In a way I think what was actually said sounds worse than Brokaw's misrepresentation (OK, lie.) 

I alwyas thought it this way: Democrats impliment good ideas poorly, while Republicans impliment bad ideas well.  Doesn't seem too far from what Pres. Clinton said - that the Dm's have to DELIVER, having bee given this opportunity.  I see it as more of a challenge than a provocation.  And a very legitimate one at that.

i don't see anything wrong with what clinton said.  i think he's basically talking about what we do with every candidate.  you never get the perfect candidate, so you just weigh your odds on who you think can deliver what you believe in.  i vote democratic but i really hold my nose doing so sometimes.  the problem is that the republicans are not really an alternative since the party was taken over by right wing extremists.  i used to have a little respect for brokaw, but what he said is more than a distortion.  it's a total fabrication because when he throws the word "experience" in there, then one might think bill was talking about this election, where experience has been an issue.  but clinton did not say that word or even imply it.  brokaw owes a retraction.

watching the today show this morning, i was not surprised by matt lauer.  i've seen enough of him to know what he said was not out of character.  he was talking about hillary's forceful endorsement of obama last night, and he said something like "why did she wait so long to do this?".  and andrea mitchell, to her credit, said that she had, in unity, new hampshire, and lauer goes "well...", as if mitchell were not telling the truth.

Does anyone else remember what a complete NOTHING Tom Brokaw was when he started on KNBC in Los Angeles, always in the shadow of Tom Snyder? With absolutely nothing to add to anything?

And now he's considered to be a solon, a grand old man of journalism, an historian, an heir to the tradition of John Daly, Howard K. Smith and Chet Huntley?

My god, what a decline we have seen. It really is an f'ing nightmare. Hopeless. 

It is not just Brokaw at NBC News, the entire news organization is disgraceful and very unprofessional. What a joke they are. 

If Clinton's little example has nothing to do with what is going on here, what is it doing here? 

Because Brokaw, a member of the media, removed it from it's actual “ten-year” context and placed it in an immediate context for the sheer sake of sounding provocative.

If Clinton's little example has nothing to do with what is going on here, what is it doing here? 

• - anotheramerican / Wednesday August 27, 2008 3:45:22 PM EDT

 

Clinton's example has nothing to do with the current election and those running right now or those who campaigned for these nominations.

It's here because it's conservative misinformation - information that furthers the conservative agenda because it's not accurate. It makes Bill Clinton look insincere and therefore makes the Democrats look less sincere without information to back up that assessment.

The fact that his comment had nothing to do with this year's campaign in the USA doesn't mean it's not conservative misinformation. How could you think such a thing? Oh, that's right, you have empty space where your 'thinker' is supposed to be.

BB,

Thanks for the kind hearted reply. 

When you start trying to contribute to this site rather than derailing threads, spouting nonsense, plagiarizing others, etc, then you will be eligible for empathy.

Until then, you get none from me. Act reasonable and you'd be treated reasonably. It's not too much to ask, yet it is impossible for you it seems, and you want special privileges and concessions. Screw you.

AA,

I agree. For Bill Clinton to make this statement...when and where he did...has everything to do with his assessment of voting for Obama or Hillary.

It's beyond the pale of naivete and partisan yahooing for mmfa to take this angle. And how does one liberal...talking about another liberal constitute conservative misinformation? Only when anything negative about a liberal just has to be conservative misinfo...pretty funny stuff.

Clinton and eight other former world leaders were discussing long-term democracy-deliverance.  Of course people are going to take what he says and turn it into something sinister or sneaking.  No shock there at all.  But Brokaw, if he’s going to read into it, he should finish the job and say what the heck it is that he means.  “Pretty provocative” is a throwaway statement and provides zero insight.  Besides, there was nothing provocative about what he said.  Centrism is simply boring.  Nothing ever gets done.  That’s the reality or the flipside of Clinton’s point about his foundation and long-term question.

clinton was not talking about obama, he was talking about candidates in general.  he did not use or imply the word "experience", and the only way brokaw could label what clinton said as "pretty provocative", was to make up something he did not say.

Wes

Dont you understand.....acording to MMFA anything ever said that was positive or good about a republican is miss-info.  Anything ever said about a lib that is bad is miss-info.  That is simply how the world works according to MMFA. 

except clinton did not say what brokaw said he did.  that is the misinformation. 

I heard others last night twist it into a comment about experience.

That must have been in the emailed Republican talking points, because no one would have gotten 'experience' out of what Clinton said.

If Clinton's little example has nothing to do with what is going on here, what is it doing here? 

What Brokaw is doing is speculating.  Why didn't he just contact Clinton and ask him if he thinks Obama can deliver?

Well Loonz,

That would require time and journalistic skills.  Two things which broken-down Brokaw no longer possesses.

I just sent Broken-Downn Brokaw an e-mail.  He's disgracing himself now in a big way.  It's embarrassing.

and this has nothing to do with what's going on now

Poor Bill, & I mean that sincerely. Of course he has to add this rejoinder. This guy has had nearly everything he has uttered during this campaign twisted & misinterpreted. He's on the defensive now. And it hasn't always been the media guilty of doing this...he can thank some in his own party.

Seeing this disgraceful pro-Republican favoritism from Tom brokaw, I am extremely disappointed.

It is disappointing...

He probably got an e-mail from the RNC and just decided to read it verbatim on the air.

He really should step aside.  At one time he was a pretty good journalist, but now he's decided to jump in the sewer with the rest of 'em.  Pretty sad....

Brokaw's self-fulfilling prophecy.  Apparently, it was so provocative that it provoked him into spreading this non-issue during what many people have now abandonded as a source of real pertinent information.

Hey Bill, there is an easy answer to your ridiculous and needlessly complicated hypothetical scenario.  McCa-Ooops I mean Candidate Y is only going to deliver on the things I disagree with.  I'd rather vote for a man who may accomplish nothing than for a man who will accomplish all the wrong things.

Jeter- Looks like someone does not like any discussion on the chaos at MSNBC to be posted here. Sad.

Olbermann.

Looks like someone didn't like the off topic posts you mean. Olbermann or MSNBC are not the topic here.

And looks like you are trying to throw up a strawman argument that you were censored because of the dislike of the content, rather than the reality that the content was off topic. We regularly see that argument, that posts were removed or disagreement was expressed with those posts because we don't accept and respect different opinions. Reality is that it's not that we don't respect differing opinions. If they're off topic, they're subject to removal. If they're opinions based upon falsehoods, they're subject to ridicule.

It'd be nice if you had a passing relationship with reality.

And my criticism of your behavior here has nothing to do with your screen name, but please, don't let that reality interfere with your strawman argument that's likely upcoming that the only reason I said something about it was because you typed it.

Bottle

So when MMFA gives us MSNBCs email on the right side, that really has nothing to do with what Brokaw did? Or the fact that this took place on MSNBC Live which happens to be aired on MSNBC? Right MSNBC has nothing to do with it.

The people we need to complain to if we agree with Media Matters are not relevant to this posting by Media Matters.

If I get really poor treatment from a sales rep at a big box store, I'm likely to write a letter to the company HQ's to complain. That doesn't mean that the corporation did anything wrong, or that the company is relevant at all to the complaint that I had about that poor sales rep. All companies have some poor sales reps.

You, however, have a long-standing grudge against MSNBC. That's why when you whined, people posted "Olbermann" in reply. MSNBC is not relevant in this case, but you brought it up. You need to look at your intense prejudice against MSNBC. Take out that log in your eye, and you might be able to see this more clearly.

You have a history of apologizing for MSNBC , wonder why.  MSNBC staffer?

No, I don't. Why would you lie like that?

Why are you so threatened by the truth that you'd lie about someone else?

You have a history of unfairly attacking MSNBC.

You have a history of unfairly attacking Keith Olbermann.

You have a history of unfairly comparing FoxNews and MSNBC, and using the false complaint that both are equally flawed.

I don't have that history. You do. That's why you get tagged with Olbermann and MSNBC-obsession by many others, and I only get it from you and your buddies when I accurately point out your failings. And above, instead of addressing your issues, you try to distract from your issues by making a false argument that states that it's me who has the issues. Give us all a break.

MSNBC is off topic. The route for filing complaints doesn't mean that MSNBC is on topic in this posting.

Oh, yeah, and this whine?

Jeter- Looks like someone does not like any discussion on the chaos at MSNBC to be posted here. Sad.

• - SueEld / Wednesday August 27, 2008 5:07:04 PM EDT

 

Totally off topic. If you want to complain to Media Matters about them removing posts, then do it. Posts that whine about posts being removed are totally off topic.

And I noticed that you totally ignored the point of my post, that your claim that the posts were removed because no one is willing to confront and discuss the "chaos at MSNBC" (since when is Brokaw's misrepresentation evidence of 'chaos'?) is ridiculous! They were off topic, and they were removed for just cause.

Tom Brokaw wasn't the only person that did this with Bill Clinton's quote. When I heard it, I thought that they must be taking him out of context.

Sure enough, they were taking it out of context.

He said that he wasn't speaking about the electoral contest going on right now, and later he said that he was talking about a worldwide effort to get the electorate better educated so that they all understand that it's better to elect someone who can get half the things you want done than someone who can't really get any of the things you want done!

This is the argument I have with dedicated Libertarians. Their ideas will never be supported by the general public or the other legislators that they'll be governing with, yet they stick with the same platform that will never have any hope of being implemented.

Whether a government can actually perform for the People all the functions of government (chiefly, the function of securing the People's health and safety), and still at the same time, satisfy those same People in all their various expectations (however great) of government, and satisfy their perceptions of government (real or imagined), and satisfy their hopes and wishes and desires (all of which may be more a personal issue, than one of the People's collective security), this all becomes quite important.

It becomes, in a way, the question of a successful Democracy: which is the question of whether or not the People know enough about the true and real functions of government, to perpetually make for a functioning government, and to make their own security (as best they can), each and every election cycle.

Suppose, for example, you're a voter, and you've got several candidates for the administration of your government, or for the making of your laws.

One candidate says all things agreeable to you, on everything under the sun: but you're unsure whether that person can affect (realize) those things (or whether those things are even the functions of law and government).

Another candidate either disagrees with you on a number of issues, or passes over those issues as unimportant and of no real concern to them (as perhaps being no real function of government): but you believe that they are able, even expert, to perform the functions of government that you know in your heart are most important... the health and security of the People.

For whom will you vote?

This is the kind of question that I predict -- and this has nothing to do with what's going on now -- but I'm just saying, if you look five, 10, 15 years from now, you may actually see this issue of separating out the real functions of government from the imagined, and the prioritizing of those real functions (realizing health and safety to be the highest, even only, real priority), this is all destined I think, to become a more and more serious issue in Democratic debates...

...because it is so hard to figure out how to turn our good intentions, our hopes and wishes, and all our expectations (however great) of government, into real changes in the real lives of the real People We Represent.

I think this is a subject that I would like to see debated in a consistent way across all major issues for the next 10 years.

I have a very simple idea: I want to help People turn good intentions and great expectations and Hope, into positive changes.

 

I want to educate People as to the true and real functions of government, and to what is in the jurisdiction of law and government, and what is not... of what is merely personal, and shouldn't be admitted into National Policy debate, but be shunned instead, as a distraction, and as the means and issues by which ambitious politicians mislead us, by selling us things that cannot truly be delivered by a government (personal things)... and were they things (such as Hope) that we know to exist and to be true, in our hearts and minds, we would still shun such talk, as having nothing whatsoever to do, with the true and real functions of law and government.

 

[That's a paraphrase of what President Clinton said, as transcribed above in the item. I took more liberty with his words than I intended, and used also too many words I think: but it's what I think to be both true and important, whether or not it's anything Mr. Clinton would agree with.]

Hopefully, the fabrication of the Clinton schism can now end.

Even though Bill declared his support for Obama by saying "That makes two of us."  Come on, media, obviously that could be interpreted to not include Bill.  He is bitter, after all.  Actually, here in Denver, the political hack (Jessup) on KBDI jumped all over Bill as a flipflopper.  Seems as though Bill criticized Barack during the primary, but he now supports Obama.  Audacity from Hope!

With media like this who needs propaganda.

It never ceases to amaze me, to watch the journalistic pundits of MSNBC ask the wise old sage of NBC Tom BroKaw on what his political take is on a candidate or on a issue. Then they all wait in awe waiting for him to speak, as he speaks they hang on his every word, when he finishes their thoughts linger, Socrates has spoken. No one there say or question the sage and say what a crock of Bull S.