... when I decided to put my money where my mouth is.

Donations in both parties are setting records and it's because of the incredible failures of the Bush administration.

Secondly the fact that for the first time in history there was a woman candidate for president of course has alot to do with it. Half the population did not suddenly become enlightened and feel "inspired", give me a break. Your Obama bias is showing yet again.

There is an article today from Politico entitled "Bill Clinton, still not helping the cause". I'm sorry if helping the country is not as important to you than promoting your own agenda. There world is made up of all kinds of people, not just liberal democrats. Bill Clinton has done far more to help people around the world than Obama has done to help people in Chicago. I know you want the Clintons to win the election for Obama but the fact that Obama cannot win the election on his own speaks volumes in regard to how truly unqualified and inexperienced he is to be president.

I attribute the large increase in women donations to the shift in funding strategies prompted by Howard Dean's primary run in 2004. By tapping into the party base for small donors, Dean inevitably increased his haul from women voters. Since Dean's internet donor strategy has been adopted by all major players it is likely that donor participation of women will remain high.

I am one of the women who has donated to a political campaign for the first time this year. I have so far give (and I'm not done yet) over $200, to both Clinton (earlier in the year) and to Obama (more recently, and via a link on his site that said "Welcome Clinton Supporters" just to send the additional data that I formerly supported her, because I get tired of hearing from various media that I'm angry and bitter). The reason I decided to donate this year is not only, as the article states, because I was so excited about Clinton's bid and how well she was doing, but MAINLY because of information that I learned about here in Broadsheet, when someone wrote about an study that found women and their views may be underrepresented in politics because women don't donate to political campaigns nearly as much as men do. I admit I had never before thought of donating to a political campaign in that way before, but now I think of it as a very smart investment in my future and the future of the nation, and especially the futures and well-being of those who don't have enough money to invest for themselves.

And people thought of the internet as a realm where men would flourish more than women--because the internet is (was) for nerds, and most nerds are men, etc.

Starting with Dean, and now spectacularly so with Obama, the Internet has made donations much easier to make. And the idea of building a grassroots community via social networking in campaign sites also helped astronomically. In general, the impact of the information now available to anyone with an internet connection has been overwhelming. I'll mention only le_chat_rose above, who was convinced that more women contributing would lead to more attention to women's issues by something she read on Broadsheet--an online site.

Nothing in the original article suggest any necessary Obama bias, sonofloud. I think you're letting the fact we know Ms Price supports Obama go too far now.

Of course Ms Clinton helped. And of course the internet helped, and the idea that becoming more visible by making donations as a means to attract interest to women's issues also helped. But note that donations by women went up even to the Republicans, and even before Ms Palin became a factor--so more women were giving more money to a campaign that only sported McCain, and that when nobody would have predicted the VP candidate would be a woman, than ever before.

I, for one, don't think the Clintons can win an election for Obama; as the primaries made clear, the Clintons did not win the election. If Hillary were the candidate, we'd now be flooded will all kinds of accusations from the McCain campaign about her past. And frankly, her experience is questionable; you don't think the pastor's wife is good at baptizing just because she's the pastor's wife. I still have absolutely no idea of how good Ms Clinton would be in dealing with the world's leaders, in foreign policy, or in dealing with the economy.

I wished people would some day write a wish list for presidents. What are the specific qualifications that would make you say, this person has the necessary experience? What kind of experience must a candidate have before s/he can run for president without "inexperience" being shouted against him/her? What is your list, sonofloud? (And please don't repeat a list of Ms Clinton's qualifications; I want to have a general list! Was Abraham Lincoln qualified to be a president? Was Eisenhower? Was Kennedy? And why? Who was in your opinion the most qualified president in American history? And why? Etc. etc. etc.)