Ken, I could be mistaken, but didn't Mrs. Bill Clinton fold a large amount of money into this quarter that she had actually raised earlier?  If true, that would do two things:

1) show her to be weak against Obama's fund raising, which should make her VERY nervous

2) lower the cumlative Democrat take

Obama raising 25 million basically means the fat cats see a possible stooge to be used, just like Clinton.  Is anyone going to try to tell me that most of his contributions were less than a $100 each???  Dollar amounts don't ultimately mean popular support when your getting $2500 or so from each contributor.  This is the strength of the Repub Party fundraising system, most contributions are less than a $100 each which translates into many voters not just a few fat cats.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

If The Politico and anonymous republican insiders are implying the conservatives/republicans should raise a white flag..the race is over because of moolah...golly gee..they really need to get a life...wake up smell the coffee, roses, reality anything!

What simpletons!

We have a looong way to go and the race is on!

You silly little pretentious twits!

I do not believe that there is all that much to worry about here.  HRC and BHO are both going to burn thru lots of that cash trying to sink each other.  I think that it is more than likely that the Democrat donors might run into "donation fatigue" long before the actual election.

This is a long race.  HRC and BHO started way earlier in the cycle than anyone else ever has.  My view is not that they have gotten an early start, but that they have given themselves another lap to run before the actual start of the race itself.  The finish line is still in November, 2008.  That is a long way off.  Particularly considering today's short-attention-span society.

I think that there is a huge risk of fatigue in getting such an early start.  It is entirely possible that everyone currently on the charts as front runners on both sides will not be there at this time next year.  They are going to burn out their donors, their volunteers, their staffs and themselves, trying to run a 24-month campaign.

I think that the Republicans should not get so caught up in trying to match up against the current Dem frontrunners, and should focus instead on finding the right person to bring some real leadership and drive back into the party.

You don't seem to be contesting the thrust of the article, but you say this is liberally biased because Cummings did not point out that Republicans, according to historical trend, are up against it in this election cycle, or that conservatives are unhappy with all the candidates.

It's liberally biased because she didn't point out two things that are bad for Republicans?

That makes no sense.

Isn't it way early for the candidates of the party of the incumbent to be able to reason much from such numbers. 

That is, aren't their campaigns more dependent on Bush's continued success than on whether their fundraising matches those that have a serious hill to climb just to prove some executive talent? 

Republicans may need much less money because they will be the party that managed spreading our freedoms and human rights without fauling our economy.  

Hollywood money just likes acting ability possibly, and who now has the most of such?

I'm puzzled by the tone of the referenced article.  When GOP fundraising is high, then it's just a foregone conclusion that it's dirty money, acquired through loopholes, rich fatcats, what-have-you.  Then follows a discussion on why campaign financing needs to be reformed.  An entirely different spin is in place when a democrat is (seemingly) ahead.  At this point, the system apparently works.

If you use the 2004 election as any sort of reference, then what you see is that the Democratic party spends more on elections than Republican candidates.  I don't remember the exact ratio, but if anyone knows, I would be interested.

If I collect more money and live in Boston, then it is the same as making less money and living in Omaha.  This is the perspective the media fails to see, because they never experience anyone outside of their high society liberal friends. 

They simply cannot imagine winning an election without huge war chests and big cat donors.  I think Republican candidates get more support from the middle America fly over zone which results in lower campaign costs.