John Edwards seeks the help of PAC's

So much for opposing the influence of special interest organizations that want to impact the election.  A political action committee is being formed in Iowa that supports John Edwards' candidacy, and the Edwards campaign is working with it.  Obama thinks that contradicts what Edwards has been saying all campaign season.

That very point is now part of Obama's daily stump speech, as he tries to distance himself from Edwards as the sole candidate that can fight lobbyist influence:

Then, Mr. Obama opened a new story line: He told voters they should beaware a group is spending money on Mr. Edwards behalf in the final daysof the Iowa campaign.

???‚¬?“John yesterday said that he didn???‚¬?„?t believe in 527s ???‚¬??? those are theindependent groups that raise money without disclosure. Nobody knowswho???‚¬?„?s giving the money or what???‚¬?„?s going on. He said, ???‚¬??I don???‚¬?„?t believe inthem because this is a major loophole in campaign finance reform laws,you have these outside groups helping out candidates and it is a way toget around campaign finance laws.???‚¬?„????‚¬??

It's a very tough decision.  If someone supports your candidacy, it's only human nature to want to work with that group.  Then again, Edwards wanted to run a difference type of campaign -- one without 527 groups.

Comments

[Robt]

If this is true of John Edwards accepting help from political action group(s).
All I can say is that he made it this far without and has like 3rd place to show for it. People boo hooed Clinton for her pac money accepting and she had no regrets for taking the money.

Until public finance of campaigns can be forced on these candidates, Every last one. Our voice will not matter. We got Bush #43 because of this money buying him everything to the Supreme Court decision.

I don't see it as hypocrisy. Just a strong attempt to make do without it.

You must admit, he got this far without it.

Would have liked to see all make do without corporate influencing money.

I am not defending Edwards for taking Political action money now. If I did I would be critical of all the others for the PAC's. As a nation we must get away from corporate sponsors in our politics. Not condemning the others that took PAC money all along because thats how their playing it. I commend those that gave it a chance and some recognition.

The perception is that real serious candidates take the corporate influence because the others are. And they have enough money to go around and over free speech us (if you want to call it that). So by the time any candidate gets nominated and is in need of more campaign money to make it all the way. Then our vote is already ovr rode be their influence.

So I say thanks to those candidates that at least give it a serious attempt.

But all Dem candidate should really stay off FOX even in the general election.

Let the Republican be on half the screen on FOX with the Dem on another network on the other half of screen.

Just stay off FOX. I may not watch even my candidate debate if it is on FOX.......

[RJ]

Robt, I don't agree with the "stay off Fox" theme. How can a message be spread to all Americans if our candidates stay off a network with a high viewership? Yes, the questions may be hard, biased, etc... but so will the questions when/if they get elected. When I hear of this "stay off Fox" attitude, I think of how true it is that I can't change someone's mind if I don't talk/interact with them. I watched the Republican debate on Fox and thought they were very hard on those candidates. I like it when a moderator says "thanks for that information, I'll give you another minute to answer the question you were asked". This "I hate Fox" attitude is childish -- If you don't like Fox, then don't watch it, but telling the candidates you'll be mad at them for speaking their message on a major network is absurd.

[Robt]

RJ,
I can completely understand your position of a DEM candidate taking to the FOX airwaves to sway those FOX viewers. I will confess to childishness (as you call it) to a degree.

Let me ask you, When Jerry Falwell gets his message of GOD in an interveiw that was in Playboy mag smack between T & A. Was he reaching or reached the sinners he portrayed he was after?

Do you percieve FOX (news) viewers as swing voters?

Actually I did stop watching FOX as you suggest. Quite some time ago. I still catch a vidio clip on many sites of FOX's latest tabliod news. No change.

I see most of FOX viewrs as people waiting to be told which Democratic candidate, liberal, commmy, tree hugger that is coming to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers type of viewer. I am also of belief that these viewers will not open their minds a be swayed by hearing a Democratic candidate that they have been manipulated to hate by Bill O, Coulter-you know the Roger Ailes gang.

I think this feeds the wallet of FOX and gives them credibility they are undeserving of. I admit my bias of having like 4 or 5 media giants that control it all. This is a driver at FOX. I know FOX claims liberal bias at CNN and perhaps there is some validity on some of that claim. Not with Glenn Beck. I suppose Alan Colmes is the equal?

I am sure I can agree that a President must be every Americans president not just that political side in which he/she ascribes from politically.

You think a religious following having a anti gay rally in God's name in the heart of a prominently gay area of San Fransico
reaches out to this Gay comunity and promotes this religious sect's tenents?

I hope you don't consider me chidish in the thought that FOX viewers are preconditioned and watch FOX for the daily feeding of justifying its tenents of its ideology. How many times have you spoke with a " person on the right that is only capable of repeating the Rightwing daily talking point(s)? And become distrought pastt that talking point?

Don't you think that if these FOX viewers were curious enough to be swayed to swing their hate vote, they would turn the channel from FOX to watch a Presidential debate? Just as much as when you express to me to turn off or turn the channel and don't watch.

Look there are some Blogs that get way out in the galaxies rim of ridiculous and hate mongering in what is written on them. All groups of ideology.

Does any candidate really want the hate vote to win? Those that do not actually vote "for" you as much as casting their vote toward you "against" the other candidate.

Being President of and for all Americans is pretty idealistic on my part, I know. What can I say besides I have goals.
Is there any speculation on part of Democratic Candidates swaying and recruiting these avid, loyal, trained biased core of FOX viewers that you could share with me? That would suggest these viewers are in fact swayable. They choose to watch FOX over the others for its explicit bias. That bias does not translate into swing votes for you does it?

Just to make it clear,
If the Dems debate on FOX.

Those like minded as me will turn the channel and not watch.

If the Dems debate other than FOX. Will the FOX viewers change channels to watch?

There are many that have fully founded problems with FOX (News) and care not to see their parties candidates infuse crdibility, money, red meat, etc to such a media. Can you show any past appearances of Democratic candidates or legislators et al and point to the swing and sway of those FOX viewers persuaded?

Is a Democrat marginalized when going on FOX or marginalized for not appearing?
Because there is no voice inflection here. Don't get me wrong. I am not excited or angry over your indifference.
Under normal circunstances I would agree with your stance on reaching the FOX viewers for persuassion. Until the extreme of partisanship is tamped into its place (and it has a small place).
I leave you with;
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it".

It is not a question if you can't handle going on FOX you can't handle Al Qaida.
Poor example. Have another?

[RJ]

Robt, two items -- I never stated that if a candidate can't handle Fox News, they can't handle Al Qaida. Next, you have defined your point and I have defined mine. We may have different views, but we're after the same goal. The viewers of this post can determine where they stand based on what has been written. Good post, it is obvious you care about what is happening. RJ.

[Robt]

RJ,
My appoligies for not making the point of "not handling FOX /not able to handle Al Qaida".

I was quoting FOX (Ahem) Journalists/commentators. If I recall correctly, Bill O and Chris Wallace spoke to this effect. Brit Hume might have, can't remember for sure.

Yet, that is the frame those on the right as FOX'ers format it. That is where FOX/the right have spun your position of going on FOX to address and sway viewing votiers.

I know the General election will change the campaigning tremendously. I am not contending that all other networks are liberal and only Dems should be on Dems networks. Far from it.

Ret. Gen. Wes Clark has been very successful in pretty much most if not all his appearances on FOX. That goes for Bill O zoner, Chris Wallace to Hannityville.
Wes Clark would be my prototype for right-wing confrontatios on FOX apperances by Dems/liberals/ progressives/independants. Easier said, any position other than right wing (and the correct right wing) as Huckabee is beginning to experience flack for not being the correct right wing.
Thanks for the reply, as you said. The readers can decide.

Merry-Happy Holidays.............

He has been the exception and not because the "kid glove" him. His military bearing has reared its head in defense/offense of being attacked and he handles himself very well.

So I didn't intend attributing you with words you did not write.