He was going to have an uphill battle raising the amount of money needed against some of these bigger names so whoever anonymous was succeeded in planting a seed that grew into an enormous killer oak tree.

Like you, I really don’t care who anonymous ends up being, whatever their motivation it doesn’t change the end result of what happened. It’d be nice to think we lived in a world where qualifications mattered most, but we don’t. Until more people start demanding quality, who you know and your ability to raise money will be considered more of a priority from a political party standpoint.

I’m a huge believer in the space between. People should have more faith in it.

I probably haven’t been following politics long enough so maybe that’s why I can’t think of anyone in particular, but sure – I would imagine that there might be some candidates whom the official party structures would put lower down on the totem pole, depending on how many core issues they were copacetic on. For example, Judge O’Neill I believe is pro-life. I believe – but I’m not 100% sure – I seem to recall that from his prior run but I should be corrected if I’m wrong.

Now – once he got the nomination, the party was behind him, no one on the Dems. side smeared him etc and since he wasn’t taking money, that was never an issue. Might it be this year?

I just don’t see that, Scott. He is such an able person in every other way.

So – I’d prefer you offer up some examples of a candidate being forced to withdraw as a Democratic candidate because he or she could not raise money due to his or her beliefs.

I think he could have raised money as an openly gay candidate, but didn’t think it through, or his heart wasn’t in making the race. The gay community itself could have been a fundraising target, and easily was reachable through the Internet. Over and over in recent years, it has been demonstrated that interest groups will give, and give big, via the Web if they feel they have a stake in a political contest. Additionally, I believe Tim Brown could possibly have become a figure of some import in the ongoing national debate about rights, equality and sexual orientation if he had entered the contest for OH-05. His race would not have been a dull as dishwater NW Ohio contest conducted in near obscurity.

I just don’t believe that race, religion, gender or sexual orientation should immediately disqualify, or self-disqualify, a person from seeking office.

Jill, I’m not saying Tim Brown would be the winner, or should be the winner of an election for Congress. Just saying that people would have paid attention, perhaps been riveted, and maybe a barrier would fall. The reaction to his candidacy might have been akin to what happened in OH-02 when Paul Hackett ran in the 2005 special election. Suddenly, everyone seemed to take notice. This time it would have occurred much quicker than it did in 2005.