Tapper distorted Clinton comments about her endorsement of Obama to suggest she's not sincere
SUMMARY: In a blog post, ABC News' Jake Tapper cropped a quote from Sen. Hillary Clinton explaining her efforts to persuade her supporters to back Sen. Barack Obama, and cited the words he singled out to suggest Clinton's efforts were insincere.
In an August 25 post on his Political Punch blog, titled "Hillary's Ringing Endorsement," ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper cropped a quote from Sen. Hillary Clinton explaining her efforts to persuade her supporters to back Sen. Barack Obama, and cited the words he singled out to suggest Clinton's efforts were insincere. Tapper wrote:
Why are so many supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, convinced that she doesn't actually want Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to win?
Might it have something to do with comments such as the following, which Clinton made today in Denver?
"Eighteen million people voted for me," she said. "18 million people give or take voted for Barack."
Give or take?
But Tapper distorted Clinton's comments by noting only a small part of her response. During an August 25 press conference, Clinton was asked about her supporters who say they will not vote for Obama: "What can you do, beyond what you're doing, to turn it around?" Clinton responded: "I don't know. I'm doing everything I possibly can do, and I think we have made a strong case to a lot of the people who voted for me. Remember, 18 million people voted for me. Eighteen million people, give or take, voted for Barack -- 36 million people altogether. A hundred million people are going to vote in this election, at least. ... So, I think that it is imperative that I keep doing what I've been doing. And I believe, as the election goes on, as the contrasts are drawn more starkly, as people understand what the difference would be between an Obama administration and a McCain administration, we will see a continuing movement toward Senator Obama."
From Clinton's August 25 press conference:
REPORTER: What can you do, beyond what you're doing, to turn it around?
CLINTON: I don't know. I'm doing everything I possibly can do, and I think we have made a strong case to a lot of the people who voted for me. Remember, 18 million people voted for me. Eighteen million people, give or take, voted for Barack -- 36 million people altogether. A hundred million people are going to vote in this election, at least, and we may drive the numbers up because of the high level of interest in the election.
So, I think that it is imperative that I keep doing what I've been doing. And I believe, as the election goes on, as the contrasts are drawn more starkly, as people understand what the difference would be between an Obama administration and a McCain administration, we will see a continuing movement toward Senator Obama.
And, you know, people who vote in elections make up their minds in all kinds of ways. There's no set pattern for how you decide who you're going to vote for. Part of the reason that you have what are called swing voters is because they swing back and forth and they're not as easily categorized, and be put into one camp or the other. And for people who voted for me -- as I have said and will repeat until the last votes are counted -- if you voted for me, you have much more in common with Senator Obama on every issue I campaigned on, on every cause that I have stood for, than you do with Senator McCain.
The rank-and-file rightwing will not admit it but they must be terribly disappointed that Hillary won't get the nomination. Obama spoiled all their fun. Wah!
ABC apparently is trying to resurrect Rush's Operation Chaos. Sorry, too late.
Boehlert had it right in his column this morning. The ones who want the chaos is the media, and they're picking at any little nit to create it.
Hillary made no bones about her support for Obama. Knowing the sensitivity of the American public to nuance, I have a hard time believing that Hillary would making "more or less" the umbilical cord to her 2012 candidacy.
Post the evidence that you have that states Hillary wants the chaos.
And I frankly do not care who you are supporting. You could support Bozo the Clown for that matter and it wouldn't faze me. Rather than just accept that Hillary is behind Obama and is telling her delegates to do the same you come here and try to stir the pot with your assertion, hence the SPECULATION that you want the chaos.
You too? Do you think I am supporting McCain, or Obama, after all I have written here for months. Knee jerk partisan reactions are expected from some, just didn't think it from you, oh well.
I thought we were speculating on chaos and 2012, not your alleged support for McCain.
But you're right, I don't believe you support McCain.
There is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.
I have never hidden my mistrust of all things Clinton, and that is hardly partisan, look at all the Democrats and liberals who feel exactly the same way I do. How do you characterize their disgust over her antics this election season, partisan as well?
Read her comments, "give or take" She would love nothing more than to see Obama beaten so she could rescue the party and be it's nominee in 2012. The evidence is always between the lines with the Clintons. If you don't see it, or don't agree, then we disagree.
"Read her comments, "give or take" She would love nothing more than to see Obama beaten so she could rescue the party and be it's nominee in 2012"
You think Clinton wants Obama to lose to McCain because she said:
Remember, 18 million people voted for me. Eighteen million people, give or take, voted for Barack -- 36 million people altogether.
Really? That's your evidence? Good god, man, bend and flush already.
I have to agree - If McCain wins, the Democrats clinch a 2012 landslide. No way will the American people be happy with 12 years of Republican rule. By then the only people who will want a Republican victory in 2012 are going to be the Hannitzed voters.
All 20 million of them.
Nice catch there, DaWuss, although I think you really did mean to say 'rule'. Republicans are not into that 'leadership' thingy. Leadership is inspiring whereas ruling is more about control... something Repubs absolutely luv.
You know... that authoritarian thingy and all...
"Rapid retraction: I meant "leadership", not "rule" "
You should have let it stand. You had it right the first time.
McCain's presidency will be much different than that of the current Administration. Despite the dem's best (yet disingenuous) efforts, voters simply aren't buying the notion that voting for Maverick is akin to voting for a GW third term. That is why the polls are so close, despite Republicans low favorably ratings in general and Bush's in particular. Because of his straight-talk and long history of bipartisanship, Maverick is by far the best pick for the republicans in this cycle.
In the last weeks leading up to the election, when voters have to decide who is more qualified and trustworthy to lead the nation, Maverick's long and distinguished history of serving America will carry the day. Afterwards, 2012, anything can happen . . .
Sorry, the only reason the polls are close is because McSame, the former POW, has no position on anything. When he's not pointing out he's a former POW he runs attack ads. It would be an exaggeration to say his vision for America just hasn't been articulated well, because the truth is it hasn't been articulated at all. All we ever hear is he's a former POW.
Can't remember how many homes the elitist owns? He was a former POW.
Can't remember who runs what country? No matter, he was a former POW.
Commits adultry like a rabbit in heat? Former POW.
Not really a baptist like he claims? Former POW.
He's got nothing but attack ads and a worn out excuse.
The best pick? My god, if that is what you call 'best' then you guys are in deep doo-doo. Take the hint: your 'best' isn't good to begin with.
When your man uses his POW experience as an answer for everything then it's painfully obvious that he has NOTHING to offer this nation. NOTHING. And it won't matter if he picks Romney - he'll get eaten alive by Biden during the debates - or Pawlenty - huh, who dat???
Your side is becoming more and more laughable with each passing day.
Because of his straight-talk and long history of bipartisanship, Maverick is by far the best pick for the republicans in this cycle
He may have a history of bipartisanship, but now he's clearly taking the partisan line.
I think Snoopy has a list that dispels the Maverick's straight-talk, and if Johnnie Mac is the best pick for the Republicans, how come during the primaries, all the focus was on Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee? Even the "all-caring all-knowing all-feeling all-concerned Maha Rushie" had a hard time getting behind McCain.
Knock off the 'Maverick' bullsh*t already. You are justa tad behind if you're still embracing that one.
You aren't a McCain plant by any chance, arencha?
Your parody is just ever-so-slight that none but the most stringent political fanatic will get it. While subtlety lends itself to better comedy, there still has to be that "aha!" moment of realization for an audience of your typical citizens.
Camp it up just a little bit, and your routine will be golden. But be careful - you don't want to get to that point where you get yourself banned...
Argon, I would describe the Clintons as calculating, not sinister. They plan for all scenarios. One of those scenarios is Obama losing.
I truly believe that the Clintons think that Obama won't win. He may have spooked them by winning the nomination but they truly believe that this country is not ready for a African American president. I believe that Hillary's run for the senate was designed to prepare her resume for a run at the White House. And I believe that they are preparing for her run in 2012, when Obama loses.
Now their statements CAN be misconstrued by the media, but I don't think anyone can deny how political savvy they are.
What I can't understand why they continue to make statement TO the media that leaves room for misunderstanding. Bill Clinton saying his comparison of Obama's win in South Carolina to Jessie Jackson's win had nothing to do with race. Hillary, unable to answer the same question more than 4 times, without a final "as far as I know". Bill unable to give a direct "YES" to Snow's question of Obama's ability to be President and Hillary's 18 million "give or take".
You can blame the media for only so long. At some point you have to examine someone other than the media.
Steve-
You keep referring to one of the candidates as 'Maverick'? I was wondering who you are referring to? I was under the impression that the Maverick John McCain who ran in the 2000 election against future-president Bush was killed in the aftermath of the South Carolina primary.
I did hear, however, that the Maverick's soul was salvaged by Karl Rove, who dyed it jet black like his own soul. It was then returned to the Maverick's near-lifeless body, and he was re-animated in order to pursue world domination.
I do not agree with Barr but, god, that is about as sleazy as it can get.
McCain simply has NOTHING to offer this country, he cannot win on the issues, and he is no 'maverick'. To the point: he and his campaign are LOSERS.
I guess you need to have a chat with Ike's granddaughter. She left the republican party for good specifically because of McCain.
Here's just a snippet for ya:
I have decided I can no longer be a registered Republican. For the first time in my life I announced my support for a Democratic candidate for the presidency, in February of this year. This was not an endorsement of the Democratic platform, nor was it a slap in the face to the Republican Party. It was an expression of support specifically for Senator Barack Obama. I had always intended to go back to party ranks after the election and work with my many dedicated friends and colleagues to help reshape the GOP, especially in the foreign-policy arena. But I now know I will be more effective focusing on our national and international problems than I will be in trying to reinvigorate a political organization that has already consumed nearly all of its moderate “seed corn.” And now, as the party threatens to trivialize what promised to be a serious debate on our future direction, it will alienate many young people who might have come into party ranks.
My decision came at the end of last week when it was demonstrated to the nation that McCain and this Bush White House have learned little in the last five years. They mishandled what became a crisis in the Caucusus, and this has undermined U.S. national security. At the same time, the McCain camp appears to be comfortable with running an unworthy Karl Rove–style political campaign. Will the McCain operation, and its sponsors, do anything to win?
Doris, I don't believe she is sincere at all in her "support" to get Obama elected. Outwardly she is right there with him, but as I said, between the lines and a few choice illuminating words, such as "give and take" speak for themselves. She is irritated at Obama for taking away what she thought was hers. She is irritated that word leaked she wasn't even vetted for his VP nod. Obviously she can't stiff him publicly, so she treads very lightly and carefully.....something the Clintons have mastered for years. Look at some of her ads from the primary that McCain is now using, you know she knew that would happen if he got the nomination. Calculating.
I have no problem if others disagree with me, I expect most here do. But it's my opinion. And it's just another reason I am supporting Obama over McCain, if for no other reason than to put the Clintons era behind us, once and for all. GO BARACK!!
Her nonsupport support is ridiculous.
What nonsupport?
Give or take? Tapper has is exactly right. Her nonsupport support is ridiculous. She wants the chaos, she wants the split, she wants 2012.
Tommy, I've been told that the "as far as I know" comment was in response to "badgering" from Kroft. I been told that Bill Clinton's convoluted answer to the simple question, "Is Obama ready to be President", was off set by his declaring his "absolute" support of Obama.
Now I suppose you can take their answers either way, depending on how you feel about the Clintons. If you support the Clintons, you believe their answers have no evil intent or if you don’t support them, you think their talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Now here's Hillary declaring that she has 18 million votes and Obama has 18 million votes, "give OR take". So you can conclude that he either matches her in votes or he really doesn't match her in votes. BUT he’s the party's nominee. One would automatically assume that he has MORE votes than she. So why the “give or take” answer?
It's no secret that the Clintons are unhappy. No matter how many speeches they give or how many interviews with their "absolutely I support Obama", comments, they are some pissed off folks.
So here I am AGAIN, trying to decipher exactly what the Clintons meant and I'm left thinking, the Clinton's are the most media savvy folks in this business. If they wanted to avoid the media scrutiny of their words, they'd be direct, none of this "give or take". But If they want to keep the media spotlight on them, they give the exact answers they've been giving, leaving plenty of room for doubt, depending on your feeling about the Clintons. It's a win, win situation. They make their displeasure known to the media and in turn we assume the media's picking on the Clintons, AGAIN.
Like I said, they're savvy political folks.
Below is a little vintage Bill today speaking from Denver, he is a piece of work.
"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?" Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
Ya right........
"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?" Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
Tommy, unbelievable, simply unbelievable!
Of course THIS has nothing to do with now. Bill was just throwing out possible scenarios for the 2016 election season. I'm sure the media is to blame for this statement being misconstrued. <heavy sarcasm>
Like I've said before, the Clintons are not stupid.
I just don't see it. I don't think there's any problem with what Bill Clinton said in Denver during his talk among former foreign leaders talking about democracy-deliverance. If you can't explain, then so be it. When it comes to the Clintons, you and Tommy are like those people who report seeing Jesus in a Cheeto.
Like I said, they're savvy political folks.
So savvy that they rely on media distortion and cropped quotes.
So savvy that they rely on media distortion and cropped quotes.
It's called leaving room for doubt, while appearing innocent.
For an example, check out Bill Clinton's comment in Denver that Tommy posted.
Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?" Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
Governor, here's Bill explaining how, IF (All hypothetical, of course), there was a case where a group of supporters had to choose between a candidate (Obama) that supports ALL of their ideas (Obama and Hillary's ideas are closer than Hillary and McCain), but CAN'T deliver (Obama won't get things done) and a candidate (McCain) that supports SOME ( I can't think of any) of their ideas but WILL (McCain has more experience at getting things done in Washington) deliver, it's understandable and acceptable why they'd go for the candidate that WILL (McCain) deliver. Oh and by the way, THIS (Bill CHA, I support Obama) has nothing to do with THIS (Bill again, CHA, I support Obama) election?
WTF does THIS have to do with?
Either Bill's auditioning for Madam Cleo or he's describing why some Hillary supporters will vote for McCain and why they won't vote for Obama, and then lying about it.
Excellent Pearl. You made the case brilliantly. But we just "report seeing Jesus in a Cheeto", whatever that nonsense means.
Nice job....
In case you were not aware of the context and the program at which Bill made his remarks, here it is:
http://ilf.ndi.org/program
WTF does THIS have to do with"
By "THIS" Bill was referring to the very topic - Ensuring Democracy Delivers Real Dividends: A Perspective from Former Presidents and Prime Ministers - that he and 8 other former president were asked to speak about.
Which candidate are you going to vote for?" Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
Governor, I'm sure Bill said THIS comment, was in regards to the conference title and had nothing to do with the current election.
Just as I'm sure it was just a coincidence that HIS senario mirrors the reasons some Hillary supporters are giving for supporting McCain. <sarcasm>
Bingo. Just enough of her supporters to peel off and vote for McCain, just enough to tip the electoral map, just enough to give McCain a teensy victory, just enough, just in time for a Hillary rescue in 2012.
The Clintons know just how far to walk the edge without falling over that edge, this is nothing new.
"It's called leaving room for doubt, while appearing innocent"
Exactly, some will never get it.
Pearlene and Tommy, you make some good points, however I'm having a hard time getting my head around a scenario where the Clintons would rely on such nuances if they really were out to subvert the Obama campaign in a run for 2012. (I commented on the nuance perspective previously).
It seems more likely to me that the Clintons, after being the tall dogs in the democratic party for so long, are reluctant to see their roles diminished, should Obama win. From what I've seen, politicians get lazy and sloppy the longer they stay in office, and I would tend to think that the Clintons would be no different. I doubt they'd still have the impetus to devise some sinister plan to - through the use of innuendo and suggestion - sabotage the '08 election so that they can jump up and take control again in 2012.
And Tommy, I searched for that quote, but couldn't find it in any mainstream news articles, only blogs. Could you provide a link so that I can read the whole quote in its original context? I'm not doubting your veracity, I'm just curious what would elicit a statement like that.
Sure.....
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bill-clinton-in-denver-again-undercuts-obama-2008-08-26.html
Thanks, but I read the blog on "The Hill", echoed on "Free Republic", among other rightie blogs. I think you missed the part where I was going for "context". Fortunately, (shout out to Gov), I found that the setting for Bill's comments were a forum on the following subject:
“Ensuring Democracy Delivers Real Dividends: A Perspective from Former Presidents and Prime Ministers”.
As to the rest of what Clinton said, I still haven't found any transcripts. But it seems to me that in this case, the lack of evidence combined with the available sources of this quote is a strong indicator that those words are not being used to convey their original meaning.
I'll reserve the right to reverse that opinion should you provide anything that disputes it.
I believe Tom Tomorrow agrees with you:
Had she put it without the 'give or take', they would have gone out screeching and bellowing.
But Jake--who accused Bill of advocating the slowing down of the economy when his point was exactly the opposite--is showing his colors again.
Remember, 18 million people voted for me. Eighteen million people, give or take, voted for Barack -- 36 million people altogether.
Give or take, means more or less in this case. So she's saying a few less than 18 mil or a few more than 18 mil voted for Obama. So? No biggie unless your looking for something...
We'd only be speculating whether "more or less" was meant as a sly swipe. I think it's a stretch. Just like as "far as I know" was.
Does anyone doubt that the Clintons are disappointed? Maybe even bitter?
No one knows except the Clintons how sincere their efforts or endorsement are.
I don't think it matters. Most of her supporters will get behind Obama with or without her blessing.
Does anyone doubt that the Clintons are disappointed? Maybe even bitter?
I do not believe the Clintons are bitter, disappointed, I know I was when Hillary lost but not Bitter. The Clintons are professional and they do what is good for America, and supporting Obama is best for our nation, they know that.
The only sincere thing I can say about Tapper is that he is a liar and connot even state the smallest sentence correctly. It is not due to lack of intelligence, he seems to say all this crap just to get out his mantra of disinformation in the guise of quoting. So Mr. Tapper, a lie is a lie is a lie no matter if the lie is conjecture, made up and bold faced. Try the truth. It is great fun.
The propaganda media is absurdly partisan in its support for all things republican. The problem is that the republican leadership in no longer republican. Its style of governance is more aligned with that of a fascist state.
If one compares the current administration with all previous administrations none have been so reckless, lawless, self-serving, belligerent, and paranoid. While these traits have existed in past American administrations they were not as pervasive, nor did the media advance the narrative that they should be accepted. The lust for power, (superiority,) and obsessive greed is startling to witness. Never have so few done so much harm to so many. Anyone who believes that the current leadership is driven by an ideology is not paying attention. Its behavior has much more in common with criminal behavior than it has with that of responsible public servants.
People like Tapper are in the bag for the administration, because they know how its system of rewards and punishments works. Familiarity seduces many, because it is easier and the experience of it is comforting in a dangerous way. It protects those who are betraying the American people with the excuse that if the roles were reversed the people would do the same to them. When combined with denial and arrogance they resemble typical jerks in society who are never wrong while being abusive to those who know that they are.
We are sadly witnesses to the immaturely self-centered mismanaging everything, because they do not seek consensus. Instead they push their hidden agenda at all costs, because it is how some leaders seek to profit. It is stealing on a grand scale. It is mass murder. It is justifying the unjustifiable.
Whether Hillary is sincere or not is another republican meme that the media repeats like trained parrots. No one knows whether Hillary is sincere or not, and Tapper's claim to know is insincere. Therefore, his statements about Hillary and Obama should not be taken seriously. In fact, his manipulative lack of professionalism should cause his audience to laugh in his conniving face.
Except for the fact that the republicans’ only hold on power is supported by deception they should be much more gracious than using an argument about who is fit to lead. The republicans including John McShame are unfit to lead.
They were the ones who did not prevent 9/11. They were the ones who made America attack a nation that did not attack the U.S. and represented little or no threat. It was republicans who promoted a war based on deceit. It was they who deregulated mortgage lending that caused the mortgage collapse. It was they who did not foresee that by negotiating with Poland to place U.S. missiles on Russia’s border while Georgia threatened to join NATO would provoke a Russian response.
When Russia tried to place missiles in Cuba the U.S. was willing to risk nuclear war to prevent it. What made these idiots believe that Russia would not respond in an aggressive manner? If these acts and more are how experienced leaders behave a little less experience would be refreshing.
So far the only experience the republicans have is the wrong type. They were the one’s who put the U.S. so far in debt that the dollar is weakened as well as its credit rating lowered. Because it helps republicans pull the wool over Americans’ eyes they are borrowing the U.S. economy into China’s hands. Worse is that they do not care because it serves their short term interests. We are witnessing the worst aspects of capitalism being treated as though they are behaviors that should be imitated.
The propaganda media shirks its responsibility for reporting on stupid distractions with the arrogant claim that it is what their audiences demand, while polls show that their audience’s main complaint is that the propaganda media wastes too much air time on stupid distractions and they would prefer more substantive coverage of issues and more serious handling of news relevant to their survival and understanding.
The propaganda media has made a pact with the devil to betray the American people for profit. At every opportunity Americans need to declare liar on the media, not because it only is disrespectful in its deceit, but also because of its misleading stories used to persuade and change the framing of stories to fit the neo-fascist agenda. While some reporters may be ignorant of the fact that they are being used as tools, others like Tapper are deliberate tools for the neo-fascist agenda.