Hayes is way more cynical than your squib let on: "Those of us who shelled out the money, likewise were purchasing some small part of the hype and fame—some minor morsel of celebrity for ourselves."

As one of the quarter-million Obama contributors, I say: BS! If I want some small part of the hype and fame, I'll buy Paris Hilton's perfume. If I want a Democratic Party nominee who doesn't have 60% of independents who, right now, say they would never vote for that candidate, and who isn't a trial lawyer to his core (many other lawyers are allergic to that type), then I want Obama to win, and, obviously, contributing helps (mother's milk and all)--assuming that his campaign can spend contributions effectively. That sort of calculation, I would submit, has very little to do with buying into my very own little piece of a celebrity's culture.

which demonstrates, in part, that the online left is a very different universe from Democrats who are online

Heh?

Edwards has more supporters among the netroots than Obama. He has been winning online straw polls.

I think people are overlooking the money Obama has raised from Wall Street types. His money isn't coming all from online donors. He has lots of hedge fund managers contributing big money to his campaign.

For a candidate who is billing himself as "transformational" the fact that he's surrounded himself with insiders like Bill Burton and Robert Rubin tells me Obama is not all he says he is. I'm still solidly cynical about him.

Obama could still fade or burnout and all the money in the world won't help that.

A relatively small part of Obama's 1Q raised came from the internet. We'll see how much that number has grown for 2Q.

As Jerome Armstrong noted over at MyDD, "it's Obama's strategy of having paid events has been the boon needed to skyrocket his donor numbers."

So how many of those people who contributed $15-20 are die-hard Obama supporters vs. people who just contributed?

Another way to put this is that the population of "netroots activists" or "active DailyKos users" is a rather small subset of "Democrats who know how to donate money through the internet". This was true even back in the days of Howard Dean. Such netroots activists sometimes forget that they are do not constitute either the entire Democratic party, or even the part that knows how to use computers.

the online left is a very different universe from Democrats who are online

Yes! I get this. Many, many more Democrats are on-line than blog, or comment on blogs. These are the lurkers, but more often those e-mailing, checking out scores, the weather--only going on-line to get a specific task done.

I think too much is being made both of Obama's large number of donors (Washington is th only place where people are surprised when politicians are actually liked), and his online take - they're both very nice, but as someone else points out, he's raking in money all over the place, including big money donors who aren't just contributing a spare $50 to be nice. That said, Edwards is clearly not getting it done, whether it's with big money players or grassroots, I can't say, but frankly I think it's really both, and it's why his main role seems to be spoiling Obama's chance to take out Hillary Clinton. The other thing that worries me is that Edwards supporters also seem the most diehard, and the most likely to be bitterly disappointed, and use that to be turned off by Democrats in 2008. I hope I'm missing something, but that's how it looks to me right now.

"It’s an identity statement, and a desire to be a part of something. When you pay that money, you become part of the Obama Phenomenon."
I agree with Wendell: this is a load of crap. If I contribute to a campaign, it's because I want the candidate to win. My contribution helps. I don't make "identity statements." When Ezra Klein writes a blog post that is favorable toward John Edwards on, say, health care, is it because he wants to be part of the Edwards Phenomenon, or because, based on his knowledge in the area, Klein thinks Edwards has a good idea? Don't be patronizing: give donors the same credit I would hope you would give yourselves.

I'm one of those donors and I do give to show support and do something for the campaign.
I am a believer in all those things you are not. Because I know what Obama can actually do since I live in Illinois.
But, there was an indepth interview on TVone tonight and probably the most substantive one of Obama yet. No fluffy questions and silly stuff. These are questions from viewers and real people. I suggest you check it out.

It is outrageous the way people in the media equate money with success. Obama is loser in every way except for raising money from affluent people.

Hillary is trouncing Obama in the polls and that is what counts.. There is no support for Obama among mainstream democrats. The people giving to Obama are out of touch with the base.
Obama was pulling close to Hillary until the debates where she has outshone and performed him.
Democrats are not going to support Obama who if nominated would lose all 50 states.This is because he is inexperienced, black with Muslim ties -belongs to an Afrocentric church lead by a militant black lead name Jeremiah Wright. Money helps but it does not make you a winner. Obama is a loser and he will not do as well as Jessie Jackson did in 1984 who won 5 primaries. Obama will be lucky if he wins one primary-South Carolina.Hillary can rest easy because she is the overwhelming frontrunner-

"he is inexperienced, black with Muslim ties -belongs to an Afrocentric church lead by a militant black lead name Jeremiah Wright."

You are a fucking racist.

And I don't believe for a nonasecond that you acutally support Hillary Clinton, Karl.