And we say what to these headlines?

Obama enjoys 10-1 financial edge over Romney -- CNN

Obama, DNC amass $240 million campaign war chest -- USA TODAY

Obama enjoys 10-1 financial edge over Romney -- FOX NEWS

Reports: Obama's war chest dwarfs Romney's -- Newsday

Obama fills campaign war chest in Chicago -- AlterNet

Analysts predict Obama -- who raised a record $750 million ahead of the 2008 election -- will build a war chest of $1 billion this time around.

Scott Walker won with lots and lots of money, most of it from people outside of his state.  They won, they are smug about it and they are imagining this victory foreshadows a much brighter future than the bleak landscape they were ignoring yesterday. 

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

SCOTT WALKER WON THE FIRST TIME!  I think thats forgotten.  Yes he had to spend money to make sure he kept his position the second time.  All you democrats blame it on the money but the money wouldnt have to be spent if yall just shut up and accept defeat.  always excuses.  Im sure scott walker would of much rather spent the 30+ million he had to spend on something more benificial to the state, but he couldnt because of the democrats. 

democrats=reality distortion.

We do.

Brujo, gdudewe, martinA and WG - the white Al Sharptons of NSR.

Two things that are significant in the recall attempt:

•  Of the three Governors in the history of the U.S. ever up for recall, Scott Walker is the first to retain office. See Wikipedia.

• A majority of the voters in Wisconsin are fiscally conservative and chose this issue as an opportunity to speak with their vote instead of their mouths. Had the unions and public sector workers not been so greedy, perhaps the decision would've been different. Still, the voters are the taxpayers, and the taxpayers obviously thought that the public sector union workers were getting too much of a good deal in bad times, a good deal that the taxpayers were funding.

There is a third issue at play here, and that is that renegotiating public sector union workers' benefits is very much a coming reality nationwide. It is much too early to forecast, but stay tuned for states like California and New Jersey to consider the Wisconsin standard.

Added:

Obama outspent McCain with the help of many, many small donations. Thanks to the Citizens United decision Walker got way more money from a handful of HUGE donations. The rich and corporations won.

Old and Slow can be stylish if you eliminate the jerky part

It doesn't matter how he won as long as it was legal... and it was.  The people spoke, privatization won and big govt. lost.  It may take many people in the U.S. a while, but most of them know what's best for our country.  Still, many in the U.S. don't know what's best.        

Glad you agree that President Obama is different from other politicians. You know as well as I do that if you tell a big enough lie, loud enough and often enough you can get people to believe it. It worked for Bush/Cheney to start the second gulf war and it worked for walker. In fact thats the whole Repug campaign strategy. Thats why letting corporations be people and letting superpacs advertise is wrong. It wasn't the people speaking but big money. Interesting that they have so much money to elect "their' man but not a penny extra for teachers, nurses ect.

Old and Slow can be stylish if you eliminate the jerky part

all3...he won the first time.  If yall just shut up and accepted defeat the superpacs wouldnt of needed to pull out the big bucks.   

btw.....that was 30+ million that left the hands of the rich and went into the economy.  So your mad the rich helped stimulate the economy?  Im excited to get almost 2 billion from the presidential election thrown into the economy.

Michael McConnell: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett got millions in support from unions, whose contributions were legitimized by the Supreme Court.

By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL

In the wake of Wisconsin's recall election, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and other commentators disappointed with the result are not blaming the electorate or the apparent success and popularity of Gov. Scott Walker's reforms. Instead, they are singling out the Supreme Court's 2010 campaign-finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as the reason for Mr. Walker's 7-1 spending advantage.

Citizens United held that associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates for public office.

In a sense, Citizens United did have an important effect on the Wisconsin election. But the effect was almost exactly the opposite of what many pundits imply.

Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the NEA (National Education Association), the nation's largest teachers union, spent at least $1 million. Its smaller union rival, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers), spent an additional $350,000. Two other unions, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, which has more than one million government workers) and Afscme (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), spent another $2 million. Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United.

By contrast, the large spenders on behalf of Mr. Walker were mostly individuals. According to the Center for Public Integrity, these included Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin's wealthiest businesswoman, who spent over half a million dollars on his behalf; Bob J. Perry, a Texas home builder, who spent almost half a million; and well-known political contributors such as casino operator Sheldon Adelson and former Amway CEO Dick DeVos, who kicked in a quarter-million dollars each. Businessman David Koch gave $1 million to the Republic Governors Association, which spent $4 million on the Wisconsin race.

I have seen no published reports of any corporate expenditures on behalf of Mr. Walker, though presumably the $500,000 Chamber of Commerce contribution to the Republican Governors Association fund came largely from corporate sources. Several groups also ran issue ads that presumably benefited Mr. Walker; these groups are not required to disclose their donors and may have received corporate contributions. Corporations and unions could run issue ads before Citizens United, as long as they did not clearly refer to a candidate.

For the most part, though, Mr. Walker's direct, big-ticket support came from sources that have been lawful for decades.

His opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, got his support primarily from labor unions, whose participation was legitimized by Citizens United. Without that decision so demonized by the political left, Mr. Barrett would have been at even more of a financial disadvantage.

Speaking generally, Citizens United is likely to benefit Democrats more than Republicans. Corporations rarely make independent expenditures during candidate elections in their own name, because the ads offend customers, workers and shareholders. And direct corporate contributions to candidates tend to be split more or less evenly between the two parties, largely neutralizing their effect.

But unions have no compunctions against running campaign ads, and almost all of their money goes to Democrats. The Republicans' advantage, when they have one, comes from rich individual donors—and the right of individuals to make expenditures in support of candidates long predates Citizens United.

This is not to say that our complex and counterproductive campaign-finance laws do not need reform. It is just to point out that the Supreme Court's much-maligned and misunderstood decision in Citizens United was not the cause of Scott Walker's financial advantage. It helped his Democratic opponent.

Mr. McConnell, a former federal judge, is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

WSJ