Deflect, deflect, deflect. It’s always the diners and never the food.
What forum do you think you’re in here? :mad:
If you’d bothered to go read *what was already said * instead of joining Shayna in taking exuberant cheap shots, you’d have noticed a discussion of exactly that. “Nuanced arguments” *don’t matter * against the GOP hate machine (Kerry can tell you all about that). The soundbite attacks Obama will get from McCain *will * have to be countered. We haven’t seen yet how he’ll do that. THAT is the point.
Clear now? :dubious: Gawdamighty. :rolleyes:
Care to explain? Or is it that, for you, Clinton’s depravity etc. is a simple given, and any attempt to explore the facts behind it and the reasons others have for declining to do so is therefore “deflection”? If you think that’s an argument, you’re welcome to cling to it.
Perhaps not, if you are equating “She has clout” to “She’s playing dirty politics (and he’s not).” Which you have.
That is indeed an unconventional understanding of how politics works.
That deserves a sticky, so no one else gets caught in the same trap of using the nonpreferred synonyms.
You haven’t offered an argument unless I missed it in “Might as well cite the Drudge Report.” If you care to argue the cite is biased, feel free to do some research to back up your claim. Otherwise your little comment as well as the assumption that something is being believed simply because it reflects poorly on Hillary are worthless.
No one has offered a cite for that story other than Politico.com, have you noticed?
Yet several posters accept it as fact. That is who’s making the claim about the Clinton campaign, and upon whom the burden of proof rests. Are you one of those persons?
Not really. I’m also not at all familiar with Politico.com, so your weak claim of biased cite falls on deaf ears as well. Put some meat on the bone of an argument and you may have something. You’ve also made a claim and have your own burden of proof.
I will say that after Hillary’s attempts at seating MI and FL delegates despite her own party saying that they wouldn’t be does lend a certain pattern of behavior to the claim of her attempting to influence already pledged delegates. I’m entirely convinced, but I can’t rule out the behavior either.
NO. That was never the point, until post #367, when you tried (unsuccessfully) to change the point.
I notice you once again skipped right on over my detailed, cite-specific post that proved where your argument started, and how you’ve continually avoided responding to specifics throughout this entire thread.
Do everyone here a favor and knock it off.
Back to the fork in Hillary’s side: Projected winner in Wisconsin, Barack Obama 54% to 45% (website “live” - numbers subject to change).
My remark has less to do with this particular story – which I have only seen on that Politico site and in a “The Clinton campaign denies…” format, and will take with a grain of salt – and more to do with your comment suggesting that Clinton’s critics just act out of premeditated hate. I myself liked Clinton going into this campaign, but she has behaved questionably – going negative, harping on what she knows are minor points, trying to seat the MI and FL delegates, etc. – and I think it’s disgusting the way her supporters assume all criticism is just part of some “vast anti-Hillary conspiracy” or Moonie-like Obama fans as opposed to people who just feel protective of the Democratic party being sullied by an ugly primary. The slanders on Obama and his supporters have been very unsporting.
If you don’t even know who Politico is, you’re on shaky ground telling anyone else about its credibility, ya know, pal?
Yep. One of the things most commonly said about Bill whenever the latest “rumor” got spread by the RW hate media was “Well, that’s the kind of thing that always gets said about him, so this one is probably true too”. Same thing here.
Indeed, which is why I haven’t made any such claims. You have. Care to back them up? After all, you are the person who’s making the claim about the credibility of Politico, and upon whom the burden of proof rests. Ya know, pal?
Hillary’s learned a lot of strategy from those days, apparently.
Deflect, deflect, deflect. :rolleyes:
Wrong again. I never said “just”, or implied that it’s *all * of Clinton’s critics, as your wording suggests I did. Please at least give some nodding respect to factuality, won’t you?
Now:
There are genuine, thoughtful, fair-minded reasons available for being either for Obama or against Clinton, which is NOT the same thing. There just aren’t many being presented by you.
There are genuine, thoughtful, fair-minded reasons to be for Clinton or against Obama, which also are not the same thing. There just aren’t any that you have acknowledged could even theoretically exist.
Did you miss the part about the claim for the Clinton campaign’s conduct? Who has a responsibility to back it up? Somebody who *does * have a basic familiarity with the only offered source, perhaps?
Sheesh. :rolleyes:
A *factual * cite that that’s what she’s doing? :dubious:
Shayna, you’ve been told what the point is. If you wish to argue something else instead, well, go have fun.
Cite? Go to CNN.com or pretty much any news site that covers the campaign. Hillary’s behavior is well documented.
Cite? Go to CNN.com or pretty much any news site that covers the campaign. Hillary’s behavior is well documented.
No. I didn’t
Sounds great, but that’s not really what we’re talking about.
I’ll repeat. You attempted to dismiss the claim and the cite by making your own claim of cite bias. As of yet, you’ve failed to back up your claim. Now…
Did you miss your own post about the veracity of the offered cite? Who has the reponsibility to back it up?
Yes yes. This all must be very frustrating for you.
Let’s be clear, this wouldn’t be a case of partisan spin, it would be a case of Roger Simon lying outright. So our options are to believe a Roger Simon is outright lying, or the Clinton camp doesn’t want to admit to dirty tactics. I have my belief, but I’d like to see your defense of yours.