In today's NY Times, there's a story
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31DONA.html?hp
about the Dem candidates and their rhetoric against special interests in Washington and a brief examination of their relationships--and their campaigns' relationships--with varous interest groups like lobbyists.
I'm a Dean supporter and I'm pleased to see Kerry and Edwards spotlighted in this article. All you K and E supporters can critique why this story is unfair to your guys I'm sure. I'm not using this to slam either guy or their campaign. I haven't researched them enough to know whether this is fair to them or not.
But what really ticks me off and demonstrates AGAIN how the media is not covering the meat of this campaign is this:
In an article which details the percentages of $2000+ and $200 and less donors for Kerry and Edwards and Bush, the authors fail to include the figures for Dean.
Why?
It looks like his data would provide an interesting element to this piece. According to this article:
Bush got 73% of his contributions from $2000.+
contributors.
12% $200. or less
Kerry: 55% $2000.+
12% $200 or less
Edwards: 65% $2000+
3% $200. or less
Dean: 13% $2000+
56% $200 or less.
How is that contrast NOT notable in a story like this unless the point of the story is to paint the picture that all the frontrunning Dem candidates are hypocrites for going after special interests' contributions while criticizing their influence in Washington? And that in that respect they are little different from Bush. That's what I'm reading in these authors' slant.
Why else not mention Dean here?
Oh, wait, they do. They remind us his newly hired campaign chairman was a lobbyist...
The Times and I got the campaign numbers here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?format=&sortby=P
