Speaking of fact-checking the Sunday shows, I really don't understand the point of fact-checking Bill Clinton's statement that Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during his presidency. Clinton made that true statement on ABC's This Week a week ago; Politifact then explained that the statement was true.

Why bother? It seems to me, the fact-checking should focus primarily on correcting false claims rather than validating true statements. I can see some merit in occasionally validating true statements, particularly when the statement gets at a contentious topic in much dispute. For example, given the amount of claims and counter-claims flying around about how health care reform will affect the budget deficit, you can certainly argue it is worthwhile to point out the truthfulness of a statement that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit.

But spending several paragraphs confirming Bill Clinton's statement that he never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? What's the point? There isn't exactly a raging controversy surrounding the partisan makeup of the Senate 15 years ago. If there's a reason for devoting fact-check segments or articles to obviously true and relatively inconsequential statements, I'd love to hear it. But it seems to me that it's just a distraction, and a trivialization of the whole exercise.