There are several inaccuracies here that need to be corrected.
1. I didn’t write the Feder press release on her 4th quarter fundraising, so I’m not sure why you’re talking about how I “spin” things. Also, she’s the one who raised the money, all I did was promote her on the blogs.
2. I’m not sure how you figure that Judy’s fundraising fell. Here are the actual numbers for 2007:
2nd quarter - $111K
3rd quarter - $223K
4th quarter - $241K
That sure looks like an increase to me, no spin required whatsoever.
3. I didn’t write “almost $250,000.00″ — that was Tim Craig in the Washington Post (I linked to his article and blockquoted from it).
4. Obviously, Judy’s outstanding fundraising success doesn’t mean that she still isn’t an underdog to entrenched incumbent Frank Wolf. Having said that, why on earth wouldn’t we celebrate great news for our candidate and take it as an optimistic sign for the future? What’s “spin” about that?
5. The point about Wolf “running scared” is that his own fundraising appeals are sounding rather panicky. Don’t take my word for it, check them out for yourself. Oh, and if Frank Wolf wants to believe that he’s totally safe in his seat, that’s fine with me — just sit back, relax, and we’ll see what happens! :)
6. I’ve said this a million times, but I’ll keep saying it: I strongly backed Judy Feder in 2006 when I wasn’t being paid a penny. I strongly backed Judy Feder during the first half of 2007 when I wasn’t being paid a penny. And now, I continue to strongly back Judy Feder, the only difference is that I’m being paid for my blogging assistance. Could it be that I simply dislike Frank Wolf and strongly believe that Judy Feder would make a superb Congresswoman for the 10th district? Or is that too straightforward in the ever-suspicious world of politics? :)
The bottom line is that we don't need any "spin" to demonstrate why Frank Wolf needs to be replaced by Judy Feder. Simply look at Wolf's votes, look at Judy's qualifications, and make up your own mind.
P.S. For Bwana's most reasonable response, see here.