(more responses)

What is the source for this
article? It sounds like an op-ed page to me.

Like I said above, Wash Post, first or second page (it was on the front page of their website yesterday) and not Op-Ed.

Fifteen years is
a long time. Gotta' pay for those elections. Dean will have
to come to terms with that and that's why Tom Neel is on board.

Sorry to hear you think selling out is inevitable. But you're wrong about ROY (not Tom) Neel. In fact, you're engaging in what is, by your definition, "spin" and "a scurrilous attack."

Neel is not there to raise funds, which was never his thing. He is there to engage the Democratic party operatives in the upcoming states. Trippi's failing was not fundraising, but a failure to work with party stalwarts in Iowa. I explained this above.

"But in some ways, he has played the Washington money game as aggressively as the Republicans he scolds."

As much as Bush? Anyone who believes that I gotta' bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Why? Clinton certainly did it, and Senator Kerry is a pure product of Clinton-Era Washington. I was accused above of thinking Dean was above reproach. This is not really true of me, though I confess I like him. But to suggest that No-one could possibly go for special interest money like Bush, after the spectacle of Clinton, is rich!


Nothing wrong with this in my estimation.

Interesting. Before you said my suggestion of quid pro quo was a scurrilous attack. Now you say it's accurate but there's nothing wrong with it.

As I see it, there's no candidate that can get by on public funding today.

We're not talking about public funding. We're talking about grassroots funding. Dean has already proved he can out-fundraise Kerry's special interest strategy. He raised more than 40 million for the primary, while there were eight other candidates asking for a piece of the Democratic money pie. I believe he can raise 200 million if he is the sole candidate.