My feeling is that neither Clinton nor Obama would get us out anytime soon.

But either one of them would get us out before McCain would.

Wow! I write a lengthy comment in response to your diary, that tries to put this issue in context.  You respond with belligerence and completely ignore the substance of my comment.

Just because I didn't agree with your line of Obama bashing, doesn't mean that my comment is not germane to your diary.  You accuse me of not responding to the substance of your diary when that is exactly what you did; you ignored my comment.

Do you deny that Obama has revealed his bundlers?

Do you deny that most of his money has come in increments of less than $200?

Do you deny that Obama has revolutionized online fundraising?

Do you deny that this success means Obama will be owe no one anything if he is elected?

Do you deny that he has a lot to teach other Dems?

Do you deny that he will have an ability to intimidate Republicans because of his grass-roots fundraising prowess?

The problem is that your diary is just repeating unproven talking points. You want to talk about bundling donors; fine. Obama has released full information about bundled contributions; has Clinton?

Here's the most telling statistic: The Democratic Take

Only 10 percent of Clinton contributors did not donate the legal maximum $2,300 for her primary campaign. In contrast, only three percent of Obama donors gave the maximum. The rest of the cash came from small sums from many more people.

That's an amazing disparity. I suppose you can make the argument that Obama's bundlers have cleverly used smaller-dollar contributions, but you'd need something resembling evidence, not year-old hit pieces, to make that claim.

In rough numbers, Obama's raised $200M from 2,000,000 donors. That's an average of $100/donor. It'd be very hard for bundling to have had any noticeable impact on that. The sheer volume of small individual donors swamps out lobbyist money.

On the other hand, how much of Clinton's donations have been from busboys who somehow have $2,300 to donate to a Presidential candidate? We know it's not a small number.

Yes, she's done better at small-donor donations recently. She pretty much had to -- her large donors have hit the legal limit and something had to give. It would've been hard to do worse.

In terms of being beholden to high-ticket donors and lobbyists, there's simply no comparison here. When 90% of your funding comes from maxed-out donors (and yes, it's dropped some since that article -- maybe it's 85% now) that's a lot of beholden. No one who's given Barack the average $100 donation is going to feel like they've got much claim on him, by comparison.

Pretty much the very best you can possibly claim to have proven is that Obama's hands are just a teeny little bit dirty -- but by comparison to Clinton it'd be a few little mud splatters compared to plunging your hands in the mud.

That's all this type do Mike. Yap yap yap, like the hounds they are.

Exactly, Mike.  He IS the great bamboozler.

Nice substantive response.

Try facts and analysis as opposed to name calling.