Turns out Hillary Clinton said Republicans -- not Russians -- were grooming Tulsi Gabbard
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: MarketWatch
Corrections from news orgs come a week after original reports sparked a war of words
In a curious turn of events, a number of major news organizations ran corrections Wednesday night over week-old reports that sparked a testy war of words between Hillary Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.
Last week, a number of media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and Politico, ran reports saying Clinton told the podcast Campaign HQ with David Plouffe that Russians were grooming a female Democratic candidate widely assumed to be Gabbard for a third-party run to play a potential spoiler in the 2020 election.
But apparently Clinton meant Republicans not Russians were doing the grooming.
The New York Times ran this correction Wednesday night: An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clintons recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was the favorite of the Russians, and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clintons remark about the grooming of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans strategy, not about Russian intervention.
Read more: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)Chakaconcarne
(2,446 posts)Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Podcast at
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vaHEtcGxvdWZmZQ&episode=OGE2M2FhMTgtZTZlMS0xMWU5LTk4YWEtNTM4NTJiZDViMzc5&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjzmZSA-KXlAhXmm-AKHZsMC_AQieUEegQIABAE&ep=6&at=1571406131757
Passage in question at about 35 minutes in.
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)I believe this transcript is correct, edited to the pertinent parts...
Clinton: "Well, I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016: Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me? Don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things...They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians.
The question is about who the words "they" and "their" refer to -- it's ambiguous, which is what caused the confusion in interpretation. But in the full context, it makes sense if "they" and "their" refer to Trump and his Republicans. Yes, Clinton is talking about someone being groomed, and she talks about that person being the favorite of the Russians, but the quote does not actually say the Russians are the ones doing the grooming. It is, at least, open to interpretation. It can be "Republican operatives are trying to groom someone for a third party run. This person they're grooming is a favorite of the Russians."
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)With their endless front-page stories about Hillary's emails, only to bury the exoneration on page 16...
With the NYT hiring biased right-wing mouthpieces because it values political balance higher than the truth...
With the NYT running a sensationalist article on something that never happened...
Seriously, where does this rumor come from that the NYT is somehow more trustworthy than other newspapers?
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)The exoneration happened (and was widely reported) long ago. As I said elsewhere, this new story was, in a sense, "new report confirms previous report" or "Hillary cleared yet again for something she was already cleared for." So to play a little devil's advocate here, how newsworthy is that, really? Should it really be front page news? (Honestly, the people who believe she was already cleared won't see this as important news, and the ones who don't believe she was cleared STILL aren't going to be convinced.)
NYT has had left and right on the op-ed pages forever. News is supposed to be about truth, op-ed is supposed to be about opinion, and political balance is an acceptable goal in that context.
I guess you're talking about the article that is the subject of the OP... it didn't not happen, but ambiguity in the statement led to a questionable interpretation, and the story here is that they corrected it. Newspapers make mistakes all the time. That's one reason news is the "first draft" of history. Deadline pressures and putting out stories before all facts are known come with the territory.
It's very far from perfect, but there aren't too many that are better.
still_one
(92,187 posts)from the start
Now they are changing the story for a third time
and with this one they are using words like "apparently"
What am I to believe
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Has there been more than this one correction to the NYT report (Republicans rather than Russians)? What were the others?
still_one
(92,187 posts)meant the republicans, when the previous stories left it open to both Russian and republicans
At least that is how I read out of it
but I sure won't argue the point, because I can see what you are saying
Anon-C
(3,430 posts)I can remove a d repost in a while
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)because Gabbard is mentioned and all mentions of primary candidates go in the Primary forum. Unless it's huge latest breaking news like a candidate dies or something horrible.
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)Tulsi demonstrated she would drop bombs at the first sign of criticism because it made her feel better. Contrast Tulsi's demeanor and JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile crisis. We'd all be blown to smithereens.
NellieStarbuck
(266 posts)jalan48
(13,863 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)as Gabbard is mentioned. THere might be other posts with the same topic, so I would add this to a previous post.
SergeStorms
(19,200 posts)There's not a dime's worth of difference between a republican and a Russian.