At least on the last two posts about this, I put up your, and my, exact quotes about this little debate.

I’ll guess we’ll just let the readers decide who “clarified” what.

Okay this is the last thread you hijack with your obesssion. Have some respect for the poster and what they take the time to write or you’re going into moderation.

Those are the rules.

I’ll guess we’ll just let the readers decide who “clarified” what.

BTW, those suggestions from her people, that having something like a third of the democratic party pissed at her, with some of them following her around to remind her of her support for Bush’s war, and for Lieberman and the republicans, is no biggie to she or her campaign staff…I think is bullshit.

What do you think?

Again, you’re making representations of my statements inaccurately.

I said I gathered from my conversations Hillary people, etc. I never said they asserted anything, I said I interpreted the campaign’s priorities in a certian way. I never even called any such people “staffers,” though you seem to think I did.

I’m not going to be more specific about what was said to me, by whom, in what context, though I have given you the inferences I have drawn from such contacts. I gave my considered judgment to the site in a passing comment, and with that, I’m done here.

Please be more precise in reading what I write before you presume you know what it is I have said, and then misrepresent it, however innocently.

“Please show me where I said this…”

You bet. I was on post #203, of the Hillary thread.

Again: I said: “We all know that Hillary has been catching holy hell from the progressive wing of the party. We all know that she’s worried about it.”

and you replied:

“Actually, I don’t know that.” And went on to explain that your conversations with some of her people suggested that she didn’t think she could win “enthusiasm” from the netroots, and that she “doesn’t feel she needs it to get the nomination.”

Does that work?

Actually, no, because I was responding to the assertion on your part that her campaign is targeting the netroots for support as a imperative for her campaign. You’re not quoting my comments accurately and pulling them out of context, though I can see how you can make a case that pulling that one bit out of context might support your current argument.

So, from what I can tell, you’re either confused, or you’re making arguments in bad faith or your reading comprehension is suspect. Perhaps there’s more than one possible option in play, here. I’ll go with confused for now.

as bill moyers put it (rather more elegantly of course!), the mainstream media is pure-D lazy!

What do you think?

You bet. I was on post #203, of the Hillary thread.

Again: I said: “We all know that Hillary has been catching holy hell from the progressive wing of the party. We all know that she’s worried about it.”

and you replied:

“Actually, I don’t know that.” And went on to explain that your conversations with some of her people suggested that she didn’t think she could win “enthusiasm” from the netroots, and that she “doesn’t feel she needs it to get the nomination.”

Does that work?

Apologies for saying it had been deleted.

Sorry, TB.

Pachu, I’d like to clarify, too.

Especially since someone deleted my perfectly thoughtful and calm post which included your earlier quotes about the…suggestions…from a couple of Hillary’s people that she wasn’t much concerned about WHAT the progressive blogs think of her.

“I never said any staffer told me Hillary doesn’t care about the netroots.”

You’re right, Pachacutec; you said:

“Conversations with some of her people suggest that she doesn’t believe she will win enthusiasm from the netroots in any scenario, and that she doesn’t feel she needs to get it for the nomination.”

Which, admittedly, is just you repeating what THEY said, as you replied to my assertion that

“We all know that Hillary has been catching hell from the progressive wing of the party. We all know that she’s worried about it.”

(BTW, Pachu, you said you don’t actually know that…and since some of the hell she’s been catching has come on here :o), from some of you guys’ regular readers (and from some of the staff here, too, when she was working for Lieberman and the republicans) I was surprised when you said you didn’t know that she has been catching hell from the progressive wing of the party.)

Then, YOU said (not her people) that her campaign does not believe netroots = progressive wing of the party, and that they see us as a small niche among potential primary voters.

Lastly, to whomever deleted my earlier post with the direct quotes from Pachacutec about his feelings about Hillary’s interest (or lack of it) in netroots blogs and their readers; that was a perfectly reasonable and thoughtful post, from a fellow democrat, who is concerned about:

A: Your willingness to have her on here, while restraining some of your readers from asking her tough questions.

B: Your willingness to delete posts which point that out, and which discuss, calmly and accurately, the comments of your staff here, defending that policy.

C: This recent…direction…you’re taking makes me concerned that you are every bit as aware as Hillary (and her people) that, just like George Bush, she HAS to close out the primary contests before Iraq becomes so unspinnably lost, with nothing good to be salvaged from it, that ANYONE refusing to do multiple mea-culpas for voting to enable it, is done for.

And that you’ve about decided to declare for her, at this very early point in the proceedings, to help her accomplish that.

If I’m wrong, please correct me. :o)

but I’d appreciate it, if you’d leave my post up while this little debate goes on, so the rest of your readers can get “clarification”.

Thanks, TB.

Again, I think we all know that Hillary has been catching holy hell from the progressives, and I’m surprised that as much as you post on the net, you claim NOT to know it.

Please show me where I said this, where I claimed, for example, her campaign is unaware of her low performance on, say, the dailykos or mydd candidate polls.