I can raise more money, (and spend it), better than you can.

In today's New York Times, (front page), two writers attempt to pose the short-failings of John McCain's fund raising capabilities. Some how raising more money, (and spending it faster than it comes in), shows "Presidential" qualities:

McCain Faces Test in Wooing Elite Donors

By MICHAEL LUO and GRIFF PALMER
Published: March 31, 2008

With attention focused on the Democrats’ infighting for the presidential nomination, Senator John McCain is pressing ahead to the general election but has yet to sign up one critical constituency: the big-money people who powered the Bush fund-raising machine.

Poor fund-raising nearly forced Mr. McCain from the race last summer, but it began to improve after his candidacy gathered momentum in January, helping him bring in almost $12 million that month. But he brought in slightly less in February, about $11 million, according to the latest filings to the Federal Election Commission.

In comparison, on the Democratic side, Senator Barack Obama raised $55 million in February and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton collected $36 million. As of the end of February, Mr. McCain had collected about $60 million in contributions over all, while Mr. Obama has raised the most of any candidate with nearly $200 million.............LINK

The New York Times thinks "elite money" is what makes for a good President. But who could be surprised at this articles intention, coming from the "queen of elite-grayed lady". What the Times (timely) does is release this story before more positive fund raising figures are released for March, which will show McCain gaining financial support from the various party fundraisers that have been reserved up till now. While the Times points out the huge difference between McCain and his Democratic foes, they also fail to mention how much money is left in Obama’s or Clintons coffers. It should also be pointed out that if these two can spend the vast amounts of millions of other Democratic “supporters” money ravaging each other, what would either one of them do with a fragile national treasury, (if elected). One has to wonder how much money will be left available when the Democratic candidates "sort out" who will lead their party into the general election, and how much will be left to draw from the same "wells" they have drained during the elimination process.