And it also helps you win elections.
This New York Times piece examines the just released campaign finance report by the Clinton camp, and it looks like the Clinton campaign simply did not have the financial parity to compete with the Obama campaign.
A telling statistic: Obama outspent Clinton by $4 million from Jan. 5th to Feb. 5th on political advertisements, which translated into 3,000 more advertisements for his campaign.
And beneath Obama’s talk of changing Washington and reducing the effect of money in politics, the reality is that he spent $2.8 million dollars on political consulting.
This is why I can never understand the criticism leveled against Clinton to the effect that she’s too poll-driven. Well, guess what, everyone who is running for office is poll-driven: that is a necessity of the game.
People tend to forget the on the ground, day to day logistics of running a campaign, and for better or worse, that aspect of the election is almost entirely dependent on money.
So let me offer a plausible, if prosaic explanation for why Obama has a leg up on Clinton right now: he has more money than she does.