<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Coleman Campaign Responds With Outtakes&#8211;Questions Answered, Thank You!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/</link>
	<description>Tracking Minnesota Politics Since 2005</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:17:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JACOBS ON LIBERAL BLOG &#8220;GREEN SCREEN&#8221; ATTACK OVER COLEMAN AD: &#8220;IT WAS A FALSE CHARGE&#8221;; STILL NO APOLOGIES FROM LIBERAL BLOGS &#124; Minnesota Democrats Exposed</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17433</link>
		<dc:creator>JACOBS ON LIBERAL BLOG &#8220;GREEN SCREEN&#8221; ATTACK OVER COLEMAN AD: &#8220;IT WAS A FALSE CHARGE&#8221;; STILL NO APOLOGIES FROM LIBERAL BLOGS &#124; Minnesota Democrats Exposed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17433</guid>
		<description>[...] of the blogs have posted apologies or admitted they were wrong.  MN Publius was the first and only blog to accept reality about the ad. Not even the blogger who flat-out said [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] of the blogs have posted apologies or admitted they were wrong.  MN Publius was the first and only blog to accept reality about the ad. Not even the blogger who flat-out said&nbsp;[&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smith</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17397</link>
		<dc:creator>smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17397</guid>
		<description>Matt, exactly what is it in the outtakes that makes you think this is any more real than what originally thought. If anything, these &quot;outakes&quot; make it even more suspicious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, exactly what is it in the outtakes that makes you think this is any more real than what originally thought. If anything, these &#8220;outakes&#8221; make it even more&nbsp;suspicious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: THE WASHINGTON POST: &#8220;THE MINNESOTA GREEN SCREEN DEBATE&#8221; &#124; Minnesota Democrats Exposed</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17378</link>
		<dc:creator>THE WASHINGTON POST: &#8220;THE MINNESOTA GREEN SCREEN DEBATE&#8221; &#124; Minnesota Democrats Exposed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:54:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17378</guid>
		<description>[...] Norm Coleman and his family, none of the blogs have posted apologies or admitted they were wrong.  MN Publius was the first and only blog to accept reality about the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Norm Coleman and his family, none of the blogs have posted apologies or admitted they were wrong.  MN Publius was the first and only blog to accept reality about the&nbsp;[&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danno</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17372</link>
		<dc:creator>Danno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17372</guid>
		<description>DemAnon:

Sorry I can&#039;t play along with your martyr game.  I don&#039;t care whether or not you are a Dem, but a campaign operative does represent their party on political blogs.  Keep your comments limited to the actual discussion.  It doesn&#039;t matter which side you&#039;re playing for; it just makes us all the more wary of you for needing to say that you play for one or the other.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DemAnon:</p>
<p>Sorry I can&#8217;t play along with your martyr game.  I don&#8217;t care whether or not you are a Dem, but a campaign operative does represent their party on political blogs.  Keep your comments limited to the actual discussion.  It doesn&#8217;t matter which side you&#8217;re playing for; it just makes us all the more wary of you for needing to say that you play for one or the&nbsp;other.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smith</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17327</link>
		<dc:creator>smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17327</guid>
		<description>Björnkram, it goes to honesty. Had they said it was composited, no story. If they said they were together for the shoot and they were, no problem. If they were not, and said they were (especially with the bombastic language in the denial) it is a legitimate story.

I&#039;m sick of losing over the Republicans pulling Democrats through the dirt. The public is not tuned in enough to see what&#039;s happening. And every minute the Republicans spend on defense is a minute less they have to spend on offense.

Would be nice to live in a world where everyone would judge on interests more than character traits, but we are not there right now, and the Republicans keep trying to smear Franken. I don&#039;t love Franken and don&#039;t always appreciate his humor, but I think he would make a much better Senator and don&#039;t want to see him beaten by the crap MDE spews.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Björnkram, it goes to honesty. Had they said it was composited, no story. If they said they were together for the shoot and they were, no problem. If they were not, and said they were (especially with the bombastic language in the denial) it is a legitimate&nbsp;story.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sick of losing over the Republicans pulling Democrats through the dirt. The public is not tuned in enough to see what&#8217;s happening. And every minute the Republicans spend on defense is a minute less they have to spend on&nbsp;offense.</p>
<p>Would be nice to live in a world where everyone would judge on interests more than character traits, but we are not there right now, and the Republicans keep trying to smear Franken. I don&#8217;t love Franken and don&#8217;t always appreciate his humor, but I think he would make a much better Senator and don&#8217;t want to see him beaten by the crap MDE&nbsp;spews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smith</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17326</link>
		<dc:creator>smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17326</guid>
		<description>Okay, so MDE has removed my other posts on this matter. One just questioning the commercial, the other asking whether the sensitivity of the Coleman campaign was due to the perception that Norm might have a Larry Craig problem or was it a Newt Gingrich problem (he cheated on his wife while calling for Clinton&#039;s impeachment over the Lewinski scandal). Then I said neither of them would matter anyway, its just the perception of a coverup.

I see much, much worse written daily about Democrats, so not sure why my messages are deleted. Perhaps there is more to my suggestion above. I don&#039;t think either of those two scenarios above disqualify someone from being a U.S. Senator, but MDE seems unusually sensitive about this type of suggestions.

MNPublius, I think you should ask video experts to look at the &quot;outtakes&quot; to see if they think, as I suspect, they are as easily faked as the commercial. Even the sliding coffee cup is such a lightning fast cut and doesn&#039;t look natural. Other angles and lighting setups must exist UNLESS, they locked down the cameras to shoot at two different times and composite. I don&#039;t necessarily think they were shot in two locations -- just at two different times, possibly in the same location with a locked down camera. The lack of any hint of interaction between the two is strange. If they indeed are only together for his career, perhaps she wouldn&#039;t be at the same place at the same time.

The fact that the campaign responded, calling bloggers names, tends to indicate you hit a weak spot. MDE&#039;s deletion of e-mails (others are probably affected too) indicates there may be some collusion between the campaign and MDE.

Obama says, &quot;They bring a knife, we bring a gun.&quot; The left needs to get over its knee jerk reaction to admit they were in error. I don&#039;t think the commercial controversy is ended with the few seconds of an &quot;outtake&quot; provided ... in fact, it lends fuel to the fire that something is indeed rotten.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, so MDE has removed my other posts on this matter. One just questioning the commercial, the other asking whether the sensitivity of the Coleman campaign was due to the perception that Norm might have a Larry Craig problem or was it a Newt Gingrich problem (he cheated on his wife while calling for Clinton&#8217;s impeachment over the Lewinski scandal). Then I said neither of them would matter anyway, its just the perception of a&nbsp;coverup.</p>
<p>I see much, much worse written daily about Democrats, so not sure why my messages are deleted. Perhaps there is more to my suggestion above. I don&#8217;t think either of those two scenarios above disqualify someone from being a U.S. Senator, but MDE seems unusually sensitive about this type of&nbsp;suggestions.</p>
<p>MNPublius, I think you should ask video experts to look at the &#8220;outtakes&#8221; to see if they think, as I suspect, they are as easily faked as the commercial. Even the sliding coffee cup is such a lightning fast cut and doesn&#8217;t look natural. Other angles and lighting setups must exist UNLESS, they locked down the cameras to shoot at two different times and composite. I don&#8217;t necessarily think they were shot in two locations&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;just at two different times, possibly in the same location with a locked down camera. The lack of any hint of interaction between the two is strange. If they indeed are only together for his career, perhaps she wouldn&#8217;t be at the same place at the same&nbsp;time.</p>
<p>The fact that the campaign responded, calling bloggers names, tends to indicate you hit a weak spot. MDE&#8217;s deletion of e-mails (others are probably affected too) indicates there may be some collusion between the campaign and&nbsp;MDE.</p>
<p>Obama says, &#8220;They bring a knife, we bring a gun.&#8221; The left needs to get over its knee jerk reaction to admit they were in error. I don&#8217;t think the commercial controversy is ended with the few seconds of an &#8220;outtake&#8221; provided &#8230; in fact, it lends fuel to the fire that something is indeed&nbsp;rotten.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: björnkram</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17287</link>
		<dc:creator>björnkram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17287</guid>
		<description>Wow. WHO CARES!?

This is one of the most idiotic &quot;controversies&quot; in recent memory. There are thousands of things Coleman can and should be called out on and this is what the blogs are busy with?

I expect this type of garbage from the right, but it&#039;s disappointing to see it coming from the left as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. WHO&nbsp;CARES!?</p>
<p>This is one of the most idiotic &#8220;controversies&#8221; in recent memory. There are thousands of things Coleman can and should be called out on and this is what the blogs are busy&nbsp;with?</p>
<p>I expect this type of garbage from the right, but it&#8217;s disappointing to see it coming from the left as&nbsp;well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lojasmo</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17271</link>
		<dc:creator>lojasmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17271</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t have an opinion on the veracity of the commercial.

It is still the second suckiest political ad I have seen (second only to the new Al green screen commercial)

Yuk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have an opinion on the veracity of the&nbsp;commercial.</p>
<p>It is still the second suckiest political ad I have seen (second only to the new Al green screen&nbsp;commercial)</p>
<p>Yuk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Smith</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17258</link>
		<dc:creator>Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17258</guid>
		<description>I tried to post a comment over on MDE (posted a couple earlier today) only to get this error messag:Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.

&quot;This is what I tried to post to MDE, and I don&#039;t see it as out-of-line. Do you?

___________

&quot;Still no evidence of interaction in the &quot;outtake.&quot; Nothing to indicate that the same editing technique on the commercial wasn&#039;t used on the outtake.

&quot;Is there another camera angle, or a different light set up that would make it appear that they are in the same shot? Any interaction between Norm and Laurie?

&quot;Of course, if anyone believed they had a real marriage in the first place, no one would ever have asked the question in the first place.

&quot;This doesn&#039;t prove they were in the same room, which doesn&#039;t matter anyway. It also doesn&#039;t prove the marriage is real -- in fact, we&#039;ve seen no evidence it is.&quot;

___________________________

MnPublius, gotta agree with TwoPutt here -- the outtakes proved nothing, if they can even be called outtakes. No acknowledgement that the other person is in the room, same weird lighting/angle. This story shouldn&#039;t be dead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tried to post a comment over on MDE (posted a couple earlier today) only to get this error messag:Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it&nbsp;immediately.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is what I tried to post to MDE, and I don&#8217;t see it as out-of-line. Do&nbsp;you?</p>
<p>___________</p>
<p>&#8220;Still no evidence of interaction in the &#8220;outtake.&#8221; Nothing to indicate that the same editing technique on the commercial wasn&#8217;t used on the&nbsp;outtake.</p>
<p>&#8220;Is there another camera angle, or a different light set up that would make it appear that they are in the same shot? Any interaction between Norm and&nbsp;Laurie?</p>
<p>&#8220;Of course, if anyone believed they had a real marriage in the first place, no one would ever have asked the question in the first&nbsp;place.</p>
<p>&#8220;This doesn&#8217;t prove they were in the same room, which doesn&#8217;t matter anyway. It also doesn&#8217;t prove the marriage is real&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;in fact, we&#8217;ve seen no evidence it&nbsp;is.&#8221;</p>
<p>___________________________</p>
<p>MnPublius, gotta agree with TwoPutt here&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;the outtakes proved nothing, if they can even be called outtakes. No acknowledgement that the other person is in the room, same weird lighting/angle. This story shouldn&#8217;t be&nbsp;dead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skyblue</title>
		<link>http://mnpublius.com/2008/06/coleman-campaign-responds-with-outtakes-questions-answered-thank-you/#comment-17255</link>
		<dc:creator>Skyblue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnpublius.com/?p=1329#comment-17255</guid>
		<description>huh? you bought it on those clips? Brother. I can pull better off a photoshop tutorial. 
And I don&#039;t know the DP, but they spiked the lighting, or the art director does drugs, heavily.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>huh? you bought it on those clips? Brother. I can pull better off a photoshop tutorial.<br />
And I don&#8217;t know the DP, but they spiked the lighting, or the art director does drugs,&nbsp;heavily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
