It's pretty funny to watch the media twist itself around to recast the Conventional Wisdom so it can keep putting out negative stories about Democrats. It's like it's their job or something.

The headline yesterday from Ron Fournier of the AP is: Dean Lacks Money in the Bank

Howard Dean lags behind his top Democratic presidential rivals in a key category: Money in the bank.

...Dean is the only candidate airing TV ads - $300,000 worth in Iowa - and he invested thousands of dollars to build an Internet-driven grass-roots operation. Those expenses and others, including a growing campaign staff in Burlington, Vt., leave Dean with more than $6 million cash on hand and fourth overall, aides said Monday.

So, let me see if I've got this straight.

• In early June, Dean was not widely considered a 'top-tier' candidate. The CW was, "Yeah, he's got people interested on the Internet, but he'll have to be able to run TV ads to compete."
  
  
• Dean spends money on TV ads. CW="Dean's daring, but he'd better get more money so he can keep this up."
  
  
• Dean surprises everyone by raising $7.5 million for the second quarter. CW="Stunning upset victory for Dean, but he can't possibly keep this up. Besides, his supporters don't actually know his real positions."
  
  
• Dean's expenses land him fourth in cash-on-hand. CW="Since Dean is not ahead by every measure, the supposed 'frontrunner' now 'lags'."

What a difference a month makes.

There's a simple explanation for the Dean cash-on-hand numbers: that in order to get enough recognition to raise his campaign's profile so successfully, he had to spend significant chunks of money. Duh.

The headline could just as easily be: "Dems sit on funds while Dean builds buzz, base". Sure it's selective; so's the original.