Skip to main content

View Diary: Elizabeth Warren and the Definition of "Controversial" (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is using "may" in both sentences (0+ / 0-)

    It gives the reader the impression that the chances of Dodd being right are the same as the chances of Warren being unconfirmable--which leads to the conclusion that Dodd said she's unconfirmable.  It's tantamount to writing "Dodd may be right that Warren is unconfirmable."

    It's a very common phrasing: "X says Y.  Maybe X is right; maybe Y is true.  But..."

    •  OK. We've both wasted enough time... (6+ / 0-)

      ...on this and we're never going to accept each other's interpretation. I've made my critique of davidsirota's approach elsewhere in this thread, as have you. I imagine we agree that Warren would be an excellent choice and ought to get the White House nod. I personally think this is important because the CFPA is the best part of FinReg reform. As I wrote when the first HuffPo piece came out, we'd be better off uniting around pushing Warren for the CFPA post rather than fighting with each other by making the issue so much about whether Tim Geither is blocking her, something the article failed entirely to prove.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 11:15:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site