Washington Post admits having made a "slight mistake" in quoting Clinton's words about rich people

[antiimperialist]

I have received an email from Alec MacGillis, the co-author of the Washington Post piece titled "In Vegas, Politics Comes to The Strip", where the Washington Post falsely quoted Hillary Clinton mocking higher-income voters and in college towns as people who "don't need a president".

The real statement occured on January 4th in New Hampshire, when Hillary said,

"I'm well aware that New Hampshire, and America, has a lot of voters who don't think they need a president right now, they're doing fine, they're well educated," she said. "So for them this election isn't about 'me and my family' it's about, you know, 'how I feel' and 'what I hope for.' And that's great, but there are more people in New Hampshire who need a president who will be your champion."

[Cameron27]

1. Without their "slight" mistakes

Wapo would be a 2 page leaflet.

[laconicsax]

14. I know I'm splitting hairs here, but

isn't a leaflet technically a small, single page?

[Cameron27]

22. I know,

it just sounded better lol.

[robbedvoter]

2. What???She didn't try to leave Bush's base unpresidented? What a shock!

After all the sympathy I saw here for the rich in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4058060&mesg_id=4058583

[Rincewind]

3. I like rich people

They taste like veal.

[emilyg]

4. Cornish hens.

[ruggerson]

5. So what did she say?

[antiimperialist]

6. She said some people who live fine "think they don't need a president"

But if you read the Washington Post article today, you think she was mocking rich college towns because they "don't need a president", however

#1) In the real quote Hillary doesn't seem to be mocking anyone and
#2) She is not agreeing with the thought that this segment of the population does not need a president.

[ruggerson]

7. I got that part, I mean what did the lying scumbag of a reporter say

in her email to you.

[antiimperialist]

8. Well I dont want to paste the whole email

I dont know how legal is that without her consent but here's a portion:

As you can see, my transposing of this quote -- which I witnessed in person -- into the shorter one in today's article contained a slight mistake -- "don't need a president" versus "don't think they need a president." We should have had the quote marks around only "need a president" in today's article, rather than "don't need a president." However, the point in today's article stands: Sen. Clinton was very clearly speaking to the more upscale Democrats that Obama seems to be doing better with, and suggesting that such people are not as in need of a president as the more working/middle class voters she has so far been doing better with.

Best,
Alec MacGillis
Washington Post

[ruggerson]

10. Interesting that she doesn't see

that "think that they don't need a president" has a COMPLETELY different meaning than "don't need a president."

This kind of journalism is advocacy shilling at its worst.

[goodgd_yall]

13. She still doesn't understand what Hillary was saying. n/t

[HughMoran]

17. He's full of shit. Credibility of Alec MacGillis = 0

What a moran!

[antiimperialist]

19. i keep calling him "she" but Alec is a male name n/t

[HughMoran]

23. ok

I changed it to he :shrug: :D

[William769]

9. And how many time was the misquote used on DU?

[McCamy Taylor]

11. One year ago, WaPo's John Solomon was doing his "Edwards is a Phony"

articles. Looks like that are now doing their "Hillary is a bitch" articles. Soon there will be only Obama, and he will have no one to speak up for him.

I wonder if things might have been different if all the Dems had gotten together early on and attacked the MSM en masse for its early naughtiness. Did the other candidates (besides Edwards) think that he was going to be the only target? Does Obama think that he will be left alone? The pressure on the Dems to hurry up and select a nominee is so that the MSM can hurry up and start sliming the Democratic nominee.

[goodgd_yall]

12. Good god---

that's no "slight mistake."

[Anouka]

15. What was in the email? n/t

[antiimperialist]

16. I think it's illegal to post private emails in public forums, isn't it?

Sort of like phone calls, without asking the other person's consent.

But here are her words quoted in a blog on January 4th, for the sake of verification, 6th paragraph counting from the bottom of the page:
http://www.barrycrimmins.com/index.php?page=news&category=political_satirist_Barry_Crimmins&display=543&from=0

[Anouka]

20. You brought it up, I figured you'd at least paraphrase

if it were important enough to mention that you received an email from this person. If it's not kosher to post even paraphrases, then it should be forbidden to bring up receiving email at all. But is it?

You can always write to them back, and tell them you would like to post quotes.

As anyone should know, you can either be someone who is likeable or someone who is electable. People with combative and defensive mindsets are not particularly personable but they are perfectly suited for fighting off Republican attack machines. Over the next few days we'll see how a non-liberal siege mentality combines with a condescending authoritarianism to result in the package of irresistible electability that is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

wow.


But anyway, did the email writer give you an apology, or refuse to apologize while backtracking, or what?

[antiimperialist]

21. I posted a portion of his email in post #8 n/t

[antiimperialist]

24. Ok here's the entire email

I just received permission:

Andrew,
Thanks for your note. The quote is drawn from this comment by Sen. Clinton, which she made during her first speech back to NH after the Iowa caucus, on Jan. 4:

"I'm well aware that New Hampshire, and America, has a lot of voters who don't think they need a president right now, they're doing fine, they're well educated," she said. "So for them this election isn't about 'me and my family' it's about, you know, 'how I feel' and 'what I hope for.' And that's great, but there are more people in New Hampshire who need a president who will be your champion."

As you can see, my transposing of this quote -- which I witnessed in person -- into the shorter one in today's article contained a slight mistake -- "don't need a president" versus "don't think they need a president." We should have had the quote marks around only "need a president" in today's article, rather than "don't need a president." However, the point in today's article stands: Sen. Clinton was very clearly speaking to the more upscale Democrats that Obama seems to be doing better with, and suggesting that such people are not as in need of a president as the more working/middle class voters she has so far been doing better with.

Best,
Alec MacGillis
Washington Post

[Anouka]

25. Oh, ok. Thank you for posting this.

and thank you to Mr. MacGillis for giving you permission to post the clarification.

[antiimperialist]

26. No problem n/t

[OzarkDem]

18. Where have we seen this tactic before?

Oh yeah, through all 8 years of the Clinton administration.

Tell a big fat lie, broadcast it across the worldwide news media 24/7, then later admit you were wrong on the back pages.

[NastyRiffraff]

27. This is NOT a "slight mistake"

The meaning was completely changed.

Wonder if the correction will appear in the WaPo.