People like to cast the current "controversy" about Howard Dean's refusal to accept public funding (and the spending caps that go with it) as some sort of abandonment of Dean's principles. It's not that black-and-white - or rather, it's important to see this as a battle between two
competing sets of principles.
Principle 1 is supporting public financing of campaigns. Most of the posters here seem to agree that, at least in theory, this is a noble and worthy goal.
Principle 2 is wanting to win the Presidency so that we can actually have a legitimate chance at implementing the policies we know this country - and the world - needs. This principle may not sound as noble as #1, but I believe it is far more important.
Again, I don't see this as a competition between lofty principles vs. crass pragmatism. I see two competing principles at work here. If Dean had accepted public funding & spending limits, I would accuse him of abandoning Principle 2.
This is the nature of being human - we have to carry around contradicting principles. Oftentimes, you have to decide between two that are in conflict. But it's a simplistic mistake to decide that one aim is necessarily, by its nature, lofty and noble, while the other is inherently base and unworthy. To invoke Yogi Berra, Howard Dean came to a fork in the road, and he took it. I believe he took the right one.