It's a fundraiser, nothing else. How else do you expect Dean to make enough money to compete in the primaries?

I certainly understand the need for fund raising. I also understand that it has become acceptable to attach "voice" to money. I understand that having "VIP" Receptions for big donors is considered an "acceptable" part of political fundraising. However, I would hope for better. Dean has gotten where he is in the polls through "grass roots" fund raising. Grass roots meaning us "little folks" who don't qualify as "VIPs." Us little folks who hope for a change in what is "acceptable" including the buying of voice and influence.

I understand exactly what is going on here - I am just very disappointed.

Like you, Rowan, I cringed when I got the e-mail announcing the reception. But at the same time, I cannot begrudge Dean the fact that he has to raise that kind of money. Unfortunately, Bush has forced the game on this race and anyone hoping to compete has to raise some big money.

Also, I look at the context. When Bush is hopping around the nation holding $2000 a plate luncheons, those are the only constituents he really gives a fig about. Even though Dean is starting to hold some of these big ticket events, I don't get the sense that he has forsaken we "little" people. There are still plenty of items in his campaign geared towards the commonfolk (e.g. that we got to vote on Thursday to accept public matching funds).

I agree that it is tragic that these sorts of receptions happen, and because I see it as a necessary evil this election, I'm not going to hold it against Dean's campaign.

I understand the logic, I am just very nervous about where it takes us. Bush is not just sporting $2000 a hot dog fund raisers. He is collecting BIG BUCKS from corporate interests. They know, individually and corporately that they will get their "investment" back with HUGE interest. That is the DEAL. Dean's VIPs can't match that. SO is the next step the courting of those BIG interests with BIG PROMISES to deliver better than GW? After all, how else can he compete against that kind of money? Where is the line and when will we think that a candidate has crossed it?

Kucinich has said that he will not take corporate money for his campaign. This certainly means he is not going to raise the kind of money to compete against Bush. But Dean... is he going to raise that kind of money? And how far are we willing to accept the strategies for doing so?

I am not dumping Dean as a candidate, but I have never liked the "end justifies the means" argument.

Good points, Rowan, well taken. I agree with you.