Brokaw misquoted and misrepresented Bill Clinton remark he described as "pretty provocative"
SUMMARY: Misquoting and misrepresenting what he described as a "pretty provocative" remark by former President Bill Clinton, Tom Brokaw claimed that Clinton said, "[Y]ou've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X, you agree with everything that he stands for, but you have some real doubts about his experience. Candidate Y only believes in half the things but you really trust his experience -- who you gonna vote for?" But Clinton did not raise the issue of "experience" in his remarks, and Brokaw did not mention -- as he did when discussing Clinton's remarks earlier on MSNBC Live -- that Clinton said the hypothetical he described "has nothing to do with what's going on now."
On the August 26 edition of MSNBC Live, Tom Brokaw misquoted and misrepresented what he described as a "pretty provocative" remark by former President Bill Clinton. Referring to comments Clinton made earlier that day at a National Democratic Institute for International Affairs forum for former world leaders, Brokaw asserted: "He said, '[Y]ou've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X, you agree with everything that he stands for, but you have some real doubts about his experience. Candidate Y only believes in half the things but you really trust his experience -- who you gonna vote for?' I mean, that's what he said in Denver." Brokaw then said, "That's pretty provocative," suggesting that Clinton had been talking about the current presidential race. In fact, Clinton did not raise the issue of "experience" in his remarks. Moreover, Brokaw did not mention -- as he did when discussing Clinton's remarks earlier on MSNBC Live -- that Clinton said the hypothetical he described "has nothing to do with what's going on now."
At the August 26 forum, titled "Ensuring Democracy Delivers Real Dividends: A Perspective from Former Presidents and Prime Ministers," Clinton said:
CLINTON: Whether a government can actually deliver becomes quite important. It becomes, in a way, the question. Suppose, for example, you're a voter, And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. 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 delivery issue become a serious issue in Democratic debates, because it is so hard to figure out how to turn our good intentions into real changes in the lives of the people we represent. Therefore -- and this is a really good panel, I think this is a subject that -- it may be starting on this stage, but I would like to see debated in a consistent way on every continent across all major issues for the next 10 years. When I set up my foundation when I left the White House, and then we started the Clinton Global Initiative, along with the U.N., I had a very simple idea: I wanted to help people turn good intentions into positive changes.
While discussing Clinton's comments during an interview with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell earlier in the 4 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, Brokaw stated: "Now, in fairness, he went on to say -- perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might have been taken, this has nothing to do with what's going on now." But Brokaw ignored the remainder of Clinton's statement and concluded: "It's pretty hard to believe it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on now."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the August 26 edition of MSNBC Live:
BROKAW: Republicans are pointing not just to Hillary Clinton but also to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Here's what he had to say today in Denver. "Suppose you're a voter and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y, you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?" Now, in fairness, he went on to say -- perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might have been taken -- this has nothing to do with what's going on now. It's pretty hard to believe it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on now, Governor.
RENDELL: Well, I think Bill Clinton will have a -- also have a chance to state his agenda and what he feels tomorrow. And look, obviously, what's said has been said. But we can point out a lot of things that Republicans said about Senator McCain during the campaign if we wanted to play that game. I think it's a little childish. Bill Clinton will make it clear that the agenda that Barack Obama has set out is his agenda and Hillary Clinton's agenda. Can Barack Obama get it done? You bet he can. And I believe President Clinton's going to say this is about vision and leadership. And listen, Barack Obama has created a vision and carved out a path for America, I think, second to none. That's his strong suit. I think he can get it done. Bill Clinton's going to surprise the heck out of people tomorrow.
[...]
AL HUNT (Bloomberg News Washington editor): Tom, I don't think that Hillary Clinton is nearly as big a problem for Obama as Bill Clinton. I think Hillary Clinton will do that tonight. I think she also will be a good soldier during the campaign and will try to rally her troops. Whether they'll all come along is another question. But Bill Clinton, for reasons that I honestly don't understand, is angry, he's simmering. Everyone I've talked to who's talked to him -- and I have not talked to him -- tells me the same thing.
BROKAW: Here's what he said today here in Denver. He said, you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X, you agree with everything that he stands for, but you have some real doubts about his experience. Candidate Y only believes in half the things, but you really trust his experience -- who you gonna vote for? I mean, that's what he said in Denver. That's pretty provocative.
JUDY WOODRUFF (PBS NewsHour senior correspondent): But don't you think when it comes down do it, what Hillary Clinton says is going to matter more to these delegates and the people watching than what Bill Clinton says?
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.
If Clinton's little example has nothing to do with what is going on here, what is it doing here?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.