Kerry has LOTS of cash

Remove all ads!

I just saw this on MSNBC.com. I was fully aware that anyone in the U.S. who was over 35, was born in the U.S., had lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years, and was a multi-millionaire, could run for president. So it came as no surprise to me that all of the major Democratic hopefuls were millionaires. However, I didn't realize that Kerry had this kind of cash...

Kerry has $200 million MINIMUM. Possibly (looking at the higher end) he could be worth close to a billion dollars. Of course, he still couldn't even afford to finance the Iraq effort for a week...

 

Well, look at who Kerry's wife is.

Edit- here is a slightly dated article on his wife (when Kerry was doing poorly):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092399/

[ January 29, 2004, 19:53: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

You're absolutely correct. The thing is though, most presidential hopefuls don't foot the bill through their own pocket book. It's paid for through campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and mostly, from the working middle class.

 

I totally agree.

I agree too, but if any of the sources of their wealth is not totally clean... or at least uncertain, their election chances might decrease due to the press and media echo.
The media and press grasps on any little thing which might be unpleasant for the candidate...
Example: Bush when he was young and was driving after drinking alcohol.

 

Correct on all accounts, although campaign contributions are becoming more controlled in recent years. They have put a lot of restrictions on "soft money" and nominees have to produce a paper trail of where the money they are spending is coming from. I'm not saying it's impossible to obtain and use money from less than reputable sources, but it's a lot more difficult than it was just a few years ago.

 

Two words:Bill Clinton

One does not need to be rich, but one needs to be industrious and aggressive.

Not so ironically, it is the industrious people that make vast amounts of money. Those who run for office tend to be of this group.

 

True, it does take cash. However, the candidates do not have to be independently wealthy - it helps though.

Democrats generally raise funds by getting support of special-interest groups such as NOW and the ACLU (unfortunately in this case). Republicans on the other hand get the support of CEOs and other business leaders.

This actually follows the generally philosophy of each party. Republicans believe you can only be a good president or leader if you are able to organize, plan and build. The Democrats believe that one must be able to rally support and ideas.

 

Everytime I see in print "Kerry (D, Mass.)", I remember the last Democratic Nominee from the great state of Taxachusetts...Mike Dukakis.

I think Kerry will do slightly better in the general election than Dukakis...but only slightly.

Like it or not, Kerry can't beat Bush. The only Democrat who could have garnered enough popular support to do that was Dean, and he has self-destructed.

Oh well, four more years of Bush, folks.

Maybe we take both Iraq and Iran and call them "East Texas".

 

I think Dean is the WORST choice of democratic nominee. Bush was practically licking his chops at facing off against Dean. Bottom line is most people in the U.S. regard the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as successes. What many Americans disagree with is the way we went about doing it (meaning w/o U.N. approval). Any nominee that took a hard-line anti-war stance was dead in the water.