View Story | 87 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
...that those diaries were written by, "plants"? If not, your claim is bullshit.
Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7
by BarbinMD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:28:52 PM PDT
i'm havin' a hard time seein' the forest for the plants
I drink your Ovaltine!
by memofromturner on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:31:00 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:32:56 PM PDT
The entire CNN format, moderator and post-debate coverage sucked. That doesn't make it right for the diarist to make claims about other members of this community without proof.
by BarbinMD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:35:11 PM PDT
a plant at one of her town halls?
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:35:54 PM PDT
that was bullshit, on her part.
blind idealism is pure folly when you are standing on a precipice ~edrie
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:37:30 PM PDT
town hall meeeting to ask a question about Global warming?
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:38:31 PM PDT
The last time I checked, Alegre isn't a fucking plant, and the other diary is from a now banned troll.
Senator Clinton's missteps have fuck all to do with alleging that other kossacks are plants.
2 wrongs ≠ 1 right
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:39:40 PM PDT
...someone who plants themselves in this community largely to spin for one candidate. That goes for campaign operatives for Edwards, Obama, Dodd and others.
Alegre is certainly a campaign operative. Look at he diaries. She identifies herself openly as a member of the campaign.
'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:45:21 PM PDT
The common definition in use for this sense of "plant" indicates a) that they're there as part of an organized attempt by the campaign to alter the dialogue in the candidate's favor, and b) that they're deceptive about their purposes and affiliations.
Any diarist who identifies herself as a member of a campaign - and we have diarists from every Democratic campaign here, I'm sure - is by definition not a "plant". There's no rule against people simultaneously participating on DK and in a candidate's campaign, particularly if they're open about it.
With Blue skies ahead, yes I'm on my way... And there's nowhere else I'd rather be
by DarthParadox on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:51:19 PM PDT
Perhaps my usage is uncommon. So be it. At this point, between covert plants and overt plants there is a virtual arboretum.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:54:05 PM PDT
that would be one thing. But you're pulling a Humpty Dumpty here:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The dictionary meanings gleaned from context are either "conceal" or "to covertly place for discovery, publication, or dissemination," neither of which is your intent, but which everyone but you takes as your intent.
Your usage is beyond uncommon and well into obtuse, as is your defense of said usage. No one likes to be called out for incorrect usage; suck it up and use a word that really means what you think it means.
Alice points out the great flaw of Humpty's argument:
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
The answer, in this case, is "no."
© sardonyx; all rights reserved
by sardonyx on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 06:21:13 PM PDT
She's very wise to stage most of her campaign in a tightly focused way. She's such a feeble candidate she couldn't win without these sorts of phoney tactics.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:46:30 PM PDT
Too bad. At one point, I took your words here fairly seriously.
Here's to February.
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:48:22 PM PDT
My opinion on the plant issue hardened after watching Carville call it for his bosses wife.
What's the fucking point of political discussion if that's what you get for your trouble?
A couple of cronies suspending objectivity?
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:52:20 PM PDT
Cheers, friend.
Rest well in the knowledge that she can't win my vote in the primary.
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:55:45 PM PDT
If not, it has nothing to do with Barb's point.
Senator McCain, we don't have to twist everything that comes out of a Republican's mouth - you guys come pre-twisted.
by PatsBard on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:37:50 PM PDT
by BarbinMD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:39:42 PM PDT
a n honest question and she projected her own practice on the "dude" in question.
That comment by her was a Freudian slip.
Then you have the heckling incidents at the debate.
What ISN'T underhandedly scripted about her campaign?
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:41:22 PM PDT
Calling other kossacks "plants" and "operatives", without evidence, is bullshit.
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:42:40 PM PDT
The diarist did.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:44:48 PM PDT
Then your point about plants in general had nothing to do with the issue being raised? Thank you for your time.
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:47:10 PM PDT
Then go ahead.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:49:30 PM PDT
I TR'd the diarist's first post, as I would a tip jar. I am not interested in trying to trigger the autoban on someone for one fuck up, particularly when they have been a part of the site for so long.
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:51:32 PM PDT
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:53:25 PM PDT
This has nothing to do with the debate, the coverage, what Clinton said, or whatever. It has to do with this diarist making claims about members of the community without proof. Whoever you support, I'd think that that would bother you too.
by BarbinMD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:39:18 PM PDT
...you may begin to see paranoid claims if the circumstancial evidence of widespread verifiable "planting" keeps building up.
Some of the candiates on stage like Richardson are clearly running as Clinton's support. And then you have Carville calling the win in the post debate spin.
It not unreasonable to ask at this point:
What part of Clinton's campaign isn't tainted by "planting"?
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:44:31 PM PDT
I hope you're never on jury duty. Sad.
by BarbinMD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:46:45 PM PDT
different standards. The Clinton campaign has clearly used a variety of inappropriate methods that hurt her credibility.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:48:57 PM PDT
Are clearly Clinton trolls.
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:49:56 PM PDT
He made big trouble for her.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:00:31 PM PDT
but I am fairly convinced that Richardson is in the race to peel away support from Clinton's competitors.
I'm not convinced about Biden & Dodd.
Do you really rule out the possibility that this kind of campaign strategy might be used? ```` peace
U.S. Mayors to Congress: "Pass H.R. 676 NOW"
by peace voter on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:03:13 PM PDT
He's been the best entertainer on stage. I've enjoyed his performances.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:13:29 PM PDT
ideas. I think he is a knowledgeable person, more so that some others on that stage.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire
by hairspray on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 05:18:16 PM PDT
You're on your own here, I'm afraid. Someone will be along shortly with the graphic of the bloody head banging on the computer keyboard in frustration.....
by PatsBard on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:52:30 PM PDT
Clinton has very little credibility on this issue.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:01:02 PM PDT
"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes" Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"
by TheMomCat on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:26:34 PM PDT
accusing Kossacks of being plants from the Clinton campaign with no evidence whatsoever. That is just as deplorable as what you are accusing Clinton of, if not moreso. She simply wants to be asked certain questions - you and the diarist are maligning the reputations of other diarists here with no proof.
by PatsBard on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:50:20 PM PDT
I just said that paranoid (hardly an endorsement of the diarist) suggestions will inevitably turn up when a candidate abuses their own credibility.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:55:12 PM PDT
I'm maligning no one that doesn't want to be maligned.
I consider "plants" to be campaign operators whose primary function in the DKos community is to support a single candidate. For a brief three months in 2003 I was a plant and operative for the Clark campaign here. Otherwise, I've been an unaffiliated Kossack for over five years.
You can accept my definition of plant or not, but in primary season, it's a valid one to my mind.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:04:03 PM PDT
onto the floor it will fly up to hit the carpet. You can accept my definition of up or not, but most people will have some difficulty with it.
by Tyrannocaster on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 05:22:56 PM PDT
But a proposition it still may be.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 06:13:40 PM PDT
Does he know? Do you know?
by hairspray on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 05:16:31 PM PDT
is likely "intimidated" around Clinton because she has so much more "experience" than he does. What a load of b.s. I believe most people who know Obama well could tell Carville that he is not intimidated around any one, especially Ms. Clinton and her illusory "experience". It's all just a little too down pat, too pre-programmed, too scripted, too Rovian.
by dotster on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:37:23 PM PDT
I didn't watch the post debate bs, but I do think that the questions and moreso, the framing of the questions during the debate itself were republican oriented, not Clinton oriented. They were designed to provoke controversy between the candidates, for sure, but they had the side benefit of being eminently usable for publican candidates against ANY Democratic candidate (including Clinton) during the general. To think that the questions were somehow formulated to benefit Clinton belies what they will do with them. All the debates so far have been cast from a publican POV. Including the publican debates.
A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams
by dougymi on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:59:08 PM PDT
In fact Edwards was let off the hook on Yucca by Wolf. So i'm inclined to think he was not entirely going for the Jugular.
by Salo on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:12:11 PM PDT
Whether voluntary or enlisted.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:39:04 PM PDT
by Marcus Tullius on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:40:21 PM PDT
In over five years in this community. Sweet. Thank ya, Marcus.
Maybe I'm a Giuliani fern after all. Just biding my time here until the one moment I could jump out and say: "Booogy booogy!"
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:06:24 PM PDT
Operatives? Where is your proof? Did it ever cross your mind that they, like many people here, have a candidate they prefer and write about?
Show your evidence.
by BarbinMD on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:40:49 PM PDT
you are a campaign operative. It's pretty basic.
Alegre has identified herself in her diaries are a member of the local Clinton campaign.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:48:34 PM PDT
obviously an anti-Clinton operative, that makes you a plant too.
The questions, of course, are what kind of plant, and whose watering you? (Whose water are you carrying?)
C'mon, you can tell us... I guessing some kind of Edwards cactus, but you could be a Guiliani fern just as easy.
"As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly".
by Niniane on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:44:28 PM PDT
But I recognize you as an operative. You're in every diary that you view as antagonistic to Clinton making insulting ad hominem attacks.
In fact, more than any other poster here, you've soured on Clinton and the Clinton community. I was open to her a few months back.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:51:04 PM PDT
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:51:47 PM PDT
I used to blame the candidates for the behaviors of their supporters too, but then I realized that was really irrational of me. ;)
Take note... In positive diaries (which I really, really like) I almost never have anything negative to say, except in response to another negative... or when someone is making shit up.
Check the comments... I used to do it in Edwards behalf too, until he lost me. I even have nice things to say about everyone else, when presented in a positive way... When one of our folks do good, I try to say so.
I'm a Lifelong Progressive Democrat... and I want the best candidate we can get. For me, that's Hillary. Or Dodd, or maybe Obama.
I enjoy a honest, open dialogue.
But when I see bias, or hypocrisy, or made-up facts... I don't mind calling bullshit.
And yes, I do apologize when I am wrong.
So please don't hold my actions against a candidate, any candidate. That's pretty weak... Hell, it's not like I'm important enough (like at all)to excercise that kind of control over someone else perceptions. And there are far much worse than me spamming shit on behalf of other candidates... And at least I don't Troll Rate people that disagree with me, as so many of JRE's fans seem to do.
I will take your point at face value, regardless. I will try to watch my step... because if you really feel that way, others might too.
Thanks for that, at least.
by Niniane on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:09:08 PM PDT
Your more inflammatory posts aren't enough to push me to or away from one candidate or another. But politics tend toward movement politics, so embracing a candidate's community is part of embracing the candidate.
Of late, I've found the Edwards' community to be a bit rich on the messianic, and the Clinton community to be a bit rich on the vituperative. You'll find me skeptical of both.
And a very contrarian streak in me snaps at any thing that stinks of media manufacture, and hate when elements among the progressive community support such manufacture, even if its a boon to a particular Democratic candidate. It still stinks, IMO.
I'm looking for more pragmatic and direct candidate and community. I'm openly shopping, but I'm also candid in saying that my choices are narrowing, and Obama and Dodd are favorites, though I have issues with each. The three candidates I was most interested have largely bowed out: Feingold, Gore and Bloomberg.
And yes, I said that right. Bloomberg.
by Maxwell on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:26:47 PM PDT
Do you condemn the boos for trying to shut down the open dialog?
by Ramar on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:46:26 PM PDT
Absolutely. That has no place in a debate, unless someone really crosses the line. It didn't happen last night.
I have a problem holding the (Clinton) campaign accountable until proven that they are behind it.
Do you likewise condemn the boos, at a previous debate, when directed at Sen. Clinton?
by Niniane on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 05:21:32 PM PDT
I don't know what elicited the boos you reference or the context though.
by Ramar on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 09:59:42 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 87 comments