Earlier this week, I wondered whether the punditocracy would turn the race for dollars into a proxy for a race for votes. The Hill obliged:

The story of the money numbers has nothing to do with shortage or want. Rather, it is about domination. Clinton's financial surge, overtaking Obama as the Iowa and New Hampshire contests draw near, is significant because it shows people putting their money on one horse rather than the other.

Donors have seen Obama failing to narrow Clinton's lead despite his charisma and widespread appeal, and they are placing their bets accordingly. A million here, a million there, and you're talking about serious money.

This line of reasoning would be persuasive if the difference between the two was not such a small proportion of their overall hauls for the quarter. There was a $3 million difference between the two in terms of dollars to be used for the primary. But this is a $3 million difference on basically $20 million. This means that Clinton raised 15.8% more than Obama in Q3.

And from this the editors of the The Hill can claim that the difference "shows people putting their money on one horse rather than the other." You have got to be kidding me. This is insanity. This is "Beltway think" completely unmoored by how campaigns are really fought and won.

What entertains me about the editorial is that it rightly notes that Obama's money communicates to all: "I'm still here and strong; you'd be a fool to write me off." But because Clinton raised $3 million more, The Hill's editors essentially decide to write him off, anyway. They go on to state: "Having been put in the shade by Obama's fundraising in the first two quarters, Clinton came out with a crushing number that underscores the perspicacity of the recent punditry." So, I guess it's: Screw you and your $20 mil, Barack. Clinton raised $23! She "dominates"!

Dominates what, I am not exactly sure. But whatever it is, she's dominating the heck out of it!!