Somehow this all comes back to... money. What's best for business as usual. - Eric Monse

Neither one of them get my vote. Hillary has never admitted to a mistake for voting for the authorization and Obama is just a repub in JFK clothing as someone once said. The only rational candidate is Ron Paul. I am a moderate, registered Independent and since we don't have a third and even a forth party in this country which we so desperately need, he seems to be the only rational one I have heard. Maybe Richardson, but I think my vote will to go Paul. Obama and Clinton will just be more of the same. He is too arrogant and inexperienced and she has too many skeletons.

This data is presented much too simplistically. First both donation figures are a drop in the bucket compared to the money the campaigns have raised so far. Second, it needs to be stressed that employees, not the companies, are donating. As an employee of one of the five companies mentioned above, I take issue with several terms being used. First those corporations aren't simply "Arms Manufacturers." While parts of their companies make munitions, these companies primarily build aircraft, vehicles, reconnaissance systems, etc. In other cases they provide support, like I do, to military units and organizations here in the states. Secondly, don't confuse any of these companies with "private security contractors" that have literally been making billions out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don't think that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a gold mine for corporations listed above. The costly efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have only taken money out of contracts pay for the manufacture of all of their systems. Granted, probably all of these companies have contracts overseas supporting the wars.... but this is minor in comparison to their real business: Providing defense systems and support to the military here at home. Also these systems are procured according to the all mighty Program Objective Memorandum (POM). The POM is a long term (five year) plan that approves contracts and the systems that will be procured by the military. While a new POM is coming up, the old POM was in existence before the War in Iraq began. What's my point? These corporations are working on systems that have been in the planning stages for years...long before Barak Obama got his spotlight in 2004 and long before Hillary Clinton provided her support on the decision to go to war. So to say that Hillary's past decision record "would be good for business" is a little too out of touch with reality for my taste.

And the dollar amounts are disingenuous as well. Defense Contractors, many of them former military personnel themselves, are paid a lot more than the troops and have much more disposable income. Contractors are going to have more money to give. While it is interesting that Obama has received most of the Democratic financial support from the troops it is not hard to see why. The troops are stressed and wary and want to go home. Who can blame them? But a max donation is $2300. Are we talking about 60,000 people donating or 6000? There are approximately 2.7 million military personnel serving in both the active duty and reserve components. I'm not sure but each company mentioned above probably has over 100,000 people employed (I know at least three of them do). To say that Barak or Paul has overwhelming support from the troops or that Clinton has overwhelming support from the contractors is not accurate. They only have the support of those few who choose to donate. And I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of military personnel don't have the money to donate in the first place.

And don't forget that the modern military is still dominated by males and perhaps are not ready to face a female commander in chief. That last statement may sound like it's from the 1950's but tell me: How many top generals have you seen testify in front of congress are females? From my memory, only the female general officer who got in trouble over Abu Ghraib. So it is very much still a "man's military" out there today. That, I think, is a better indication of Clinton's apparent lack of support from the military.

Acinom, I understand your defensiveness, but you can't deny a direct connection between those companies' profits and the massive spike in defense spending tied primarily to the Iraq war:

Lockheed Martin, the nation’s top weapons manufacturer, reaped a 22 percent increase in profits, while rivals for the defense buck, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, increased profits by 62 percent and 22 percent, respectively.

My point was to illustrate the differences between the Obama and Clinton campaigns—his being more grassroots and hers corporate—and I wasn't attacking the defense industry. You make valid points about possible explanations for the correlation, but you have to admit that these donation patterns aren't randomly occurring. There's a reason the donations line up certain ways, and I'm willing to bet the donations coming from the defense contractors are in large sums from very high-level executives.