Rahm Emanuel did not say bipartisanship is dead

[Becky72]

These days, journalists and bloggers create headlines that are shocking and bold.
Example: Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times:

The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”

As you see, Emanuel describes the way Republicans have behaved so far.

But Greg Sargent (whose column I read every day and I admire) writes a story entitled "Rahm Emanuel: Bipartisanship Is Dead." http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/rahm-emanuel-okay-bipartisanship-is-dead/

Many a reader would think that Emanuel is being quoted directly. But this headline is nothing but Greg Sargent's interpretation of what Emanuel said. I'm going out on a limb and say that many of us did not bother to examine what Emanuel actually said.

In fact, Emanuel said nothing about the way he thinks bipartisanship should be handled by Democrats now or in the future. The quote I posted above is the only thing Emanuel said to the NY Times.

Drudge loves to use the approach, too. Let's do better journalism.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. It really is awful the editorializing that goes on by "journalists."

[DJ13]

2. Thats a shame

If he had said it we might believe he found his balls.

[babylonsister]

3. Aren't you the stickler. He sure didn't say it's worth wasting more

time on. And that's what writers do-they try to gain attention via headlines. I don't think his basic remark was misinterpreted by that title, and that's what Drudge does.


He didn't say 'it's war' either, but forgive those of us who prefer to interpret it that way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6344809

[rocktivity]

4. Well. Obama didn't say the public option was dead

and look what the media did with THAT over the weekend...

:eyes:
rocktivity

[FrenchieCat]

5. Tell me about it!

And yet, DU along with everyone else and their mama,
have accepted that this is exactly what Obama was saying....
when he didn't say it at all. In fact, this "The public Option is dead"
has spawned endless editorial,articles, talk show fodder, threads and posts
repeating that this is what Barack Obama meant, said, felt and did.....
and yet, not too many seem to mind that he really never implied that
the Public Option was off the table.

So I'm not sure why the indignation on what Rham did or did not say....

seems these days, we'll just run with whatever we are told was maybe said
as told to us by some third party, and we just go with that.

Guess its convenient!

[LooseWilly]

6. And now you're doing it too..

What Obama did, in downplaying the importance of the Public Option in the overall reform package of health care, is A) imply that it might actually be a negotiable detail (rather than a core element that was not negotiable)... and B) engage in a spot of preliminary "downgrading of expectations" (presumably in case the final reform package does indeed negotiate away a Public Option) as a sort of political "bet hedging".

The editorials and outcry (not to mention the reaction by House of Representatives progressives who pledged to vote against a "reform package" that doesn't include a Public Option) are a voicing of displeasure in reaction to A) above... and an indication that B) above may not play with a segment of Obama's constituency.

Your attempt to re-cast this reaction as some sort of indication that those clamoring against the possibility of negotiating away a Public Option are collectively so delusional that they believe he "implied the Public Option was off the table" is a mischaracterization (a strawman, technically) that is only useful if you are interested in dismissing criticism, rather than evaluating it and responding... as Obama seems to be doing by reiterating his support of a Public Option.

I read these reiterations as a sign that the vociferousness of the criticism of the idea of trading away the Public Option was not missed... but that only indicates the importance of that vociferousness. Trying to pretend like Obama didn't "test the waters" a little bit is an exercise in self-delusion that only does a disservice to those who are legitimately voicing concerns... without whom Obama's administration might have decided that it would be less of a political headache to just cave to the Blue Dawgs and do away with the Public Option... so that they could just put together a "reform package" and be done with it. (Speaking of convenience.)