*pull the string away* you have NO honor, human

For this, not what I was talking about, but in bits and pieces across many episodes, she’s mentioned opportunities she wanted the campaign to take advantage of that they didn’t. NPS isn’t the only one making comms happen. And if the candidate refuses some opportunities, what could she do about that?

If you’re mad at her for making takes to stir the pot, that seems like an ecosystem argument I could make about any number of journalists, networks, and publications. That’s what I mean by vague. And her takes almost always have substance, she’s not even dishonest in her presentation…

What orgs? What organizers? What insults? I mean, I don’t believe that. You’ve said you have no proof and that’s fine, but she is not the sort to attack people for clicks. She has real, principled, warranted arguments, which some may see as agitating, but hardly any personal attacks.

…it feels like you haven’t really got the goods when it comes to criticizing her. Do you have the goods? What are your substantive critiques of her post-Virgil work?

She did make a statement about it, but I agree a follow up would be and would have been appropriate. Virgil was the one at fault, for his handling of the situation if not for what he was alleged to have done.

But years later, to dismiss the work she’s done with vagaries like “divisive…”

What criticisms ring true to you?

It’s a great podcast that’s received a lot of undue flak!

You acquitted your position very well. I know Matt was sick, but, wow, he chose abrasive instead of persuasive.