http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060110/1052664.aspexcerpt:
Meanwhile, there's a critical difference between "directly" and "indirectly." What "indirectly" means is that many Democrats accepted funds from the Florida-based law-lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig, to which Abramoff once belonged. He "left" the firm when his questionable practices with Indian tribes were first reported. That Greenberg Traurig should give campaign funds to Democrats is far less surprising than that the firm would hire Abramoff in the first place. One of Greenberg Traurig's partners, after all, is Marvin Rosen, who was (cue ironic music here) Democratic National Committee finance chairman for Clinton-Gore in 1996.
See what I mean about the giant jigsaw? Or, to mix metaphors, webs don't get much more tangled than this, which may be why no one in the media has put it all together until now.
What's clear is that however the Republican Party tries to spin it, this is a huge deal, and it's primarily a huge Republican deal. It's also becoming increasingly clear that the ripple effects of Abramoff's corruption could alter the political landscape come the midterm elections and possibly far into the future.
As one Democratic insider said to me in December, just before the Abramoff plea story broke: "For Democrats, it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas."
...more at link...