Unfortunately, money raised is now seen as an indication of the strength of a campaign - it's political shorthand, and since any other way to compare candidates is lacking (poll numbers, etc.), it's often the only way method available. How much money is raised is seen to equal support, but that methodology is useless when a candidate is responsible for a large portion of funds raised, or to a lesser extent when a high percentage of donations come from out-of-state contributors - especially when such contributions are at the maximum allowed.

Early money is like yeast - every candidate tries to raise as much money as quickly as they can, to give the impression that they have strong support. But notice which candidates willingly provide the breakdown of those contributions and which do not. Those that don't rely on the assumption that many will not read past the headline.

Cutler has given his own campaign more than $150,000. Then check out those who have donated the maximum of $750 and where they are from: http://bit.ly/bEm05n.

Not sure why the links didn't work - I post them again:

Bliss: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=28...

Emrich: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=27...

In his opinion piece, Emrich wrote:

'The state of Maine held the historic definition of marriage in highest regard throughout Maine law. That law told us why "traditional monogamous marriage" was well worth state government protection and promotion.

Maine law said, "The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society." The word "inestimable" means too valuable to be measured or fully appreciated.'

Added to Maine law in 1997 is this (to which Emrich refers):

1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:

A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

::

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the situation.

The opinion piece by Sen. Larry Bliss can be found here: <a href="http://bit.ly/buU8Zt" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/buU8Zt

You'll see that it is response to an opinion piece written earlier by Bob Emrich, which is here: <a href="http://bit.ly/9jC7wW" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/9jC7wW

This is the piece in which Emrich wrote about the long held "tradition" and "historic" nature of Maine's marriage law, the part that was actually added in 1997. I wrote about it myself here: <a href="http://bit.ly/96eN2b" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/96eN2b

Pointing out that Emrich was trying to deceive his readers is not an attack on his beliefs.

You confuse those that actually voted with those behind Stand for Marriage Main (S4MM) - which is exactly what S4MM wants you to do. If you haven't been following the Prop 8 trial in California, I suggest you check this out: http://bit.ly/5cAS43

Frank Schubert ran a great campaign in 2008, and again helping S4MM in Maine last year. Karen Ocamb has this lengthy article about Schubert's Prop 8 campaign here: http://bit.ly/86IlFJ

Gagnon:

On your five lessons:

1. Coakley may have been a less than perfect candidate, but the fact is that she didn't even campaign. She assumed, having won the primary, that the seat was hers - and to be fair, the Mass Dems felt the same way. Add to that rumors of infighting between the Western Mass Dems, of which Coakley is one, and the Boston Machine, which did little to GOTV, and it was no surprise that she lost. The "populism" mantle that Brown assumed provided a marked contrast to the elitist gaffes that Coakley made.

2. Portraying your opponent as an extremist still works. Look at the recent Yes on 1 campaign here, or the Prop 8 campaign. Also the hyperbole of the Teabaggers, Glenn Beck, etc. still resonates amongst the GOP base.

3. Nationally, it's all about the economy. The stimulus was handled horribly, with the Dems not really understanding how to emulate the New Deal and there spineless caving to the GOP on tax cuts, which amounted to 40% of the bill. This comes on top of back-to-business-as-usual by the banks (aided by both Dems and GOP) giving the perception that the Federal government has sold out most Americans. As you know, it doesn't matter if this perception is true or not - it only needs to be believed. Since the Dems are in power, they will receive more of the blame - but the GOP is equally to blame, if not more so.

4. The ideological shift occurred in 2006, when the Dems reclaimed both houses. This shift was amongst the voters; unfortunately, they elected more center-right members of Congress, not leftists nor even center-left members. Unlike the GOP, which goes to some length to whip-up the right wing of their party, the Dems do everything possible to squelch the left wing. Look at who wasn't invited to the first discussions about health insurance reform - any proponent of a single payer system.

5. The health insurance bill is horrendous, on this we can agree.