About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Russert falsely claimed to show "exactly what President Clinton said," aired truncated quotes from both Clintons

January 13, 2008 5:27 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: After falsely asserting that he was showing viewers "exactly what President Clinton said," referring to January 7 comments Bill Clinton made about Sen. Barack Obama, Tim Russert played a truncated quote from Clinton. In addition, Russert read a quote from The New York Times that truncated Hillary Clinton's statement about civil rights, omitting her reference to President Kennedy.

45 Comments

During a January 13 interview with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) on NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert played a truncated quote from former President Bill Clinton and falsely asserted that he was showing viewers "exactly what President Clinton said." Referring to January 7 comments Bill Clinton made about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Russert told Hillary Clinton: "It just isn't Sen. Obama who is taking offense. This is exactly what President Clinton said in Dartmouth. Here is the tape." Russert then proceeded to air video of Bill Clinton saying: "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." In fact, Russert did not show viewers "exactly what President Clinton said." He did not show what Clinton said immediately before the "fairy tale" quote, when Clinton referred to Obama's statements about the Iraq war. Indeed, The New York Times' Mark Leibovich noted on January 13 that in using the words "fairy tale," Clinton "was referring specifically to the perception that Mr. Obama was totally pure in his opposition to the Iraq war." In addition to showing the truncated video, Russert read an excerpt from Bob Herbert's January 12 New York Times column, in which Herbert claimed that Bill Clinton "sa[id] of Mr. Obama's effort: 'The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.' "

Russert also read from a January 11 New York Times article that purported to quote a comment Hillary Clinton made about civil rights, and Russert noted Herbert's assertion that Hillary Clinton had "tak[en] cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." But the Times article that Russert read truncated Hillary Clinton's actual statement, omitting from the quote her reference to President John F. Kennedy.

Quoting from the January 11 Times article's description of what he referred to as "the Martin Luther King thing," Russert claimed to "lay this out for our viewers":

RUSSERT: So these are people who are not supporters of Obama, who are listening. Let me just go to the Martin Luther King thing, because you had your opportunity to talk about this at the beginning of the show and I want to lay this out for our viewers. This is how The New York Times categorized it. "In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Mrs. Clinton ... tried to make a point about presidential leadership. 'Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of '64.' Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. 'It took a president to get it done.'"

In fact, Clinton's actual quote -- made during a January 7 interview with Fox News' Major Garrett -- contained the reference to Kennedy below in bold, something that both the Times article and Russert omitted:

CLINTON: I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.

From the January 7 Dartmouth campaign event with Bill Clinton, as transcribed by Congressional Quarterly:

QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality.

For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," [sic: bounce] and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama.

CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance [sic] always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day.

But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor [sic: war] from the beginning, always, always, always."

First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel [NE] was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go.

He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by [then-National Security Adviser] Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way.

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Give me a break.

[applause]

This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports.

[Former independent counsel] Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa.

But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

[applause]

Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject.

[laughter]

Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead.

From the January 13 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: When we arrived in South Carolina yesterday, this was The State newspaper, and the headlines that greeted us. And let me share it with you and our viewers: "Clinton Camp Hits Obama, Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama and remarks about Martin Luther King." Bob Herbert, in The New York Times, a columnist, weighed in this way: "I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama's main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify rather than further polarize the country. So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama's effort, quote, 'The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.' And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don't need, quote, 'false hopes,' and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We've already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot."

What is this all about?

CLINTON: Well, beats me, because there's not one shred of truth in what you've just read. And I regret that, because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.

First, with respect to Dr. King, you know, Tim, I was 14 years old when I heard Dr. King speak in person. He is one of the people that I admire most in the world, and the point that I was responding to from Senator Obama himself in a number of speeches he was making is his comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King. And there is no doubt that the inspiration offered by all three of them is essential. It is critical to who we are as a nation, what we believe in, the dreams and aspirations that we all have. But I also said that, you know, Dr. King didn't just give speeches. He marched, he organized, he protested, he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. He understood that he had to move the political process and bring in those who were in political power, and he campaigned for political leaders, including Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on what he had devoted his life to achieving.

[...]

HILLARY CLINTON: And let me address the point that Bill was making. Because again, I think it's been unfairly and inaccurately characterized. What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Senator Obama's campaign being premised on a speech he gave in 2002. And that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his website. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way that George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, -6, and -7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war.

The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq. I think it is fair to ask questions about, "Well, what did you do after the speech was over?" And when he became a senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially. So I think it's important that we get the contrasts and comparisons out. I think that's fair game. You know, I think that we don't want anyone, any of our supporters, anyone - and that's why in my campaign, anytime anybody has said anything that I thought was out of bounds, they're gone. You know, I have gotten rid of them. I have said that is not appropriate in this campaign. You know, when Senator Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination, there's silence. So let's have one standard.

This is an exciting and historic campaign. One of us is going to make history, which is thrilling to me. I've worked all my life on behalf of civil rights, and women's rights, and human rights. And so I want a good, vigorous campaign about the differences between us and our various qualifications and experiences to be the president that America needs.

RUSSERT: It just isn't Senator Obama who is taking offense. This is exactly what President Clinton said in Dartmouth. Here is the tape.

BILL CLINTON [video clip]: Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.

RUSSERT: Congressman James Clyburn (D) of South Carolina, who's neutral, said this. "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us."

HILLARY CLINTON: But Tim, let me just stop you right there. Now wait a minute.

RUSSERT: I didn't stop you.

HILLARY CLINTON: No, but you did not give the entire quote.

RUSSERT: No, but you --

HILLARY CLINTON: The entire quote was clearly about the position on Iraq. It was not about the entire candidacy. It was not about the extraordinary --

RUSSERT: But Congressman Clyburn --

HILLARY CLINTON: -- you know, abilities.

RUSSERT: But Congressman -- but Congressman Clyburn has been covering this race. Donna Brazile, herself a longtime activist in the Democratic Party, this is what she said. Here's Donna Brazile.

BRAZILE [video clip]: As an African-American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing.

RUSSERT: So these are people who are not supporters of Obama, who are listening. Let me just go to the Martin Luther King thing, because you had your opportunity to talk about this at the beginning of the show, and I want to lay this out for our viewers. This is how The New York Times categorized it. "In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Mrs. Clinton ... tried to make a point about presidential leadership. 'Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of '64.' Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. 'It took a president to get it done.' " Again, Congressman Clyburn, "We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics. ... That bothered me a great deal."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by princeofwheels (January 13, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
         
      I can't wait until Hillary Clinton just stands up, looks into the camera and says, "If you don't like me, bl@w me". (I will give you the Repubs reply to this before they attack...."If it is good for one Clinton, it is good for the other."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sams Politics (January 13, 2008 9:11 pm ET)
           
        Shame on Tim...

        If he was an honest man, he would have played the rest of President Clinton's remarks. Then Tim tried to prevent Hillary from explaining what Bill really said. She had to shut him up so she could explain the truth.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wolfbato (January 15, 2008 2:32 pm ET)
           
        I urge everybody to take Matthews off your DVR/TIVO and let MSNBC know you are doing this. Hurt him where it hurts ... his ratings. Let's get rid of this Fascist ... once and for all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by guavamatic3712 (January 13, 2008 5:49 pm ET)
         
      I wish Clinton would not appear on shows with creepy crawler hosts who have it in for her.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (January 13, 2008 5:54 pm ET)
         
      I have the show in tivo. I think I'll go watch it now. What's really depressing is that the press feed off each other and nobody checks it out for themselves apparently. That truncated version of Bill Clinton's comments was in my Dallas Morning News today and they sited their source as CNN. Do any of them check out full quotes in context and make their own analysis? It's creepy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 13, 2008 6:22 pm ET)
           
        Nope, they quote each other. They don't even know that the first person was distorting speeches and remarks.

        They are totally into their narratives and feeding off each other. It's way out of control. I'd rather get a report from some honest regular-person eye witness than these preening media egotists.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 13, 2008 6:37 pm ET)
         
      Why do you suppose Russert aired this clip from Donna Brazile:

      BRAZILE [video clip]: As an African-American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing.

      Rather than her most recent statement:

      Donna Brazile, a leading Democrat and African-American who had criticized Mr. Clinton, on Friday appeared willing to accept his explanation. “Bill Clinton is a soldier in the fields for people of color,” Ms. Brazile said on CNN. “At this point, we are willing to let this lie.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1200244432-Dzpi5Z6ieg3uYIF0/vnAWQ

      I don't have the resources of NBC News behind me but I knew Tuesday's statement from Brazile wasn't her latest view on the matter.

      Why didn't Russert?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (January 13, 2008 6:41 pm ET)
           
        Good question Johnny

        Russerts attempt to again play this race game and promote something that is not there is another example of how the media types like Russert are trying to influence this election. I have said it before, the Clintons are alot of things , negative and positive but racist they are not. To suggest that is wrong.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (January 14, 2008 8:05 am ET)
           
        Donna Brazile is "willing to accept"?? Gee ain't she wonderful....how about Ms. Brazile ADMIT she was wrong!

        Brazile was one of the first, if not the first to incorrectly accuse Bill Clinton of somehow demeaning Obama. She should take responsibility for being among the group that started this flame war!

        The media is also to blame, but we should know by now they prefer to report controversy, even if it means omitting facts, twisting the truth or outright lying.

        I thought Russert would show more professionalism, especially after the way his colleagues over at MSNBC [mostly Matthews]have made asses out of themselves.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (January 13, 2008 6:48 pm ET)
         

      This is beyond dishonest!!

       

      If they showed the whole clip, it would actually be worse for the Clintons!! 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (January 13, 2008 7:43 pm ET)
           
        You are worse than ignorant, just for giggles what about it would make it worse?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (January 14, 2008 8:24 am ET)
             
          From what I read, it could have been worse by showing that Hilary voted for and has supported the war the entire time, while Barack flip-flopped on his war support, over time. Of course, it also is known that Hilary and Barack, while both supporting the war, claim the desire to retreat as soon as they become president.

          I think it shows both are flip-floppers depending on how the political winds are blowing. They will say/do whatever it takes to get to the presidency. Truth/justice is not of their concern, power is.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 10:22 am ET)
               
            You don't understand the nature of this engagement in Iraq, nor what either Obama or Clinton have been responding to over time. It was never a war. It's been an invasion, then an occupation.

            Most of the politicians in Washington made speeches declaring Sadam was a threat, and most of them authorized the use of force as a last resort. Bush of course had every intention from BEFORE he took office to invade Iraq and depose Sadam; they all should have known he would do this.

            Nevertheless, saying that they voted "for the war" is a false statement. Dealing with the aftermath of the invasion with the inept administration and their mishandling of it has been difficult. The previous Congress simply didn't deal with it.

            Lfe in Iraq today is still horrible. Neither Clinton or Obama have been in the forefront of demanding that the administration withdraw troops.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (January 14, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
               
            Hillary is certainly a hawk who would like to have it both ways. That isnt news to me. I am not sure that would have made her look worse. It doesnt to me. I know she isnt on the same page as I am on Iraq and I know she will try to triangulate everything including her breakfast order. Russert cropped the quotes. MMFA was not being dishonest by pointing that out.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (January 15, 2008 8:57 am ET)
                 
              SOLON:

              Hillary is "a hawk"? Definitions get so skewed over time. Most of my lifetime, a "hawk" was one who both approved of using the military as a FIRST resort, and is willing for hostilities to continue, no matter WHAT the circumstances.

              Now, apparently, a "hawk" must be anyone who would EVER consider using the military.

              As a Liberal, I have never been a "hawk", but I certainly applaud America's military involvement in wars in the past (WWII), and I also am very much for having the strongest, best trained, and best equipped military in the world.

              I understand there are good reasons for using military force, such as expelling Iraq from Kuwait (Desert Storm), retaliating for the attacks on our embassies, or to stand up against genocide. I really wish we would militarily go after Bin Laden.

              Like Obama, I am not against ANY war, I'm just against DUMB wars. So, I guess I now have to consider myself a "hawk", like Hillary. Oh, how those definitions change.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by philib (January 15, 2008 9:31 am ET)
                   
                Consider yourself a dumb-hawk. Fighting terrorism sure is dumb. Providing Iraq a free and safe country sure is dumb. Eliminating terrorism as a viable choice for human lifestyles sure is dumb. Dam dumb wars!!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tex (January 15, 2008 9:46 am ET)
                     
                  PHIL:

                  I sure hate being "dumb", so tell me WHERE Bush is fighing a war on terrorism, and WHY invading a nation that was no threat to the United States was "smart."

                  See, I hate being DUMB, so your SMART responses will set me straight. Last I heard, for example, Bush "doesn't think about Bin Laden" any more. Is THAT the kind of "smart" you're talking about?
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (January 13, 2008 8:02 pm ET)
           
        cmon odious, tell us how.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (January 14, 2008 9:41 am ET)
             
          Copiousdissent can't respond right now. His mommy came back into the room, and he had to log off her computer real quick.....

          :-)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (January 13, 2008 7:04 pm ET)
         

      Poor Lil' Russ...

      Any person with any amount of objectivity who watched the entire program this morning would have to be impressed with how hard Lil' Russ tried to come up with a gotcha moment.

      And totally failed.

      Hillary, on the other hand, not only did an excellent job responding to Russert's gawdawfully leading questions, she didn't let him get away with his typical "a snip here, a snip there" BS.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (January 13, 2008 8:17 pm ET)
           
        I must say I watched the entire thing and was very impressed with Hillary and her answers. Russert looked a bit foolish trying to get away with something, but Hillary was too sharp for him. She really is very good and seems to know her stuff.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MickD (January 14, 2008 2:08 pm ET)
             
          Even as an Obama supporter, I was proud on how Senator Clinton handled herself against Little Russ (who seems to live for the gotcha, except maybe when McCain is on every week :o). The Dems are the way to go this election, answering towards the failures of the last 7 years. Good luck to all.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by thehaskells7319 (January 14, 2008 12:14 pm ET)
           
        I agree TR did not do a very good job at an in depth interview. He never challenged HRC on her refusal to answer many questions directly. She is a very slick politician; this is her greatest attribute! Is this the best attribute to restore our country that has been on the slide for the last 20 years?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Carloyncries (January 13, 2008 7:33 pm ET)
         
      No offense, but this site appears to be only about Hillary Clinton. I had hoped you would cover a broader swath of media matters. Is this a branch of her campaign?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (January 13, 2008 8:24 pm ET)
         

      A totally Fox News-like tactic from someone that the vast majority of the public thinks is a real jounalist.  Russert made sure to quiet down Clinton so that she couldn't set the record straight, complete the out of context quote by Bill Clinton, complete the quotes of others that have taken the Bill Clinton quote out of context (made certain to label them "neutral"), and then quickly change the subject to MLK so that the previous subject cannot be corrected.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (January 13, 2008 8:44 pm ET)
         

      I don't like conspiratorial theories relating such programs to "corporate control" but it really starts looking like people such as Russert have an agenda and deliberatly distort facts with some kind of goal in mind. 

      Why would a network keep airing such false information when the ratings of these program continue to drop? I assumed that the "corporate" overlords are in it for the money and to keep supporting such brain-dead commentators, while viewers disappear in large number, just makes no sense.

      Unless people like Russert are kept on the air for a longer game than just immediate ratings. Do the people controlling his program wish to maintain a level of discourse that ignores the actual wishes of the voting population? Do they think that ANYTHING can be marketed and sold, like hamburgers and cars? Do they think that, despite the clear anger of the voting population and the widespread call for Populism, that in the end marketing will always win?

      I wonder how  people like Russert can sleep at night, pretending that they are doing journalism during the day but, deep down (if they have a soul) knowing their true role in life is to prostitute themselves and in so doing deny large numbers of people the ability to have real jobs, health care, and justice.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (January 13, 2008 9:04 pm ET)
         

      These lies about Clinton are everywhere. Tonight, the CBS Evening News falsely claimed that Hillary "gave more credit" to LBJ than Martin Luther King. She did no such thing.

      Such a lie, and an inflammatory one as well.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solonswine (January 13, 2008 10:40 pm ET)
         
      Hillary ACTUALLY said to Russert: "There's not one shred of truth in what you've just read." even though several lines of it were quotes from her husband........Oh, so maybe she's saying that Bill is a big, fat liar. I'll buy that. She is so fake. Makes me ill to watch her dodge and weave and NEVER answer a question honestly. She's always so defensive, like "I don't understand why everyone's asking me questions all the time about my positions and past records". Here's a clue: You're trying to become the most powerful man in the world, that's why! God, she's just dumb.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (January 13, 2008 11:35 pm ET)
           
        Rocks aren't supposed to have a brain.

        Choose another model to emulate - please!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 12:48 am ET)
           
        Mr. McSwiny: you say she "makes me ill"...no, only you can make yourself ill.

        Perhaps you just don't like her so you have your foul reaction. Most politicians dodge and weave. She answers questions clearly more often than not. I don't agree with her on many policies but the extreme reactions that she gets from mcSwineys like you might lead us to believe that you don't like the fact that she is a woman running for president, because you say:

        "Here's a clue: You're trying to become the most powerful man in the world."

        Actually, no, she's trying to become the president and not have to change her gender to do it. Duh back.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (January 14, 2008 8:12 am ET)
           
        Solonswine, You are too funny. Can't say much more about you. You are the funniest person here. Thank You for performing your sit-down act here at MMFA. I give you a '10'.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (January 14, 2008 2:34 pm ET)
             
          Solonswine, You are too funny. Can't say much more about you. You are the funniest person here.

          He's taken the spot previosly occupied by JusticeTruth's "Fact Checks"....
          Report Abuse
    • Author by jfrentzn6663 (January 14, 2008 12:43 am ET)
         
      The larger crime here is Clinton's attempt to rewrite history about her and Obama's record on Iraq, and Russert letting her get away with it. Her either dumb or cynical (I'm guessing cynical) support of the 2002 resolution is now her "I didn't inhale" moment - she didn't think Bush would actually go to war  and certainly didn't expect that outcome. Funny, but I don't recall her raising this issue or objecting in March 2003 when the tanks and rockets started firing. She and Bills misrepresentation of Obama's 2004 quote, where he attempted to avoid criticizing his (and the Clinton's) parties' presidential ticket is in Swift Boat territory for dishonesty. If Russert had done his job he would have nailed her good for this tactic. Here's a NYTime's story about this Clinton campaign tactic from March of this year, when they first began it.

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63
      Report Abuse
    • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 9:38 am ET)
         

      Mr. Russert showed edited video.  Then he allowed Sen. Clinton to state more than once that the "Obama campaign" was distorting her words about Martin Luther King, Jr. without asking her for proof of that statement.  As Sen. Obama said on Sunday, his campaign had not commented upon it at all. 

      Did anyone else think that Mr. Russert gave Sen. Clinton a huge pass when he allowed her to completely disavow any knowledge of her own brother's presidential pardon with a simple one sentence answer and a lame follow-up?

      I am still waiting for MMFA to post something about Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment or Karl Rove's Washington Post piece in which he referred to Obama as "lazy" and "basketball-playing", and "trash-talking."  Those are examples of bias toward a candidate.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 14, 2008 10:26 am ET)
           
        MM will publish nothing in defense of Obama if it may consequently portray Clinton in an unfavorable light. The democratic party is at a crossroads, with the partisan hacks at MM going all out to advance their candidate (Hillary), even to the point of ignoring her lies and unsupported talking points against Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (January 14, 2008 2:00 pm ET)
             
          You are full of it. They put out defenses of both Edwards AND Obama. Obama has been getting less dishonest press, the rightwing goes apoplectic at the mere mention of Hillarys name so that is to be expected this site does NOT shill for Hillary.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 10:27 am ET)
           
        yellowdog, I hope you submitted those comments to the Media Matters tip e-mail? Hadn't heard them before. Rove is quite a bad karma junkie, isn't he?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (January 14, 2008 2:02 pm ET)
           
        Oh my goodness. Rank, racist commentary by Rove. I hope to see those covered.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 1:19 pm ET)
         

      I did submit both of these instance to MMFA.  Here is the Cuomo quote:
      http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-uscuom115533466jan11,0,3011306.story
       
      And Karl Rove's op-ed piece in the January 11th Wall Street Journal:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries 

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
         

      By the way, I submitted both quotes to MMFA on January 12th.  Ah -- if we only had an edit feature on this site!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
           
        Thanks for bringing it up. At the least, the thread readers now know...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
         

      A small but not insignificant point:  

      CLINTON: I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.....

      Eisenhower introduced and signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960.  Hillary's claim is an egregious misstatement. 

      Where is MMFA on that one?  (Just kidding. I know the answer.)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 9:53 pm ET)
           
        okie dokey aa, let's go back further, to Truman:

        http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_truman.html
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 9:57 pm ET)
             
          The above link didn't work on my browser. However, it describes Truman's civil rights efforts in 1947-48.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (January 15, 2008 9:43 am ET)
           
        Pointing to earlier "attempts" at civil rights legislation only emphasizes Hillary's point that EFFECTIVE legislation, with TEETH and actual ENFORCEMENT ... is what is necessary to make "dreams" into REALITY.

        Bigots and racists are happy to pass legislation all day long, that has no actual IMPACT on the way business is being done. This is why Affirmative Action was and is so reviled by the Right: It is legislation that cannot be ignored. It actually MANDATES change, and has stiff penalties for failure to comply.

        It's this kind of EFFECTIVE law that the rightwing objects to, and it is the kind of law that Martin Luther King was constantly lobbying for. And Hillary is correct: Civil Rights progress was a COMBINATION of leaders pointing out the injustices, and legislators then willing to pass laws to effectively address those injustices. BOTH components were (and are) essential.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.