Being Accused of “Parsing” By the Clinton Campaign

I hate the Clintons but your piece on the “slowing down the economy” phrase was a hit piece.
I saw the video and about 13:35 minutes in he says “Maybe we could slow down the economy but that would not work”.
Look I hate these guys but primarily because of all the hit pieces these jackals have put out on others.
I don’t think emulating them is such a good idea.

Jake;
Don’t really care what anyone says, especially the Clintons, keep parsing. BTW, I’m a programmer and to me, parsing is identifying “errors” and omitting redudancy. (he he he)

You didn’t “parse”, you just reported what he actually said. He should choose his words better.
And the invocation of Clinton’s meaning of ‘is’….is perfect! Parse away!

“The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren.”
What part of this Clinton statement didn’t you understand?

The Clintons will SAY anything it takes to get into the White House. And DENY anything it takes to get into the White House. And EMBRACE ANY CAUSE ON THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT to get into the White House.
Go ahead and vote for her – if you’re deaf, dumb, and blind.

Truly laughable. Accusations of parsing from the Master of the Parsing Universe himself!!! Remember, he did NOT have sex with that woman.

What makes it even worse is that when you are caught on it, instead of apologizing, you move deeper into attack mode, and make the story instead about “parsing” reaching back 10 years to attack Clinton. You are obviously guided by a deep personal hatred. People are looking to you guys to be honest filters of what’s going on in this important presidential race and this is the cr– you serve up??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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,
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!

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.

Mr. Tapper, I recall you getting nothing but praise a few weeks ago from the Internet left when one of your blog posts made the front page of Digg.com. You had called out the Clinton’s lies about Obama and everyone applauded that someone from the media had the courage to print the truth.
Two weeks later you’re back in the dog house with the Liberals again.
The Internet is fickle, isn’t it?

Mr Tapper, do you base any of your editorializing on anything except RNC press releases and Drudge news reports?
ANY TIME we’ve reduced industrial pollution, industry and the right wing have pulled their Chicken Little stunt, insisting it would devastate the economy. Every time they are proven wrong.
But rather than read some kind of analytical report or something, you just echo the wingers’ discredited statements.
No, if we do take the back seat and let OTHER nations develop the clean technologies (as has been national policy for decades) then I do expect that we will not see as many jobs and new industries. So we import turbines from the Dutch, but at least we’re now seeing wind tower manufacturers sprout up around the Great Plains.
But I do wish you would not opine if you don’t know the subject.

Not good enough. You didn’t read or could not comprehend the clear text you pasted into your own post, and you made a huge mistake. All you have to do is make an unambiguous CORRECTION.

What a profoundly dishonest set of posts.

Tapper continues to pretend that a construction like “We could do A, but that would lead to disaster, so we need to do B” is ambiguous, and could easily mean “We should do A.” Nobody who knows how to read could believe this

“Burrito:
It’s not “fickle” to applaud a journalist who tells the truth, and criticize that same journalist when he tells a lie.”
THIS.

Whoa, I cannot believe you are defending such a gross distortion of Clinton’s comments. I am a republican, but I take strong offense to such taking quotes out of context.
It is similar to somebody saying “You could lie, but that would be wrong”, and then finding only the first part of their quote being reported (“You could lie”) and suggesting they were being accused of promoting lying.
Shame on Jake and ABC for posting such a shoddy piece of journalism on their website!

Perhaps you think you are being clever or amusing in your response to the Clinton campaign’s statement, but let’s be clear: “parsing” is an awfully polite way of saying that you wrote a distorted and grossly misleading piece about a speech that Bill Clinton gave. Your defensiveness and cheap shots aren’t to your credit.
As to you conclusion that Clinton made a “confusing public statement,” I’d ask you to read the text of the speech once more. It’s really not confusing, at least not in the way you’ve suggested. There was no ambiguity about what Clinton was trying to say regarding “slowing down the economy.” It was generous of Iain Murray to throw you a lifeline with his sympathetic reading of your original piece, but it seems a bit of a stretch for you to suggest that that’s what you were trying to say all along.
The simple fact remains that your original article was dishonest. You should own up to your mistakes or you risk losing your credibility.

Jake I believe the job of “dishonest right wing bloviator and facts fudger has been filled (many times over). Might I suggest going for the “Truth Seeker” position, there is a dearth of that particular profession.

Is Jake Tapper a psuedonym for Bill O’Reilly? Maybe abc is really an outlet of Fox (Faux) news?
Very misleading reporting …..