Sen. Clinton sure can raise and spend money!

[ProSense]

[babylonsister]

1. Weird considering I thought she was a shoe-in, didn't have to

spend a dime.

[Tiggeroshii]

2. OH!

No. God forbid shed o that!

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Um, check out RWT Production's web site:

http://www.rwtproduction.com/

WTF is that? It's not even a real web site!

[FormerDittoHead]

16. $404k for a website and 1 year hosting and email? *I'm* not charging enough! n/t

[papau]

4. Link? - how much did she give away to other races directly - and how much

was her helping others fund raise via direct mail and events?

Does this presentaion exist for every potential 08 Pres possibility?

In any case:

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-usclin204476661oct20,0,5692577.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

Clinton working with millions
New York senator's federal filings show she spent $4.75M, collected $5.3M from celebrities and others

BY GLENN THRUSH
WASHINGTON BUREAU

October 20, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton burned through cash almost as fast as she raised it this summer, spending $4.75 million compared with $5.3 million collected from donors, records show.<snip>

"The spending has to be seen as an investment in getting steady stream of donations over the long term," said campaign communications director Ann Lewis. "I'd say from that perspective it was very, very successful."

Clinton's campaign laid out about $3 million on telemarketing, direct mail and postage. Top vendors were RWT Production, a Virginia direct mail firm that was paid nearly $1.3 million, and Washington-based O'Brien McConnell Pearson, which earned $711,896. The senator's campaign still owes the firm, which raised funds for Bill Clinton's presidential library, $485,486, records show.<snip>

Clinton will head up to Boston later this week to participate in a joint fundraiser with Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).<snip>


SOURCE: Friends of Hillary Oct. 2005 Quarter Report

[ProSense]

6. Click the photo, it's there on

page 2:

Other types of expenses are seen by campaigns as necessary good-will gestures toward donors and other supporters; Mrs. Clinton’s campaign cited this in justifying the roughly $51,000 she spent on professional photographers to provide pictures of her with guests. The candidate also sought to generate good will among her fellow Democratic candidates by giving more than $2.5 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and other party groups.

[Cornus]

5. ABH

Just like we supported ABB, I'm supporting Anyone But Hillary. The OP is reason enough. If she were to get the nomination, I'm not sure I could even hold my nose and vote for her.

[wiley]

7. Wow. You ripped off a New York Times article and layout for even more

graphically enhanced Hillary bashing. Coupled with your incessant pro-Kerry posts, one might even think you're one of those highly paid "black arts" campaign type of person. But you receive money from the Kerry campaign, or someone else who wants Kerry to run again?

[ProSense]

8. Ripped off? Bashing?

Is everything posted here "ripped off"? Is the graphic wrong? Are you reaching for excuses?

[blm]

9. Or could it be just plain old sick of Hillary and her camp trashing Kerry unfairly

and Kerry supporters wanting to COUNTERATTACK?

That heyjohn website that lied about Kerry's donations to the 2006 races and publicized it all over the news, and then Hillary's personal scolding of Kerry publically even though she knew DAMN WELL that BushInc was lying?

Gee....could that POSSIBLY make earnest Kerry supporters want to fight back? Or is fighting back lies and manipulations not appreciated when it's from Kerry supporters?

[wiley]

10. Here's how it works:

Someone says anything positive about any Democrat other than Kerry, and the same 10 Kerry people on DU (against DU rules to list them, but look at any pro-Kerry post and you'll see them, including you) post their attack threads. If Kerry thinks that approach will work for him, he should review the effect that negative, hateful Republican style advertising had on most of their candidates. Considering that the pro-Kerry posts usually get received with a lukewarm reception at best here on DU (and not at all positively received on most any other blog or post I've seen) I guess it's appeal to the "I hate Hilary" or "I hate Clark" or the "I hate Obama" or the I hate (insert you most feared Democrat option)" crowd. The true mark of a true loser.

As I've said before, I don't believe that some of you are actually Kerry supporters. Posts like these just end up making even more people actually dislike Kerry as opposed to just wishing he would just let it go. And what's with the BIG BOLD letters? DESPERATION?

[blm]

11. Except you missed a few steps - you forgot to mention that FIRST Hillary's camp

TARGETS Kerry with a trumped up website making false accusations against him to try and start a netroot backlash against him - then Hillary herself sides with BushInc and publically SCOLDS Kerry based on a lie that she knew damn well was a lie.

Now - Kerry supporters fight back and all of a sudden THEY are the bad guys for doing so.

THAT is how it works.

He gets bashings that are unfair and we can't stand the level of unfairness. Why do people go to such levels of piling on against Kerry unfairly? Are THEY the ones being paid to do so, even to the extent where they will promote lies against him?

Who's getting paid or manipulated into fostering the dislike?

My juices get going at every UNFAIR attack and LIE. Really - that's all it takes - it doesn't take a dime to make me defend anyone being lied about, I defend even the Clintons when they are being lied about - but I also blame them when they are the ones doing the lying or the manipulating.

It should be a shame that ANYONE at DU would turn on the person being lied ABOUT.

[ProSense]

13. Your theory

is lukewarm. Just because you're taken aback by the graphic, you're twisting this into some sinister plot of paid campaign operatives. Now you're attacking Kerry supporters and drawing conclusions about the entire blogosphere. That's desperation!

[paulk]

27. his theory is dead fucking on

you're not helping Kerry with this kind of bullshit, prosense.

You, and some of the other Kerry supporters on this board, need to pay attention instead of getting all defensive.

You. Are. Not. Helping. Kerry. With. This.

[ProSense]

28. Speaking of defensive, what is your post about? Are you helping Clinton? n/t

[paulk]

29. helping Clinton?

Why do you automatically assume that I support Clinton?

During the run up to the 2003 primaries, back when Kerry was running at about 5% in the national polls, there weren't more than a handful of Kerry supporters at DU. I was one of them. I was one of the earliest members of the Kerry forum, back in the days when it was the best forum on DU - known as a place where - gosh! - Kerry could even be criticized - with an idea toward the concept that criticism could be a useful tool for improvement in getting Kerry's message out.

About a year ago a new breed of Kerry supporter began to show up - the sort who brooked no criticism of Kerry, who was always ready to see every discussion as an "us vs. them" proposition, who was ready to defend Kerry at all costs, even when an honest argument could be made that Kerry was in the wrong.

One thing this new breed of Kerry supporter was also willing to do was to make attacks on other Democrats, if they thought that attack would benefit their chosen candidate. It's a strategy that will end up alienating far more supporters than it gains, as several responses in this thread demonstrate.

[ProSense]

30. I don't care who you support, but I will make a suggestion:

The next time you feel like lashing out at people, find any of the vile posts about Kerry and have at it! Thank you!

The NYT published a graphic and I posted it! In case you didn't realize, it's posted on a lot of blogs. If you somehow believe Clinton is above criticism or scrutiny, then you're mistaken.

Your post is self-righteous and demeaning!

[AtomicKitten]

17. an injection of truth

heyjohn told the truth about Kerry's finances. This brouhaha is identical to Rathergate. Rather was impaled for unsourced data, but the data was true. People object to the stealth tactics of heyjohn, but the data is true. Many here try to lump in money Kerry raised with what he has donated from his leftover warchest from 2004, but no one disputes the data clearly outlined on heyjohn, except for those here trying to spin it.

Again, from the Boston Globe 10/21/06 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/21/kerry_is_pressured_to_share_campaign_wealth/ , this was before being shamed into kicking another $500,000.

Critics in his own party excoriated Kerry for leaving $16 million in the bank after his 2004 presidential campaign. Though federal spending limits kept him from using it all on his own campaign, he could have given away what the law said he couldn't spend; that year, Democrats lost seats in both the House and the Senate.

Kerry aides said the senator saved the cash to cover leftover presidential campaign bills and to pay for lawyers in case he had to challenge voting irregularities in some states or if his race against President Bush had to be settled in court.

Though he quickly kicked in (Dec 2004) $1 million to the DSCC, gave $500,000 to the DCCC, and $1 million to the Democratic National Committee, Kerry has held on to the bulk of his campaign money as he prepares for a possible second run at the White House in 2008.

Last month, when DSCC officials asked all Democratic senators for last-call financial contributions before Election Day, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was among three lawmakers who donated $1 million each. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York signed a check for $2 million.

Kerry, however, kept his checkbook shut. The senator's aides said he has no plans to give again.

Jerry Lundergan, chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party, said he contacted Kerry's advisers on Thursday, urging them to tell the senator how much the congressional campaigns need his money.

"I have made my wishes known," said Lundergan, whose state features two close House races in which Democrats have a good chance to oust incumbent Republicans. "It's his money to do with what he wants to. But I only hope that he shares some of it with those states, such as Kentucky, which contributed very extensively to his campaign. "

On edit: Wiley is absolutely correct about the pattern of a select group of people here that tag-team assault all other candidates at the same time maintaining numerous homage threads to the 2004 nominee who has generated lukewarm interest (at best, and falling) among the public at large, here and out there in America.

[ProSense]

18. Despicable! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

19. I agree. Your efforts here to spin Kerry lore and trash others are despicable.

eom

[ProSense]

21. Even if you have a basis to disagree with the NYT,

the authors attached their name to the piece, unlike the cowards you exalt!

[ProSense]

23. What's really strange is that you claim not to be Clinton supporter, but

you have no problem smearing Kerry at the hint of anything you perceive as negative toward her. Down thread a person who likes Clinton didn't take the NYT graphic so personally! Why are you?

Do you dispute it or are you upset others might see it as negative?

Edited for punctuation!

[beachmom]

20. Kerry raised or gave $14 million to candidates across the country

Hillary did considerably less. It's not dispicable to bring up facts, is it? You're getting technical with that article which only discusses certain committees he gave to in a certain period of time. $14 million, as in cash in candidates' hands, is what John Kerry did. Glad to see you compare heyjohn to the right wing hacks who did Dan Rather in (for which the STORY about Bush was correct -- it was only the documents that couldn't be authenticated). Who exactly is paying you, btw?

[AtomicKitten]

22. the truth is all people care about --- not propaganda, not spin

The fact is Kerry gave a total of $3 million of his warchest, which is precisely what heyjohn was saying all along. You conveniently weave in money he raised glossing over that differentiation which is the relevant point here.

Of note, you yet again fall back on equating anything not on the same page as you as being RW-inspired. Your inability to discern nuances in opinion, which is ironic since your candidate fell on his own sword because of his penchant for speaking only in nuances, is the cornerstone of much conflict here.

And many, many people including Hillary did plenty for the midterms, the difference being that the rest of us don't punctuate individual efforts by posting from their favorite candidate's website 24/7. That incessant drive has precisely the opposite effect than you no doubt intend.

It is you and yours that have yet to come to terms with the fact that Kerry is not a viable candidate for the 2008 presidential election. I realize that makes you cranky but casting aspersions on others that care about the truth and don't suffer gladly your (collectively) nonstop drive to inflate Kerry's attributes at the same time trashing other possible contenders is an exercise in futility.

[beachmom]

31. A response

1. TOTAL money to candidates is what matters most, not what money was funnelled to Democratic Committees. And it costs money to raise money. The only way Kerry could get large amounts of money DIRECTLY to candidates was to raise it (he's limited to I believe $5,000 per candidate he can directly donate). He could give LARGE SUMS to the DSCC or the DCCC but not directly to candidates. Considering the Carville brouhaha, I am glad he didn't give his war chest directly to those committees, but he did give more than Hillary, btw. That war chest, as you call it, is still under an audit, which takes a long time to complete. Some bills may still be outstanding (I read an article some time ago about the fact his campaign must pay for local police and that sort of thing for his appearances. An operation that big takes time to sort out) Heyjohn was disingenuous because it said he had to give up any presidential ambitions by emptying his money to a committee headed by Chuck Schumer; why should he have done that, when he got MORE money to candidates a different way, AND it went to the RIGHT candidates.

2. YOU are the one who brought up the right wingers when you mentioned Dan Rather. That struck me as an extremely suspicious analogy which makes me question your allegiance.

3. I am not omnipresent on GD-P, but it appears you are, especially to bash Kerry. I don't feel the need to bash other candidates all the time, yet you do, and I find that odd.

4. Why doesn't Hillary Clinton have the support on the blogs to put out positive threads like Kerry supporters do? That's the most important question.

5. Who exactly do you support for 2008? Because it's only fair to understand your motives. I'm like an open book -- you know everything about me that's relevant to this conversation.

6. I am no more cranky about this heyjohn crappola now than I was when it came out. John Kerry did MORE than any other Democrat for this '06 elections in terms of MONEY in the hands of candidates, so what did that outfit do but go after his strength by getting everyone to focus on one piece of the puzzle not the whole picture.

7. For the record, I don't base my attitude or support of John Kerry on whether he is the most or least viable candidate for '08. I base it on his character and his record as a public servant. I will support him whether he runs or not.

Hope the rest of your holiday weekend is splendid.

[AtomicKitten]

34. briefly

Nothing heyjon said was untruthful and, that said, they are entitled to weigh in. The analogy to Rathergate was right-on because it was you and yours, and I have to tip my hat to you on this one, that rallied the discussion away from the core issue, i.e., Kerry's warchest which was outlined very clearly in the Boston Globe article I posted, and on to the anonymity of the site, and that was precisely what the wingnuts did to deter discussion of Bush being AWOL by turning the focus to the sourcing of the memos.

Jon Stewart talked about wingnuts thinking the truth is an attack, and that is exactly how you and yours deal with any criticism of Kerry. The fact that I correct some of the more insipid exaggerations told about Kerry is construed as an attack when it is in fact just setting the record straight.

The reason many of us are called Hillary apologists or shills by you and yours is because she is attacked and ridiculed mercilessly here at DU. Correcting some of the blatant untruths told about her here at DU is construed by you and yours as being supportive of a 2008 run. I have said repeatedly that I will not vote for anyone in the primary that voted yes on the IWR; that I can't make more clear.

Allow me to point out here that it is you and yours that skew information by considering truth-telling about Kerry attacks and truth-telling about Hillary support. The truth is the truth, and irony is irony.

I have never made a secret about whom I support, but if the doubt you expressed is genuine, here is my most recent post on that topic to clarify. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2981139&mesg_id=2983980

You too have a fabulous Thanksgiving extended weekend; the difference being I really mean it.

[beachmom]

37. Big difference between your behavior here and that post you referenced

So it's all about Gore, eh? Okay, fine. Gore is #2 on my list, and then Obama. Hillary is for the war, and looks like she is very bad with her money. No clue why you're in this thread defending Hillary, when you know she is worse than Kerry. THAT'S what I don't get.

[AtomicKitten]

44. my behavior?

I invite you to reference specifically what you call my "behavior."

What my "behavior" means to you is posting information you don't want to read. Get that part straight.

[blm]

24. Tagteaming AGAINST Kerry and his supporters is something done REGULARLY by

those who are not shy about their protection of Hillary and the other COVERUP for BushInc Democrats on the Clinton team.

[Sensitivity]

12. At least she pays for professional staff. Makes a diff I think.

[Catchawave]

14. Did any of this include helping mid-term candidates?

WoW, 30 million seems awfully high for someone who was never in a competitive race!

[William769]

15. More power to her!

Thats my girl!

[fuzzyball]

25. Hillary will exceed $100 Million in 2008 primaries & GE

No one else is gonna come close.
None of the 7 dwarfs will come close to snow white.

[Clark2008]

46. Yep - and she'll still LOSE

I hope in the primaries, because she's not gonna flip one damn red/purple states in the general - and she'll lose us a couple of bluish ones to boot.

Money isn't everything.

People just don't LIKE her, in general - and it doesn't matter why or if they can articulate it or even if why they don't like her isn't true. The just don't LIKE her.

(And I'm not speaking of myself - I don't care. I just know she'd lose my state by more than 20 percentage points while a Clark or a Gore could either carry it or at least make it competitive).

[paulk]

26. and your point is?

:shrug:

[mtnsnake]

32. You know...run down Hillary in another lame attempt to help Kerry

and God only knows how much help Kerry needs to make any kind of showing for the primaries. The Kerry brigade can run Hillary down all they want, but it won't make a difference in Kerry's chances, which are zero.

[paulk]

36. yeah, the motives for this thread are pretty clear

I still do believe, however, that Kerry could be a viable candidate. Who knows? I guess we'll all find out come primary time. One thing I do know is that threads like this one are poisonous - they benefit no one, not Kerry, not Clinton.

[ProSense]

38. "Poisonous"? Are you serious?

Look around this entire site. There are posts highly critical of a lot of other politicians, all the leading candidates. You seem to think that Clinton is above criticism. Do you believe everyone should agree with everything Clinton does? That she is off limits when it comes to criticism? Refute the NYT graphic if you want to, write them a letter, but labeling this thread "poisonous" shows that you have no grasp as to what real criticism is.

[mtnsnake]

39. For you to say that, I don't think you realize that Clinton takes the brunt

of criticism around here, way more than her fair share. The reason for that is because she's the front runner and not a popular one either on this board, partly for all the innuendo and rumors that are started about her here. Here you're getting on her case for something that you should be commending her for, rather than painting her as being irresponsible for being able to raise the amount of funds she can raise.

You've got some nerve to suggest that anyone would think Hillary is above criticism, when the fact is that she takes more criticism by a longshot than all other candidates combined. Ironically, whenever someone criticizes Kerry for his pathetic campaign, the Kerry brigade comes storming out in full force like a swarm of bees in an organized effort to intimidate anyone off the board who dares criticize Mr Perfect. This is what this is all about. Run down Hillary to make Kerry look better. Good luck. Mainstream Democrats aren't listening. If Hillary doesn't run, or if she doesn't turn out to be the one they ultimately choose, it'll be Obama, not Kerry. It's no small wonder that Obama gets criticized for nothing around here either. One doesn't have to wonder why. LOL

[ProSense]

40. So you think Kerry is more popular on DU than Clinton?

You have no problem "running down" Kerry to make Hillary look good, but whatever! I remember all your "Kerry should STFU" posts when I first joined DU. I support Kerry. You and the Clinton "brigade," who "swarm" to any hint of criticism of her, can support whomever you choose.

[mtnsnake]

41. Turning the tables rarely works

but knock yourself out.

I never ran Kerry down to make Hillary look good. Making Hillary look good on this forum is all but impossible. However, I do defend her from so many of the myths that circulate about her here on this forum (I'm not talking about your thread here).

I remember all your "Kerry should STFU" posts when I first joined DU.

You're getting my criticizing Kerry as a campaigner mixed up with someone else who was posting "STFU" sfufff. I've usually been sure to temper my criticism of Kerry by remarking what respect I have for him as a Senator, a person, and a war hero, but it's amazing how whenever I've followed up with criticism of him as a poor campaigner, which he certainly is, how you and the brigade twist and turn that into equating it with hatred for Kerry, when you know that that simply isn't the case. No one is stupid around here. Anyone who's been here for a while knows that the DU Kerry loyalists have an agenda of trying to intimidate anyone on this board from dissing Kerry, whether they're dissing him because they don't like him or whether they don't like him as a campaigner.

[ProSense]

42. Really?

"Kerry is a poll follower, plain and simple. He rides along with whatever the popular mood is at the time. "

"Kerry deserved to lose and he DID lose. Instead of fighting he turned the other cheek. Took the high road and stayed there, losing losing losing ground, each and every day as the campaign wore on. I kept thinking EVERY SINGLE DAY as the campaign approached its final hours he's waiting to pull THE BIG ONE outta his sleeve, yet NOTHING ever happened. Kerry and his campaign were A DUD. A flop. What a letdown."

"I couldn't agree with you more! No Kerry EVER AGAIN unless he flip flops on parties and runs for someone else."

"BTW, how can she be ignorant when she's correct? Kerry SHOULD STFU."


Want the links?

[mtnsnake]

49. All good stuff.

Thanks!

[mtnsnake]

33. She knows how to use some of the money SHE'S raised for OTHER candidates

campaigns, too, in 2006.

Too bad Kerry doesn't have her kind of selflessness when it comes to sharing it with other Democrats campaigns. lol

[AtomicKitten]

35. more importantly

What the hell is wrong with a politician on OUR side being able to raise funding that rivals the GOP Election Machine? Until campaign finance reform is implemented across the board, I WANT Democrats to be able to raise lots of money.

[karynnj]

43. Mtnsnake,

Even if this in jest, given the "lol", this completely destroys many of the points you are making upstream. Note the first response you got.

I do not think Senator Kerry is perfect. I support him because I agree with him on most positions more than I do anyone else AND because I became aware in 2004 that in addition to being a candidate I could easily vote for, he is an unusually good person. This is a combination that makes me very loyal. Even if he has no chance of being President, I want his voice to be one of those driving many issues. This goes beyond politics.(I seriously think we need to hold our own leaders to standards at least as high as we demand from Republicans.)

I think to understand the defensiveness of those of us in the Kerry group, you have to look beyond the blogosphere. Before the "Heyjohn" website stuff, the CW was that Kerry would benefit from the 2 years of hard work to get people actively supporting candidates and becoming grassroots (in support of Dean who led this effort). Kerry also did raise more money for candidates than any other official. (The DCCC, DSCC and DNC of course raised more.) MSNBC - which was NOT partial to Kerry listed this as one of the reasons they labeled him as a heavyweight in OCT. Hillary meanwhile had blanketed the country with email appeals for her Senate campaign, including a Bill Clinton one saying she was the number 1 GOP target in 2006. She raised a huge amount of money - intentionally more than was needed for the 2006 non-contest.

I had a problem with her sending me and my husband at least 6 solicitations when Menendez - my Senator had a completive race. But this was her choice. Where I had a problem was that the "HeyJohn" thing was a swiftboat attempt to attack a Kerry strength. It was dishonest - it considered contributions to the DSCC only and ignored those made in Nov/Dec 2004, the beginning of the cycle, because that was when Kerry made significant contributions to the DNC, the DCCC, and the DSCC. Is a contribution made 2 months later better?

THe Heyjohn people - who were reputed to be Democratic insiders - also ignored all the money Kerry used to solicit direct contributions to candidates and all the direct contributions he made himself. So, they compared Hillary's $2 million to a very low amount. Even in the BG article that AK swears by - you can see Kerry gave $3 million to the combination of the 3 organizations. In reality, Kerry answered that he had been drawing down the money he had and - in late October - had around $8.5 million left out of the $14 million he had mid year. (Kerry is not a liar and this number will be seen on FEC documents.) So, in addition to the $3 million, Kerry spent an additional $5.5 million to directly or indirecting support candidates. (14 - 8.5) There is no question that he was generous with his money and his time - except to Democrats who felt he should turn over 100% of his money because it was from 2004.

I do not know if people allied with Hillary had anything to do with this - and even suspect it could have been a way to hurt both. The way it positioned Hillary was designed to push people to compare their efforts. So, Kerry would be hurt initially - because some people will believe it because the media reported it without really questioning it. Then in kicking back, it emphasized the amount of money Hillary pulled in.

My guess is that this effort was designed to weaken any gain Kerry could have gotten out of 2006. As it was, it was unnecessary because of the joke. This was a self inflicted wound - Kerry, maybe because he was visibly tired and had a cold, blew a joke that he had done many many times - and left it and went on. In a different environment, it would have been ignored. If you hear any politician speaking day after day, you will get bad sound bites. Kerry's explanation and early release of the text could have ended it. I don't know what to make of Hillary's comment. She had to know that the botched joke was a result of Kerry overextending himself in working for 2006, that it had damaged his 2008 hopes and it likely hurt him immensely that soldiers - he very very obviously cares about - were being hurt by how this was manipulated. Oddly, the most political thing she could have done would have been to express sympathy to Kerry, stating that she knew (personally -if true) his respect for the troops and that she believed that it was simply a very poor joke and that he should have been more careful. (That would have helped her - without helping Kerry and would have the advantage of being fair.)

[AtomicKitten]

45. FYI

Even in the BG article that AK swears by ...

Yes, I do consider Kerry's home state paper, the Boston Globe, infinitely more reliable than opinion pieces and data from Kerry's website that you and yours post here as your "truth."

The Boston Globe did an investigative piece on the heyjohn dust-up, interviewed all sides, and reached their conclusion. Any reasonable person would consider that reliable and unbiased information.

[karynnj]

I referenced it just for you

as it showed direct contributions to the 3 organizations of $3 million as stated by you! (You don't need advanced degree in Math to know that $3 million is greater than $2 million.) In addition, the FEC records that Kerry gave direct contributions to other candidates. As to the assertion that Kerry spent money on solitations for candidates (via email, direct mail and telemarketing), I KNOW - because I received the solicitations.

Kerry said he paid the costs and the entire contribution went to the candidate. No candidate helped has stepped forward to say otherwise - and they would know (ie I got letters from the candidates thanking me for the amount given. If they only got half of that amount of money from Kerry - don't you think at least 1 of them would have disputed Kerry's claim. Not to mention, there will be more FEC filings. So, if he's lying it will be in the public record.

Incidently, the BG article did not challange Kerry's claims to have made direct contributions or that he spent money to raise direct contributions to other candidates. No one has challanged any contribution listed on Kerry's web site. Dean and Emmanuel both made statements that Kerry did a great job fund raising.

Kerry's been a public figure for decades and he has a reputation for being honest - even being called an honest men in politics in 1996 by Time magazine.

Incidently, the NYT is a sister paper to the Boston Globe, and they did extensive research on the Hillary article. So, I assume you have given it similar weight.

[AtomicKitten]

48. I appreciate your effort, however ...

as it showed direct contributions to the 3 organizations of $3 million as stated by you!

As stated by the Boston Globe and posted by me here at DU.

You don't need advanced degree in Math to know that $3 million is greater than $2 million.

No, but reading comprehension helps. As per the BG article referenced above in this thread:

Last month, when DSCC officials asked all Democratic senators for last-call financial contributions before Election Day, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was among three lawmakers who donated $1 million each. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York signed a check for $2 million.

Kerry, however, kept his checkbook shut. The senator's aides said he has no plans to give again.

That means in a last minute call for funds, Kerry said no and Hillary gave an additional $2 million. You are comparing Kerry's total contribution from his warchest ($3 million) since the election of 2004 to this one particular donation Hillary made. You don't want to go there. Hillary is on record for having given much, much more than that. Regardless, IMO she too could have coughed up more.

Kerry said he paid the costs and the entire contribution went to the candidate.

"Paying the costs" to channel funding to candidates doesn't in any way prove exactly what that means and where that money came from.

No candidate helped has stepped forward to say otherwise.

The really creepy part is the incessant bragging - look at me - Kerry does and you bring it here. The fact that no other candidate nor supporters mimic this behavior at DU isn't a good thing. You (collectively) really lost me when you started speaking in superlatives. There is much to be said for the quiet, unheralded endeavors of, for instance, Al Gore chartering planes to evacuate a hospital during Katrina.

Dean and Emmanuel both made statements that Kerry did a great job fund raising.

First, it's Rahm Emanuel, not Emmanuel. Secondly, both Dean and Emanuel have given credit to many, many, many others who all deserve kudos, not just Kerry, not Kerry above all (I realize you take the "more than anyone else" literally, but it is a rhetorical compliment).


The bottom line is that, yes, I still believe the Boston Globe analysis of the questions raised by heyjohn and although I appreciate your painstaking attempt to prove otherwise, it just outlined for me and others the rose-colored glasses through which you view this politician. There is a mile between what you firmly believe and what you want and can prove to be true. Sorry, but my inclination remains to believe investigative journalism.

Regarding Hillary, on this particular thread the only comment I made was that I don't have a problem with any Democrat raising piles of money because I understand that will be mandatory in the general election. Hardly defending her or supporting her as you seem to think, but, again, why you and yours brought up Kerry on a Hillary thread is the real question that is deserving of analysis IMO.

[karynnj]

51. I stand by what I wrote

Emanuel (yeah - I made a typing error)did say that Kerry raised "more than anyone else". It was NOT rhetorical - it was backed by Hotline (not pro-Kerry) and by FEC records. He went out of his way to say it. Your interpretation that it was rhetorical is suspect.

Are you really claiming that only the money to the committees counts - and that Kerry used NO money to raise the $14 million plus that he raised. It was free. If that is so, Kerry is way more clever than I ever thought.

As for doing things quietly - John and Teresa Kerry sent a plane with relief supply to Mississippi to help with Katrina damage - all VERY quietly. The only reason it became known was that Trent Lott very emotionally mentioned it on the floor of the Senate when the Senate resumed. (Kerry had called Lott to ask if they could help and his staff co-ordinated the distribution. As you won't believe me - here's a link from a Lott press conference.

"LOTT : John Kerry called my wife Tricia and me at our home -- I don't remember -- two or three days ago and said he and Teresa wanted to help. And I identified what we needed and he said, "Where can we land the plane?" And I told him. And I assigned a staff member to coordinate with him."
http://lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=194&Month=9&Year=2005

[karynnj]

47. delete

[mtnsnake]

50. Karynnj, okay, but you're wrong about that joke

This was a self inflicted wound - Kerry, maybe because he was visibly tired and had a cold, blew a joke that he had done many many times - and left it and went on.

If you're talking about his infamous botched joke in California, he didn't blow a joke that he had done "many many times" or even one other time. That's what some of the Kerry loyalists on DU would like to have everyone believe. That was the first and only time he tried to deliver that particular joke. Either he or his speech writer, or both, simply messed up.