If a candidate refuses to deny an outrageous claim, does that mean they are guilty of the claim?

[Clintonista2]

[soleft]

1. No, but maybe we should ask John Kerry about not denying claims

In a strong and timely manner.

[txaslftist]

2. If you respond to one outrageous claim, you have to respond to all of them...

Eventually that becomes your whole campaign. And that's a waste of time.

[rinsd]

3. That would depend upon when they stopped beating their wife.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

What's so outrageous about it?

Clinton staffers have already been caught spreading Obama is a muslim e-mails.

And just last friday they were accusing him of being a terrorist.

[redqueen]

10. It's outrageous cause you'd THINK that it would be beyond the pale

for another Dem to be spreading that brand of BS.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Come on...

Clinton's been pulling this shit since NH.

[redqueen]

16. And that's why this is getting the reaction it is getting, I think. (nt)

[Occam Bandage]

4. If Obama were to release a statement about Larry Sinclair that did not include

a denial, but rather a defense of hypothetically fucking him in a limo, I would think it was obvious he had fucked him in a limo.

[Clintonista2]

8. Obama didn't release a statement period. Using Obamaton logic that I've heard today, that means...

he's guilty of the charge.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Correct. He did not release a statement. That is what candidates do when they don't want to

dignify a bullshit charge. Clinton, notably, released a statement on the affair but did not deny the charges in the statement. She thought it was valid enough to address, so the Sinclair comparison is bogus.

[Bluerthanblue]

5. yes- in today's world, nothing is "outrageous"- nothing to fear by telling the truth-

unless you have something to hide.

peace~

[yardwork]

6. When did you stop beating your wife?

If an opposing campaign makes up a scurrilous lie and then challenges the other campaign to deny it, what's the accused supposed to do? Either way they lose. And so do the Democrats.

[washingdem]

7. Comparison doesn't fit

Were the Clintons asked if they were responsible for spreading the ridiculous Larry Sinclair lies?

[BobbyVan]

9. Are you talking about the Clinton campaign and the Obama photo?

Maggie Williams didn't deny that ANYONE on the Clinton campaign circulated the photo.

How could she? If she did and some 22 year old stamp licker in El Paso admitted e-mailing the photo to his facebook friends, she'd be caught in a huge lie.

Does this mean that the Clinton campaign is trying to "tar" Obama with being a crypto-Muslim? Absolutely not!

[washingdem]

12. Then why

Then why didn't they denounce any effort to smear Obama in such a way, and say that if it became clear a Clinton staffer was responsible they would be fired?

[redqueen]

13. And for the howevermanyeth time... why not say that they don't condone

such behavior, and if someone on their staff is found to be responsible, then such and such action will be taken?

How much of a no-brainer is that?

[jannyk]

15. OT - Get yourself over to Books Fiction - we wanna start the Bookclub!

[ProSense]

17. Taylor Marsh lied and said a non-response was an admission of guilt. Hillary's campaign responds,

denying involvement and agreeing in part with Drudge

On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.

Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.

Asked if the campaign had any role, Wolfson said, "No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail."

Wolfson did say, however, that the campaign agreed with part of the message in the email -- that if the same photo had appeared of Hillary, it would have been a big story: "It is a common view among this campaign and our supporters that there is a difference in how the media covers our campaign and how it covers Senator Obama."

link

What Taylor Marsh did was pull a typical swiftboat tactic. Wolfson's response is damage control.

[jgraz]

18. Guilty or not, their response is shockingly inept

Just another example of Hillary's incompetent management.

[Forkboy]

19. Nope, And I hope the ones who say yes never serve on a jury.

Because if the defendant didn't take the stand they'd never believe him.

[Rageneau]

20. Did Obama respond to Larry Sinclair?

[HeraldSquare212]

21. Amazing - first the Clinton camp hit Obama because he wouldn't be able to respond to attacks

as forcefully as their well-oiled machine, and now that he's done that, they claim it's the wrong move to make. Up is now down in Hillaryland.

[intaglio]

22. In politics, yes

Not denying means either you did it and expect the fact to come out or (a worse crime) you don't know if your campaign did it.

The "not knowing" is a worse crime because it shows you do not control your campaign