Now that the protracted "Primerry" Season has mercifully been put out of its misery, it is easy to see why Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton hands down. He out-raised her, he outspent her, and in the end, he ousted her. As it turns out, the best barometer of an election is fund-raising, even more accurate than Tarot cards, astrological charts, or reading the political tea leaves.

As a point of actual historical fact, in every presidential election since Cain slew Abel in a landslide, the candidate who raised the most money invariably won the general election. Not just once. Not just some of the time. Not just most of the time. But every single solitary time. In every case in the presidential record book, money was not just the predictor, it was the decider, across the board. Contrary to general opinion, the race is not so much a popularity contest as it is a monetary contest.

Indeed, it is laughable to watch the political pundits on election night, standing in front of their megawatt display wall that puts a strain on the power grid, agonizing over the results of the exit polls, when any home "schooler" with a two dollar abacus could add up the "financials" and deliver the verdict before the voting booths have even opened. All anyone really needed to know in order to prognosticate the long-winded 2000 "election" was that "Dubya's" corporate sponsors anted up more plastic than Al Gore's grass rooters.

Since we already have the best government that money can buy, why not end the charade of even holding an election? Cut out the middle man entirely and just auction off the White House to the highest bidder. Whoever raises the most money gets the brass ring and takes home all the marbles. Then, instead of squandering the campaign funds on obnoxious television ads that insult our intelligence, the candidates could donate the money to some worthy cause, such as food shelves, homeless shelters, or health care.

Now, THAT would be a change we could believe in.