Edwards campaign will accept public funding.
Which can only mean one thing..its not going well on the fundraising front for him. The Hill has a short writeup here. A short blurb below:
In a stunning move that was described by one expert as a “Hail Mary” play, John Edwards’s campaign said Thursday afternoon that the former North Carolina Democratic senator will accept public matching funds for the 2008 primary season.
A campaign official told The Hill that the campaign would take in about $7 million for the third quarter, which ends at midnight on Sunday. This would bring Edwards to about $30 million for the year, or about $10 million shy of the campaign’s $40 million goal to compete in the first four states. All of those totals are well below the record-breaking hauls of Edwards’s Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.). At the end of the second quarter, Edwards had $13.5 million cash on hand. By accepting public funding, the campaign would cap its spending at a sum estimated to be $50 million for the primary.
Tags:
September 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Where is Norman Hsu when you need him besides in the Clinton’s wallet.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Lisa,
Just as an excersie for interest, how about you subject all the Republican candidates to the same kind of thorough scrutiny you keep giving Clinton’s money. I think you’ll find an awful lot of interesting donors there too.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I didn’t subject her to taking $850,00.00 from a criminal.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Yes the power of money:
http://minx.cc/?post=241764
September 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Lisa,
Hmmm. Interesting. You answer a question I didn’t ask. Let’s try again: How much have criminals given to the Republican candidates?
And as to your second post, I’d ask you to do the same. Find out who’s funding all those ‘independent’ scientists who oppose global warming. I think you’ll find most of them are funded by the oil industry. But obviously, that wouldn’t sway their judgement, would it?
September 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
So I guess that makes it alright for Hillary and Soros right?
September 29th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Well, it does make it rather one-sided that you seem to think it’s only bad if the Democrats do it, yes. you have criticised people here for not being as harsh on Democrats as Republicans. That same criticism applies to you in reverse. If it’s ok for one side, it’s ok fthe other and vice versa. You think it’s not ok for the Democrats, but you don’t care to look at the Republicans.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Again Paul, Lisa gives examples, where are yours?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Manapp,
If you notice I ask Lisa to look at the Republicans. I can’t be bothered as I doubt either side is taking exclusively clean money. I would be incredibly surprised to be proven wrong. Funding criticism is just partisan squabbling over being found out.
As for the climate science portion, which has been debated many times here, here’s a few links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10425.html
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?contentid=4859
September 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
And as you asked. Here’s a Republican candidate taking less than honourable people’s money: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280014?f=h_top
Amd as we’re getting very far off topic, this will be my final word on it here