« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Washington Post blogger lies about the Clinton campaign
Zachary Goldfarb, of the Washington Post's "The Talk" blog, lied today when, in his story title, he accused the Clinton campaign of having "blame[d] Obama" for "fanning a controversy" over Clinton's recent remarks about RFK's assassination.
The story itself makes it clear that it was the Obama campaign, not Obama himself, that was blamed for such act.
Contact the Washington Post ombudsman and tell her to have Goldfarb correct his deceptive title, and contact Goldfarb himself, and ask him to stop being unprofessional.
ombudsman@washpost.com
Zachary Goldfarb's contact page.
Advertisement
Comments (72)
Right. I'll do that. Right after the Hillary "Camp" apologises for blaming the "Obama Camp" for Hillary's huge mistake. Guess what? I heard it all. You are being ridiculous!
Maybe if Hillary takes back "Shame on YOU, Barack Obama!" or "He wouldn't be my pastor," or "he was in a 'closed-door' fundraiser and said elitist things....
Yeah! Go back to Karl and tell him it didn't work.
May 25, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for admitting that you are just using the "two wrongs make a right" argument.
You prove my point about the Washington Post blog post.
May 25, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not admitting anything. Two wrongs don't make a right. I just kknow that the Hillary campaign will never admit anything.
SHE made the mistake! It is a self-inflicted wound! It is Rovian to try to blame it on Obama but it won't work. She is doomed! Get used to it, and get used to the idea that it is her own fault for her horrible misjudgements and bad management -- not because Obama said something.
If Obama had piled on her the way she had on him she would be in the dust by now. Why hasn't he? Out of respect (and need) for her supporters. There is no one who supports Hillary who honestly thinks they would be better off under a McCain presidency. Hillary's shrill polarizing has made her followers doubt this. Obama is trying to appeal to their good sense.
Have you got a problem with that?
May 25, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not how Axelrod does it. He keeps Obama on the "high road," while he and surrogates ditch the dirt. The Obama campaign means Axelrod. This flap was created like this. Drudge reported the comment. Axelrod denounced it. The Progressive blogosphere and Obama MSM began to rant hysterically. After a couple of days, when the damage has been done, Obama plays the part of the magnanimous candidate, and his supporters cream their pants and faint.
May 25, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've gotta admit they're pretty damn good at it too. First they put out a simple little statement of it being an unfortunate statement that has no place in this campaign. The next day Obama says he takes Clinton at her word & in the mean time they make sure the MSM gets a good look at the Olbermann piece.
Maybe it's sneaky & underhanded, but at least Obama can't be blasted directly for it. I call that smart... Clinton has been out foxed in this campaign & she really just can't contain herself.
May 25, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
David? Is that you?
May 26, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy:
"Nor did anything change when, after the story blew up, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod explicitly stated that he didn't believe she'd meant the worst, claiming that he didn't think she was hoping that a "tragic, catastrophic event" would "intervene."..."
Ah yes - definitely the way Axelrod 'does it'.
>>>insert eyeroll here...
May 25, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this case, perhaps some 'hysteria' was in order:
May 26, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy--for future reference, the idiom is "dish the dirt," not "ditch the dirt." And you're wrong about how this developed. Hillary made a ghoulish statement and Bill Burton responded blandly, saying that her statement was "unfortunate". The outrage in the blogosphere was not orchestrated by the Obama campaign, and when Obama was asked about it, he essentially let her off the hook and attempted to cool the situation down.
You're being really unfair about this and your characterization of the events is way off the mark.
May 26, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question. Why did this get bumped to the top of the blog posts? Why? Why? why?
Anyone have an answer?
I posted one earlier. This one was posted at 9:54 It is now 10:17. Why is it at the top?
May 25, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps because it's a blog post in which a lie has been exposed.
Do you find any part of the blog post in the Washington Post where the Clinton camp blames Obama for anything?
May 25, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even link the thing.
May 25, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The easiest thing is to find an article whose author has been mentioned. But since you are lazy, here it is: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?hpid=topnews
May 25, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most recent posts are at the top of the recent blog list. They push down as new ones are added. Yours is below his where it belongs. You'll fall off the bottom. Nothing strange about the order of the posts.
What is strange is that this guy Goldfarb is a financial writer. Not another political story on his list of articles if you click on it. What in the world is he doing writing about politics?
Amusing.
May 25, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's one of the great mysteries of the Universe.
May 26, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Camp means the general and his lieutenants, idiot.
May 25, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, imbecile. "camp" does not mean 100% of the members of the camp.
Is the Hillary camp saying that Obama approved of his camp doing this? No, genius.
May 25, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said camp meant all the members of a camp, although that is generally what it means.
What I said is that camp means the Obama campaign, not his supporters.
May 25, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you.
At any rate, it is not accurate to claim, as the title of the WAPO blog piece does, that the Hillary Camp blamed Obama for anything.
May 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does not Obama run his own campaign?
May 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Axelrod runs it. Know anything about his history?
May 25, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I know he and Howard Wolfson are best friends.
May 26, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting. Fascinating even. How do you know that? Did you hear them call each other friends on a talk show or do you have some real evidence of friendship? The thought that this show is being put together by a small group of friends who will get together for drinks and laughs as soon as it's over is chilling.
May 26, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I posted that in the middle of the night. I meant to say old friends--not best friends.
May 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to apologize to TPM readers for such an absurd post and request. Then, Hillary and Terry McAuliffe need to apologize to Senator Obama, the Kennedy family and Democrats!
May 25, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to apologize for not making sense.
Why would apologize for pointing out the truth? The Obama campaign does necessarily include Obama.
If I say, "The Republican Party will have a very bad November", I'm not necessarily singling out Republican senators who are projected to win by a large margin in November.
If the Hillary camp had wanted to blame Obama, they would have blamed Barack Obama. We all Obama sided with Hillary on this one; why would her campaign blame him?
You guys don't know how to think; or perhaps you are just playing dumb.
May 25, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a well-intentioned and thoughtful blog. Jut like all your others -- I just checked.
I especially appreciate the little nicknames you give your respondants: "Idiot." "Imbicile," and especially that last one. The scarcastic, "Genius." You defintitely have found the "Hillary Way" of winning friends and influencing people.
congrats! I fee certain you will get all you deserve!
May 25, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's also a copy cat. Idiot and genius are my insults, and I didn't give this troll permission to use them. At least he didn't steal "moron." Probably couldn't spell it.
May 25, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, Billy, if you admit to name-calling your peers, are you saying cville is a hypocrite who only accuses non-Obama supporters of name-calling?
Cville, tonight is not your night.
May 25, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only have a few peers around here, and I don't call them names.
May 26, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should look up the definition of the word "peer," Billy. And then you should stop being such an arrogant ass.
May 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.
2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
3. something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.
4. a nobleman.
5. a member of any of the five degrees of the nobility in Great Britain and Ireland (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron).
6. Archaic. a companion.
I'll stick to my statement.
May 26, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then, I'll stick to the second part of mine.
May 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, thats why he called me "Norman"
May 26, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cville, did you realize that a member called me an idiot, and I replied calling him an imbecile? But you, of course, will pretend that I started the name-calling game, because you are an Obama supporter, and your job is to pretend your peers are saints. It's a cult, after all.
Now go ahead, scold your buddy for calling me an idiot.
May 25, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which way is the way out of this kindergarten hell?
May 26, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Open that bottle and pour me a glass.
May 26, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not fear.
Bring that bottle over here.
I'll be your baby tonight.
May 26, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And one more thing. If you've listened to reporters talking about covering the race, one of the things they're looking forward to is getting away from freaks like you, Mr. Perez.
Last week on Washington Week, Gwen Ifel's panelists answering an audience question during a live show in Pennsylvania, talked about crazed fanatics like you who ranted and raved in letters, e-mails and telephone calls.
Get over it, and help the country and the Democratic Party by writing a letter to Hillary Clinton asking her to shut up and fade away with dignity, although she's lost that too.
May 25, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amber, judging by the way that you totally ignore the point of this blog post, namely that the Washington Post, I seriously believe you wrote your comment while on some kind of mind-altering substance.
Can you stick to the point? If you are going to call someone a freak, at least act smart.
May 25, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sentence was truncated: It should read "namely, that the Washington Post lied".
There.
May 25, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fanatic. ;-)
May 26, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Billy (and others) attacking Axelrod:
"Nor did anything change when, after the story blew up, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod explicitly stated that he didn't believe she'd meant the worst, claiming that he didn't think she was hoping that a "tragic, catastrophic event" would "intervene."..."
Ah yes - definitely the way Axelrod 'does it' to poor victimized Hillary.
>>>insert eyeroll here...
May 25, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Axelrod bites the heads off live roaches for kicks. Do you know anything about the guy? Anything at all?
May 26, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check the front page about what Axelrod was doing this weekend and come back and tell us how smart you feel.
May 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only know what I heard (and saw) him say on MSBC Friday afternoon. Looks pretty inoffensive and forgiving to me.
And to quote Bill Clinton, "If you can't stand the heat.....get out of the kitchen."
I think part of Axelrod's job description IS to make it difficult for Clinton.
Or is he supposed to hold back in order not to make her cry (for the 3rd time) or appear misogynist?
May 26, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying you don't know anything.
May 26, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
He makes conciliatory comments and distributes Olbermann all over the net. Wise up, man. He's inside your brain. At his command, you'll all suddenly start clucking like chickens.
May 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
GayIthacan gets points for having the counterattack down, however: Quote Bill Clinton and play the misogyny card.
May 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll defend her as soon as she gets the fuck out of the race. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, she can go to Hell and stay there. I now like her LESS than George W. Bush.
May 26, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you start liking her LESS than Congress or Dick Cheney, we'll start to worry. If she's only below GWB, she still has some breathing room.
May 26, 2008 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Now, THAT's pathetic. I think the reason hrebendorf put it that way is that Hillary is getting more Bush-like every day.
Blaming Obama for her own mistakes, all the while piling onto any word Barack says that could be misinterpreted.
May 26, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re your first paragraph: Hello! It was a joke, for crap's sake! Lighten up!
Re your second paragraph: Total non sequitur. You could be describing what you think is "Bushlike" behavior. That's my best guess. But it's all the work I'm intending to do on it.
May 26, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, man. Is there someplace I can hear your band? You have some of your music up? Maybe there is some redemption in your art. But if it's as mediocre as your thoughts on politics, I'm going to have to give up on you. Axelrod and Wolfson are best friends? Do you have any idea how scary that is if its true?
May 26, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, there are places you can hear my band, and I have tons of music up on the web.
May 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do I find your music on the web?
May 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd either need a link to it, or you'd need to know the name of my band. Then you could look it up on Google.
May 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awww. Now I've scared you. I'd never make fun of your music, man. Your intellect, maybe. But not your art. If you can give me the link secretly, will you? I'm hoping there is some redemption there. What kind of music do you play?
May 26, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter. The story is already fading. Most people heard Hillary's remark and figured she was just tired. Sorry kids.
May 26, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tired means Not Ready On Day One.
May 26, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most people who actually heard her remark heard her emphasize the word "June" and know she was talking about campaigns that go into June. And that includes Bobby's son. And wasn't right after Bobby Jr. clocked in that Axelrod decided it was time for Obama to issue a highminded comment? What Obama's fans keep forgetting is how much smarter Axelrod in than they are. Or maybe they've all followed their logic up their fundamental orifices and decided we need 8 more years of a President who can win political campaigns, but can't govern. Will Axelrod be as effective in the WH as Rove was? Maybe he'll be even better. Maybe he can destroy the Democratic Party in only four years. It took Rove 8 years to do the Republicans in.
May 26, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, was the Democratic Party ever rebuilt? Between Lieberman, Blue Dogs, Netroots and Obama fans, I have trouble finding it on the map. What is it? I hear Chuck Hagel is an honorary member & Michael Bloomberg might even be VP candidate.
May 26, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now THAT's a BIG tent!
May 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you're joking right? Her remark is all over the Internet. Anyone who wants to hear it can hear it over and over. Are you suggesting that somehow you had to be in the room in order to understand the delicate subtlety of it? Because that would be sort of a ridiculous assertion.
She said that one of the reasons she was staying in the race is because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. And when she got busted on it, she tried to spin it. And then she tried to blame her stupidity on Obama. It's really that simple.
Think about what kind of a president this person would be. She would totally suck. A few days ago, you stated that Obama was "incompetent" without providing a single example of his incompetence (even when I kindly offered you the opportunity to do so). I can provide dozens of examples of Hillary's incompetence, and this is one of them.
May 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi bunnycat.
Tell me, at this point, what is the purpose of bashing Hillary Clinton? Even if I believed a simple historic comparison (which she's made before) was somehow a divisive, psycho wish on her part to see the demise of Senator Obama, (which I find ridiculous), what is the point?
Obama is the likely winner, has been for months now, so why the knee-jerk overreaction?
I think we need to start listening to the call of the unity pony, and ignore divisive nonsense. It benefits McCain, not Obama, and certainly not Hillary.
We need to pull ourselves together and stop the divisiveness. Or we will lose in November. Historically, this type of close race ALWAYS ends in defeat for Democrats. We need to turn that around. We can do it, if we all reject the politics of division.
I recommend "Brothers and Sisters" by the decembrists as a meditation.
:)
May 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She said that one of the reasons she was staying in the race is because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June."
You say you saw the vid of her speaking, so you know that's not what she said. Why are you trying to divide us? What's in it for you, man? Are you trying to set the Obamanauts against the Clintonistas on purpose? I need to hear your music to figure out if you're a troll or not.
May 26, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want the blue guy to give it a listen. He'll know what you're up to.
May 26, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just in: Axelrod is a lobbyist? Discuss.
May 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty funny, gasket. Kick 'em in the other knee.
How did we end up this close to nominating the one Democrat in America McCain might be able to beat?
May 26, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I've been saying exactly that all along. They won't fucking listen.
May 26, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It corrected it's sentence.
"There," it said, tossing its head.
May 26, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You had just seen Obama in Portland and I didn't want to drag your high.
May 26, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment