Edwards says cash lead didn't help Dean get votes

Presidential hopeful John Edwards said Saturday he's raising enough money to compete in the early states and invoked Howard Dean's 2004 fundraising totals as a cautionary tale.

"Money will not decide who the nominee's going to be," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Everyone will remember Gov. Dean who outraised everyone else by more than 2-to-1 and wasn't able to win the nomination."

Edwards' campaign reported it raised $9 million from April through June. It's a shortfall compared to Sens. Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton _ his top rivals who best him both in the polls and fundraising tallies.

"I like very much where I am," Edwards said, taking a break from his three-day vacation with his wife and two youngest children. "Among the three of us, I'm the underdog. I'm fighting. I like that place. It's always worked very well for me. That's the story of my life."

Edwards said he's on pace to run the $40 million campaign through the early states.

"We have at least three presidential candidates on the Democratic side who have plenty money to run a serious campaign in the early states, where the nomination will be decided," Edwards said. "We will have plenty of money. We'll have more money than we had last time, a good bit more."

"We don't want to discourage anybody from giving," Elizabeth Edwards said, interrupting him.

"We'll have more than John Kerry had last time when he won the nomination," her husband added.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article_ap?id=107599

No wonder Gore is happy making movies and writing books.

campaign strategy yet devised.

for us to pick a Democratic nominee. Money may not be everything, but having a lot of it does not hurt. I hope Edwards can hang in there and make this a horse race.

There is no point in his raising and having to spend large amounts of money on a hopeless cause. He gets his message out and is one of the very best U.S. senators, one of my senators. He has said he would accept the VP nod and you don't often see that happen.

No one else is discussing the need for strong unions.

A definite vote if he is the nominee. I was leaning to wards Kucinich but I believe that Edwards may have a stronger pull for votes. I guess we'll see but I like John Edwards a lot more than Hillary or Obama that is for sure, esp. being he is pro-union!

:kick:

"We've got to make the union movement strong" - Obama

Even HILLARY showed up for them.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's refusal to answer steelworkers' questions both troubling and revealing

http://kucinich.us/node/4799

snip>>

"It is deeply troubling, but, perhaps, very revealing, when a Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States seeks the support of one of the most important industrial labor unions in the nation but refuses to answer questions from the rank and file union members.

"That's what happened today when U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the United Steelworkers conference in Cleveland. Not only did she not participate in the question-and-answer portion of the program to which all of the Presidential candidates had agreed, but she also completely ignored one of the major issues that has forced millions of union workers and others into unemployment: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)...

"Yesterday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Senator Joe Biden, and former Senator John Edwards held to their commitment to the USW to answer any and all questions from union members for 30 minutes each.

"It borders on arrogance for a Democrat to deliver pro-union promises and platitudes in prepared remarks, but then refuse to engage in an honest and open conversation with workers whose lives have been profoundly impacted by disastrous trade policies -- especially NAFTA, which was enacted during the Clinton Administration."

Edwards has been focusing on strong unions. I also don't think this backward, uneducated country of ours is ready for a black president or a woman president. The Christians, Republicans, rednecks, etc. will show up and vote for any white male. Edwards is going to be my choice. Last but not least, the hair on my arm stands on end when I think of how they're going to eat Sen. Clinton alive. They have already begun. Our country is most familiar with the Hillary jokes, the Hillary fat ankle bs, the Hillary is a commie crap, the Hillary is a "lesbo" stupidity, and all the other million insults. I want Democrats to win next time, and we've already thrown away our chances twice before. Once when Gore didn't stand up and fight against the Republican scum stealing the vote, and another when Kerry didn't open his mouth to defend himself against the propaganda machine. I have no intention of getting out there one more time and spending my $ and time on someone that's a sure loser. I want Edwards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x38917

No one else is discussing the need for strong unions.

At a certain point there is a saturation law of diminishing return with regard to campaign money.

His $ story last week spawned a hundred gushing O! Bama! threads claiming his $ lead proved he should be President.

Money helped Howard Dean enormously in 2004. But it could not overcome the publicity about his 'scream' which doomed his candidacy (although he was not doing so well in the primaries to date at that time.)

Money is important - but it is hardly the only thing to determine the candidate.

The campaigns started so early, and involve so much money now, it's insane. I think many people really start paying attention wayyyyy WAYYYYY later on. John Kerry was struggling until the last minute in Iowa, and everything hinged on that -- it seemed everything was decided in 24 hours.

I think the months and months and months of campaigning and debating only go so far. It's about what voters are thinking the DAY they get up and head to the polls.

use Dean as primaries success model - as he only won his home state - much as his agenda was more genuine than Edwards's (having not had voted against everything he preached).

Based on totally irrelevant crap

to a foaming at the mouth pundit..."if money determined the nominee, we'd be having this discussion from the Oval Office".

I think I get it :D