Edwards Cashes In On Wifes Cancer

[red states rule]

url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04052007/news/nationalnews/edwards_cashing_in_on_wifes_cancer_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm][/url]
April 5, 2007 -- Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting e-mail addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes - and using them for fund-raising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday.
The link on Edwards' campaign Web site invites people to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" and features a sad letter from the former senator penned just after the couple found out her breast cancer had spread and is now incurable.
But people who've been sending such well wishes have been hit with e-mail solicitations from Team Edwards, asking for donations just as all candidates are looking to post big online fund-raising numbers.



If a Republican was doing this, the liberal media would be in full attack mode. People send the women a Get well card - then they are asked for money

 

[mattskramer]

url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04052007/news/nationalnews/edwards_cashing_in_on_wifes_cancer_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm][/url]
April 5, 2007 -- Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting e-mail addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes - and using them for fund-raising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday.
The link on Edwards' campaign Web site invites people to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" and features a sad letter from the former senator penned just after the couple found out her breast cancer had spread and is now incurable.
But people who've been sending such well wishes have been hit with e-mail solicitations from Team Edwards, asking for donations just as all candidates are looking to post big online fund-raising numbers.



If a Republican was doing this, the liberal media would be in full attack mode. People send the women a Get well card - then they are asked for money

Don’t you recall when Bush used 9-11 image in letters to ask for campaign contributions? That was certainly an unethical tactic. If I had a son who died on that date, I certainly would not have wanted his death used as a political campaign opportunity for Bush. I doubt that he would want it either.

Look. Some of the details may be different but the political parties are practically the same. In one-way or another, they are both corrupt opportunists. They both have adulterers. They both have liars. It is just the other side of the same coin.

 

[Gem]

Mattskramer Wrote:

Look. Some of the details may be different but the political parties are practically the same. In one-way or another, they are both corrupt opportunists. They both have adulterers. They both have liars. It is just the other side of the same coin.

I think that I would be fine with this explanation if I did not feel there was such an obvious disparity between how the media treats Republican scandals, escapades, faux pas, etc, and how it handles Democratic ones.

I truly believe that if Giuliani tried to pull this with Judith, or Bush had tried this with Laura the media would be all over it and the pundits would be screeching in outrage.

However, its been quite obvious to me that Edwards has been trying to use his wife's cancer to boost his political ambitions. But to some on the left - just saying that is tantamount to my saying I wish the woman would die. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have lost family members and friends to cancer and I wish nothing but health and happiness to the Edwards family...I think that John Edwards has the right to campaign during this time (although I do not think I would) and, in my opinion, he has the right to attempt to gain "sympathy votes" in the process.

What I resent is that even suggesting that he is doing such a thing is met with such abject hostility. Political candidates today are advised on everything from their underwear choice (boxers or briefs, anyone?) to their haircut (thousand dollar haircuts a la Edwards 2004). Do you honestly think that his people haven't been advising him on how to handle his wife's illness from a political standpoint?

While I agree with Mattskramer that BOTH sides play politics....I don't think that excuses the way the media seems to treat both sides differently.

 

[red states rule]

Don’t you recall when Bush used 9-11 image in letters to ask for campaign contributions? That was certainly an unethical tactic. If I had a son who died on that date, I certainly would not have wanted his death used as a political campaign opportunity for Bush. I doubt that he would want it either.

Look. Some of the details may be different but the political parties are practically the same. In one-way or another, they are both corrupt opportunists. They both have adulterers. They both have liars. It is just the other side of the same coin.

Those were pictures of a President doing his job

Here he have Edwards using his wifes illness for financial gain to a sinking campaign

 

[red states rule]

Mattskramer Wrote:


I think that I would be fine with this explanation if I did not feel there was such an obvious disparity between how the media treats Republican scandals, escapades, faux pas, etc, and how it handles Democratic ones.

I truly believe that if Giuliani tried to pull this with Judith, or Bush had tried this with Laura the media would be all over it and the pundits would be screeching in outrage.

However, its been quite obvious to me that Edwards has been trying to use his wife's cancer to boost his political ambitions. But to some on the left - just saying that is tantamount to my saying I wish the woman would die. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have lost family members and friends to cancer and I wish nothing but health and happiness to the Edwards family...I think that John Edwards has the right to campaign during this time (although I do not think I would) and, in my opinion, he has the right to attempt to gain "sympathy votes" in the process.

What I resent is that even suggesting that he is doing such a thing is met with such abject hostility. Political candidates today are advised on everything from their underwear choice (boxers or briefs, anyone?) to their haircut (thousand dollar haircuts a la Edwards 2004). Do you honestly think that his people haven't been advising him on how to handle his wife's illness from a political standpoint?

While I agree with Mattskramer that BOTH sides play politics....I don't think that excuses the way the media seems to treat both sides differently.

Edwards Provides Lesson in E-Campaigning 101
When you visit the John Edwards for President Web site, you're invited to send a sympathy note to the Edwardses. And tens of thousands of well wishers have done so since that heart-wrenching news conference two weeks ago at which Elizabeth Edwards courageously discussed her incurable cancer.

What those well wishers get in return -- e-mail messages soliciting contributions to Edwards's campaign.

Visitors to the Edwards site who choose to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" are first taken to a heartfelt letter from the candidate that was written the day after he learned that his wife's cancer had returned. Edwards thanks readers for their "prayers and wishes," vows that he and Elizabeth will "keep a positive attitude always look for the silver lining" and declares that "our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly."

Anyone who then chooses to send a note of sympathy to the Edwardses -- and, thus, provide his or her e-mail address -- automatically becomes part of the Edwards campaign's online e-mail database, a list that is crucial to any campaign's ability to raise vast amounts of money over the Internet.

If you sent a note to the Edwardses before the critical March 31 end-of-the-quarter fundraising deadline, you would have received frantic e-mail solicitations from the campaign, such as the one on March 28 from Edwards campaign manager David Bonior titled, "96 hours to show substance works." The solicitation asked for "$25, $50 or any amount you can afford to give."

"John, Elizabeth and you have created something incredible together. Our grassroots campaign for change is raising the bar for what leadership means in America -- and it's strong enough to win," Bonior wrote. (Scroll down to the bottom of this post to read the Bonior e-mail.)

And you would have received Monday's announcement that the campaign had exceeded its online fundraising goal, raking in more than $3.3 million over the Internet.

While Edwards has enjoyed a big surge in donations since he and his wife disclosed the return of her cancer, the campaign has not mentioned the "C" word in any of its fundraising solicitations. In fact, an e-mail sent to supporters on March 22, the day of their famous news conference, omitted the usual link to contribute money.

Jonathan Prince, Edwards's deputy campaign manager, acknowledged that the campaign adds the e-mail addresses of Elizabeth Edwards's well wishers to its e-mail fundraising list. Giving a one-line explanation, he said, "Nobody gets an e-mail from us without explicitly agreeing to receive e-mails."

Ari Rabin-Havt, an Internet strategist for Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign, said it's common for campaigns to use devices such as petitions to spur growth in their e-mail lists. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, has a petition on her Web site calling for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

Kerry came under fire in '04 for using e-mail addresses culled through his online petition calling for the firing of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to raise money for his campaign.

"The reason people do these petitions is for important advocacy and because they grow their e-mail lists," Rabin-Havt said. "And when you grow your e-mail list, you raise more money."

But petitions are one thing, said some Democratic critics of Edwards's fundraising practices. Cancer is another.

One Democratic operative, citing comments made by Edwards, charged, "There's a certain inconsistency to, on the one hand, going out of his way to say 'don't vote for us because of this tragedy,' but then using it to solicit funds."

Another Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous because of the issue's sensitivity, said while it's understandable that campaigns use e-mail addresses they acquire through their Web sites for fundraising purposes, "there should have been an exception in this case."

But Rabin-Havt, who is not working on a presidential campaign this cycle, argued that any other candidate in Edwards's position would do the same thing. "If he didn't use these e-mail addresses, it would be poor online strategy."

Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for the campaign finance watchdog group Common Cause, said of the Edwards campaign's online fundraising practices: "While it may not sit well with some people, it points to the reality of running a campaign in this environment that's all about fundraising."

An e-mail sent out by the Edwards campaign last week:

From: David Bonior, Edwards for President
Sent: Wed Mar 28 1401 2007
Subject: 96 hrs to show substance works

Critical Deadline in Just 96 Hours. Click to Contribute

Dear Mary Ann,

I was in Congress for 26 years and I've worked on a lot of campaigns, but I've never been so proud to be a part of one as I am right now. Because John, Elizabeth and you have created something incredible together. Our grassroots campaign for change is raising the bar for what leadership means in America-and it's strong enough to win.

As you probably know, this Saturday at midnight marks the first major fundraising deadline of this campaign-which means we have less than 96 hours to show that our campaign has the support and momentum we need to put our agenda in front of voters nationwide. This first test couldn't be more important.

If you've been waiting to plunk down your $50 until a truly critical moment-that moment has arrived. Your contribution of $25, $50 or any amount you can afford to give today will send a loud message that the American people are ready for change:

http://johnedwards.com/r/8884/917772/

When I say "raising the bar for what leadership means" I'm not just blowing smoke. To fundamentally change the country, we've got to go where ordinary campaigns fear to tread. That means putting forward real, bold plans for the future. It means putting our hands and our voices to work right now in local communities and on the national stage. All this clarity means real accountability, which you don't see much of in American politics. But if we're serious about change, it's the only way to go.

Here's how we've done it so far:

* Proposing transformational change for America and the world: John's plan for universal health care "set the standard for all the candidates with a specific proposal" (as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it). He's set out a plan to end the war in Iraq-starting now. He's offered a bold agenda for tackling extreme poverty at home and around the world. And last week, John announced a cutting-edge plan to halt global warming and create a new energy economy.

* Raising our voice on the issues today: We aren't waiting until 2009 to push for the big changes we know our country needs. Over 130,000 of us signed up to oppose Bush's escalation and demand an end to the war in Iraq. We raised our voices against the outrage of inadequate health care for our service members and veterans. And we called on Congress to vote to raise the minimum wage-and they did.

* Changing America right here and now: Through One Corps, thousands of us have gotten together to make our communities more energy efficient, volunteer in hospitals, serve those in need and gather grassroots support for the big goals we care about. And tonight, thousands of us will join in the first National John Edwards House Party Day yo spread the word and grow our team.

You see why I'm so proud? In all my years in public life I've heard a lot of different people talk about change. But I've never seen someone at the national level walk the walk like John Edwards. That's why I know this campaign can really transform America-it's already begun.

But to keep our momentum going, we've got to have a strong showing for this Saturday's fundraising deadline. The press and the pundits will look at our fundraising numbers at the end of this week and ask: "Does the John Edwards campaign have what it takes to go the distance?"

You and I know the answer to that. This week, let's prove it to the world. Please chip in $50, $100, $25 or whatever you can afford to help us across the finish line today:

http://johnedwards.com/r/8886/917772/

Thank you for taking action,

David Bonior
Campaign Manager
John Edwards for President

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/edwards_raising_money.html

 

[Louie]

once again, the phrase... what is it I am thinking of?
oh, wait! I don't give a shit

 

[red states rule]

It is always great to see examples of liberal compassion

Pretty Boy Edwards using his wife to raise money

of libs raising taxes on the middle class, increasing the marriage penalty, and even raising taxes on the retired

Libs are fair - they believe in fucking everyone over as many times as they can

 

[mattskramer]

Those were pictures of a President doing his job

Here he have Edwards using his wifes illness for financial gain to a sinking campaign

That was an image of Bush using the deaths of people on 9-11 in an attempt to further his career. Anyway, isn’t what Edwards does with respect to his wife between Edwards and his wife? I think that she gave her consent. I doubt that those dead people at the WTC did.

 

[red states rule]

That was an image of Bush using the deaths of people on 9-11 in an attempt to further his career. Anyway, isn’t what Edwards does with respect to his wife between Edwards and his wife? I think that she gave her consent. I doubt that those dead people at the WTC did.

So all the photos of any President attending funerals or visting the troops should never see the light of day?

With Edwards folks sent their best wishes to his wife THEN they were hit up for money

The folks who bought the pictires of Pres Bush knew they were taken on 9-11

 

[red states rule]

once again, the phrase... what is it I am thinking of?
oh, wait! I don't give a shit

John Edwards Drops Out of Another Fox News Debate
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 7, 2007 - 18:04.
Not surprisingly, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards has dropped out of another debate sponsored by the Fox News Channel. As reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added throughout):

The Edwards campaign said it will not attend the September 23 debate in Detroit hosted by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, but officials added that Edwards is "looking forward" to a different debate hosted by the institute and CNN in South Carolina in January 2008.

Hmmm. Canceling FNC to appear on CNN, John? Why might that be (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more):

"We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager.

Makes sense. After all, Democrats should, instead, only participate in events that allow the hosts to advance a left-wing agenda while they’re pretending they’re objective.

Maybe most comical was how the uber-left website AlterNet reported Edwards’ announcement. In an article entitled “Gutsy John Edwards Jettisons a Second Fox-Sponsored Debate,” (I kid you not!), Don Hazen began (emphasis added): “Showing striking leadership, presidential candidate John Edwards, encouraged by Black activists, Black bloggers and Jesse Jackson, dropped out of a scheduled debate for September to be sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Fox News.”

Yes, it takes striking leadership to cave into the demands of activists and bloggers in order to be able to preach to the choir, Don.

Honestly, if this is what folks like this believe leadership to be, we are in deep trouble if one of their candidates ever gets into the White House.

Perish the thought.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11900

 

[mattskramer]

So all the photos of any President attending funerals or visting the troops should never see the light of day?

With Edwards folks sent their best wishes to his wife THEN they were hit up for money

The folks who bought the pictires of Pres Bush knew they were taken on 9-11

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/bush.ads/index.html

Two of the Bush-Cheney campaign commercials show brief images of the wreckage of the World Trade Center and firefighters carrying out a flag-draped victim…

But a group called September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows and other victims' families not affiliated with that group have called on the president to pull the ads immediately, saying they are outraged that the images would be used for partisan political gain.

Rita Lasar, with the Peaceful Tomorrows group, lost a brother in the attacks. Joined by a New York firefighter and a man whose son died in the attack, she told reporters Friday that Bush had promised he would not use the site for political gain.

"To say that we're outraged is the truth, but it's more than outrage. It's a deep hurt and sorrow that any politician, Democrat or Republican, would seek to gain advantage by using that site," she said. Several Democrats, speaking Sunday, echoed the call for Bush to pull the ad…

"And this is just another example where his insensitivity has divided people, and I think it's hurting our country," Devine added….

But those complaining about the ads said that they objected not to Bush talking about the events, but to his use of the imagery for political purposes.

"That was what crossed the line," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, said on CBS' "Face the Nation." He said the images imply that the firefighters support the president, despite the fact that the head of a New York firefighters union supports Kerry for president and has called for the ads to be pulled.

Rendell said the imagery also "reflects an insensitivity to the victims [and] the victims' families."

 

[red states rule]

From what you posted it seems the liberals were the ones upset

What else is new? Libs are upset Pres Bush is still President and breathing

 

[mattskramer]

While I agree with Mattskramer that BOTH sides play politics....I don't think that excuses the way the media seems to treat both sides differently.

It depends on what point of the political spectrum you stand and it depends or your perspective on ethical dilemmas. I see the Edwards strategy as being less offensive than the Bush strategy. Therefore, it warranted less news coverage.

 

[red states rule]

It depends on what point of the political spectrum you stand and it depends or your perspective on ethical dilemmas. I see the Edwards strategy as being less offensive than the Bush strategy. Therefore, it warranted less news coverage.

Edwards can use his wife illness for political gain

I would be PO'd if after sending my best wishes to her I get hit up for money

It is tacky at best

 

[mattskramer]

From what you posted it seems the liberals were the ones upset

What else is new? Libs are upset Pres Bush is still President and breathing

I doubt that the Bush tactic bothered only liberals. Moderates were also likely troubled by Bush’s apparent insensitivity.

 

[mattskramer]

Edwards can use his wife illness for political gain

I would be PO'd if after sending my best wishes to her I get hit up for money

It is tacky at best

So in your opinion, the Edwards campaign was tacky but the Bush campaign was not tacky. – right? If so, we simply agree to disagree.

 

[red states rule]

I doubt that the Bush tactic bothered only liberals. Moderates were also likely troubled by Bush’s apparent insensitivity.

Insensitivity? By doing his job on 9-11?

 

[mattskramer]

But to some on the left - just saying that is tantamount to my saying I wish the woman would die. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Do you have any proof (links, references) to support your absurd accusation? Have any Democrat politicians ever said that since people are complaining, they must want Mrs. Edwards to die?

 

[mattskramer]

Insensitivity? By doing his job on 9-11?

Quit being so vague. What was his job with respect to 9-11? To go after terrorists. His job need not include using images to further his political career. If this were also his job then he certainly did it in a tacky manner.

In the link, if you even bothered to read it, it said that people do not object to Bush talking about the events. It would be fine if he had simply said that he is sorry that this happened and that he is going to co after those responsible. What is objectionable is his using images of 9-11 for political opportunity – just as it is objectionable for Edwards to use his wife’s cancer for political opportunity.

 

[red states rule]

Quit being so vague. What was his job with respect to 9-11? To go after terrorists. His job need not include using images to further his political career. If this were also his job then he certainly did it in a tacky manner.

In the link, if you even bothered to read it, it said that people do not object to Bush talking about the events. It would be fine if he had simply said that he is sorry that this happened and that he is going to co after those responsible. What is objectionable is his using images of 9-11 for political opportunity – just as it is objectionable for Edwards to use his wife’s cancer for political opportunity.

As if libs have not used 9-11 for political gains? saying the government was behind 9-11, or Pres Bush lied at WMD's, or the liberal media publishing classified information?

When busted, liberals will always try to say how the other guy did it as well so that makes it OK (I am not calling you a liberal BTW)