In the last couple weeks I’ve seen progressive blogger Taylor Marsh, who is pro-Clinton, go from being an advocate of her candidate to someone who is so anti-Obama that you would think you were on Free Republic. She has recently been peddling the idea that pro-Obama unions are engaging in voter intimidation. That’s a pretty serious charge, and thats what the Las Vegas Sun thought as well:
After speaking with several Culinary members — at the suggestion of the Clinton campaign — the Sun cannot substantiate widespread voter intimidation on the part union organizers. What is clear, however, is that Culinary organizers are pushing Obama hard in the run-up to Saturday’s Caucus.
It’s also clear that some members in some cases have felt intimidated by the pushy approach of some organizers. According to labor experts, a vigorous back-and-forth is the norm in these types of situations — and the tactics don’t cross the legal line unless workers are overtly threatened.
None of the Culinary members interviewed by the Sun claim to have been threatened.
…
The situation is not as black and white as liberal blogger Taylor Marsh says it is. Marsh did not respond to an e-mail seeking an interview. Here are some questions the Sun sought to ask her.
1) Marsh did not identify the eyewitness to the Paris incident as a Clinton supporter. Why not?
2) Marsh did not include any interview with the actual alleged victim, Sylvia Antuna. Why not? In an interview with the Sun, Antuna said the incident may have been more misunderstanding than intimidation.
3) Did Marsh attempt to reach the Culinary Union to get its response to the allegation? If not, why not?
4) Last year, Marsh accepted money from the Association of Federal, State, City and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), to blog at a Democratic event. AFSCME has endorsed Clinton and is a longtime ally of the Clinton family. Has Marsh taken payment from AFSCME recently? If so, how much?
Marsh’s response?
Obviously, Obama’s fans across the web are attacking the messenger, me. It’s been going on for a very long time. They need to attack my credibility because I’ve obviously hit a nerve.
Really? Really?
I don’t read Taylor Marsh so hadn’t been aware of any of this until your posting. But following the link you give to here site:
“I did not call the Culinary union, because as is shown in the Sun piece, they’re not going to admit intimidation.”
How nice to know for sure how someone will respond to a question. Saves you all that pesky work of actually having to ask them.
“I didn’t respond to the Sun’s request to talk because I simply didn’t get the email, which ended up in my junk mail folder.”
And now that she has received the request, she can purposefully not respond to it.
“They need to attack my credibility because I’ve obviously hit a nerve.”
Or.. because her credibility is questionable. An objection to a personal attack I could see. But questions on credibility, especially when the specific questions are clearly given, seem reasonable to me.
“…and by insinuating I not only might have taken money from a union that supports Clinton…”
What “insinuating”? “Last year, Marsh accepted money from [AFSCME], to blog at a Democratic event.” Pretty straightforward comment. But by claiming the Sun “insinuated” she’s able to make it sound like their comments are less supported than they are.
As noted, never read Taylor Marsh before, and I’m not going to form a solid opinion based on one blog. But what I’ve seen here doesn’t make a good impression.
Oh, crap. I must have missed a /i tag.
Hope it’s clear in previous comment that quoted paragraphs are Marsh’s, un-quoted are mine.
Never mind.
(sigh)
TGIF.