In terms of powerful interests, I will say little more than:

1. The amount of money these interests have will not be rivaled by donations from lots of individual supporters.
2. Not all money is created the same. That is, some money is more powerful.
3. There’s a lot more to it than just money.

At the end of the day, don’t forget that the President of the United States is not the most powerful man in the world. He’s just a figurehead. The real shots are called elsewhere.

Michael: even if Web 2.0 propelled Obama’s win, the question would be: so what? If Obama wins the presidency, do people really expect that it’s going to change how Washington operates?

If Web 2.0 propelled his win I think there is an argument that says it not only makes it possible to raise money from lots of individuals, it makes it viable. Moreover, if Web 2.0 provides a cheaper way to reach people then it further lowers the bar to entry.

Anybody with an iota of common sense knows that when a politician is elected, no matter how much he or she wants to represent “the people,” he or she has to answer to more powerful interests than the American public.

Isn’t what makes the powerful interests powerful the amounts of money they contribute? If the Web 2.0 levels that playing field doesn’t it, even within the constructs of your argument, change the power balance and result in politicians who not only are more representative, but more responsive, too?