Barack Obama has more money than Hillary Clinton and is likely to bring in more of it. The money advantage has proved insufficient to Mitt Romney but has benefitted him greatly and will benefit Obama greatly. Obama will run more ads than Clinton, which will bring in still more money. News stories will happily avoid any mention of substantive issues by covering Obama's money raising. He will have the option to avoid debates or engage in them, while Clinton grovels before the likes of Fox News in hopes of generating free coverage, and is forced to put her own money into the campaign from a reserve that is much smaller than John and Theresa Kerry's bank accounts. Internet activists are going to identify ever more strongly with Obama, because so much of his money is being raised online.
As the Phoenix <a href="http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid48290.aspx ">points out</a>:
In terms of policy positions, both Clinton and Obama are acceptable to the corporate media, whereas John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich clearly were not. In personal terms, many members of the media find Clinton as unlikable as do so many citizens on the right and the left. Enough talking heads with access to the airwaves will take enough glee in Clinton's loss of the lead to enlarge that loss significantly.
As Obama's lead becomes apparent, many more people will vote for him because they moronically like backing the winner and always choose to vote for whoever least needs their votes. The same is true of additional campaign contributions: as they become less necessary, they will flow in all the faster, funding Obama's general election campaign against John McCain. And as people look ahead to that general election they will pay closer attention to the polls showing that Clinton would lose to McCain whereas Obama would beat him.
One of the reasons Obama swamped Clinton on Tuesday in caucus states is that well organized activists make a bigger difference in caucuses than in primaries. But Obama is better organized at the grassroots level all across the country and will be better able to turn out large numbers at the primaries and caucuses yet to be held. Already Obama has won more states and more delegates, and trails only in super-delegates - which are of course some of the least dependable people on the planet and perfectly willing to jump on a different band wagon when they start to sniff the wind direction.
While the left is reaching a consensus that Obama is the lesser of the remaining evils, the right has always been there and views Clinton as evil incarnate. While recovering racists view Obama votes as therapy, sexists show little hope of recovering. As bad news from Iraq forces the occupation to the top of the agenda again, those who want peace oppose Clinton as the worst of the Democrats and McCain as the worst of them all, but those who cheer for war will do nothing to help Clinton or McCain, being for the most part obsessed with their hatred of McCain's insufficient cruelty to gays, women, and immigrants.
There are several good reasons why Obama may have done better in caucuses than in primaries on Tuesday. He was better organized, and he focused on those states. But caucuses are also completely transparent. The results are completely credible. Obama took Kansas 74 to 26, Idaho 79 to 17, Colorado 67 to 32, and North Dakota 61 to 37.
Clinton Won the New Mexico primary by 217 votes, but 17,000 voters were forced to vote on "provisional ballots" which won't be counted unless Obama fights for it. Were he to fight for it, it might reassure voters that he will fight to have their votes counted in November as well.