Tulsi Gabbard Lashes Back at Hillary Clinton After Claim of Russian Influence

In a podcast interview this week, the former secretary of state suggested that Ms. Gabbard was being “groomed” to run a third-party presidential campaign.

Comments: 15

  1. Ms. Astor, why the change in the first paragraph of this article from its 5:53 pm Oct. 18th listing? As you initially wrote, HRC implied that the Russians were grooming Ms. Gabbard as a third party candidate. Now that paragraph has been changed to say that the Republicans are grooming Gabbard as an alternative candidate. I see no note that this story has been corrected nor any facts that Clinton had even mentioned the GOP vis a vis Gabbard. You and the NYT need to explain this story change. Thank you.

  2. @Robert bedard Thank you for your comment. We added a correction to the end of this article today. Our Politics editor, Patrick Healy, also adressed the change here: https://bit.ly/2W8MjkZ. Thank you again for writing a comment. And thank you for reading.

  3. Not good enough, because Clinton NEVER mentioned Republicans were grooming Gabbard. Her spokesperson told you to change it and you did. This is not journalism, it's activism.

  4. @Aidan Gardiner Not enough, the headline still states the error.

  5. You need to inform readers about your edit if you want people to take you seriously. Journalism 101.

  6. @Fredrich great question, I will hold my breath for them to update the article....

  7. I caught that too. Why are you making edits and rewriting history? If you are going to edit a story, note the corrections. The full quote was: "They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, 'cause she's also a Russian asset" Republicans would and do not benefit from a 3rd party. And the 'Bots' Hillary usually refers to are Russian.

  8. @Brian Fraiser The NYT has gone over the top. How can they accept Hillary's claim that she wasn't saying Gabbard was influenced by the Russians when she says in her last sentence that in addition to Stein, Gabbard is also a Russian asset. Seems clear to me. Why did the Times cut that last sentence?

  9. Dear New York Times: Please explain to us why most of your journalistic "errors" in recent years involved Hillary Clinton (and not in her favor)? And why your earlier mis-reporting supported the Iraq invasion, again in favor of a Republican? It's funny that conservatives see NYT as "liberal". There is some great reporting, and the wondrousness that is Michelle Goldberg. But these missteps occur exclusively in one direction, and they are unforgivable for the so-called "paper of record" to have committed

  10. The story here is not what HRC said, it’s why Tulsi Gabbard is raising so many red flags that former Secretaries of State and intelligence community professionals are sounding the alarms. This is not a smear, this is a national security issue. But as always, the NYT is to lazy to investigate. So much easier to tar and feather a Clinton instead.

  11. Genesis of their rivalry?

  12. Hey NYT, how can Hillary be saying that it's the Republicans who are grooming Gabbard, when she says at the end that Gabbard, like Stein, is "...also a Russian asset." It couldn't be any clearer that Hillary is calling Gabbard an asset of the Russians -- not Republicans. Nice try.

  13. "Mr. Merrill said late Friday evening that Mrs. Clinton’s initial “grooming” claim had referred to Republicans, not Russia, as initially reported. " Monday morning quarterbacking. Trying to walk back what she said. No sale, Nick.

  14. Where is the editors not of correction or change? It didn't go unnoticed you change Russia to republicans. You basically violated your ethics or lack of them. This is the reason why journalism is no longer considered creditable.

  15. Why has this been stealth edited without a correction notice? The original NY Times piece never mentioned Republicans were grooming Gabbard as a result 3rd party candidate, nor does the transcript of the podcast in which Hillary accuses Gabbard of being a Russian asset. The NY Times fabricated "Republicans" out of nowhere. What's going on here, NY Times? You're about to lose another subscriber...