Dollars for Dems from Hillary Clinton

from this thread =

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/legacyseeking_bush_calls_for_m.html

John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", does his usual whining and avoidance of reality.

[quote}
But clearly you and John E are two people with a very unhealthy and unnatural obsession and fixation over me. Give it a rest!
[/quote]

Another 24 hours have passed, and John D STILL REFUSES to be man enough to step up and answer the challenge. Since he's incapable of going through "ancient" threads, I'll remind him of the singular point of the debate:

"The challenge still stands weeks later. You claim that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does. You've provided NO PROOF of this. Saying that "he's rich, Bush is rich, they pay a lot for their suits, etc. etc." doesn't provide any EVIDENCE to your statement, with you posted AS IF it were FACT, when in reality it was JUST YOUR OPINION.

Now, either post proof for your allegation or admit in public that you posted an opinion that you tried to masquerade as fact. And got caught doing so."

What's your problem John D? Why can't you back up your alleged "fact"? You've have more than enough time to research it. Why do you keep avoiding providing proof?

My only "obsession" with you is you stating an opinion as if it was a known fact and your refusal to substantiate it. Since you claim to be a "journalist" and an "editor" of several magazines, I'm sure that whenever you presented a story to a REAL editor, one that asked you, "Are you sure about these facts"? To which you reply, "Of course! Trust me!" And the editor goes "Well, then, that's good enough for me." Only in a fantasy world.

Provide real proof or admit that you've been caught trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

It's still that simple.

more on fund raising:

"Beneath those broad numbers lies harder evidence suggesting a Democratic financial tsunami is building.

The total number of donors who gave more than $200 in the first six months of this year to Democrats was 137,388 compared to 81,075 givers to Republicans, the Campaign Finance Institute study found.

If history serves as a guide, many of those primary donors will be inherited by the party nominee next year, much as Democrat Howard Dean’s Internet activists stuck with nominee John F. Kerry in 2004.

“The Democratic nominee will begin with an unprecedented fundraising base and will be able to draw on the unprecedented fundraising bases of other Democrats. That will make for a very powerful force,” said Anthony Corrado, a political fundraising expert who serves on the Campaign Finance Institute’s board."

source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6014.html

Hillary knows how money buys people. Look who's buying her. No wonder she's the queen of the small screen. She has Rupert Murcoch on her side. She has so many corporate cats in her digs. She'll do what she's gotta.
Obama has a strong movement working from the ground up. And what a joke it is to compare experience to Clinton to him. I implore people to examine the last twenty five years of their lives. Objectively Obama emerges the clear leader. Look for yourselves.

I hope Norman Hsu co-signs her checks.
That way, we'll know there's real money in the account. Oh, that's right. They can only use a pencil or crayon in prison.