Cash is over-rated at the Presidential level.

truth

Well, he got another $50 from me.

I don't have alot to give but i gave my 15th or so contribution of $25 or less today.

I am finding that many of Clinton's donors were not aware of needing to donate more. Why? Who knows but I think you will start to see a change in her numbers.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/20142 /31513

I've got a lot of reasons for supporting Obama, and won't piss off the Hillaryites any further by reciting them all, but...

The Democratic Party needs to understand that a candidate like Obama doesn't come along every day.  Brilliant orator, mixed race, attractive personality, great biography, ability to inspire previously disenfranchised voters to the polls, great crossover appeal to Indes and Republicans, and tremendous fundraising capabilities.

Hillary has none of that. Zero, zilch.  She is a garden variety centrist Democrat, and we have a million of those already.  It doesn't matter if we agree with Obama on every tedious detail of health care policy.  The guy is a rare and extraordinary political miracle, and if we as a Party fail to recognize his gifts and maximize their value, then we deserve to keep suffering under GOP rule.  Let's get him elected, along with a tidal wave of Congressional seats, and then we will be in a favorable position to advance a progressive agenda.

This looks pretty decisive to me, not just because of the amount raised but because the Obama campaign has shown that they know how to use the money pretty well.

I really do think that it should occasion some soul searching about the meaning and future significance of this new people-powered fundraising model.  There is a tendency in the blogosphere to view this fundraising phenomenon as an unalloyed good - the triumph of the little guy over traditional interests.  I think its a bit more complex.  To me the amazing Obama numbers also suggest the disparities between broad electoral coalitions which, in aggregate, differ in their financial means.  

Obama's supporters are energized and passionate and his campaign should be credited for its fundraising innovations.  But let's call a spade a spade.  The median household income in America is about 35K, our net savings rate is negative, and the country is heading into a recession.  For most Americans, dropping a few hundred dollars on a political contribution actually means something right now.  So to pull off fundraising like this, you need a coalition that is not really a cross-section of America, but is weighted towards people with higher incomes and better earning potential.  If this kind of fundraising model becomes more dominant in the future, as seems likely, it is going to provide net benefits to candidates with similar coalitions.  I'm not sure that's particularly egalitarian.  The triumph of the little guy, seen in another perspective, may also be the triumph of the upper middle class over the working class.

For administration: is this size okay?

6 Million

Just went over 6 before 12:00 EST.

Obama's website says he's raised over $6 million since yesterday. Astonishing. http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribut e_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

These numbers are stunning. What's great is that they know what to do with this money. They won't waste it on blimps and cowbells. They'll organize to dominate the Maine, Nebraska and Washington caucuses. They'll organize to master the bizarre Texas combined caucus-primary. They'll fan out organizers all across New Orleans, Wisconsin and even Hawaii. And they'll spend a ton of money on advertising in DC, Richmond and Norfolk. They'll set up organizers throughout southern Virginia, Baltimore, northern Virginia, DC, suburban Maryland and Tidewater. They'll spend lots of money for advertising in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, and organize all throughout the state to compete with Ted Strickland and Rep. Tubbs-Jones.  They'll do a lot with all that money.

and from me

While I agree that Obama will outfundraise Clinton significantly this month, you should be careful to extrapolate numbers based on a small sampling.

You can see the large fluctations of money fund raising on http://RonPaulGraphs.com.

In particular, if you look at
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/daily_totals.ht ml
you should be aware that the scale is LOGRITHMIC not linear. Because some days they raised 6 million and some days much less (e.g. they only raised $21,000 four days before their $1.8 million on Martin Luther King day).

While Ron Paul's campaign promotes specific peak days, the effect of these promotions (there is at least one per week) is quite varied. Plus you can consider the day after a successful primary as a promotion day so I'm sure Obama's fundraising in January shows these kinds of peaks and valleys too (and they do have occasional campaign promotions).

One last note, while it's clear Obama will far out fundraise anyone else Obama still hasn't raised as much on a single day as Ron Paul has, so give the Paulites their due too.

And it would be nice to see Obama more clearly ACT on his words about openness, but simply publishing live numbers every minute, every day, like Ron Paul has been doing for 4 months, instead of only during brief, POLITICALLY TACTICAL periods that Obama has been doing.