On the walk over, I listened to parts one and two of Christopher Lydon’s interview of Joe Trippi. As I listened something occurred to me about the significance of money in the Dean campaign. While the campaign is proud of its ability to match big donor funding with lots of little contributions, many in the weblog community are critical of the need for big money at all. The Internet is cheaper than television and in many ways better than television. Why raise lots of money on the Internet, only to spend it on TV advertising? But there’s another angle to consider: the donor’s. Contributions provide a way of keeping score that’s hard to fake. Rapid feedback on each contribution, that enables the little guys to see themselves matching big donor contributions, is empowering. That empowerment is an important part of the story, regardless of what the money is spent on. Personally, I’d prefer more wallet-friendly forms of empowerment, or at least to see the money spent on something other than TV advertising. Say, our national debt.