(sigh)

TGIF.

Hope it’s clear in previous comment that quoted paragraphs are Marsh’s, un-quoted are mine.

“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.