ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Edwards raises $7 million

Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Edwards
raised $7 million in Q3 and has $12 million cash on hand; the campaign claimed as well to have potentially $22 million cash on hand with the help of matching funds.

Adviser Joe Trippi said on a conference call with reporters that the discussion of public financing started about two months ago and cited an impetus to do it after the lobbying discussion heated up at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago.

The Edwards campaign has maintained that its goal all along has been to raise $40 million and this, they say, keep them on track as they've now raised more than $30 million. But clearly this is much less than Clinton and Obama. The campaign tried to spin hard the decision to take matching funds by railing against Clinton's tactics in raising money from PACs and lobbyists. "There's a distinction between us and Hillary Clinton," Trippi said.

But when asked about the fact that Obama is not taking money from PACs and lobbyists either in raising money, they turned it back to Clinton and even said, "Obama in his Senate race did take PAC and lobbying money."

Earlier in the call, Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince was more complimentary toward Obama's fund-raising efforts.

"There is tremendous grassroots enthusiasm for change," Prince said. "He’s [Obama] obviously had a very good quarter. We’re happy with where we are. We continue to grow our contributor base. Another 50,000 contributors this quarter. We have plenty for what we need."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Edwards' contributions are going down each quarter, aren't they? $14 Million 1st Q, $9 Million 2nd Q, now 7 Million 3rd Q...that means he'll probably bring in $5 Million 4th Q. Wow, how inspiring. Maybe it's time to go back to Carolina.
If he has all that money on hand, why does he need matching funds?  let him go get a trial or two, sue some doctor back to the stone age and he can use the money from the settlement to continue his campaign.

Damn, John, do I have to do all your thinking for you?
Yet, ironically the discussion over public financing ended right after the 3rd quarter.  A nice bit of spin with the decision to accept matching funds, if only it were true.  Nothing against Edwards, but call a goat a goat and a handout a handout.
There are other ways to get your message out besides taking money from lobbyists. Edwards is focused on the issues rather than the bogus "experience" mantra that dominates the dialog between Clinton and Obama. As a result, he stands to reap a huge benefit from expenditures by independent issue-oriented groups. I can hear the voice-overs now: "Demand that the candidates tell the truth about..." and "The American people deserve to hear the truth about..."
"There's a distinction between us and Hillary Clinton," Trippi said.

Yes, there are several distinctions: she’s the frontrunner and he’s not; she can raise money and he can’t, etc.
Yeah for Edwards get out there and kick asses, you can do it.Show Clinton and Obama that you are the best man out there. Clinton's background is cheesey and Obama was a former MUSLIM. Go ahead and beat the crap out of them.
Well said, CSH

Anyone notice how bitter John and especially Elizabeth are  these days?  
Taking a shot at Obama's Senate race funding seems fair until you consider that Edwards' Senate run was totally self-financed; a new candidate that does not have millions of dollars to spend would not have the same advantages he did.  So basically, it's a wash between the two men; what stands out is Edwards and Obama's contrast with Clinton and the top Republicans, who never met a dollar they didn't keep.
The American people can nominate a Dem taking bribe money from DC lobbyists and/or their families - or John Edwards who has NEVER taken a dime from DC lobbyists.
It's your choice, folks. Bu$iness as usual in DC - or a president for The People.
The frontrunners are awash in corporate donations from DC lobbyists. Yes - that includes Obama too - who's raising money via the families of lobbyists. This is well documented.
From the gitgo, Edwards has provided substance through detailed and comprehensive plans and solutions. No gimmicky sex and gun videos - like Obama Girl and Hillary's mafia video.
Interesting that Obama and Hillary have copied much of Edwards plans. Those who've been paying attention are well aware of this.
The media sells sex and guns. Substance on the issues?  Not so much.
So proud to be supporting John Edwards!  WooHoo!


Former presidents have a lot of power - evidenced once again by Bill Clinton killing a negative article about Hillary's campaign. Just like the Sopranos/Mafia.
And I'm not supporting an effort to DOUBLE the Clintons power.
If Hillary could win on her own merits, the media wouldn't be promoting her 24/7.  And the Clintons wouldn't have needed to sell their souls to Murdoch.

And yet - people wonder why Edwards donations are low - when Fox News and other media influenced by Murdoch have bashed John Edwards 24/7.

edwards still has my vote, I can't vote for the lobbyist owned candidates,
I'm no math genius but.......Edwards had a drop off of 22% from second to third quarter donations.  Obama's drop was 42%. If the dems want a victory in 08, Edwards is the man. But if the dems do what they have done so many times before they will go with big money not big ideas.

EDWARDS 08!




John Edwards is a one term Senator who's only focus is to win the presidency.  He likes the attention. He likes 400 dollar haircuts and just built a 28 thousand square foot home. John likes John. John likes money. He's NOT the real deal.
I want substance over who can raise the most money and John is not only the one who has the brass to get them out first but he also has the best!. Not to mention that both Obama and Hilary keep getting beat in every poll in a head to head with the top republicans. Who doesn't??? John Edwards. Plus Im sure that Hilary would do all of her friends in the big Pharma companies proud...like stays in the Lincoln bedroom...or mabye another big hand out. Its not like we need comprehensive health care reform in this country, those big pharmaceutical companies need help as well. Im proud to support John Edwards the man with a plan!

PS: in a poll taken a few weeks ago, John KILLED obama and hilary. Looks like John might be the man who can steal a southern state or two, which is what we need inorder to take back the white house! The dems CANT win without taking a southern state, so dont try it
I want substance over who can raise the most money and John is not only the one who has the brass to get them out first but he also has the best!. Not to mention that both Obama and Hilary keep getting beat in every poll in a head to head with the top republicans. Who doesn't??? John Edwards. Plus Im sure that Hilary would do all of her friends in the big Pharma companies proud...like stays in the Lincoln bedroom...or mabye another big hand out. Its not like we need comprehensive health care reform in this country, those big pharmaceutical companies need help as well. Im proud to support John Edwards the man with a plan!

PS: in a poll taken a few weeks ago, John KILLED obama and hilary. Looks like John might be the man who can steal a southern state or two, which is what we need inorder to take back the white house! The dems CANT win without taking a southern state, so dont try it
"Edwards' contributions are going down each quarter, aren't they?"

That is normal.

Everyone's contributions are down in the third quarter. All but a few candidates contributions also went down in the second quarter.
To Pitous - Obama has never been a Muslim.  
David - Chattanooga - is there a website listing the donations for the dem candidates for the 3rd quarter?
Wow.  Look at us.  Arguing a candidate's ability to be or become President based on how much money he or she has or can raise.  Methinks the Founders are rolling over in their graves.  Since when does financial fire-power have anything to do with the strength of one's ideas?
Jamie.......GO CUBS!  Check out Washingtonpost.com/campaign tracker.
norb jackson michigan / 'John Edwards is a one term Senator who's only focus is to win the presidency.  He likes the attention. He likes 400 dollar haircuts and just built a 28 thousand square foot home. John likes John. John likes money. He's NOT the real deal.'


that argument seems to have lost some of its luster since obama and hillary sold out to the corporate lobbyists

edwards did not,

and by the way you did realize all the candidate have huge homes, and all of them spend just as much on they're personal hygiene as edwards, so what are blathering about?

Maybe if he gets cheaper haircuts and uses less hair spray and makeup his money can go father.
Edwards sucks!
annefrank, you need to get out of your room - you've been watching too much MSNBC.
People who say Edwards is not authentic (haircuts etc.) don't know what or who they are talking about.  People who know him know that he has the utmost integrity and is completely real.  
Chris--

Financial firepower is an indication of the strength of a candidate's ideas.  Think of how hard it must  be for the media to classify one candidate's ideas over another--impossible without a tremendous amount of bias!  People tend to fund candidates who they support, so it is not unreasonable to see financial support as an indicator of a candidates strength of ideas.  It's not the be-all-and-end-all, because it's the votes that count in the end, but it is a good indication.
NO BUSH SUCKS !
Yes Bush sucks !
All you folks who want John Edwards are welcome to him.  He can't even carry his own home state. Here in North Carolina he consistently loses in the polls.  We gave him his shot in the Senate and all he did for six years was run for president.  We learned the hard way that John is about John - and nothing else.
David - thanks for the website and yes, GO CUBS!!  I was born a Cubs fan and 2003 just about broke my heart.
I keep telling my kids I'd like to see them in a world series before I die - so let's hope this is the year.
Edwards has raised more than any Democrat ever has at this stage of a race - except for two of his 8 opponents.

Perspective, folks.  He's exactly where he said he'd be a year ago.  And the tougher the road, the sweeter the destination.

To those above hurling the equivalent of 3rd grade schoolyard insults, grow up.
Three things: 1.) All Candidates totals go down.  Edwards has gone down percentagely less than all of the other candidates. 2.) With the infusion of public money on January 1, 2007 (on which he can borrow), he will have plenty to compete in NH, IA and SC.  That simple.  3.) Obama continues to impress in terms of money, but he hasn't caught on nationally.  Hillary continues to impress nationally, but hasn't caught on locally.  There seems to be an issue in what the media is reporting, spending a disproportionate amount of time on HRC, while less on Obama and JRE, because of the power of past presidents, as someone said earlier.
Its not about money, its about electoral votes. Hill and obama cant win a southrn state Edwards can. People need to look at the plans the canidates have not the hype.
Authenticity and sincerity are the two sides of the street we should follow to get the leadership the county needs to defeat extremism, restore our standing in the world community, and face multiple problems here at home.  To my observation, John Edwards stands tallest on the authenticity/sincerity scale.  His observation and insistance that the country must rethink itself is authentic.  That he tells the truth about the troublesome growing inequalities between the economically favored and the middle class, is sincere.  And I can even throw in a little courage too - Because that is what was needed to face reality and accept matching funds at this point.  I'm gonna vote for John.
I sort of liked Edwards awhile back - but he was no asset to Kerry (Kerry was no asset to Kerry either) and I don't think he's got the chutzpah or the charisma to pull it off.  And as it's been said countless times, he didn't carry N. Carolina last time (what's changed??).  

Sure everybody's got a favorite in the early going, but the Clinton machine will likely prevail.  I have mixed feelings about Hillary, but ultimately she's the only game in town...that's just how politics works.  I think her confidence will only continue to build - in later debates she'll be a force of nature (afterall, the Coach has got her back).

If a democrat votes against her, they just cut their own throat - Hillary in the Whitehouse is unpredictable, but virtually any republican is not (more of the same) - she does have the brainpower and after Bush that's got to count for a whole lot.  

For all the anti-Hillary sentiment, nothing is clear-cut at all in terms of what kind of administration she might run.  People have complained for 6+ years that Al Gore didn't make it and with abundant reasons - who could forget Ralph Nader the spoiler?  Any vote against the democratic candidate this time around helps ensure the same outcome.  

I think after Bush, many democrats have an idealized view and high expectations of what Washington should be like after this abomination of a presidency - and they certainly have a rosy view of their favorite candidate as the one to restore order and sanity to government - we have Ron Paul lovers that forget all about his Libertarian leanings because they like his parsed message.....everybody's excited about big changes in Washington - but the world doesn't work that way, and certainly not in D.C.  It would take many voting cycles to actually change anything significantly about the way business is done in Washington - provided the candidates for change were actually available.  

It's still coming down to one republican and one democrat.....if it's not Hillary that's fine - frankly I think the supporters of the other candidates overestimate their abilities... but that's just me.  
I am voting for Edwards
BUSH CONTINUES TO SUCK.
Can we find a lush as big as cheney to be V.P.?

I would surely miss having a guy in the Veep chair who gets so loaded that he can't tell his best friend from dodo and plugs him, and who thinks that everyone in the world is out to get him, even Colin Powell and Mr. Rogers. Most of all, for the man one heart-beat away from the Presidency to have a turkey baster for a son-in-law is utterly hilary-ous. Imagine the young interns around Big Sneer's office having to suck on the turkey baster. There is a sort of Clintonesque and Billy Carter-esque trailer-trashy quality in old dick that has kept the tradition alive.

Who are the Dem lushes (besides Teddy K, of course)? Who among the Dems could carry on the cheney legacy of bad manners, bad vibes, and above all, bad aim?

Cheshire in Minnesota
John Edwards raises small change for BIG change!
WooHoo!
He's not owned by corporate bundlers and DC lobbyists - like Obama and Hillary.
John Edwards will be a great President for the People!
This is hilarious!  John Edwards, who has championed the little man all his life, probably has and will not get much money from corporatists.  Nevertheless, he raised $7M in the third, THE THIRD, quarter!  Ninety-three percent of that $7M is the sum of $100.00 contributions or less:  97% is the sum of contributions of $250.00 or less.  One percent, ONE PERCENT, is from contributions of $1,000.00 or more.  Do the math, then read and weap:  that's a lot of people contributing to Senator Edwards.

Don't sleep on my champion.  I can't give much, but the little I have is riding on John Edwards.  IT IS ON!  Look out Edwards haters.  Those who are undecided, listen to the genuine, honest messages of a man committed to share his gifts and his wealth to better the lives of us who have been ignored!
Joe - that is absolutely untrue. One of Edwards earliest responsibilities in the Senate was saving Clinton's butt from removal from office.
And Edwards represented us well during his senate term. We were a red state in 2004 and the Kerry campaign refused to even air any TV ads in NC.  Stupid decision.
The guy is a gazillionaire who lives on a giant compound.

He hasn't put one nickel of his own skin into the game, and yet asks for people to cough up what little they have.  

Screw that guy.
If you want a victory in '08, vote for Bill Richardson.  He has something Edwards and Obama don't: foreign policy experience.  He's also a successful governor.  Edwards can't and won't be elected.
Does MSNBC ever publish an article on Edwards or his significant, substantive campaign that isn't couched and reframed in a negative light?  

But I do note increasing support and every supporter mentions the substance.  This is encouraging.
If money raising is any indication of a candidate's ideas, how did this country end up with George Bush? (go back and look at the campaign dollars!) - a disgrace not only to Harvard, but to the military and the American people as a whole (Katrina, Iraq, any time he speaks, corrupt crony administrators, etc.). My full bird Colonel father (Air Force - 26 years - Distinguished Flying Cross recipient) thought there was something wrong with Bush/Cheney right from the beginning.
Nicholas, Minneaps, MN / 'Financial firepower is an indication of the strength of a candidate's ideas.'

some would argue that  'Financial firepower' is also an indication of how many corrupt promises you have made to the corporate lobbyists giving you that financial firepower, nothing more
Obama/Edwards 08

lets make america great once again
When is everyone going to wake up and realize that money does not control who we vote for. I do not care how much fundraising goes on. All I want to know is what they stand for and how they are going to clean up this disaster Bush has caused.

And I have not chosen between Obama and Edwards, But I do know if Clinton gets the nomination I am voting independent.
Obama or Edward will be better than the Clinton in the white house. At least they can bring morality back to the white house.

We all know about the Lewisky's scandal, how about the death of Foster?

The clinton cannot be trusted with the white house. They will definitely mortgage our future to the Saudis, India and UAE. I am sure the Saudis can't wait for Clinton to be President.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=389131

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google