Responding to video of Bill Clinton saying Obama "should win," Chuck Todd falsely claimed Clinton didn't "mak[e] a choice" between Obama and McCain
SUMMARY: NBC's Chuck Todd responded to video of former President Bill Clinton saying of Sen. Barack Obama, "I think we have two choices. I think he [Obama] should win, and I think he will win," by falsely claiming that Clinton failed to make "a choice between Obama and McCain." In falsely asserting that Clinton had given a "non-endorsement" of Obama, Todd also left out Clinton's statement that he would "absolutely" campaign for Obama.
NBC political director Chuck Todd responded to video of former President Bill Clinton saying of Sen. Barack Obama, "I think we have two choices. I think he [Obama] should win, and I think he will win," by falsely claiming that Clinton's comment constituted an "interesting non-endorsement." Appearing on the August 5 edition of MSNBC Live, Todd went on to falsely accuse Clinton of "talking about the constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama rather than sort of making a choice between Obama and McCain." Todd concluded: "We'll see if he tries to clarify that later today."
Clinton made his comments during an interview with ABC correspondent Kate Snow in Monrovia, Liberia, posted at ABCNews.com on August 4. In the interview, when Snow asked Clinton, "Will you campaign for [Obama] now?" he replied, "Absolutely." In falsely asserting that Clinton had given a "non-endorsement" of Obama, Todd also left out Clinton's statement that he would "absolutely" campaign for Obama.
From the August 5 edition of MSNBC Live:
TODD: Finally, our friend, the former President Bill Clinton, had some interesting things to say about the qualifications of Senator Obama. Let's take a listen.
[begin video clip]
SNOW: Is he ready to be president?
CLINTON: You could argue that no one's ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year.
[..]
SNOW: You think he's completely qualified to be president?
CLINTON: The Constitution sets qualifications for the president, and then the people decide who they think would be the better president. I think we have two choices. I think he [Obama] should win, and I think he will win.
[end]
TODD: Well, there you heard it. That was an interesting non-endorsement from the former president, talking about the constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama, rather than sort of making a choice between Obama and McCain. We'll see if he tries to clarify that today.
From Clinton's interview with Snow, posted August 4:
SNOW: Will you campaign for him now?
CLINTON: Absolutely.
But the conflict only seems to go one way: Obama is the one who is getting scrutinized.
It wasn't just Todd who was bad. All day yesterday, the MSM was showing the Clinton "I'm not a racist" remark and making it appear as if he were angry at Obama, when in fact he was referring to the media.
From the snippets I saw this morning from the interview, Bubba's responses were a bit odd. Obviously he's a very smart fellow, particularly in the political sense, yet he failed to give the unqualified answer that most would expect as a matter of course. My first impression was that he easily could've said something like "of course Obama's qualified. . . as qualified as anyone can be. . . " Then he could have proceeded to explain how being pres is a singularly unique experience. It's hard to imagine that his vague response was something other than deliberate.
Don't you love it when the Right discovers new terms? A few years ago it was "jejune," which none of them ever used correctly.
But now, cognizant dissonance! I love it. It's perfect. I've suddenly seen this term being used in right wing blogs....!
These people would be a hoot if they weren't so dangerous. We need to send them all to college.
Congratualation. You're about five years behind the times, and I've used the term here before. The use of the phrase is a "must learn" when you are a moderate living in the world of loonie left wing academia.
Unlike the constant voices in your head?
SNOW: Is he ready to be president?
CLINTON: You could argue that no one's ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year.
SNOW: You think he's completely qualified to be president?
CLINTON: The Constitution sets qualifications for the president, and then the people decide who they think would be the better president.
Oh please, who doesn't think that was typical Clinton parsing 101 at its finest. McCain wins, Hillary swoops in in 2012 to pick up the pieces, not hard to figure. As for his response if he will campaign for him, of course he said he would, what's he going to say? "No".
Summary: NBC's Chuck Todd responded to video of former President Bill Clinton saying of Sen. Barack Obama, "I think we have two choices. I think he [Obama] should win, and I think he will win," by falsely claiming that Clinton failed to make "a choice between Obama and McCain." In falsely asserting that Clinton had given a "non-endorsement" of Obama, Todd also left out Clinton's statement that he would "absolutely" campaign for Obama.
The question most certainly is the nature of the "endorsement. Saying that Obama "should and will win" is not necessarily making a choice. Maybe he thinks he should win because he has an advantage, and he thinks he will win because that advantage will pan out. I could have said the same thing about Reagan in 1980. Whether he meant it that way is impossible to say, but along with the fact that he gave a disingenuous cop-out answer about "constitutional" qualifications for President and wouldn't say Obama was "ready" doesn't lend much to the idea that this was any sort of endorsement at all.
"And honestly, these comments call that one into serious question."
Not if you've seen the entire interview they don't.
SNOW: Clinton insists the hard-fought primary season made Barack Obama a stronger candidate. Is he ready to be president?
BILL CLINTON: You could argue that no one is ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year. You could argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office. And that everyone learns something, and something different. You could argue that. He's shown a keen strategic sense in his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them which is a very important part of being a president. And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn.
And perhaps is you had seen the whole interview before making your claims, you'd be less critical. But maybe not.
It's really not my fault that MMfA isn't providing more context here to support their own point.
That does help to answer one of the questions, so Todd shouldn't be using that to make his claim. It also makes it more possible to take the "should and will" comment as reflective of his personal opinion. The "qualification" answer is still bothersome, is there some context that changes that?
SNOW: Is he ready to be president?
SNOW: You think he's completely qualified to be president?
The above are absolutely softball direct questions which Clinton should have knocked out of the ballpark, but he danced around them. Typical.
"The above are absolutely softball direct questions which Clinton should have knocked out of the ballpark, but he danced around them. Typical"
Baloney. Both of those questions asked for his OPINION. They are not "direct" questions. And Clinton, good strategist that he is, know full well there is NO "good" answer to them.
Go ahead, ask me if I *think* YOU are "completely qualified" to be President.
"And why are there no good answers to these questions?"
Because Clinton is not Obama. He can NEVER know if Obama is COMPLETLY ready to be President. No matter how good someone is, no matter how well they speak, no matter how intelligent they are - it's still going to be a case of hard-core, on-the-job training. Clinton's OPINION of Obama in the job is just as meaningless as it would be if he'd been asked it Obama was ready to be dog catcher. HE DOESN'T KNOW and his opinion has no weight.
"And Clinton, good strategist that he is, know full well there is NO "good" answer to them."
So what's the risk of saying that Obama is ready and qualified, in his opinion? What does strategy have to do with whether the answer to a question is ultimately "meaningless" or not?
".....NO "good" answer to them"
Gosh, I would say a good answer would be something like, "Yes, in my opinion as former President, he is ready to be president".....and "Yes, in my opinion as former President, he is qualified to be president".
Simple. Direct.
Did Media Matters imply that it was?
and more importantly: Should it be?
\Just because you will be voting for someone doesn't mean you have to endorse him with a bunch of phony embellishments.
The truth is if he did come out with a "ringing endorsement" you and the rest would find a way to make him wrong for it.
What do you get out of that?
Seriously?
I've been bewildered by the amoung of demonization and absolute maliciious hatred that the so called "progressive" "community" (misnomer on both points as I see it.) has indulged in this election cycle.
In any case, as I said, just because you will vote for someone doesn't mean you have to endorse him, support him, approve of him or even like him. And you don't have to be happy about it. You look at the choices, hold your nose and pull the fricking lever.
First time in my adult life I will unhappily vote for a President. My early ardent support for Obama waned as the ugly attacks and neocon tactics increased against Clinton. Hav ing moved into neutrality for a while I spent a lot of time researching the candidates
Absolutely right. Bubba's got a vested interest in his wife and 2012. All she's waiting for is another 4 years to roll around. If Obama wins, Bubba knows the nation and the world will be a mess. If McCain wins, he will be arguably too old to run, plus 4 years of McCain's policies probably wont' be enough to rectify the mess now, especially with Ms. "I'm saving the planet with parliamentary procedures" screwing up the house. So either way, the Queen of the Hive will be ready to swoop in and say "I told you so"
It's so transparent that it amazes me how even the liberal left can't see it for what it is.
Clinton endorses Gore:
-- "Because this is from the heart...he is the most effective and influential vice president who has ever served." --
Clinton endorses Kerry:
-- "Eight years ago, Nevada voted to re-elect me, and I want you to vote to elect John Kerry" --
Chuck Todd, as a political analyst, was absolutely correct in pointing out Clinton's lukewarm response about Obama in this interview...a stark contrast to Clinton's emphatic support for Gore and Kerry.
The Clinton's do not give up power easily. Hillary has been lukewarm as well in her support and campaigning for Obama and Bill hasn't lost sight of the fact that she will show up at the convention with about 2000 delegates.
There hasn't been any "ding dong" songs from Munchkin land yet.
Who said anything about a negative impact on Obama? This is about the selfishness and sour grapes mentality of the Clintons and the sting they feel for being denied what they thought was theirs, the Democratic nomination.
Keep up, Gov....
Who said anything about a negative impact on Obama?
Umm... I just did. And so did Chuck Todd at the close of his report this morning.
Are you ok?
"It suggests that we was not asked about an endorsement"
"He was not asked if he'd be a good president"
There.
How many ways did Clinton try to sidestep answering the question?
No endorsement of Obama here. An acceptance maybe. A grudging acceptance at best. And that had to be dragged out of him.
If that makes MMFA feel better, then good for them.
I think it's pretty obvious Clinton isn't a fan of Obama.
How many ways did Clinton try to sidestep answering the question?
From my reading of the whole interview, the answer is precisely zero times.
Chuck Todd, as a political analyst, was absolutely correct in pointing out Clinton's lukewarm response about Obama in this interview...a stark contrast to Clinton's emphatic support for Gore and Kerry.
It's no secret I've lost that "loving feeling" I used to have for Bill, but it's hard to miss, Bill's still angry at the Obama camp and he doesn't mind the public knowing it.
Bill is the best at the game of politics so it's not hard to miss his lukewarm response. I can't decided whether Bill wants attention, as some have said, or if he wants to let the Obama camp know that he's still very angry. With his response he seems to get both.
Bill continuing to cry he's not a racist seems a bit over the top. Most folks I know don't think Bill's a racist but they think he had no problem "playing the race card" during his wife's primary campaign. As Roland Martin of CNN said, it was ordinary, everyday African Americans calling Bill out for playing the race card and it was ordinary African Americans getting pissed off at Bill for denying playing the race card. Now those who called Bill a racist were wrong, but for Bill to deny he didn't mind using race with certain people in certain places is delusional.
I don't think Bill's a fool. He knew his lukewarm response to Snow's questions would have the media talking about him and whether there was still tension between he and the Obama camp. I can't say that Bill's not endorsing Obama, he's already had a public "make up" with the Obama camp. But I can say that if Bill truly were "working hard" for the Obama camp, he would have answered Snow's questions with a resounding, YES, I think he's qualified to be President and YES, I think he's ready to be president. Instead, Bill gave us the learning curve on being President, the constitution on being president.
Bill's popularity in the African American community took a severe hit during the primaries, unfortunately this response will not help his popularity at all.
I very much appreciate your watchdogging role, and you have made many good catches in the past, in my opinion.
Here however, I think that you have made a mistake. Clinton is famous for exploiting the double meanings of words. If one looks carefully at his recent key quote, "I think we have two choices. I think he [Obama] should win, and I think he will win", we see, in my opinion, that Chuck Todd correctly reports that Clinton did not make a choice. He first states that there is a choice. Then he states that Obama "should win" --- this can be understood in two ways --- that it is right for Obama to win, or that an Obama win is most probable. Then Clinton says Obama "will win" --- suggesting more strongly that it is most likely that he will win. These sentences are highly ambiguous (which is Todd's main point) and nowhere does Clinton personally choose Obama. In fact Clinton's two answers taken together seem to work hard to avoid making any choice (referring to the Constitution e.g.)
Best regards for the future...
"Then he states that Obama "should win" --- this can be understood in two ways --- that it is right for Obama to win, or that an Obama win is most probable. Then Clinton says Obama "will win" --- suggesting more strongly that it is most likely that he will win."
Bad analysis, horrible parsing of "should". When used as he did, "should win" means "is the better candidate". There's no reason for Clinton to dance around the rest of the interview, only to come to that point where he feels the need to clarify his "should" comment by adding "...will win".
Exactly, and especially true when you look at the previous sentence:"The Constitution sets qualifications for the president, and then the people decide who they think would be the better president."
The context is about the public, making it even less clear that Clinton is making some commentary regarding his own opinion.
Like this part for instance:
Clinton: He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them which is a very important part of being a president. And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn.
Did you miss that part?
"And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn"
That's your defense? Nothing but pure condescending patronization. You can't see that?
I cropped nothing, you just posted it right above, duh. Obama doesn't need Bill Clinton to validate his intelligence with his patronizing, pat-on-the-head "endorsement" of his smarts, or his learning skills.
Clinton, condescending jerk.
I missed that part because it's not quoted in the article, it's not quoted in the link, and I try to avoid running video as much as possible with my connection. That is a better argument than the "campaign" quote provided by MMfA, which is fairly meaningless.
But it still comes off as inconsistent. If he wants to talk about intelligence and speaking abilities, then that actually does speak to qualification. There's no need for the nonsense about the "Constitution" standards for being President, as if that's what the question was about, so it makes that answer even more dishonest. Those answers are difficult to explain, even if he did say things that are complimentary.
BRABANTIO
You wrote: "There's no need for the nonsense about the "Constitution" standards for being President, as if that's what the question was about, so it makes that answer even more dishonest."
I agree. When I heard Bill mention the Constitution and qualifications for President I couldn't believe it. But then again, I am starting to realize that when it comes to politics, especially from the right wing (and Clinton supporters), there is not much logic to be found. Also, I am sooo tired of double speak. I wish people would just tell the truth and say what's on their minds. I guess if one told the truth though their opponents would somehow twist it around to suit their agenda. Oh? Did I just invoke Karl Rove and his McCain camp minions?!
-- when it comes to politics, especially from the right wing (and Clinton supporters), there is not much logic to be found. -- randyroofwalker
Obamaland...love it or leave it...LOL
What a gas...Obama supporters now lumping Hillary supporters with the evil right wing. Could make for an interesting time in Denver when Bill and Hillary show up with 2000 delegates and their uninspired support for Obama.
What a gas...Obama supporters now lumping Hillary supporters with the evil right wing. Could make for an interesting time in Denver when Bill and Hillary show up with 2000 delegates and their uninspired support for Obama. WESLEY
What? Just 'cus I support Obama I have to like the Clintons? If you watched the primary's you would have seen Hillary calling plays out of the "Karl Rove Attack Book" just like Bush did in 2004...and McCain is now. You know it's true Jumpin Jack Flash.
What? Just 'cus I support Obama I have to like the Clintons?
Who is arguing that? The observation that is being made is that because you support Obama you feel the need to vilify the Clintons and lump them in with right-wingers.
And can you, as an Obama supporter, for once peak in specifics? Exactly what Rovian tactics did Hillary employ that Obama did not? If you are going to say "playing the race card," Obama did too. Hillary going back on her word? Obama has too. Enjoying the fruits of damaging attacks made by "surrogates"? So did Obama.
"Who is arguing that? The observation that is being made is that because you support Obama you feel the need to vilify the Clintons and lump them in with right-wingers."
Then that observation would be incorrect. I don't vilify the Clintons because I support Obama (in fact there was once a time that I did support the clintons) I vilify them because they have no integrity and deserve to be vilified and they brought it upon themselves. It has nothing to do with who I support.
"And can you, as an Obama supporter, for once peak in specifics? Exactly what Rovian tactics did Hillary employ that Obama did not? If you are going to say "playing the race card," Obama did too. Hillary going back on her word? Obama has too. Enjoying the fruits of damaging attacks made by "surrogates"? So did Obama."
Are you sure you don't work for Rove? If you don't did you miss the Primary? And what is this "for once" bit. You act like you know me and that I post on this site all the time. You also act like every Obama supporter in the world never gives specifics (I suppose you Clinton supporterss always do, huh?) Anyway, it wasn't Obama who launched the negative "kitchen sink attack" campaign (Obama took the high road throughout the entire primary). Hillary launched it! (ala Karl Rove style)....and I'll give you one speciific: OHIO / NAFTA - Hillary in her Ohio speeches acted like she doesn't and never did support NAFTA. Yet she would out and out lie (again Karl Rove style) and tell people that Obama supported NAFTA when if fact he doesn't. Ten years after NAFTA passed, Hillary said it was good for America. The fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for President." In Obama's own words, "Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have" Typical Karl Rove. Make a statement and then accuse your opponent of making the statement. Or, do something negative and then accuse your opponent of doing it. Until just days ago McCain was doling out the negative ads for two weeks. Guess who had joined his campaign two weeks ago? Two or Three of Karl Rove's employees! That's right. Do a little research - it's amazing what you can find out on this internet thingy.
I could go on and on and on about the Clintons Karl Rove tactics but it just really isn't worth my time.
Oh yes, and how could I forget:
"Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I wonder when the GOP will start using that one - Oh gosh - Today!
Yes, but I did not hear former President Clinton say, "I sure hope he (Obama) wins." Or - "I am right behind Senator Obama, he's the man that I want to see run our country." Clinton only said, He SHOULD win and I think he WILL win. That is not really an endorsement
Both of the Clintons at this time should be coming to Senator Obama's defense and chiding Senator McCain for his Karl Rove tactics of attacks. Oh wait a minute - the Clinton's used the Karl Rove tactics during the primary. Hmm...maybe that's a little to close to home for them, at this time.
What! You mean democrats arn't in a lockstep, unified public statement mode?
Different thoughts, the horror, the horror.
You guys have it so easy. You can use any statement by Bill and complain about it in some "significant" way.
Could you give a demonstration of this for an unrestrained totally positive statement by Bill for Barrack. You could start off by accusing him of flip flopping. I'm sure the rant would just flow out of you from there. Practice up so you can properly parse it when he does do so. As he will.
As I remember, the the problem as expressed by the media in 1999 was, whether Bill's support would hurt Al Gore.
Discussing a theoretical dampish enthusiasm by Bill has what real meaning in this campaign? Besides pushing a democrats in disarray meme?
S'cool, most of us are guilty of similar errors. Your meaning was clear to me.
I'm just relieved my previous post isn't going to sail down to the end of this thread forever.
I am sick to death with these people and their self indulgent need to create havoc- particularly where the Clinton's are concerned.
I've become disgusted with so called "progressives" who parroted the media pundits throughout the primary. The same media they would normally be criticizing somehow miraculously had everything correct about Hillary and Bill Clinton. They took media and neocon talking points and demonized them in support of Obama.
What a shameful turn of events coming from "progressives."
The Clintons tend to inspire deep emotions. Not much you can do about it.
Their both complex characters. I'm sure he's disappointed that Hillary is not the candidate. If your wife just failed to take the nomination,by a small margin, how disgruntled would you be? Any hard feelings possible?
Many on either side tend to project things on them.
a prediction is not a choice. If I say the visiting team will beat my home team, it does not mean that I want my home team to lose.
Bill is still peeved about his inevitable loss in stature, and probably frustrated by his sloppy performance (by his standards) in the primaries. When Bill gets pissed, he parses and equivocates, if only to demonstrate his ability to control the conversation.
The sad thing is that Hillary lost the election--not Bill. He is like the retired superstar athlete who cannot become a coach because he cannot abide ordinary performers. The whole process of trying to get his wife into the White House was a bridge too far, and I suspect he now realizes that he should have known better.
As an Irishman, he should have known that, someday, the world would break his heart.