Believe what you like, Richard. but assuming it’s true, don’t you think it remarkable that no other outlet with any level of established credibility has reported it either? Thanks for saying it’s just your “belief”, though - that’s a major step that several other posters have been unable to make.
Harborwolf, if the time *ever * arrives when you’re willing to responsibly address the underlying claim yourself, as Richard has done, I’ll be happy to see the evidence you can offer to support it. Show some good faith here first.
cricetus, you could simply acknowledge that you took a cheap shot instead of pretending to be serious here. But, since you insist, which of Hillary’s actions is (A) factually-based and (B) fits the description you jumped on?
No, it doesn’t strike me as particularly remarkable. A lot of the stories this campaign season that have come out of a single campaign staffer breaking discipline have come from a single media outlet. That’s the nature of an unintentional leak.
I also think its plausible that Clinton herself never said to her staff that they ought to plan to lobby pledged delegates. But I don’t think it is plausible that the some part of the campaign organization never planned to do so. And I think that still reflects upon her leadership and the kind of campaign she is running.
On the contrary, I think that’s the accepted definition of “clout.”. The term was coined to refer to the first Mayor Daley’s special brand of corruption here in Chicago. And I personally believe the old adage that power corrupts…Hillary’s not much different from any other politician, she just has more opportunity to take advantage.
Why should I address the underlying claim when I (at this point) have no opinion of it either way? Again, you’ve made a claim about the cite that was offered. I, having zero experience with the cite in question, am interested in your proof as to any potential bias the cite may contain. You imply the cite is less than credible. How so?
As for other media outlets picking it up, there have been other stories today (Castro resigns, Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries, missing white woman or something like it). Mayhap the other more reputable sources are simply busy.
I admit that I can’t think of any recent Hillary action is factually based, but her negative ads and mischaracterization of Obama’s statements and positions (on health care, for example) and accusing him of plagiarism (which she knew was a stretch) and saying he has run on “words” (as if he’s ever said, “vote for me! I talk good!”) are very GOP-like in their paucity of truth and good character. Hers and Bill’s snideness and even some of their actual quotes remind me of Bush 41 vs. Clinton… and right now McCain is lagging behind Hillary in very spirited attacks on the Democratic front runner. Shoe fits.
Why should anyone address your opinion of claims doubting it, then? Sheesh.
Double sheesh.
Richard, what other examples are you thinking of? Ones that have turned out to actually have had some substance, that is? I do admit I’m disappointed in your professed standard of determining a claim’s plausibility.
Like I said, it’s the nature of campaign staffers speaking without necessary discipline. They let something slip to a single reporter and then the campaign denies it.
I don’t recall whether it was on Olbermann or NBC Nightly News (I was bouncing back and forth), but Tim Russert made the same point (that is, about going after pledged delegates). That is, that the person (Roger Simon?) making the claim was a “trusted, respectable” journalist and that saying he was fabricating the story was an extraordinary claim.
He then went on to say that it was likely that the Clinton camp was “testing the negative waters” with different tactics to see if any would work (or not work, as the case may be). Furthermore, he said that it sounded like a tactic that Ickes would attempt (and associated some others in the Clinton camp with other things that might be their tactics).
Note that all of the above is speculation; not only that, but it’s all just Tim Russert’s individual speculation. Take that for what it’s worth, which may be nothing.
That is the *opposite * of “the candidate is planning to (do whatever it is)”, as the claim in question has it.
You’ve chosen to believe something essentially because it fits the pattern of other things you’ve chosen to believe. But at least you’ve acknowledged that that’s what’s happened. DG, I’ve even heard Robert Novak called a “trusted, respectable journalist”. That’s just a code term used by Beltway-bubble media types for “one of us club members”. But thanks for the thought.
I suppose to try to convince me that you are correct. You could also gain some brownie points by doing what you accuse other people of not doing and backing up your claims. Just a thought. It is looking more and more like you cannot back up your claims and are simply handwaving away any arguments that you disagree with. Are you aware of the forum that you are in?
It’s not the opposite. It just isn’t conclusive about the candidate’s intentions. If we waited until we got it from the candidate’s mouth, we would rarely be able to comment on what a campaign plans to do.
This isn’t unique, of course. Every time you believe the media over denials of a campaign you’re making a judgment based on the credibility of each. Short of some secret papers being released, our only evidence of intention is testimony.
I’m at work, but just glancing at the news it looks like CNN has declared Obama the winner in Hawaii. Thats 10 wins a row for Obama right now. I seriously would like to know what the Clinton Staff is thinking right now…other than “Oh, crap!”.
More important, Obama’s winning about half of Clinton’s supposed base demographics. They split the women’s vote, right down the middle. Ditto white Democrats. Obama won voters earning <$50,000/year. Unless she manages to reverse this turn of events, there’s literally no way she can win convincingly, anywhere.
The argument of Hillary’s spinners over the past couple of weeks has been that when they’re fighting over the votes of bread-and-butter Democrats in big states, she’ll show her stuff. Now it’s clear that, barring massive public fuckup by Obama, the best she can apparently hope for in TX, OH, and PA is to eke out some narrow wins that will still leave her behind in delegates and votes.
If she can’t win both TX and OH, and win one of them by at least 10 points, the Dem bigfoots (bigfeet?) will lean heavily on her to concede after March 4. A pair of narrow victories, or even worse for her, a split, is the end of the line. And it’s hard to see how she’s gonna win big in either place. Survey USA has her Ohio lead down to 52-43 already, and it’ll almost certainly close further as Obama spends more time there.
