Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(59,097 posts)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:06 AM Mar 2016

Obama 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

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
1. The White House has denied that Obama told donors to "unite behind Hillary Clinton"
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:11 AM
Mar 2016

According to Bloomberg News, "President Obama “in fact” didn’t 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)
3. CoffeeCat, what is fascinating to me
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:21 AM
Mar 2016

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)
5. I'll reiterate my own feelings about this interesting and curious "journalism"
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:31 AM
Mar 2016

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)
6. The logical counterargument is that
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:36 AM
Mar 2016

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)
15. !!!! Margaret Sullivan responded.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:34 PM
Mar 2016

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!

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
7. It's definitely not a backtrack
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:38 AM
Mar 2016

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
11. The "White House official" could also be POTUS, himself.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:21 AM
Mar 2016

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:

Mr. Obama chose his words carefully, and did not explicitly call on Mr. Sanders to quit the race, according to those in the room. Still, those in attendance said in interviews that they took his comments as a signal to Mr. Sanders that perpetuating his campaign, which is now an uphill climb, could only help the Republicans recapture the White House.

BeanMusical

(4,389 posts)
10. But since he didn't...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:50 AM
Mar 2016

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)
12. so, authenticity is... bad?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:47 AM
Mar 2016

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)
13. I can see why, too.. President Obama doesn't want some crump headed for the White House.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:56 AM
Mar 2016

Good to see you back Randy.. they can't stop your voice now.

 

AzDar

(14,023 posts)
16. When all you have is discredited bullshit -MAYBE you should take a long, hard look at your candidate
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:40 PM
Mar 2016

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
17. The NYT public editor is going to look into this, she has confirmed.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:46 PM
Mar 2016

source: private correspondence.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Obama Privately Tells Don...