She should just fire most of them like McCain and then she'll really rebound.  

Let me see if I read that correctly, Obama's raised 7 million  in 7 days (1.1 million a day) and we're still taking about Hillary? I mean, isn't this kind of money plus the ability to draw out game changing numbers in red states is getting pretty hard to make a rational argument against?

Arsonplus, you've got it wrong. He's raised $7 million in about 36 hours.

And Hil was sending out a fund raiser email asking to raise $3m in 3days, sad...

Which is to say, since the polls closed Tuesday, Obama is raising $185,000 an hour, all of it in small sums from ordinary voters. You also have to check a box on the donation form affirming that you are not a registered lobbyist, nor donating money on behalf of anyone else.

Probably ought to add a box for people to affirm that they're not doing business in Kazakhstan.

Great moment on public radio yesterday: On a panel discussion about the Democratic race, a caller from Boston said he couldn't decide between the candidates, so he voted for Hillary because his highest priority is reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington and he figured she was most likely to accomplish that. A moment of stunned silence followed. One panelist, I believe Anne Kornblut from the Post, finally said, "I'm afraid you probably chose wrong," and then went on to point out that Obama does not take lobbyist donations and sponsored the most recent law to reduce lobbyist influence, and that Hillary has taken more PAC and lobbyist money, particularly from big insurance and big energy, than any candidate from either party.

over 7 million as of 9:30 EST.  At this rate he cracks 30 mil in 6 days.

don't look now, but the number keeps on rising:

my.barackobama.com/.../graphic

Is it really true that BO has not taken money from lobbyists for his campaign?  I am a big Obama supporter.  But I guess I am still a tad cynical about the American political system.  So I have always assumed that when BO makes that claim he is defining "lobbyist" in some narrow legalistic way.

Does he really receive NO money -- directly or indirectly -- from lobbying organizations?

Of course, Ron Paul's supporters have also fetishized his fundraising prowess, too, and look what that's done for him against John McCain's will-govern-for-food campaign.

lucan, Obama requires his donors to certify that they are not registered lobbyists, and that they are not giving money on behalf of anyone else. He also does not accept money from PACs.

Hillary accepts donations from registered lobbyists and from PACs, and has received more industry and lobbyist money than any candidate in either party. On the three biggest issues of our time -- health care, the climate crisis, and the war -- Hillary has accepted more money from the insurance industry, from big energy, and from the defense and security industries, than any candidate from either party.

I stand corrected. But doesn't the correction puts the pin a lot deeper through my point (man I miss Dan Rather)?

$7.3 Mil

Even if Hillary hits her goal of $3 Mil in 3 days, won't this make that seem sad? And what if she doesn't hit her goal.

Is it just me or are these numbers freakin' mind-blowing? And not only are the Obama folks raising it, they seem to know how to spend it (unlike Paul or Dean before him). They're everywhere online, They're everywhere on the ground (If you asked for a red eye in New York on Tuesday, an Obama volunteer handed it to you).

Up until now, even though I was supporting Obama, I thought you could make an honest good of the party argument for Clinton - but between this and those caucus turnout numbers in Idaho, I'm starting to think its time for her to drop out - for the good of the party. I mean, he's obviously going to have longer coattails.  

maybe we should just auction off the presidency?

fundraising is not the same thing as voting. howm much did ron paul raise in 12 hours? it was something like six million dollars. howard dean also did well with internet fundraising. it does not translate into directly into votes. keep reading the polling averages instead.

Arsonplus makes a good point that I've raised before about coattails. There's just no question that Obama at the head of the ticket is far superior to Hillary at the top of the ticket. And, frankly, if they can't bring in more Democrats to the House and Senate, this talk of change is all talk. You need solid, working majorities.

I'm a wee bit concerned that a story line going forward is going to be the underdog, ganged up on, boo-hoo because I care so much and it just isn't fair angle.

BHLnyc makes a very important point. Here in Virginia, Obama has a chance to win the commonwealth's 13 electoral vote, and his candidacy likely helps Mark Warner win a Senate seat now held by a Republican. (Warner will probably poll ahead of any Democratic presidential candidate here.)

Hillary has no chance of winning Virginia, and her presence on the ballot could very well hurt the Warner campaign enough to cost him the Senate seat.

pccostello

We tend to disagree but you've never struck me as naive.This time however? How can you make the argument that well spent money doesn't matter in politics. Moreover, how can you argue that a campaign financed by PACS, lobbyist, bundlers and the candidate herself isn't auctioning off the presidency? I won't even go into the oddity of falling back on the reliability of polling given recent history.

Personally I like to look a big pictures, but if you were going to focus on one number, wouldn't it be new voter turnout?

I'm glad people are talking about the Congress part of the equation.  No matter who wins, it's a lot easier to get things done with a rock-solid majority--and given the historically fractious nature of Democrats, "rock-solid" should be defined as well beyond veto-proof numbers...

Obama's post-Super Tuesday fundraising haul is certainly impressive. But Hillary's--while not

Ugh - bring on publicly financed campaigns (right around the time pigs sprout wings, I realize).