I think this is quite mistaken. There were big differences in how the campaigns (and presumably the candidates) thought about and used technology. These differences were visible at every level, from policies right down to the format of URLs. (Edit: the article itself makes this clear - who was courting Silicon Valley thought leaders at the start of his campaign, long before the money rolled in?)

As for the idea that one campaign didn't have overwhelmingly broader support among youth, just more money... that sort of denial leads straight to the political wilderness.

The network was one of the ways Obama got the money. If it weren't for Obama's ability to encourage a large number of people to donate money to him over and over again, Clinton would have crushed him in the primaries.

(As the article makes clear, the money isn't the only reason Obama skillfully used the Web, but all that community-building stuff had the happy side effect of providing additional fundraising channels.)

Considering that both candidates were on twitter and both made updates, but Obama just made way more, do you think that was entirely a function of money?

I don't know anyone who thought they were getting actual candidate tweets, but people buy extended warranties too. Especially after they get a crayola oblongata.

I think the approach does matter, and is one of the reasons there is such a big difference in fund raising in the first place.

> one of the reasons there is such a big difference in fund raising in the first place.

There wasn't "a difference in fund-raising". McCain, as promised, went with public financing. Obama broke his promise to do likewise and went private.