Interesting that many feel that the safest way to assess the standings of hopefuls in the US nomination battle is by the money they amass. Hence one article argues the Obama is making significant progress because he has 'opened 250,000 wallets gaining 339,000 donations'. The article informs readers that: "So far this quarter, Obama aides say $20 million would thrill them, the Edwards' camp says its shooting for $9 million, and Clinton aides say she will be in the $27 million range"; will this correlate with the result one wonders. To put the figures into perspective "Howard Dean built a reputation for unprecedented grass-roots support when 70,000 people contributed about $10.5 million in the first two quarters of 2003". Is this an indication that people want a candidate to have the best campaign money can buy, or that in modern America you not only have to vote for your preferred candidate but also buy them. One wonders what happens when the sponsors feel let down by their candidate if elected, and how they communicate this; maybe Facebook or MySpace in the future will see messages that read "I donated $XXXX, but I don't agree with YYYY, but because of that $XXXX you have to listen I do what I say" and how many "any me's" will there be.
On a less serious note see the 'Race for the White House' board game; only in America?