tell you what son, if you truly, truly believe this, i have shares for sale in the brooklyn bridge, below par, for you.

sen. obama's biggest problem, his insurmountable hurdle, should he be the dem. nominee in the GE, is that when all is said and done, he'll still be sen. obama.

with FL (but not MI or caucuses):  Obama +146,773, +0.4%
with FL (but not MI) and IA, NV, ME, WA (caucuses): Obama +256,995, +0.7%

with FL and MI: Clinton +181,536, +0.5%
with FL and MI, and with IA, NV, ME, WA (caucuses): Clinton +71,314, +0.2%

The delegate count was and is the method chosen and agreed to by all candidates at the outset to represent the will of the Democratic party and to decide the nominee.

The only reason an attempt is made at this point to change the metric (from delegates to the popular vote) is because one campaign is behind and is desperately flailing to come up with a way to persuade the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to not go with the winner of the majority of pledged delegates. Which somehow isn't working - superdelegates are still trending towards Obama.

I also think it would be great if the nominee would be decided by a more ideal representation of the popular vote, which is how you'd find me responding to that poll as well.

But given where we are in this process at this time, the simple fact of the matter is that the popular vote is only of limited relevance, namely in how the superdelegates take it on board. And (1) right now they're not, they're still trending towards Obama, presumably because they think he is more electable (what other reason would they have?), and (2) they don't fall for semi-dishonest arguments like "let all the voices be heard" mixed with "let's disenfranchise 240,000 MI voters" and "let's discard 4 caucus states".

This isn't about who has more money. This is about who is better able to manage the money.

It's both, of course. And raising more money, especially from private citizens (including poor people, as you noted) to such an astonishing degree, is also a sign of an excellent campaign.

And keep in mind that Clinton's campaign isn't exactly known for wise fiscal management, even going back to her Senate re-election.

"Obama spent $11 million in PA to lose by ten points, outspent Clinton 2-to-1 to lose WV by 41 points. Who's managing their money more wisely? For me, I'd want to see big wins with that kind of spending."

That would make sense if you're assuming they're starting from the same position, but both PA and WV were very strong demographically for Clinton. You can call it "getting more out of every dollar spent", though of course she had a built-in advantage in the demographics that was there for the taking.

It's hard to deny that Obama has built up a very effective and impressive organization across the country, and that this will be useful in the general election as well. One thing to keep in mind is the large number of small donations, meaning that these are not maxed-out donors going into the general election. Someone who gave $50 in February could give $50 again in September.

"I'm one of the lower-income people who will be paying off her campaign debt, and I consider it money well invested in a candidate and a cause I believe in."

Good to know you don't have a problem with your money going straight into the Clinton bank account. I'm sure the other $94 million they've got in there is a little lonely.

That didn't work, and believe me, Clinton doesn't need to stoop that low.

Afterall wasn't it ObamaCamp that demanded that the Clintons release their Tax Records? Which btw was totally insulting, but it did prove that they are not hard up for cash.

I'm actually surprised how you don't harp on her for lending her campaign money from her on pocket! To me that shows she has a personal commitment and is willing to put "her money were her mouth is", but I'm sure some will consider that "cheating".