursement because the fund was "dry"?

[MercutioATC]

9. Yes, I believe the "dry well" thing is true...

but I read that it will be made up to the candidates in the future (how, I have no idea).

[AP]

14. If the money is guaranteed from Feds, they can get a bank

loan against the money. So it doesn't really matter when they actually get cut the check.

[scheming daemons]

4. Just gave another $50....

..to Edwards.

Edwards and Clark are the strongest candidates for taking on Bush.

Edwards would sell better with most Americans, and he would thrash Bush in the debates...

But I could live with Clark.

Dean is done, but I want him to stay in because he says the things that the others can't. My #1 goal is ABB... and Edwards best achieves that.

But Dean has the correct message... he's just not the right messenger.


Kerry is a stiff. He's the Democratic Party's version of Bob Dole. I fear he will get thrashed by Bush... and it has nothing to do with being a "Massachusetts Liberal". It has everything to do with Kerry being dull, uninspiring, and very Gore-like in changing his message/campaign/image on a dime.

Kerry doesn't seem genuine. He seems like someone who wants the job because it is "his turn", not because he has a vision.

If Kerry is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him against Bush... but not enough others in the country will.

[sandnsea]

5. Cool!!

Congratulations guys!!

[Amager]

8. Good! I'm glad to see Edwards can capitaize on recent events

He's be foolish not to.

[NNN0LHI]

12. I think the word foolish least describes Edwards n/t

[jenk]

10. they've spent the money wisely so far

[AP]

13. 1 million could be as high as 2 million with matching funds.

[copithorne]

15. He's not picking up Dean support like this:

He lost any chance of getting my support tonight when he said this about intelligence on Iraq:

"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61340-2004Jan29_4.html

I would think he hurt himself with people who support Howard Dean with this foolishness as well. He cannot/will not attack George Bush on this war and foreign policy. Besides being wrong and amoral, it's bad politics. He doesn't have a good offense against Bush on foreign policy, so he'll be playing defense.

[AP]

16. Dean supporters think the same thing: Bush's behaviour has

exscalated the threat of terrorism.

Even Kerry agrees with this. He said "it's a little of both" (or whas it "somewhere in the middle.")

If you're a clark fan, enjoy it. Kerry let his guard down and Edwards got a jab to the chin.

It was very clever.

[copithorne]

17. I've got the question he's referring to.

Here is the question to Kerry:

"Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it."

Does anyone on this board disagree that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terror? For example, as a justification for attacking Iraq?

With all the evidence on the table, Jon Edwards is still conflating September 11th and the war in Iraq. He is still apologizing for the Bush administration rationale for attacking Iraq even on the week in which it was officially declared false.

This is unconscionable. Dick Cheney himself is too embarassed to do this.

[AP]

18. but you don't have the answer... in which Kerry said...

what? "it's a little of both" or "somewhere in the middle."

Everyone believes there's a threat. Edwards is rigt, Bush has made it worse. Kerry let his guard down, and Edwards got a punch in. It scored points. Enjoy.

[spooky3]

19. Where in your quoted question is Iraq mentioned???

YOU are the one who is conflating the issues. You put it in your example, but there is NOTHING in the question that combines terrorism with the Iraq war justification. Had the original question asked "did * exaggerate the threat of terrorism in order to make the case to go to war against Iraq?" that would be a very different question than a general question about terrorism.

[AP]

20. Yeah. The conflaters seem to be the people afraid that Edwards...

...is going to be the only and the best competition for Kerry, or Demcorats who'd prefer to lose in 2004 on a very narrow, not well-thought-out principle.

[copithorne]

21. The Bush administration

The question asks whether the Bush administration exaggerated the threat on terror.

Jon Edwards says no, it isn't possible. The Bush administration did not exaggerate the threat.

Will you tell me that the Bush administration has not exaggerated the threat on terror? Is this what you believe?

I believe the Bush administration used the threat of terror to martial support for the Iraq war. Don't you?

This makes me angry at Jon Edwards. A lot of Americans are dead and maimed because the Bush administration exaggerated the threat of terror and Jon Edwards didn't have the judgment to see through the exaggeration.

The least he could do now is admit it.

[AP]

22. Something's being exaggerated here, that's for sure.

I think there's a threat of terror, and that Bush is making it worse and that he EXPLOITS IT.

What was Kerry's answer to that question?

[copithorne]

23. Here's Kerry's answer -- about Iraq

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

[elsiesummers]

24. He's campaigning in and for SC, not DU.

I know that's not what anyone wants to hear, believe me I don't want to hear anything about WOT from any of these candidates - not even Howard Dean - I'm just tired of it - I don't care if they are for or against war - I wish they would just shut up about it.

But, it's SC, right near GA where they tossed out Clelland.

When you wonder how Edwards won SC, think back to that statement he made that you couldn't stand.

That's the USA - and no, you can't win the GE without at least a little of the South.