Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jake Tapper deceives the public about Bill Clinton's words, again.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-14-08 08:51 PM
Original message
Jake Tapper deceives the public about Bill Clinton's words, again.
In a radio interview with Chris Plante, Bill Clinton predicted success for his wife on the grounds that they've raised enough money, among other reasons.


We've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring, and then last week, when her supporters realized that she didn't have the funds to compete, they gave 10 million dollars in four days over the internet, over 100,000 of them, and another 2 million over the weekend, and so I think we are going to be competitive in Ohio and Texas.

I think she'll win those states. I think she'll win Pennsylvania, and then at the end of this process she will have won most of the popular vote, and I believe she'll be the nominee.


This is how Jake Tapper of ABC News portrayed Bill Clinton's words:

He said they'd done well considering their slim budget. "We've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring," he said.

He did not mention that his wife's campaign has raised more than $140 million.



Clinton indicates he's pleased with how much money they've raised, after saying that they got some delegates when their money was low, and then Jake Tapper takes the phrase "shoestring" out-of-context to deceive some people into thinking that Clinton was emphasizing how little they've raised.

This is similar to how Jake Tapper deceived some people into thinking that Bill Clinton said we should slow the economy, after Clinton argued the opposite in a speech.

My point isn't about voting for Hillary Clinton or Obama. Vote for whomever you want.

My point is that Jake Tapper is a bad journalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's because Tapper is a lying douchebag.
And even though he has been shown to be lying, Obamtons will hold him up an example of true journalism.

Till he lies about their guy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. No, that's wrong. I support Obama but I think Tapper is the worst
kind of journalist. His mangling of Bill Clinton's words on global warming was bad for the cause of combatting global climate change, because it pretended to say Bill was acknowledging that dealing with it would slow down the economy, when what he said was the exact opposite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. I voted for Obama.
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 12:17 AM by Eric J in MN
But I dislike it when journalists mislead about the Clintons, because Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic nominee.

(Plus I'm in favor of honest journalism regardless of subject.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't know Jake Tapper and take your word that he is a bad journalist
I saw Bill Clinton make the comment about doing well on a shoe string and the 5 people in the room with me all erupted in laughter when we heard it. The funny thing is if they had stopped trying so hard to package parse and spin and just made Hillary more approachable and accessable they might have won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Did you see an excerpt on ABC televison which left out the rest of Bill Clinton's sentence?
(I don't know if there was such an excerpt on ABC television.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. No I don't normally watch ABC but regardless of the context Bill Clinton
using the phrase "shoestring" is funny. If you don't think so just ask the other 15 guys that ran for president this year whose name is not Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Bill Clinton's point was the they spent little money in some states.
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 12:14 AM by Eric J in MN
They didn't run TV ads in MN as far as I know.

Hillary Clinton lost here but got 24 delegates from MN. Barack Obama's campaign ran TV ads here and he got 48 delegates from MN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Tapper is one of the worst out there
The others are the guys at Politico.com and I think Tapper teams up with them. ABC broadcasted lies about the Clintons from 1992 on. They are worse than Fox. Tapper works for ABC and writes fact free hit pieces for them. The whole operation is nothing more than a libel mill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. anyone thinking the media is soft on Obama yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Jake Tapper is terrible. This is the third time (I can't remember the
second one, but it was not Bill Clinton but another Democrat) that he has "screwed up". I wonder if he'll be moving up soon to the Washington Times or Fox News. He would fit in just fine there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. It seems accurate to me.. $140+ Million does not seem like a "shoestring" to me

I believe the point is that Bill Clinton was trying to mislead people into thinking that they never had enough money to compete, but now somehow that has all changed.. Clearly Misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't campaign significantly in some states....
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 12:07 AM by Eric J in MN
...(I didn't see any TV ads for her in MN and neither did others in the MN DU forum) but she still get some delegates while losing due to proportional awarding.

Hence, she spent a "shoestring" in MN but got delegates, while Obama got a lot more delegates in MN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
my3boyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
14. HA! Now Bill is saying he believes she will have the
most votes and be the nominee. Before (right after Iowa) the Clinton camp was screaming that it was a DELEGATES game. Now that they don't think they can win the EARNED delegates they are claiming it is about popular vote!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC