The article makes the point that Obama is in trouble because of money that Obama has in his campaign account.
The article doesn’t mention the free advertising that the MSM provides, advertising by unions, Soros backed groups and our “educators”. Not to mention the campaign travelling that Obama does under the guise of presidential business (funded by taxpayer money).
I wouldn’t get too comfortable about Romney’s good month of raising revenue.
This is all true, and should provide a degree of caution in keeping score.
I take a great deal of comfort, however, in the fact that business, in general, is not donating to Obama. For business, especially when a Democrat is in the White House, it's never been about ideology. A great majority of business donations are PROTECTION MONEY-meaning that they are asking for the favor of having their business or their industry spared from egregious legislation. The other major motivation for business to "give" to Democrats is to curry favor. This is, of course, always a "bet", a gamble on whether or not the candidate you are attempting to "purchase" will win or not.
It's pretty obvious now that most, though not all, donations from the private sector are betting on an Obama defeat in Nov., IMHO. It absolutely astounded me that Bill Clinton got so much from business when he was running for a second term, even though the private sector was under threat from his policies at that time. It doesn't seem to be happening this time.
It also strongly makes the point that a cornered RAT is a dangerous RAT and I absolutely agree!