You’re overlooking the point you raised yourself about such statements coming from *undisciplined * staffers.
Note that it’s been several days now and there is still no corroboration of any sort from any other source. Yes, assessments of credibility are subjective, but even subjective judgments have to be reasonable and reasonably fair to be credible. So far that ain’t workin’ out so good, huh?
No, the only evidence of intention is actions. What have there been so far? Harborwolf, when you’re ready to be serious, let me know.
How so? They are undisciplined for leaking plans that are clearly detrimental to the campaign.
Why should there be corroboration? According to the theory under which I was proceeding, an undisciplined staffer revealed some half-formed plans. The campaign now denies them. What kind of corroboration would you expect?
That’s absurd. What actions could be evidence of future plans to sway the delegates at the convention?
Harborwolf, when you’re ready to be serious, let me know.
[/QUOTE]
Or, more often, for thinking they’re closer to the center of power, and more influential, than they are. Or they just want other people to think they are (Staffers are pols in a way too, of course). That leads to big talk, to audiences they wish to impress, intended to sound like leaks of actual information. Washington is full of leaks, we all know that, but it’s even fuller of egos and lies.
But such big talk is all well worth massive discounting, or simply ignoring altogether.
Because of the credibility issue with it, which, after all, is what we’re discussing here. Or I was, anyway.
None. What I expect is for reasonable people to dismiss the statement. If it has any truth to it, the predicted actions will follow. If they don’t, one who had chosen to believe it anyway risks looking both foolish and meanspirited.
If she actually tries to convince pledged delegates to change, that will be evidence of intention to do so. If she doesn’t, it’s all a house of cards at best.
What’s absurd about that? How else can you assess what someone intends to do other than by what they *actually * do?
Your position is that we ought not criticize any plans until they take place. That’s one way of ensuring that you don’t ever mis-criticize anyone. But I disagree. Sometimes the leaks are accurate, and the campaign changes its mind because of the negative reaction they see to the leak. Indeed, some leaks are floated for that very purpose. The idea that we should never judge campaigns for abandoned intentions is noble of you, but I think it’s ultimately overly deferential.
But I think reasonable people can disagree on that. Your use of it to paint me as unreasonable, on the other hand, is entirely without support.
You’ve failed to offer a single reason why Politico.com shouldn’t be trusted. Your position is that they are totally lying. Not a little biased, or only telling one side, but outright lying about what her aid said. You’ve backed that up with nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Your only argument has been that leaks mean nothing about a candidate’s intentions. And now, when you’re called on that position (we can’t criticize any potential actions because only actions are evidence of intention), you resort to…what…sarcasm? Color me unpersuaded. Far from presenting a case that I’m being unreasonable, you’ve done exactly the opposite.
That you’re taking a substantial risk with your position. Scroll up a few posts for the fuller explanation already given.
Except that, as I’ve reminded you repeatedly :rolleyes: , nobody else is backing this up. Nobody.
What *other * “news” sources do you also believe absolutely and unquestioningly, without exception, and why?
I won’t speak for ElvisL1ves, but I agree with his position. Do I think that the author of the politico.com story is lying? <shrug> I dunno. I’m not going to accuse him of lying, but that doesn’t mean that I should completely buy his story without further proof.
The information was provided to only 1 person, in only 1 organization. It was provided by an anonymous source. We have no other information about this, other than “it’s possible”.
I don’t see what’s so unreasonable about being skeptical of that.
Why, thank you! Our marriage was a beautiful thing until the kids came along. Now, we’re just hoping to get each other through it!
Hillary is many things, not all of them bad (I’d put a smiley here, but I’ve already overdone it above), but gracious is not the first word I would use to describe her.
And, what the hell, in a way I can’t blame her. She’s been working on this nomination for a long, long, long time, and has put up with a lot of shit to get this far (thanks, Bill!) If she goes down scratching & clawing, I can kind of understand why.
Note that you still offer absolutely no evidence to doubt Politico.com. What other news sources do I believe aren’t outright lying? A lot. Really, most of the mainstream ones. Other than Fox News, I can only think of a handful of examples of outright lying in the media of late.
But I’m not even saying I *absolutely *believe they aren’t outright lying. I’m saying I believe it *conditionally *because there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise. I already explained that leaks often hit only one source. Indeed, I cited another example of that happening in this very primary. That’s not evidence for disbelief. If the story was totally inconsistent with what we knew about Clinton’s strategies, that would be evidence for disbelief. But, of course, that’s not true. She wants to seat MI, where her opponent wasn’t on the ballot, for example.
Nothing at all is unreasonable about being skeptical of it. I have already said in this thread that I thought it was plausible that this wasn’t a Clinton strategy. I further said that Elvis’ position was reasonable. What I’m defending is that reasonable people can believe the story.
You could be right, but it depends on what you consider “reasonable” information, right?
For example:
In the first story described by the writer in ElvisL1ves link, the politico author made his erroneous claim based on information received from “an Edwards friend”.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to rely on sources like this. It becomes somewhat reasonable if you have multiple sources backing the claim, and even more reasonable if the source is actually identified. Otherwise, it’s the exact substance that rumors are made of.
Been serious from the start, but it seems a bit late in the game now to rehash that particular discussion. Just struck me as odd of you to demand cites throughout this thread and get somewhat evasive when one is requested of you.
On preview, you finally posted a cite. Honestly I couldn’t be prouder. Politico may or may not be biased, but they sure seem sloppy and/or inventive with their reporting. This casts doubt on the accuracy of their story with regards to Hillary attempting to sway commited delegates.
Right. But the point is that they didn’t invent out of whole cloth the discussion with the source. In that case, the source was wrong. It happens. That’s why I acknowledge that it’s plausible that the source was just wrong about Clinton’s intentions. But that’s a far cry from arguing either a) that the source existed at all is an outright lie or b) because some sources are wrong, we can never believe a single source.
It’s also worth noting that the rest of the MM article is pretty thin. Anyone following this primary is aware of the rumors of Richardson’s womanizing and is aware of the Obama/AIPAC controversy. Those discussions are not at all limited to Politico.com.
I heard yesterday a person from the Clinton campaign saying that a defeat in Ohio and Texas would not be an insurmountable loss for Clinton. Reading between the lines, I see this as an admission that the Clinton campaign is, at best, trying to lower expectations to the point where a win in those states will seem like a bigger victory. But more likely is that they’re worried that Obama will win in one or both states.
Realistically, Clinton needs Ohio and Texas to have any chance of regaining her lost lead. If Obama takes either state, Clinton’s chances are almost hopeless.
And yet there was no corroboration for that from anybody else either, was there?
Everybody got your Ironymeters turned on?
No, but they are traceable back to it, aren’t they? That rag gets handed out free, and widely, in DC, and reaches a helluva lot of people.
That’s a symptom of the disease (well, one of the diseases) that infects the Beltway-bubble media types. Many of the ones that vageuly remember something from J-school about confirming their facts before publishing feel free to “report” a story that *there is a rumor going around that * {fill in the scurrilous scandal du jour}. It is certainly a fact that there is a rumor, yes. But, by publishing such a story, they lend their imprimaturs and their credibilities to it, and almost immediately it gets thought of as fact by the more credulous.
