Money. Clinton and Obama money. Where it comes from.

It appears that the very moment Hillary Clinton seems to be ahead, new money flows to Barack Obama. 

Does this translate into "the money's on Barack"?  Maybe. Salon's Alex Koppelman reports that the Obama campaign has accumulated a record amount:  $32,000,000.  "This total includes contributions from 170,000 new donors."  Or under $200 per donor, according to the official Prairie Weather low-battery calculator.  Koppelman writes:

The Trail, a Post blog, says Obama campaign manager David Plouffe claims that the campaign's single biggest fundraising day came the day after Obama's surprise loss to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.

Jeff Zeleny writes at the New York Times' "The Caucus":

Since Mr. Obama began his presidential bid a year ago, the campaign has signed up 650,000 contributors, many of whom are contributing far below the $2,300 maximum limit and are able to donate again and again.

[Wait!  Does that mean if each contributor antes up the full $2,300, then Obama will have almost $1.5 billion?]

Meanwhile, the Clintons seem to have a fool-proof  money system.  That is, they have what appears to be a good-cop/bad-cop marital arrangement that we're foolish enough to give a pass to.  It kind of looks as though she does the politically correct thing while he does the politically incorrect thing which nets them millions. 

Or so the New York Times article on the contributions to Bill Clinton's foundation makes it seem.  Bill Clinton, thanks to his political savvy, has made out like a bandit.  For example, Bill Clinton gives the autocratic leader of Kazakhstan a big ol' bear hug.  The autocratic leader of Kazakhstan okays a very, very lucrative deal which enriches a friend of Bill's.  FOB then rewards the Clinton foundation with $31,000,000 -- with a promise of much, much more.  Which rewards the Clintons in general.  The Senator Mrs. Clinton does the "right thing" and condemns Kazakhstan's human rights record.  Everyone goes away happy.  Did we get that right?  If so, then we'd say the Clintons are right up there with the Bush League.

(Bill Clinton also helped Dubai set up the ports deal that Senator Clinton helped to end.  The Times doesn't say whether Dubai had already contributed, in the meantime, to the Clinton Foundation.)

Ken Silverstein wrote a fascinating (and controversial) article about his experience as an investigative reporter, acting as public relations flack for Turkmenistan, in the murky precincts of K Street.  He writes:

...One cannot help but notice how many of the countries that flout “the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” seem to have negotiated themselves significant support from the U.S. government, whether military assistance (Egypt, Colombia), development aid (Azerbaijan, Nigeria), expanded trade opportunities (Angola, Cameroon), or official Washington visits for their leaders (Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan). The granting of favorable concessions to dictatorial regimes is a practice hardly limited to the current administration: Bill Clinton came into office having said that China’s access to American markets should be tied to improved human rights—specifically its willingness to “recognize the legitimacy of those kids that were carrying the Statue of Liberty” at Tiananmen Square—but left having helped Beijing attain its long-cherished goal of Permanent Most Favored Nation trade status. ...