If Edwards wins in Iowa, THEN what?

He had to take matching funds, so even if he wins not only IA but the Dem. nomination, how will he survive several months of attacks by the Repub. nominee without enough money to fight back?

He can leap small states in a single bound.

Maybe as the new default leader, you might see a handful of change head his way.

larger than the Bohemian Grove bonfire.

And, being Republics, money won't help them much this next few cycles. They can hire nude acrobats to parade down every street in America hucking the vote--still would not get them votes.

They are going to get hammered in 08 because they are hammering at each other now, and even upwind, it's hard to stand next to a repub. This spring into fall, I spent a goodly amount of time watching the Blunt machine in Mo try very hard to put a human face back on their party, friend as it is to anti-intellectuals, movement conservatives, evangelicals, xenophobes, and corporations.

Even in Missouri, that face does not quite reach the level of human.

You only get the amount of money comparable to that amount your opponent raises. Unfortunately, you can have various other third-party groups such as 527s buying ads to hit at you as well, and the FEC will not release funds to help you fight them as well because they aren't your opponent in the race.

Not only do you have to deal with the opponent but also the special interests that support your opponent against you.

When you fight big money, unless you have big money of your own, you usually lose more than win.

It would be VERY difficult.

Thank you so much for your concern.

don't ya think?

Do try not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Your man is looking good in Iowa. Don't ruin it by going low.

This is a serious question.

neither can Hillary. Edwards can!

:shrug:

John Kerry ran a bad campaign. He was one of the few candidates who could be painted as a liberal out of touch new england elitist. And when that happened, he didn't fight back with nearly enough energy or forcefulness. And if there's one thing that turns off southern republican mouthbreathers more than anything, it's when they think someone is an "elitist". Kerry had a fat chance picking up any southern states with or without edwards.

One?

And he was born there?

Yeah, he'd win the South. Sure. :eyes:

in any way that he can win in the south. He can't.

I would offer the rate and degree of disintegration of our image and profile across the globe owing to Bush's malfeasance and callous stupidity and cruelty.

As well, there is the matter of our treatment of nations whose people had heretofore looked our way for idealism and hope. We're casting a longer shadow over them these days under Bush and Cheney where before there were rays of light.

I find it troubling that not enough U.S. schools ask very much of their graduating 18-year olds and feel the Democratic Party offers teachers and students alike a better set of options than the Republicans; yet this is an uphill climb and worth the worry and the investment in the outcome.

And so forth. You can follow the trail here. Don't you fret one iota over the Edwards' team piggy bank. There are other issues before us which require your sturdy attention.

I know you'll come through.

with representitive goverment.

Despite what the freemarket mullahs may say, it is not one dollar one vote.
The apotheosis of the dollar as an instrument of polity has been an unmitigated disaster, IMO.

...but isn't it possible that you can legally shift funding strategies for the general election, that you aren't bound by how you financed your run during the primaries? Even if legal, is there a matter of some promise Edwards made about how he'd finance his entire campaign involved here?

with commercials due to lack of money. Yeah, when he saw he didn't raise as much money as he thought he would/could, he "decided" to do the moral thing and take matching funds (challenging Obama and Clinton to do the same). :rofl:

He can opt out of Public financing for the general election. Btw, that's what Kerry did.

oh, never mind...

as a result of funds or lack thereof, I'd hate to see any candidate lose the GE because of finances. Thanks.

If Edwards wins the DEMOCRATIC PARTY nomination, he won't need to run ads in primary states any longer and he'll have his own press corps with him every where, every day. He'll get all the coverage he needs, plus the Republicans still have their biggest hurdle to reclaiming the White House in '08...themselves.

He would only be able to fight back in the news media and that doesn't reach most people. Edwards would need ads.

Thanks.

the benefit of the 527's behind him as well as the DNC, if Edwards wins the nomination, I see no problem with him competing against any Repuke.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp

527 Committee Activity
Top 50 Federally Focused Organizations

527 groups are tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activities, often through unlimited soft money contributions. Most 527s on this list are advocacy groups trying to influence federal elections through voter mobilization efforts and so-called issue ads that tout or criticize a candidate's record. 527s must report their contributors and expenditures to the IRS, unless they already file identical information at the state or local level. The figures below are taken from 527 group filings with the IRS. (To view 527s for state party or candidate committees, such as the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association, click here.)

Click on the link to see the organizations - SEIU was the top 527 in the 2006 election cycle.

and even if Edwards wins IA, that doesn't mean much. He doesn't have money to keep going.

They're all over the place, of course, but they are especially furtive in Iowa, IMO.

Pat Robertson. Just those two words. The big second place finish of Pat Robertson.

Fundies.

'Nuff said.

to outweigh the carnage done to the US over the past 7 years. I don't think most Americans would buy into that again...Also, with the 527's out here, and the DNC being able to put out ads, I still think its not an issue.

will be President Edwards.

You KNOW he only "chose" to take matching funds after he failed to raise the amount of money he thought he could raise, right? And Edwards winning Iowa means nothing much. He's lived there for 3 years. If he DOESN'T win, he's finished.

or don't you know that? He only "chose" to CHANGE HIS MIND when he raised so much less than he expected. And if he DOESN'T win Iowa, he's finished. He won't have enough money to continue on. If he DOES win, it's no big deal since he's been practically living there since '04.

:rofl:

Hes' spent 3.1 mil to Edwards 0.6. And even with that it's still a dead heat. Also, while I do like Obama, I do have to wonder where all that money is coming from. Just a thought.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/17/213624/96

to catch up to all the recognition that years of Edwards being there has given him. Why wonder? Go to his website and it'll tell you where his money comes from.

No doubt about it!!

about taking matching funds?

No doubt about it!!

Imagine...if he can do this with little money, he will know how to bring America back!!

presidential candidates.

Welcome!

No sense in wasting time warding off the inevitable, right? :shrug:

since he has the money to continue, unlike Edwards.

No doubt. I'm just one of those dumb, hopeful working slobs that still believes that it should come down to more than just who has the bigger pockets.

Jenmito, I expect as much from ol' Snake here, but usually Obama supporters are a little less snarky.

(No offense Snake.)
:toast:

Just like they ignore his Senate career.

unless you read the rest of the thread. ;)

My guess is his campaign team has weighed and strategized on expenditures.

Once a candidate wins Iowa the rate of contributions tends to rise along with the threshold interest.

he spent enough time there! But you don't believe that he chose to take matching funds for "moral reasons" (the day before the quarter came to a close), do you?

I bet they could set ya straight on context in a quick flash.

You DO know he first said he would NOT take matching funds, don't you?

quite a froth of spite on the Carolinian.

And here we were counting on your vote.

You DO know he first said he would NOT take matching funds, don't you?

(And IF he's somehow the nominee I will support him).

Well hell. Why didn't you just SAY so?

I'd be delighted to provide you with the link to his on-line HQ if you need it.

Just PM me.

:shrug:

You'd be awfully good at it. A natural, in fact, from the tone of your comments.

I'd like to invite you to my thread on rattlesnake venom:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=36123&mesg_id=36123

don't take it out on ME that he didn't raise as much as he hoped and so THEN he decided to take matching funds! You want a link proving what I'm saying is true about him first saying he'd forego matching funds?

an invitation for my rattlesnake thread, too.

Tell ya what. Be comforted that the three major Democratic candidates' strategist have mapped out the financial consideration obligtory to proportional campaigning.

Also be assured that money alone does not buy the presidency. It helps in promoting aspirants toward high office but there are glaring moments in our history when a boatload of dollars translates to sub-optimal delegate votes at party conventions. Just ask President Connelly.

More to the point, I don't think you understand the nature of public financing. You could learn a lot from the model of Edwards and Biden, actually. I don't mean your candidate can learn from them; I kinda like your candidate. I mean learn from the models of proportional funding to public initiative. The trajectory is well past the Iowa caucus.

Governor Dean was flush with cash going into Iowa. He overtook freckled Dick Gephardt for the lead. He secured the endorsement of Vice President Gore.

And he finished third with 17%.

He took 'em for financial reasons. He didn't raise as much as he hoped to by foregoing matching funds. He was against taking them before he was for taking them.

be well.

You might have spent all this energy this evening praising your candidate instead of trying to embarrass others' candidate.

I've been a New York voter before. An Abzug volunteer, in fact. Most New Yorkers I worked with in those days (and I bet in these days too) are going to support the ticket, and they begin supporting it by not slinging shit around on the web.

If you can't find something to praise in our 8 candidates, IMO you aren't making an effort.

I'd LOVE to see just ONE Edwards supporter admit he was not truthful when he did his 180 on matching funds. As I said before, IF he's the nominee I'll support him. I don't WANT him to be the nominee, though, because I think he's a phony. But he's still better than the Repubs.

I've said many positive things about MY candidate. I support him and want him to be the nominee. He's honest.

it did I miss?

Your candidate is honest? Do you feel that Dennis Kucinich is not honest? And more to the point, is Dennis Kucinich not honest in a generalized way or is he more strategic in his dishonesty? Do you feel Dennis Kucinich should contact your candidate to learn about truthfulness and being fair and honest? Would Senator Obama have the time to tutor Congressman Kucinich?

And Chris Dodd. Is he also dishonest? He doesn't LOOK dishonest. I like the white mane and the strong jaws, and I love that he's bilingual. But you appear to be drawing a contrast -- a very sharp one at that -- between your candidate and other candidates.

You started out on money but you've kind of deteriorated into a "Only my guy's honest" spiel.

So I began with Kucinich and Dodd -- lying bastards both! May they rot in hell forever!

And the same for all the other candidates. I'm presuming that's the border of your assertion that "Obama is honest."

Because honesty is a pure and humble thing, and because only your candidate is honest, I feel you should personally contact Chairman Dean and explain that he should quietly ask the other 7 candidates to withdraw, owing to their dishonest and corrupt characters. It's really best, you can explain to Dean, that we have only the one honest candidate in the race.

And check again in a couple days on DU to let us all know how that project is going.

first did NOT feel it was immoral to forego matching funds (when there was hope he'd raise as much as Obama and Clinton):

"Obama joins Sen. Hillary Clinton, Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John McCain and Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney in deciding to forgo the federal matching funds.

<snip>

By comparison, Obama is just getting started. He'll raise a bunch this quarter -- though John Edwards could raise more -- but he'll need to sustain his pace in the second quarter in order to avoid questions about his financial viability. On the other hand, perhaps we're falling for spin -- and perhaps Obama will outraise 'em all. But we don't think so, at the moment."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/obama_to_opt_ou_1.html


Looks like he decided to become "moral" only when things didn't work out the way he thought they would.

dragging a transparent bias around like that for so long.

Have you contacted Mitt's HQ in Iowa yet? They're likely waiting to hear from you. They deserve a rescue from their financial woes. Many are being paid out of Romney's own pocket.

What will you offer them by way of resolution, by way of comfort, by way of a long-term reliable plan?

Inquiring minds want to know.

how can you continue to deny that your candidate, John Edwards, only resorted to matching funds for "moral reasons" after failing to raise the amount of money he expected to? What a RIOT for him to pretend he suddenly had a moral awakening right before the close of the quarter! And THEN having the NERVE to challenge Obama and Hillary to do the same!!! :rofl: I don't blame you for going so far out of your way to avoid addressing this fact!

the only Democrat worth a look.

That's incorrect.

If you were to re-examine the nomination race based on more valid and reliable criteria, you might just become a better Democrat.

Or not. Who knows how lopsided someone's thinking can be when their guy is Jesus and all the other candidates are devils?

You seem locked in that mindset.

You oughtta get out of it.

I would be happy with Biden, too. I don't know where you get the idea I think Obama is the only one IMO just because I think Edwards is a phony. You STILL are unable to address or rebut the FACT that your guy lied about why he took matching funds. You can't be gullible enough to beliwve it was for moral reasons!

one day.

Not long after that I thought Mo Udall would become president.

I supported some winners and some losers often in states holding primary contests long after Iowa and New Hampshire.

I had the proper invitation to ping-pong around the Hawkeye State in 2004 and hang out a bit with some of the people running the campaigns.

You would have liked these folks, IMO. The Gephardt people were as earnest as they come. They liked their guy a lot and saw in him a demographic cobbling that would play in New Mexico, Montana, Missouri, and Georgia. They saw a blue electoral college map dead ahead.

Gephardt, tall and handsome though he was, underestimated the fervent dedication of the Dean team, and somewhere around this time or earlier in 2004, Howard Dean surged ahead of Gep and appeared to be barreling onward to a huge win in Iowa. Even Gore endorsed Dean. Judging from the energy level of Dean's team and volunteers, we found nary a soul who blamed Gore for that endorsement; it made sense to just about everyone in the context of Dean's remarkable campaign.

Kerry and Edwards spent the same period building a slower but very steady pair of onramps. Their own gatherings in those western soybean-&-pigfarm towns generated a lot of good will and both of them scored points in being able to talk with those voters. No matter what the Swiftboat liars have to say, I don't think even one of those western Iowan Democrats thought Kerry didn't earn his medals.

I saw no losers in that 04 field and could defend any one of them indefinitely.

That's the hinge of participation I recommend to others for 08 as well. There are Republicans out there vying for the same job as Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel.

I say we pick a Democrat for that position and we get there a lot better by joining the good.

The premise of your OP was exactly the reverse of that hinge.

I'd still like you address the point about Edwards and the foregoing of matching funds. And in '04, I was for Wes Clark in the primary and couldn't stand Kerry. He was in the Skull and Bones frat., he wasn't able to make his points clearly, he stole Clark's theme song, and he got collagen in his face (like Hillary now). But once he got the nomination I was all for him as he was still way better than Bush. Right now I feel Edwards (and Hillary) are worse than Kerry.

Why can't you address the matching funds situation?

Move to the larger landscape.

Was Obama wise to invoke a Republican in his declaration-of-candidacy address in Springfield? I think he was wise to do that. Very wise. He invoked Lincoln, a Southern-born progressive whose nomination moved forward on the basis of his 1 term as a Congressman and his life experience as a trial lawyer.

John Edwards is another southern-born progressive who served 1 term in the U.S. Senate and was a trial lawyer.

You take my point. The landscape is larger than your preference or my preference in this nomination contest.

My contention is that the eventual nominee's road to the White House is enhanced by our collective acknowledgment of strengths.

you've done your very best to avoid it, so until you address it directly, with the quote I provided above contradicting your assertion that he did it for moral reasons, I'll no longer be discussing other topics with you. :hi:

viability past imposed limits but turned sharply into "Edwards is a phony" within a few posts.

Your "question" is not a question at all. It is correspondent to your personal bias but it does not obtain to what is taking place in Iowa.

Your guy might win. Or Edwards might win. Or both of them might get their asses kicked. The headline on January 4th in the Des Moines REGISTER might be all about Richardson and Biden or Dodd and Clinton for all you and I know tonight.

That caucus vote is step 1 in the nomination process that aspires to replace a vacuous monkey with a genuine public servant.

I have suggested by tease and by tenet that you move to the larger landscape and you just can't manage it this evening.

It's a shame. The Republican threat, IMO, casts a far longer and darker shadow over this nation than your petty grievances against John Edwards.

his expenses. All I know is he's in the top three. I read tonight Edwards has lots of signs in NH, and all's right with the world and it's going according to schedule.

I just hope the best person wins, for all of our sakes. And I thought your question was good. I know we also have candidates who should be getting more attention but aren't because of finances.

Hillary and Obama. I just don't like how he only decided to take matching funds at the last possible minute because he was unable to raise as much as they did, and he SAID he was doing it for moral reasons. That isn't true or he would've taken matching funds from the start. You and I agree about Obama but not Edwards. But may the best person win. :hi:

His bunch was bombarding dKos with pure slime diaries about Clinton.
It was even too much for the regulars who liked him. They told him to cool it.

He's a fraud. He sheds tears for the poor, but voted YES on Bankruptcy reform.
Has the nerve to scream that Clinton is to corporate.
Didn't vote at all when it came for reprimending Iraq over torture.

He's trying to move in on the Howard Dean niche. It's pure political scheming.
He wants the office and will say and do anything it takes to get it.

I'm just saying he spent 3 years in IA so if he doesn't win, that's it. If he wins IA I don't think it'd be a shocker to anyone.

you win Iowa, we will come.

in other states?

The same can't be said about the rest of the states.

spend in IA, nothing reaches people like TV ads, and if Edwards beats those two in IA spending so much less, he'll be fine with less money after that.

Also, I don't understand the point of the OP. If Edwards wins IA with spending limits, what's going to stop him from winning any other state with spending limits? And what do you think we should do? Support the richest candidate because they have the most money?

campaign.

Those people are spending money like there was no tomorrow.

They just don't seem like a very thrifty bunch.

And that bible-licking fool Mike Huckabee's only spent $134 in Iowa and he's almost tied with Mitt for first place.

Some of your concern for financial budgeting should be administered to the Romney effort. Reach across the isle and offer your counsel in balancing a checkbook and tucking away some funds for a rainy day. You'll teach them a valuable lesson about financial management, and besides, it will feel good to do the right thing.

better than a corporate guy faking that he's a bleeding heart.
Voting YES on Bankruptcy reform?
How corporate can you get? He's feeding a line of BS because he
wants the office so badly he'll say whatever the hell he thinks
you want to hear.

Tell me please, which repuglican candidate would be better? Which one voted against the Bankruptcy bill? Get a hold of yourself man. I'm not in love with all of the Dem candidates, but for crying-out-loud, I'm not going to:

"take a long hard look at the republican candidate"

if my guy doesn't get the nod.

The only people I could see voting republicans are people who are willfully ignorant, spiteful morons, and people who have been living under a rock for 8 years.

want to; plus, the party and PACs can spend money on the nominee's behalf. This is a phony problem made up by the MSM.

in their reporting. Saying he wouldn't be able to fight back against attacks is stupid. He would, and will be ready.

the 527's and the DNC....SEIU was the top contributor in 2006, and Edwards has ..how many SEIU endorsements? 12?

Hey there. How ya doin'?

I'm feeling great - have a belly full of left over turkey, my kids are asleep and I see wondrous events ahead. How are you? Did you have a nice Thanksgiving?

Pretty productive day for us also. I love holidays.

Things are heating up out on the campaign trail, even as the temperatures drop outside. As the mercury falls the future gets closer!

I was reading on another blog how some of the Edwards supporters are fairing the weather in Iowa as they canvas for him. It's cold! But, layers are the key. These are times I wished I lived in Iowa or New Hampshire, but North Carolina is just fine right now. Today was the first true chilly day in a while, it was up in the 70's the first part of the week. January is going to be an exciting month!

advice on layers or they're going to be found months from now, frozen to a mailbox on some farm.

Well, while all the excitement goes down out there and up in New Hampshire, we can watch from afar and ping-pong around the web.

The first votes Democrats in Iowa cast in 40 days signal the beginning of the end of the Bush years. HOT DOG to that.

Your post shows exactly why Edwards should be president!
You admit that the you believe that it all about the money.
Fortunately we still get to vote based on the candidates NOT how much money they raise.

Why do you think Edwards chose to forego matching funding until the last possible minute?

He'll have the progressive 527's and the DNC watching his back.

Plus with the MSM following his every move, he'll get daily coverage on every news channel in the country.

You pretend like his hands are tied by this. They aren't.

Usually after the nomination process, the candidates focus on building themselves up (and most of America knows and on a large scale likes John Edwards from what I've observed) and it's not necessarily the intense part of the contest. By the time the race heats up, Edwards will have the money to compete and rebut any negative ad the Republicans throw his way.

It is about the money. But not as much as the message and tone the candidate sets. Edwards is ready to fight for the White House, and fight he shall.

economic well-being from the greater human, personal needs of the populace, I see the point you raise in your post championed by only a rare voice from time to time.

John Edwards is one of those rare voices.

Quite a good point, deady accurate, and welcome to DU, red2blue.

about money but is really tapping into the deep parts of our collective consciousness!

jenmito, you are one crafty rascal.

Edwards and the money is money in a pursestring bag -- as it might have been in agrarian times.

And then, farther back in agrarian times to some un-specified age in which people were still connected to the land, and still honored the spirits and land spirits in the wildnerness. They're there, you know. They're Eve's children, whom she hid from the angry Jehovah when he blew a fuse and kicked them out of the Garden. Eve knew damned well any god who'd kick people our of a garden is a god she didn't want her children beholden to, so she hid them in the deep wilderness. The land spirits.

Jack and the beanstalk. You see it now, don't you? Jack trades the family cow for a mysterious bag of allegedly magic beans. Not just run-of-the-mill beans, mind you, but magic ones. Each bean alone and the whole bagful collectively promise an adventure beyond the agrarian sameness of village life.

Jack makes the swap and his life changes immediately. Of course his mother is pissed but on the other hand, away he goes into the heavens and perilous, dizzying, life-defining adventures ensue! Zing! Kapow!

One minute he was dragging his agrarian ass down a dirt road and the next he's battling a psychotic giant for his very life.

He shimmies down the beanstalk. The cow is where she was to begin with, in the family's modest barn. His mother waves from the side yard, a basket of daisies under the other arm. But the farm is not the same. It's mostly soybeans and corn as far as Jack can see. And what's that over there -- looks like an ethanol plant.

He's returned home, and home appears to be Iowa.

The cow was worth what a cow was worth and the beans, meager at first glance, were possessed of untold and unlanguageable adventures.

People seemed to have been gathering all this while and have begun walking up the family farm lane. They're wearing Edwards 2008 buttons.

Jack knows this is a reverential moment. His mother has gone inside to answer the phone. The call is from Des Moines. It's another union endorsement. She smiles and waves again from the window. The cow moos contentedly from the barn.

The heaven-bound green stalk is out there in the fields. Snow begins to swirl yet the stalk remains vibrantly green. It's January. The crowd cheers.

Wish I could recommend it.

By the way....it's a beaut.....love it to bits.


:hi:

:toast:

Zeus' nose ring?

Hey there, Ninga. Good to see you. I hope all's well your way!

evening.

I think I have had a bit too much Chaniti......

I hope all is well in your world...good to see you as well.

on us. But between your wine and the election returns, it should be a winter that goes pretty fast.

All good wishes.