It only takes one generous American to break the fund-raising barrier. If the US were a true democracy it would sharply limit donations from indiviudals and companies, and provide a certain amnount of government funding to candidates.

Emma Hawhtorne, Ottawa, CAN

I agree with Ms Hawthorne. In fact, nearly all Americans agree with her. It is a self-perpetuating problem that is at the root of all our failing policies. A bigger more ideologically charged question can be asked: Is democracy intended to serve capitalism? or Is capitalism intended to serve democracy?

Michael , DC/Baltimore, US

RE: Emma

Government funding for presidential hopefuls would never strengthen a democracy. In what warped definition would limiting a persons donations create a "true democracy"? Less government interference should always be predominate.

William Griswold, Seattle, WA USA

$32.5 million huh? You know, I'm sure i could come up with some much better uses that i could put 32 million dollars to then campaigning to become president. Feeding and sheltering the homeless, adopting a kid in a third world country, supporting your local charity. These are things you could do now. Once you are president you'll have to sit through committees, ride around in your billion dollar jet, your thousand dollar limo, and eat at pricey restaurants.

It just seems wrong to me that the person that wins the presidency isn't going to be the one with the best policies, or the one with the best ability, it's the one who can raise the most money and convince the most people whether he is the best or not.

Spikeles, Cairns, Australia

There is no other way to put it: not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligaton on those who measure national polls are performance indicator: we need to figure out why the "national" frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor.

National Polls in the US at this stage of the campaign do not mean much. The other factor that may show you why Obama is doing much better than Hillary is the number of donors. 258,000 is simply unprecedented. If Hillary and Bill Clinton combined can not beat the unknown Sen. Obama, it tells you that Obama is ahead of the game one million times. It is important to note that most people use their cell phones and not the land-line phones these polls are based on.

I am in agreement with David Plouffe, "national polls at this stage are meaningless.” Donors are meaningful!

Amos Ajo, Atlanta, USA

I agree with Ms Hawthorne. In fact, I think nearly all Americans agree with her. It is a self-perpetuating problem that is at the root of all of our failing policies. A bigger more ideologically charged question can be asked: Is democracy intended to serve capitalism? or Is capitalism intended to serve democracy?

Michael, DC/Baltimore, US

The big question still remains unanswered: Who "made"
Obama into a national figure? He was just one of thousands of local elected officials in America and had only seven years experience in office when he was tapped to give the prestigeous keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Even before his speech, he was being heralded as a potential presidential candidate in 2008. So, who IS the kingmaker behind Obama?

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California

Being an American, I agree with Ms Hawthorne of Ottawa. That being said, there have been attempts to legislate public financing, and to limit private and corp. financing (see McCain/Feingold). Unfortunately, there are loopholes as big as rhinos to get around these limits. Apparently, once one gets into Congress the pressure of the Green(backs) from lobbyists is tremendous and even the well intentioned succumb. My only wish now is that some freshman Senator or Representative (maybe Peter Welch, my Vermont Rep.) will take the bull by the horns and seek stricter limits with harsher penalties to curb this insanity.

Kevin P. Downey, Wilmington, Vermont, USA

the polling cannot be a measure anymore unless they figure out how to update the system. Polling is done on landlines. The majority of people now have broadband or cells. and more people are not home much.
They cannot get a really accurate number.
Plus the Obama campaign is attracting scores of moderate republicans and independents. He is also getting first time voters. These are all people who would not be polled.
The amount of people donating is a better gauge on how the campaign is doing and his numbers are huge.
As for the debates.
the people voted for Obama but the msm never gave that out. Hillary is the one lacking substance. or policy. She gives easy applause lines and that is how our remedial press scores the debates. Her experience is borrowed from her husband's resume.
When the press begins to tell how we feel and not spin for Hillary on the debates, the scoring would be different.
But, they are bought by the Clintons.

d. lake, machesney park, IL, USA

Obama's ability to raise money is likely tied to grass roots concern that Mrs. Clinton is not electable in a nationwide contest. She will, however, be hard to beat in the primaries. If she can convince him to do it, Obama will make a good vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election. It's not yet his time.

Mike, Knoxville, TN

It only takes one generous American to break the fund-raising barrier. If the US were a true democracy it would sharply limit donations from indiviudals and companies, and provide a certain amnount of government funding to candidates.

Emma Hawhtorne, Ottawa, CAN