Brokaw falsely suggested Oprah hosted Obama as a presidential candidate
SUMMARY: On Meet the Press, citing a New York Post article reporting that Oprah Winfrey will not host Gov. Sarah Palin on her show before the presidential election, Tom Brokaw falsely suggested that Winfrey has hosted Sen. Barack Obama on her show during Obama's campaign for president. However, the Post article Brokaw cited itself reported that Winfrey has not hosted Obama since he began his presidential campaign and that Winfrey said she decided when she endorsed Obama not to use her show "as a platform for any of the candidates."
On the September 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, citing a New York Post article reporting that television talk show host Oprah Winfrey will not host Gov. Sarah Palin on her show before the presidential election, Tom Brokaw falsely suggested that Winfrey has hosted Sen. Barack Obama on her show during Obama's campaign for president. Brokaw stated: "Oprah did come out for Barack Obama, did have him on the show," then asked Sen. Joe Biden: "Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her -- Sarah Palin?" But the Post article Brokaw cited itself reported that Winfrey has not hosted Obama since he began his presidential campaign and that Winfrey said she decided when she endorsed Obama that she would not use her show "as a platform for any of the candidates."
The Post reported that "Winfrey, who tapes her high-rated daily show in Chicago, has had Obama as a guest twice -- in January 2005 and October 2006. Both occasions were before the Illinois senator officially announced he was running for the White House." The Post also reported that Winfrey said: "At the beginning of this presidential campaign, when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates." According to the Post, "Winfrey added 'I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.' "
From the September 6 New York Post article:
The daytime-TV talk queen said it was highly unlikely she'd have the self-proclaimed "hockey mom" appear alongside her, even after reports that there had been discussions to have Palin appear on a future show.
"At the beginning of this presidential campaign, when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates," Winfrey said in a statement.
Winfrey, a big supporter of Barack Obama, has had other politicians on her show before, including Presidents Bush and Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore.
The TV host did leave the door open for a Palin appearance - but only after the Nov. 4 election.
Winfrey added, "I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."
Winfrey, who tapes her high-rated daily show in Chicago, has had Obama as a guest twice - in January 2005 and October 2006.
Both occasions were before the Illinois senator officially announced he was running for the White House.
From the September 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
BROKAW: I want to move on in a moment, but here's another headline that appeared in the New York Post -- Oprah Winfrey decided not to have Sarah Palin on the show before the election. "No-Prah!" -- that's the New York Post headline. "TV First Lady's Palin Insult," as they called it. Oprah did come out for Barack Obama, did have him on the show. Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her -- Sarah Palin?
BIDEN: Oh, no, I don't think so. I mean, I think it's -- well, I don't -- look, that's for voters to decide. You're not going to see anything elitist. Look, what you hear immediately from Barack Obama and Joe Biden, "Family's off limits," and we mean it, that the personal stuff relating to some of the stuff that was popping out on the talk shows is just inappropriate.
This -- she's going to be judged, I assume, the same way I'm going to be judged: What does she know? What does she think? What's her record? What's she going to do? And as I look down the road, that's how I've always debated whoever I've debated, including the really tough women I work with, the smart women in the Senate. So, I really don't view this any differently.
I may be surprised, here, down the road, but, you know, I just looking forward to debating her. I mean, why -- look, she had a great speech, but was -- her silence on the issues was deafening. She didn't mention a word about health care, a word about the environment, a word about the middle-class. That never parted her lips. I mean, so I don't know where she is on those things.
BROKAW: Let's talk about the polls if we can for a moment.
BIDEN: Sure.
He's worse than Peter Townesend.
Give it up Tom (and Pete).
"meet the new boss, same as the old......"
Oops, I forgot. He took that line out of the song.
Because it's a phony issue, designed to both elicit sympathy for poor Sarah and her family, and derision against Oprah and that other Black person who is running for president. It pushes all the buttons.
Lead story on all the local newscasts this weekend in my area: Why is Oprah barring Sarah Palin from her show?
She is not ready on the issues yet because she is researching them. She is studying them so she can make logical, fact based arguments. How stupid is that .. research before saying something... HOW EVIL ? Bush, Bush, Cheney, Bush, Cheney all their fault ! McSame, McSame, McSame... !!!
Pass around the Kool Aid baby... we are changing for change, change, change, changing for change ...
She's supposed to be good to go now, experienced military leader, been going toe to toe with Putin fer two and a half years. Any interveiw should be a snap from the get go.
Along with a few defining changes would you explain why she wanted to ban "My Friend Flicka?"
She should know everything right away I guess... maybe she was just a little too busy running the State of Alaska !!!
Skettle wrote:
>>She should know everything right away I guess... maybe she was just a little too busy running the State of Alaska !!!
You mean getting earmarks for Alaska, and then lying about them in all her speeches? You mean trying to squash a probe into an investigation that she abused her power? She is so busy, that she is running around the campaign trail for McCain.
Besides, that, no one said she should know everything. That is a strawman argument. But she should be capable enough to go up before the press--but she can't, because she will be asked lots of embarrassing questions that show she is not the person she has been claiming, and who America thinks she is.
She is studying them so she can make logical, fact based arguments. How stupid is that .. research before saying something... HOW EVIL ?
Oh, I get it. The scholar and the gentleman. Let me change my vote.
"She is not ready on the issues yet because she is researching them. She is studying them so she can make logical, fact based arguments."
If she were ready to lead, she'd know the issues already. I mean, this is 60 days before the election. Your post just proves she's not ready to lead. You know, second highest position in the country and all. And thanks to Cheney, a job with a LOT of power.
She is studying them so she can make logical, fact based arguments...
Kind of late in the game to be just now getting around to learning world events and foreign policy, don't you think? The fact is that Sarah Palin is a lightweight who has no business being a heart beat away from the Presidency. She was selected simply to energize the religious right.
The only poll that concerns me is the one on November 4.
Unless Obama plans on strangling kittens, he's got a lock.
Read my post below. National polls are full of hot air.
Randy
The problem is that the Obama brand is dieing. It is crumbling because it is being exposed as the CULT it is.
gallup has mccain by three, rasmussen has them tied.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls
You forgot to look at the one right above it.
Seems nobody has, yet. I first noticed it a couple hours ago-- it's the more important one.
That ain't no typo.
Are these the same polls that had John Kerry ahead by 4 points, the ones who had Hillary as a lock for the Democratic nomination? National polls, which only include landlines, are entirely flawed. Nobody wins on popular vote but state by state. A sample size consisting of people from McCain friendly states will swing the polls one way. Same is true for Obama-friendly states. Think about it. You're calling victory based on the opinions of a 1,000 people, for an election in which over 150,000,000 people will probably vote. Error margin: +-100%.
As previously stated, Nov. 4 is the only poll that counts.
Randy
"Why give the liberal media any more chances to attack her?"
Attacks my a**. WHAT "attacks"?
POV wrote:
>>Why give the liberal media any more chances to attack her?
You mean this liberal media?
"The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla. "
link
Who knew the Wall Street Journal was liberal?
Or how about this:
"Under Palin's leadership, Alaska this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects from one of McCain's top adversaries: indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. That's more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for the current budget year. Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based watchdog group."
lnk
Who knew facts were biased againt Palin.
No wonder she won't given an interview. She is a liar, and it is going to be hard to explain how you claim you are against earmarks, when you requested more than any other state! That's not to mention how she said she would cooperate with an investigation looking into her abuse of power, but now won't cooperate. (What is she hiding?) Or that she courted a right-wing separatist group wanting to seceed from Alaska.
By the way, I thought the vice president only went into hiding when he became vice president?
Why should she do more when she is having such a great effect now?
I agree! How dare anyone want to ask her questions about her positions! She owes nothing to anyone-- except her family, so LEAVE HER ALONE !!!!!
"Why give the liberal media any more chances to attack her?"
If she can't handle the "liberal media," how is she going to handle Al Qaeda?
Shorter POV:
You can't trust polls, but why can't McCain or Obama seal the deal in the polls?
DB
Good question. Dont have a good answer, and it seems the candidates dont either.
That completely went over your head.
For reference:
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
http://busybusybusy.com/
You are tircky......would be even better if your links worked.- pointofview /
No, actually, I think you're the tircky.
Let me ask you guys something. Are the Republicans still giving you trolls those fancy bonus points even when your postings are full of spelling mistakes?
Ahhhhhh.
Col, that line takes me back to many of the classic sitcoms of the 70s.
I HATED those classic sitcoms of the 70s, you somonabitch!
McCain/Palin up by 4...
You mean Palin/McCain, right?
I'll wager that Palin won't even be on the ticket come Nov 1. Give me odds?
The fact that you can't understand the difference between appearing on her show before you ever even announce that you're running, and appearing on her show within two months of the election demonstrates that you're one of those black and white thinkers who needs to get a new 'thinker'.
There's a huge, substantial difference between having a potential candidate on your show before a primary has even happened and having a VP nominee on your show 2 months before an election. Oprah shouldn't have any candidates on at this late date. She's doing the right thing.
Did you read that last sentence? Read it again. She's doing the right thing. If you had an ounce of character in your body, you'd know that already that it would be improper for her to host Palin at this point in the election. Guess that means you have no honor and no character. Too bad for you.
That is so true.
I want them to tell me how many "potential" Presidential candidates appeared on shows before they announced.
Then I want them to tell me how many VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidates are on, cuz it would be hard to know that since the Prez pic isn't even known till after the primary....
whining repubs is all it is.....
wah wah wah.
I have to agree with 'PoinOfView (sic)'.
You GOP trolls can't get anything right, can you? Even the names of those it is no surprise you agree with, probably because you're the same person.
Go back to playing the Pan flute, Zam.
At best, Obama was a prospective candidate. Till the paperwork is final, it's just woolgathering.
Randy
The New York Post.
As in the sister paper of FoxNews, Aussie Murdoch News International owned New York Post?
This is where this "independent" report comes from? A paper who recently had someone successfully sued for making things up? The US equivalent of The Sun, a paper famous for having topless women on page 3 and managing to singlehandedly drag down the intelligence level in the UK one stupid article at a time?
I don't know what is more pathetic, the fake story or someone with Brokaw's supposed reputation actually believing it.
That is where this
Skettle wrote:
>>Pretty soon I feel a little Change coming across the Atlantic my friend.. Don't tell me I didn't warn you about Hurricane Palin.
And you still haven't addressed my posts pointing out that Palin is a liar and is corrupt. Instead, you are posting like a troll--posting inflamatory one-liners and answering by insults.
Palin Snubbed by Oprah.
The Queen does not like the new princess in town.
hmmm... yikes !
Except that Oprah didn't snub Palin.
It's inappropriate, at this point in the election, to have a Vice Presidential candidate for a major party on a show like Oprah's.
Oprah is doing the right thing, and you're wrong.
Skettle wrote:
>>Probably they will put her on another show. Which will take the viewers away from Oprah which is good. I bet the Queen is steamed.
Yea. I guess when you belong to the cult of Palin, you can't think straight anymore.
Probably they will put her on another show. Which will take the viewers away from Oprah which is good. I bet the Queen is steamed.
It doesn't matter if Palin is interviewed on another news show. That has nothing to do with how it would be inappropriate for Oprah to host her at this point in the election, yet you tried to insist that it showed something bad about Oprah. It doesn't show anything bad about her. It's exactly the way she should behave at this point in the election.
So, faced with the facts, what do you do - make snide comments about Oprah, sarcastically calling her 'queen' and cheering the fact that she might lose some viewers. Name calling and petty insults are all you have left after you're debunked by the facts.
You dishonest punk.
I don't understand why the righties are making such a big damn deal about Palin not being invited on Oprah. Palin sure doesn't want to talk to the press, any reporters, or anyone who can introduce her to the American people.
My thoughts are that if you're McCain and you want people to think you're a 'maverick' and you choose a running mate who is outside the D.C. beltway, you'd WANT people to learn about her. We already know about people who've been in politics for years, so why doesn't McCain show off his new trophy VP pick?
The answer is simple. McCain and Palin both know that Palin is not fit to lead. Palin brings nothing to the table (unless you like moose meatloaf). She's not prepared to step into the Presidency at a moment's notice. Everyone knows she's not a good pick. She's a loser, in every sense of the word. The only thing we've heard out of her are GOP talking points - oh and how the war in Iraq is mandated by G-d.
Someone in a previous post defended Palin's secrecy by stating that she was looking for logical responses to anticipated questions about issues that could arise - and this hag thinks that the war in Iraq is mandated by G-d? REALLY? That kind of thinking is an example of the true definition of the word MORON.
The final part of this post is for women: please don't vote for Palin because she has a vagina. Doing so means that you will give her total control of YOUR vagina. Palin is pro-forced birth. And it's silly to vote for a woman just because she is a woman, even when it interferes with your core beliefs.
Skettle wrote:
>>The Queen does not like the new princess in town.
What is interesting is that you accuse Obama supporters of belonging to a cult, but it seems you are the one who is exhibiting cult-like behaviour. When I pointed out that Paline was exactly opposite of what you thought (she got more earmarks than any other governor!) you responded first by saying you liked her smile and her personality, and then by insulting me. In other words, you have formed an admiration for a politician not based on what you say you believe, but on her personality, and you illogically defend her.
Skettle wrote:
>>I never knew a man accused of being in a cult for finding a woman intelligent and attractive. Are you gay ?
Wow! You are really losing the argument. So now we are back in seventh grade, and you are accusing me of being gay because I have proven that your thinking is completely illogical?
Again, Skettle: you claim to be for Ayn Rand, who above all else, was against big government. She requested more earmarks than any other governor! Instead of answering this contradiction, you revert to insults and simply reply that you like her because she is good looking. (Whether she is intelligent is debatable.)
Again, if you are for someone whose policies are against what you believe in, and you want to blindly defend her, even resorting to childish insults, I would say that displays cult-like behavior.
Is there some new rule on MMFA that when some moronic troll comes along they have to have numbers on the end of their names?
I think that's how they keep track of their bonus points, the ones they can trade in for prizes and the like.
Right you are. Or at least have the good taste to refer to them all in good fun, like McCain did with his "because Janet Reno's the father" joke about Chelsea.
Kids love stuff like that.
If there was some case where Obama's children highlighted a major flaw in his policies, then that's fair game. Palin is for abstinence-only education, and it doesn't even work on her own daughter.
I think it's safe to say that if Obama had a pregnant 17 year-old daughter, he and Michelle would be criticized for poor parenting in no uncertain terms by any number of right-wingers. I haven't heard that sort of thing from the left. We tend to recognize that some kids are going to have sex even when you tell them not to, even when you've instilled all the values in the world into them. That's exactly why we recognize the need for comprehensive sex education and abortion.
When your positions don't match up with the reality you see in your own household, that should be demonstrated, even at the cost of a candidates' family getting unwanted attention.
Palins kids should be off limits. You can attack the husband, just leave the poor kids out of politics
Problem is, it's Palin and the Republicans who bring them up in the first place, always touting her as super mom. Well, what's wrong then with lampooning that idea?
Yeah, and John McCain picked his wife up in a bar when he was married.
Sorry, but it's true.
P.S.
You know, because of that stunt, Nancy Reagan absolutely hates the guy.
I wonder how much she dislikes Palin, too-- a lot, I'm sure-- because Palin's redneck trash to someone of Nancy's social stature, and rightfully so. I'm positive she's mortified.
I find it interesting that Media Matters is attacking Tom Brokaw -- a liberal.
Brokaw did not say Oprah had Obama on his show while he was a candidate -- he simply said she had him on the show.
Brokaw and NBC News are having an internal war with MSNBC and Keith Olberman. That is what must be behind this attack on Brokaw because anyone can read plain as day that what Media Matters is saying is a lie.
Through the looking glass yet, are we?
Brokaw, who you claim to be a liberal, is being "attacked" by MMfA (why is everything about violence with the cons?) because of some disagreements between NBC and MSNBC? I think you need to pull the hangers off the ceiling.
But Media Matters isn't attacking Brokaw at all. That's one of the multitude of ways you're wrong.
Media Matters is pointing out a bit of conservative misinformation. That's info provided by the news media that's not reliable, accurate or credible and that furthers the conservative agenda.
It's irrelevant to Media Matters who the messenger is.
It's relevant to you because you want to allege bias where there is no evidence of bias. It's relevant to you because you attack the messenger instead of the message. You dishonest punk.
To show you how much serious discourse has broken down in this country, to claim that Brokaw is a "liberal" would be like trying to say that Tupperware is better than Waterford, or that the fire department is a socialist organization.
Which, of course, the media would insist is the case if pressured.
Brokaw did not say Oprah had Obama on his show while he was a candidate -- he simply said she had him on the show.
Brokaw and NBC News are having an internal war with MSNBC and Keith Olberman. That is what must be behind this attack on Brokaw because anyone can read plain as day that what Media Matters is saying is a lie.
- LEATHERHELMET
Funny how dips**t conservative posters are always feign surprise when they claim (incorrectly, of course) that MMFA "attacks" guys like Brokaw and Gibson.
First of all, documenting their publicly uttered statements and comparing them to the actual facts and noting the discrepancy between them is not attacking. It's simply calling attention to the lie, smear or misrepresentation. It's like rear-ending the car in front of you and when the driver comes out to ask why and how the accident ocurred, you go "I don't know! Stop attacking me!" It's ridiculous.
Second, guys like Brokaw and Gibson are not liberal. They may be more objective than say, Brit Hume or Lou Dobbs, but they are most definitely not liberal. If anything, they've grown more conservative as they have aged (remind anyone of a certain maverick presidential nominee?) and it obviously shows.
Third, the double standard concerning attacking the media is readily apparent. Right-wingers continually cry about their alleged victimization in the press (excepting FOX coverage) without acknowledging that consolidation and bottom-line driven journalistic philosophies have effectively aligned mass-media with the Republican agenda. So let me spell out to you apparently "shocked that anyone would dare attack the media" cowardly right-wingers.
Tom Brokaw sucks. Charles Gibson sucks. Brian Williams sucks. Katie Couric sucks. George Stephanopulous sucks. Wolf Blitzer sucks. Chris Matthews sucks.
And nothing personal, Tim Russert sucked.
There, I said it.
They're yanking Keith Olbermann in favor of Brokaw for the remainder of the election coverage. Why? Because Olbermann will tell the viewing audience when they're being lied to. Brokaw and the rest will say nothing or repeat the lies with no mention of their obvious falsehood. Palin's speech was riddled with inaccuracy (not mention soaked in venom) and all Brokaw did was gush about how great it was.
I hope that some of these fossilized news "anchors" reads this one day. Because, deep in their hearts, they know it's true.
Tom Brokaw, you should be ashamed of yourself. Its very clear that you do not keep up with what is going on in this Country!
Oprah has NOT had Barack Obama on her show SINCE she publicly stated she was supporting his candidacy for the President. She has NOT had him on her show...do you HEAR ME NOW?
How DARE you imply such drivel. How DARE you spread lies. How DARE you believe the McCain drivel that he is not being treated "well" by the Media. I just can't believe you in the media are so intimidated by this John McCain...You are bigger fools than you think the American people are!
I wish Peter Jennings was still alive. There was one man who stood up for what he believed in and would not be snowed by the Republicans or the Right Wing.
Again, shame on you, Tom Brokaw.
amethyst
"Cheerleader for the Iraq Invasion and Mouth piece for the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATION elites cabal TOM BROKAW HAS ALWAYS REPRESENTED his masters well from the nonsense " we broke it , we own it" (no TB Iraqis own their own country ), even if Bush stole it .
To his agenda driven description of the Obama exception speech with the parroting of the rights " rock star " the " only way of describing it" and looks like a concert for the " supremes " all back handed compliments to trivialize Obama's campaign . His quoting David Broder attacking him for going to Europe and now making false assertions about him being on oprah .
Hosting the Council on Foreign Relations Denver meeting is another example of the cabal he belongs to and his support for Globalism or what they use to call the New World Order , he advocates .
Google Richard Haass head of the CFR and read what he says about SOVEREIGNTY, THAT IT'S OUTDATED and needs to be reduced for economic reasons, for even climate change . Can you imgagine the depth of depravity of these evil bastards , that they ware willing to exploit GLOBAL WARMING , FAMINE AND WAR to reduce countries SOVEREIGNTY . Well its part of their agenda and Tom Brokaw is their PR guy . "
Kahoneez
Oh she will get interviewed, and the "liberal" media will ask all those hard questions about foreign policy "How many miles is Alaska from russia?" "Do you think Russia might attack the USA via Alaska, and what have you done to stop the inevitable invasion?"
Palin: Stop attacking me and my family!
Gawd, I can see it now.
I see so many just plainly ignorant people that really really don't care and are relying on emotions alone to cast their vote.
I am sorry to say that McCain might get elected and if he does heaven help us!!!
I could care less if Oprahma does not interview Palin. We all know she supports Obama. It's a free country and she can do as she wishes.
I seriously doubt Palin will have trouble finding time to on just about any other talk show should she wish to do so.