Being Accused of "Parsing" By the Clinton Campaign

Linking to the video was nice, but when the quote that you post reverses the meaning of what was said you are obviously taking it out of context. And there was nothing confusing about the point that Mr. Clinton was trying to make. The idea that you had to ask for clarification is just silly. Lastly, while I appreciate that fact that this is a blog, you are a journalist. Referring to Mr. Clinton as "Bubba" might be amusing in conversation, but it does not seem appropriate in this context. In short you blew it. And you just keep digging a bigger a hole.

Jim: "Just an observation...it is very ironic that the same media that ignored any transgressions by the Clinton machine in the past"

Huh? The media ignored Clinton's transgressions??? Were you asleep through the whole of the 1990s?

Jake,

You need to apologize, period.

I've followed you since when you were back at Salon a long time ago, so I know you're not an idiot. You blew this one and your attemtp at an explination requires the complete suspension of reason. You look and sound like O'Reilly!

Apologize Jake!

I have to admit, if ABC is hiring the truly stupid and illiterate as a nod to dumbwhiteboy affirmative action, you were the perfect hire.
It is impossible to believe that anyone could misread Clinton's comment accidentally.

Clinton's statement is only confusing if you're retarded, and if you're retarded, you shouldn't be reporting on it.

If you're not retarded, and understood what the statement meant, but lied about it, you also shouldn't be reporting on it.

Jake - I really like your work but you need to apologize - you got this story crucially wrong and your claim that "this is the much more important issue here" is ridiculous - when you get a story exactly backwards there is _nothing_ more important than issuing the correction.

So tell us, Jake, how does it feel to be simultaneously an unquestioning pawn of the Clintons as you fawn and genuflect to carry out their every journalistic whim while working as a clandestine Repub dirty-tricks operative to undermine their status among the voters? I'd think you must have a split personality to do both as well as people here say you do, or at least you multitask well. Illegitimi non carborundum.

I am bookmarking this page. I intend on showing this to people when I am telling them that the media has a clear right wing bias.

Not only did you make up a baseless accusation, you are defending it when many people have called you on it not being true.

Looks like you're under a lefty blogstorm. Too bad. It won't matter now what you actually said, only what they think you said and whether bashing you will help "the narrative" they're trying to push (in this case, poor Clintons bashed by hostile media).

You could say, well, everyone disagrees with me so maybe I'm right, and this will all go away on its own. But the only way to really save face and make this go away is to apologize, since you clearly portrayed a rejected alternative as a proposed alternative.

(Which action above am I actually recommending? Is it that difficult to understand?)

Here, a reporter gave DETAILED context and multiple possible ways to take an unclear statement from Mr. Clinton and he still gets accused of "out-of-context" by the Clintonites.

Mr. Tapper - the 'most important issue' here is that you took a quote out of context and said "look, Clinton thinks we should screw our economy". Iain Murray analyzed what Clinton suggested, compared it to statements from economists versed in the subject, and said that if we implemented Clinton's suggestions, the economy would be hurt. From his own words, Clinton was more optimistic about his ideas. There's a big difference between "Clinton thinks we should sacrifice our economy to stop global warming" and "some people think Clinton's advice to stop global warming will harm the economy. Clinton disagrees".

Talk about taking things out of context or missing a major part of the point here. Tapper isn't saying Clinton favors slowing the economy, period, but that there is virtually no way to combat global warming that doesn't at least slow the economy initially. Perhaps we can realize long term gains, but initially there will be a slow down in economic growth.

Clinton wasn't all that precise in his speech. And in fact, I'm going to call Bravo Sierra on his claim that implementing anti-CO2 policies have resulted in faster/more/higher growth in other industrial countries. I'd like to see some data on that, and you certainly wont see any from Clinton.

Wow.

You're an idiot.

What the heck?
"But any serious effort will cost a lot of money and slow the economy, whether the world is in it together or the U.S. and industrialized nations go it alone."
Right now Congress is deciding how it is going to spend a lot of money to help the stagnant economy. You are saying that spending money slows the economy, thus maybe you should chime in on the current debate over the economy before we make a grave mistake.

OK, we all get the point. Jake misrepresented things somewhat. Let us not get away from the fact, however, that Bill is making economic promises that his wife, if elected, will not be able to keep.

We are having a hard enough time right now keeping our economy, and the world economy, afloat without deliberately trying to put in place things that will hinder recovery. Bill seems to feel that Hillary can figure out a way to slow global warming, minimize the economic impact and turn it into an economic stimulus, all the while getting the rest of the world to cooperate. While all of that would be great, his whole purpose in making the statement is to say, "Trust me. Vote for Hillary and she'll figure out how to do it".

Sorry, Bill, but I'm not buying it, even if your wife CAN figure out how to turn a $1,000 futures investment into $100,000. Accomplishing that on a global scale is a little different.

Let me see if I have this straight. If we do nothing about global warming .... we're all dead. But if we stop reproducing (i.e. die) and plant enough trees to offset the pollution from China and India, what's left of us will be ok. But we'll just have to pay a tax if we want more than on child. Um, it doesn't seem like this "problem" is an actual problem. It sounds like it's just another way big government can dictate what you can and cannot do through another baseless taxation ploy. Forgive me if I don't jump up and down and see the urgency promulgated from this SCAM!!! Give me a break. I will not take a tax, just to exist so that communist China can pollute at will without repercussions.

Typical reporters. I don't understand why they feel the need to share their opinion.

Oh, don't start the "Evil Clinton Machine has sent its attack dogs" crap.

I am still for Edwards. Hillary is my absolute last choice. This has nothing to do with the Clintons and everything to do with the woeful state of journalism these days.

I see the useful idiot attack machine has mobilized against a reasonable question about a stump speech and a candidate’s position. The candidate refused comment then unleashed the hounds. Disgusting! Please continue the discourse. A free press is the only way to keep all of the candidates honest.