It's been three weeks since our Money Face-Off feature ran here at BloggingStocks and on AOL, offering you the opportunity to share who you though had the financial edge in a series of twenty head-to-head match-ups. So I thought I'd take another look and see how things have worked out.

It's hard to pick just one big winner. In terms of the largest lead over a rival, Ivanka Trump easily beats Paris Hilton with 89% of the vote. Others holding big leads over their opponents include Tiger Woods, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, and Rupert Murdoch.

In terms of receiving the most votes, the clear leader is the Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart match-up, with just short of 150,000 votes. Other big vote getters were Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, Rudy Giuliani vs. Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs. In terms of the liveliest discussions in the comments, the winners are Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart, Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, and Bono vs. Angelina Jolie. Also check out the comments for the J.K. Rowling vs. J.R.R Tolkien, Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, and Ivanka Trump vs. Paris Hilton posts.

As for the face-off posts here that got the most attention, the clear winner is Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, with more than 13,000 hits. Lindsay Lohan vs. Britney Spears and Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart also attracted lots of readers.

Results for all the face-offs follow below, but keep in mind that the voting is still open. It's not too late to add your vote or let us know what you think.

It's been a week since our Money Face-Off posts ran here on BloggingStocks, and less than that since the Money Face-Offs were featured on the AOL welcome page, and the response has been terrific. Many of the face-off polls have had more than 50,000 votes, a couple of them approaching 100,000.

The biggest response came to the Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart match-up. So far, about 75 percent of respondents feel that Oprah is the more successful media magnate. Not that much surprise there, as Oprah's fans are legion. Interestingly, though, of the twenty-some comments the post has received, most of them are pro-Martha.

Another clear leader is Bill Gates over rival Steve Jobs. About three quarters of poll votes have gone his way, despite all the buzz recently about Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and the popularity of its products. Maybe readers are just happy that Gates is stepping down. Let us know what you think.

Alan Greenspan seems to be everywhere these days, promoting his new book, including Comedy Central's The Daily Show and NPR's Fresh Air. In our match-up of the current and former Fed chairs, Ben Bernanke vs. Alan Greenspan, more than 70 percent of respondents have voted for Greenspan. Comments to the post are mixed, but seem to me to focus on Greenspan, whether pro or con.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to slip into the world of the mega-famous? Right now I'm going to give you a chance to think about that. Imagine that you get to spend your days rubbing elbows with Hollywood's A-list elite. Now here's the angle, imagine that circumstances have caused you to be put in a serious dilemma, and you are now required to choose a female pop-star business partner. You have been given only two choices, either Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan. The choice is yours and there are multimillions of dollars now riding on your decision.

Since relocating to New York about a year ago, one of the more surprising realities I can't get over is the sheer ubiquity of celebrities -- they're simply everywhere! Walk through any subway train -- from an Inwood-bound A train to a Z train headed for JFK -- and you'll find those stars and starlets shining down on you. Lindsay! Britney! Paris! Lindsay! Brangelina! TomKat! Lindsay! All gloss and glory, beaming at you from the pages of the ever-present In Touch Weekly.

Power lunchers, design majors, single moms, goth queens -- even your own friends and families -- they're all reading these magazines. And don't think it's just women -- fellas are just more sly about it, brandishing blurbs about A-Rod's latest effort while sneaking peeks at Page Six.

Hey, I'm not making this up -- the Audit Bureau of Circulations confirms this celebrity fetish. Figures released yesterday show the gossip glossies are flying off the checkout stands.

OK! Weekly, put out by Britain's private Northern & Shell -- which also publishes some of London's sauciest fishwraps -- saw circulation bound 54% higher during the first half of the year, selling 809,000 copies per issue. Also reporting jumps in circulation were US Weekly (did you know it was founded by The New York Times (NYSE: NYT)? Thanks, Wikipedia!), In Touch Weekly and Life&Style, the latter two both owned by Germany's Bauer Publishing, Europe's largest private publisher. Alas, BloggingStocks' distant Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) relative, People, slipped 2%, though it remains proudly at the top of the heap, with more than 3.7 million copies of each issue sold.

Time, another corporate cousin, saw its genre-leading circulation drop by 700,000 -- apparently owing to its excision of promotional tie-ins that weren't pulling their weight and a redirection away from waiting room subscriptions. Circulation for newsweekly challengers and financial magazines stood pat, with the curious exception of the enigmatic London weekly, The Economist, which posted a 15.5% jump!

So what's on the uptick? Stoic, faceless financial analysis and paparazzi pap! Wrap your head around that.

Magazine sales in general held steady year over year, which is more than the Audit Bureau can say for the newspaper industry, unfortunately. Predictably, among the few major papers to post higher sales in the most recent newspapers report were the tabloid New York Daily News and its rival, The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp (NYSE: NWS), the new guardian of The Wall Street Journal.

Perhaps fearing Jessica Simpson pinups in Rupert's new plaything (Item!), fans of the Journal's gravitas are flocking to The Economist's stuffy pastures.

The Michael Vick dog chew toy is so brilliant in its simplicity that I am kicking myself for not having thought of it myself.

I mean, what better way is there for dogs and their owners to register their disgust over the dog-fighting allegations against the Atlanta Falcons quarterback. My hat's off to the anonymous entrepreneurs, who the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says are based in Jacksonville, Florida.

Apparently, the people behind the toy were going to donate the proceeds to the Jacksonville Humane Society but somehow that got messed up because of what the website describes as "squabbling over charitable donations." The toy's makers are promising to donate their proceeds anonymously. I've contacted the website and will let you know if I get a response.

The toy sells for $7.99 and is made out of "state-of-the-art dog material," whatever that means. It also promises to withstand "the most playful of dog destruction."

By the way, there's little if anything that Vick could do to stop the toy since it's satire and clearly doesn't imply his endorsement. The NFL star is learning what many celebrities, including Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan already know: Fame is a bitch.