I guess I get the point of this post. For sure those who back winners trumpet their associations with same. Dave Winer has been the Obama bandwagon for a little while, and if Obama wins some of that success will rub off on Dave. But just because some of the more visible bloggers (like David Weinberger) back losers (like that MD from New Hampshire or Vermont or wherever, and now the lawyer with the haircut), doesn't mean the snake oil doesn't work. The data we should be looking at is campaign contributions via web based fund raising efforts. Has it been going up? I'll bet it has, and while the social networking, word of mouth, viral memetics bullshit remains no more effective than newspaper editorials (and in fact probably less), that fund raising function is steadily improving. I think. I wonder where we'd find the data?

Ah, but the proposition roughly "Lots of money can be raised over the Internet" is very different from people-powered The Revolution you-yes-you It's A New Era blah blah blah. And if the supposed gurus ended up with the weakest performing major candidate, that puts a very low limit on their power.