Smear 4: Clark said he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House records show Clark never called Rove.
You're crying wolf. Smears are more severe than this. Yes, it's ugly the way the political spin-meisters distort candidates' words. But you can't invoke the proper outrage by invoking inappropriate terms.
A smear should be a) factually untrue; and b) a serious attack on the smear-ee's record or character.
Your smear #4 is some other bad thing that's not as bad as a smear.
No competent political hack makes demonstrably untrue charges. It's all about distortion. And a distortion that leaves the impression that someone is an opportunistic liar is most certainly a smear.
As for your first comment, I think you're confused about what's at issue. The question is what "it" refers to: the smearmeisters would like to say Clark means a phone call, but the context makes it clear he means "it" is the effort to connect Saddam to 9-11.
Well, it came from the White House,
Um... I think that gives one ground to disagree with the smear contention. You're sounding defensive.
it came from people around the White House.
Still directly refutes your accusation.
It came from all over.
That just sounds silly. Uh-oh! Clark Smears Himself! Details at 11...
-Magik
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 12:19 AM
Smear 4: Clark said he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House records show Clark never called Rove.
You're crying wolf. Smears are more severe than this. Yes, it's ugly the way the political spin-meisters distort candidates' words. But you can't invoke the proper outrage by invoking inappropriate terms.
A smear should be a) factually untrue; and b) a serious attack on the smear-ee's record or character.
Your smear #4 is some other bad thing that's not as bad as a smear.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 12:22 AM
No competent political hack makes demonstrably untrue charges. It's all about distortion. And a distortion that leaves the impression that someone is an opportunistic liar is most certainly a smear.
As for your first comment, I think you're confused about what's at issue. The question is what "it" refers to: the smearmeisters would like to say Clark means a phone call, but the context makes it clear he means "it" is the effort to connect Saddam to 9-11.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 9:10 AM