• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

GrapeApes

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,492
Not long after meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn't believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn't beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it's not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it's rare.)

From there, the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream, circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print. On Monday, it finally did, with CNN's M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as "two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting" — Sanders had told Warren, according to CNN's paraphrasing, that "he did not believe a woman could win."

It was widely assumed in the immediate aftermath of the story that Warren's campaign had planted the story. Indeed, CNN anchor Erin Burnett said as much on air. But Burnett was merely making an assumption, and had no inside knowledge of the sources, two CNN sources told The Intercept.
On Monday, Warren told The Intercept that her campaign did not intentionally plant the CNN story. That Warren told a number of journalists about the meeting a year ago adds context to that statement. If Warren had only told her closest advisers about the meeting, then it would be logical to assume that her campaign dictated the timing of the story, dropping it just ahead of a debate, and just weeks before the primary, to undercut Sanders. But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN's sources could have come from outside the campaign. The revelation does not rule out the possibility that someone in her campaign was a source, but it opens up other possibilities, as well.

In chat groups and in private conversations with people outside the campaign, Warren aides have insisted that they were not the source of the leak, and only learned about it in the midst of debate prep, contributing to the delayed response. The first time the campaign saw Sanders's on-record denial was in print in the CNN story. "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," Sanders said. After the story broke, the tension continued to escalate.


Oh and the Sanders camp looked into Warren being VP and Treasure Sec.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,436
Well this doesn't give anyone any reason to snipe at each other now does it? I expect this to vanish quietly into the night...
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,298
Soooooo the fuck what!

Why did I click on this shit anyway. I'm part of the problem. Out
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
It did seem odd for Warren to put out such a story as a hit on Bernie considering how poorly people react to women making any, even slight, accusations of sexism. The multiple threads we had on this was proof of that.
 

Robin

Restless Insomniac
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,502
Bernie is 100% firmly my #1 candidate but the whole notion that the Warren camp spread this is dubious and the way people have spread that idea with virtually no evidence is beyond me. What agenda would she even be pushing? She doesn't have anything to gain by pushing viability concerns into the forefront and everyone looks bad. It would be a horrifically dumb decision and her campaign has been pretty tactful so far all things considered.

The only person who wins from from this conversation is Biden. CNN probably pushed the story to drum shit up. I don't think it's something that's entirely conjured up out of nowhere but it really sounds like some he said she said shit they probably grabbed from an upset staffer and it blew up from there.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,463
While I was still disappointed with how long it took for Warren to release a statement on it when it broke and the hot mic confrontation at the end of the debate was a mistake, I'm glad it's looking this way. Maybe people can mend some fences. Also, fuck you CNN.
 

_Karooo

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,029
You do know. The Intersect is a Socialist Magazine and has been in Bernie's corner from Day One. Why would they do a piece like this for Warren unless they couldn't ignore the truth?
you think I read the intercept? I simply said what I felt based on reading this story. I don't like this warren sanders feud anyway.
 

KidAAlbum

Member
Nov 18, 2017
3,177
It did seem odd for Warren to put out such a story as a hit on Bernie considering how poorly people react to women making any, even slight, accusations of sexism. The multiple threads we had on this was proof of that.
I always thought it was rogue campaign staffers who were pissed and then went to CNN. After this, it could be that CNN started it now, which is even worse.
 

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,887
CNN should be banned from hosting debates. The DNC banned Fox News despite them never pulling shit like this. Time to ax CNN too.

Honestly NONE of the big media outlets should be hosting these things.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Not surprising. I'm still disappointed at Warren's response to it all, but this story should never have gotten this big because it was obviously always being done in bad faith
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
This was blatantly obvious from the moment the story came out. Warren's campaign had absolutely nothing to gain from this as it would just turn into mutually assured destruction.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,171
I always thought it was rogue campaign staffers who were pissed and then went to CNN. After this, it could be that CNN started it now, which is even worse.

Yeah this is my take on it. No way would Warren have wanted something like this out in public. I never assumed that.
 

TrueSloth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,067
I knew it was dumb bullshit from how they questioned Bernie during the debate, then turned Elizabeth and asked the same question since he denied it.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,919
I am still confused about why we hate CNN. A news organization...reported news as they received it? They played up an exclusive that they first reported?

CNN exposed the fact that Bernie and Warren's camps have to get their shit together because this easily could have been handled quickly and amicably. But instead you had Bernie and his supporters showing their ass and Warren not realizing that after a debate when she is mic'd up isn't the best time to discuss a sensitive topic.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,469
At the end of the day, I'm glad that Warren is backpedaling but this is clearly in response to her getting buried everywhere. Everyone saying it was "rogue staffers"...uh she easily could've said that in her first statement and quashed this story from the get go.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
I knew it was dumb bullshit from how they questioned Bernie during the debate, then turned Elizabeth and asked the same question since he denied it.
Actually, Warren had confirmed it before the debate. The thing happened. At minimum Warren thought that was what Bernie said and Bernie denied it. It's just that Warren herself didn't approve the leak, her closest staffers didn't either.
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,823
So she's the original source, but her campaign isn't responsible for it surfacing now. Makes you wonder why she didn't just nip it in the bud and let it build up to the level of stupidity it reached.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
So she's the original source, but her campaign isn't responsible for it surfacing now. Makes you wonder why she didn't just nip it in the bud and let it build up to the level of stupidity it reached.
It's literally been three days? It takes a bit to find out who didn't leak the thing that wasn't supposed to leak.
 

starpower

The Fallen
Jan 23, 2018
3,998
Canada
should I be glad this is happening now instead of right before the nomination? or will the media machine keep this stupid shit turning
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
17,124
Montreal
how did a sentence from a private conversation between two "friends" get leaked anyway?

"Bernie is my friend!"

CNN milked it for two days but the opposite intended effect happened,
Bernie is now leading nationally while Liz dropped

now CNN and the insurance conpanies have to find another Macguffin to hit Bernie with
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,823
Do you not realize that three days to comb through a campaign and figure out who did what and confirm it is a relatively short time for turn around?

People these days have at best hours to get in front of something before the narrative is likely out of their control. Not sure what to tell you.
 

SamAlbro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,351
CNN trying to start shit for ratings? why they would NEVER

I think it could be even worse than a blind ratings grab. Major media is obsessed with the facade of fairness. With the Trump impeachment and the Parnas documents, they needed a big "Dems in Disarray" story to counter-program all the stories they'll be running about Republicans being shit.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,128
Sydney
I am still confused about why we hate CNN. A news organization...reported news as they received it? They played up an exclusive that they first reported?

They sought no comment from either campaign until they published the story.

Then at the debate they hosted, they did not ask both candidates the veracity of the story, instead they asked one candidate and then asked the other for a reaction Maury Povich style.

They sought to manufacture drama for its own sake.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
Hold the fuck up. They were seeing if she could be in charge of the Treasury and VP? The fuck.

You know easy it would be for him to get skewered for that.
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,823
how did a sentence from a private conversation between two "friends" get leaked anyway?

"Bernie is my friend!"

CNN milked it for two days but the opposite intended effect happened,
Bernie is now leading nationally while Liz dropped

now CNN and the insurance conpanies are now have to find for another Macguffin to hit Bernie with

It's in the first paragraph quoted in the OP. She shared the conversation at an "off the record" dinner with journalists in 2018.
 

starpower

The Fallen
Jan 23, 2018
3,998
Canada
I think it could be even worse than a blind ratings grab. Major media is obsessed with the facade of fairness. With the Trump impeachment and the Parnas documents, they needed a big "Dems in Disarray" story to counter-program all the stories they'll be running about Republicans being shit.
the "liberal media" everybody :[
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
People these days have at best hours to get in front of something before the narrative is likely out of their control. Not sure what to tell you.
Cool. So, my point was there was no way to get the "it wasn't my core staffers or me" bit out there instantly because that can't be confirmed instantly. She confirmed it likely because it was true at least from her perspective and there was a debate the next day. Shit hit the fan because it was inevitable that shit hit the fan in that circumstance.
They sought no comment from either campaign until they published the story.
They actually did for Warren, at least, they received no comment from Warren pre-publication.
Then at the debate they hosted, they did not ask both candidates the veracity of the story, instead they asked one candidate and then asked the other for a reaction Maury Povich style.
The other candidate had word for word said that the story was true, so I doubt she would have changed her mind all of a sudden.
They sought to manufacture drama for its own sake.
Correct.