3 ms·

Additionally the disclaimer that the author is working on the Sanders campaign should have come up front.

• fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  As in "is advocating for", or "is a supporter of" Sanders, not "is employed by"; or at least that's the impression I get.
  • peeters 11y ago
    Not sure how you get that from "working actively for".
    • fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      I'm not sure what your point here is but I see several possibilities: * Is independently supporting Sanders' campaign, maybe even volunteering. * Is gainfully employed by a pro-Sanders PAC. * Is gainfully employed by a something other than a PAC that is pro-Sanders. * Is gainfully employed directly by the Sanders campaign. * Something else It isn't clear to me which of those is the case, but I assume it's the first. If he's actually employed by Sanders, that'd make his post a pretty odd thing to do. I think there are a lot better ways to have dealt with it (actually, I guess that's true either way).
• peeters 11y ago
  Especially since he includes this earlier in the piece to make him seem like an impartial observer: > For those who suspect that I’m a Clinton-hater, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve written glowingly about Clinton many times and even gone so far as to call her “the most accomplished woman in American history.” Even with these recent revelations I’m about to disclose, I continue to stand by those words of praise. I mean, you're not a Clinton hater, but that you are "working actively for" her opponent might be worth a mention in the same breath.