I've caught up on the main thread from yesterday about Dean's fourth-quarter numbers, and it's clear that, as people compare his current numbers to last quarter's, they are quick to say he has peaked.  But as BSJinx so ably pointed out, Clinton's and Gore's fourth-quarter fundraising in '96 and 2000, respectively, fell off considerably.  Clinton raised only 64% of his record-breaking third-quarter total in the final quarter, and Gore raised only 56%.  Indeed, Gore barely cracked $4 million.  We should all be thrilled that two of our candidates are shattering that total.

If Dean's numbers had followed this trend, he would have raised 60% of his previous $14.8 million, just under $9 million.

How much do you want to bet that the first reports on Dean's fundraising neglect to mention that, in matching or slightly exceeding his third quarter total, he has achieved what Clinton and Gore could not?  Then again, Trippi probably already has the press release written.

I also wonder how the other campaigns, apart from Clark's, will be affected by the news of huge disparities in fundraising.  Americans always seem to follow the money.  Who will believe Lieberman, Gephardt, or Edwards when they claim that they can compete?  Will many people see Kerry's huge loan to himself as anything more than a desperation move?