2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton
In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was nearing the point at which his campaign against Hillary Clinton would end, and that the party must soon come together to back her.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic.
But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 was once praised for his authenticity.
Mr. Obama made the remarks after reporters had left a fund-raising event in Austin, Tex., for the Democratic National Committee. The comments were described by three people in the room for the event, all of whom were granted anonymity to describe a candid moment with the president. The comments were later confirmed by a White House official.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)According to Bloomberg News, "President Obama in fact didnt privately tell donors last Friday the party must soon come together to back Hillary Clinton, White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest tells reporters."
I was there for the fundraiser, and I was there when the comments occurred, said Earnest.
Obama said that as Democrats move through this competitive primary process, we need to be mindful that our success in November in electing a Democratic president will depend on the commitment and ability of the Democratic Party to come together behind our nominee
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-17/obama-didn-t-back-clinton-at-private-fundraiser-earnest
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)is that the NY Times would run a story based on 3 anonymous sources and a further unnamed "WH official" corroborating it. Despite relying entirely on anonymous sources, the NY Times did not bother to run their story past Josh Earnest for comment (at first read I had assumed the WH official was Josh Earnest -- clearly that was not the case). This despite their recent posting by the public editor Margaret Sullivan: "Tightening the Screws on Anonymous Sources"
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/new-york-times-anoymous-sources-policy-public-editor/
(As an aside, one gets the impression that the public editor holds little power.)
Amazingly, this would appear to be exactly the situation that is warned about in that editorial, that all the anonymous sources could be Clinton backers trying to affect the narrative going forward. And the story was published on the front page of the NYT without comment from the WH.
Don't worry, I've already written up these thoughts and sent them to Ms. Sullivan, the public editor. I eagerly await her response.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)from The New York Times.
When I worked for my college newspaper as a writer and editor, we were not allowed to use anonymous or unnamed sources.
Interesting indeed when college-newspaper standards far exceed those of The New York Times.
As you stated, if The New York Times is quoting the President of the United States, you would think those reporters would double check that those words were indeed spoken.
Let us know if you hear from Ms. Sullivan.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Obama was blindsided by this reporting (real, investigative journalism from Pravda The Times??) and denied (i.e. lied) the story because he thinks the primary process is an effective way of fostering a discussion about issues he cares about.
It's either that, or as we suspect, The Times is in the gutter. We'll hopefully find out.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)She said she is bringing the issue up with the appropriate editors and that she "appreciated my concern" -- I think indicating she agrees with us. I'll keep you posted, and I bet you'll end up seeing something on the public editor's blog in the near future.
Awesome!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Delete your OP.
RandySF
(59,097 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:00 AM - Edit history (1)
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)The entire foundation of that New York Times article was to say that Obama told donors, "it's time to get behind Hillary."
The Obama Administration, through Josh Earnest, made a point of publicly stating that this is not what Obama said!
By saying that Obama "backtracked" you're suggesting that Obama did say, "It's time to get behind Hillary" when in fact the White House is saying just the opposite.
They're saying that he never said that, in the first place.
And they've gone public to state this. So maybe you should listen.
Thank you!
MADem
(135,425 posts)It happens. More than people realize. And he didn't tell Sanders to fold his tent, either--this was more like a "Start thinking about your next move" type suggestion:
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Are you saying that Obama lacks "common sense"? And thank you for the kick so we can expose that bullshit propaganda.
renate
(13,776 posts)Bush's fake authenticity (!) was bad, sure, but Bernie has been walking this walk for decades. He is the real deal.
I'm not denying that the math makes Bernie's nomination a very very very long shot, but I'm not super persuaded that having an authentic candidate is a bad thing.
Cha
(297,503 posts)Good to see you back Randy.. they can't stop your voice now.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)source: private correspondence.