Comments on: Knaak lifts Coleman-camp tent flap, again mentions conceding as option http://minnesotaindependent.com/24683/coleman-attorney-concession News. Politics. Media. Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:48:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Chris Steller http://minnesotaindependent.com/24683/coleman-attorney-concession/comment-page-1#comment-24169 Chris Steller Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:18:11 +0000 http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=24683#comment-24169 Dr J, thanks for your comment. I accept your criticism. I am interested in Knaak's continuing references to Coleman conceding, even if it seems to be in the service of saying he won't. Reading between the lines, if you will. Dr J, thanks for your comment. I accept your criticism. I am interested in Knaak’s continuing references to Coleman conceding, even if it seems to be in the service of saying he won’t. Reading between the lines, if you will.

]]> By: DrJ http://minnesotaindependent.com/24683/coleman-attorney-concession/comment-page-1#comment-24166 DrJ Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:59:25 +0000 http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=24683#comment-24166 Let's take a comment out of context, why don't we? Here's what the article said: "A true winner will best be able to carry out the state’s business in Washington, say the experts. Knaak agrees. “Otherwise there will always be a cloud. Even if Norm were to concede, there would be a cloud over Al Franken. And frankly we believe from what we’ve seen that (Coleman) won.” How can you read ALL of this and say that Coleman might concede? Both paragraphs argue that he won't. 1) It would be bad for Franken because of the doubt over his legitimacy, and 2) the Coleman camp still thinks they've won based on the evidence they've seen. This is just plain bad journalism. Let’s take a comment out of context, why don’t we? Here’s what the article said:

“A true winner will best be able to carry out the state’s business in Washington, say the experts. Knaak agrees.

“Otherwise there will always be a cloud. Even if Norm were to concede, there would be a cloud over Al Franken. And frankly we believe from what we’ve seen that (Coleman) won.”

How can you read ALL of this and say that Coleman might concede? Both paragraphs argue that he won’t. 1) It would be bad for Franken because of the doubt over his legitimacy, and 2) the Coleman camp still thinks they’ve won based on the evidence they’ve seen.

This is just plain bad journalism.

]]>