Meet the Press: Tom Brokaw Loves Him Some NeoCon Pundits
By Nicole Belle Saturday Jul 26, 2008 1:45pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
McCain's Media is up in arms over the backfire of McCain's challenge to Obama to go to Iraq. Obama went, he saw, he conquered Europe. That has to smart after spending the last seven years telling Americans that the French were sissies to compensate for their sneering of our foreign policy. Tom Brokaw, interim host of Meet the Press, is apparently an elder statesman of the McCain Media, since his choice to confront Obama is nothing less than citing once again those foreign policy "experts" of Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks. Remind me again, when have they been right about anything in this Iraqi invasion and occupation? Oh yeah, NEVER. Naturally, that's who Brokaw should choose as the framing for his questions accusing Obama of being a little light on the specifics in his Berlin speech. What, you've never heard of EJ Dionne or Paul Krugman? How hard is it to even occasionally acknowledge a pundit from the other side of the aisle? Why on earth do they continue to give so much gravitas to pundits who have been so tragically and disgustingly wrong every step of the way?
As Obama rightfully points out, a 200K crowd in a foreign country is hardly the venue in which you pull out your inner wonkiness to get deep in the weeds of specific policies. Be honest, Brokaw, Brooks and Krauthammer whined about it because that's all they had. If Obama had been specific, they'd whine about that too.
And if it is specifics you seek, where the hell is the media in asking McCain for specifics when he floats his "victory in Iraq" and "we are winning" memes every other sentence? I've been waiting for years for someone to explain to me what "winning" means in an occupation.
Transcripts below the fold
BROKAW: Next stop, Berlin. You were a rock star, as you often are when you give a speech, you had some by estimates, 200 thousand people listening to you-big crowd. Not everyone in America was an admirer. Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist, said ‘he hadn't earned the right to speak there,' and David Brooks from the New York Times, who is an early admirer of your rhetoric and the early stages of the campaign had this to say in his column, about your appearance in Berlin: " When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. Kennedy didn't dream of the universal brotherhood of man. He drew lines that reflected hard realities. Reagan didn't call for a kumbaya moment. He cited tough policies that sparked harsh political disagreements. Much of Obama's Berlin speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. We should help Israelis and Palestinians unite. We should unite to prevent genocide in Darfur. We should unite so the Iranians won't develop nukes. The great illusion of the 1990s, according to David Brooks, was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn't matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of that mind-set. Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march. It will take politics and power to address these challenges, the two factors that dare not speak their name in Obama's lofty peroration. Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn't eloquence. It's just Disney."
Why didn't you use that occasion to spell out in great detail a sweeping vision of the Obama Doctrine?
OBAMA: [laughs] Well...
BROKAW: You're [unclear] the President of the United States.
OBAMA: ...Let me say first of all there are a bunch of really good reviews that you didn't ....that you didn't put up on the screen. I'd say there's about nine good reviews for every bad one. Number two, I think David Brooks is one of my favorite conservatives, but he is a conservative who is supportive of John McCain, so let's, you know, put that out there as a caveat.
BROKAW: But here's the point...
OBAMA: But let's get to the point. No one speech does everything, right? I could have delivered a(n) exhaustive list of policy prescriptions. I suspect that 200,000 people would have slowly drifted off as I entered into the 45th minute of the speech. What I was trying to do was provide some broad themes in terms of where America needs to go and where Europe needs to go. And contrary to David Brooks' suggestion, and some of the suggestions of other conservatives, I was I think pretty clear about the difficulties of power and politics. When I specifically said that Europeans need to step up and do more in Afghanistan, that wasn't an applause line in Germany. When I talked about the fact they need to do more in Iraq, despite our past differences, that wasn't an applause line in Germany. When I talked about the fact that there has been too much anti-American sentiment and a stereotyping of America in Europe, that wasn't an applause line in Germany, that wasn't a bunch of high flying rhetoric. So I think given the purpose of this that I had, which was to get Europeans to recognize the extraordinary sacrifices that Americans have made on behalf of world freedom and security and to get Americans to recognize we need partners in order to be effective to solve our problems. I would give myself a slightly better grade than David Brooks did.
Login or Register to post comments.
brokaw what a old fool
Want to know why we Germans cheered to Obama? Because he's neither a warmonger nor a rambling old man.
Why take anything that the right wing fascist neocon pundits say seriously. They are going to put a right wing fascist neocon pundit spin on it anyway.
The great illusion of the 1990s, according to David Brooks, was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn’t matter. [ ] Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march.
Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt! Cuz, you know, the fact that the United States embarked on a policy of unilateral chest-thumping backed by shock-and-awe bombing, proclaiming to the world that we'd have none of your world organizations, international criminal courts, disarmament treaties or anything else in the way our our sole-superpower hegemony had anything to do with the state of affairs today. It was just the illusion that everything in the world was rainbows and lollipops everywhere we looked.
How could Tom Broken even read this shit out loud?
you gotta love it though. journalists are actually doing their damn job with Obama... asking him tough, pointed questions. and it gives Obama an opportunity to make the kinds of articulate statements that McCain can't make.... because journalists aren't asking McCain tough questions.
at the beginning of the day, Obama sounds like Disney - but McCain sounds like Tom Clancy or Jack Bauer or something. seriously, how is "we must defeat terrorism" any less fanciful than "we must unite" ?
at the end of the day, Obama sounds articulate. McCain? still sounds like, Tom Clancy or Jack Bauer.
so I guess a big f*k you to Brokaw for his motivations, but a big thank you to Brokaw for providing Obama with a soap box and megaphone.
lol - MSM is between a rock and a hard place. if they ignore this guy, bloggers gain a bigger customer base than they do. if they talk to this guy, their advertisers get pissed off because he's not willing to support their bottom line.
Brokaw is totally unwatchable. Of course so is George Stephenopolis and Brit Hume! These chumps are "War Criminals".
personally you guys i don't like the "rock star" label .....
maybe i'm being too sensitive but i feel it plays into
the fade/wordy/good speaker context.....it's part of the
(R) linguistic framing.....he should say i don't see myself as a "rock star" but a senator or presidental candidate
with a message to the people...you guys call me that
Nichole:
They say that it is okay in punditdom to be wrong about something so long as you were conventionally wrong. But it is never okay to be unconventionally right.
In other words, you have to be in with the in-crowd, whether that in-crowd is right or wrong. The media is a high-school popularity contest.
brokaw wrote a book on the iraq war. anybody who profits off that war knowing it was based on lies, for which thousands have died or injured including our own service people, is the lowest form of scum. brokaw is scum.
Obama speaks of uniting because Americans and people of the World have had seven long years of divisive crap like "either you're with us or against us".
Nicole can you forward your excellent observation to Brokaw? He might actually be someone who could/would hear you.
Karen @ 4:
That's correct Karen. I was hoping that Obama would say just that but he didn't. The good thing is that he did say that what Brooks wanted was not the place to say it. He also gave a couple examples of wanting or needing others to do their part as well. Obama's answer was a very good answer but it is really too bad that he even has to answer these contrived attacks all the time when McAsshole gets a free ride.
The best part about using the neocon Brook's quote was this:
When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. Kennedy didn’t dream of the universal brotherhood of man. "
Right, so that whole "citizens of Berlin, and Ich Bin ein Berliner" stuff had nothing to do with peoples of differnet nations standing together. Right David
I think Brokaw was being facetious and was actually making fun of David Brooks, because Brooks' assertion that Sen. Obama, as a mere candidate for the office of POTUS, should have laid out his platform and world vision is absurd on its face. Then, he would be chastised and criticized for laying out plans on foreign soil that only an actual President should do. Also, when I heard the MTP interview on TV this morning, I heard the staff in the background laugh at the same time that Sen. Obama did over Tom's question. And, the portion of Brokaw's question/statement that you say is unclear is Brokaw saying "you're a candidate for the President of the United States." The way Tom made that statement was a bit...snarky. So, don't be tough on Brokaw over this one. He, I believe, was just pointing out the right's foolishness.
I think it's obvious what is going on here. The media is swallowing hook, line and sinker the frame that they are being too easy on Obama and too hard on McCain, because (of course) we have a "liberal media".
War is easy news. War is ratings. War brings in viewers. Controversy is ratings. For 8 years the media has been sucking on the tits of Republican war mongering and stupidity. The potential end of the war I'm sre scares their bosses and the reporters. The days of "easy" news will be over and they'll have to find something to report on instead of pointing to a map and saying "here is half our show every day, Iraq, and here is the other half, Washington DC and the White House. No work and little cost if all we're doing is replaying the talking points"...
now the (R) wants to write/dictate obama's speech(s)..
obama makes a good point here. for every negative
europe speech review there were nine positive ones.
no mention of that. to be fair and balanced offer a positive review along with the negative review. the assertion that his speech should have specifics is ridiculous had he done that they would have said he doesn't know what he is doing and that it's premature.
"Rock star" is clearly demeaning, but that is clearly the intent of the interview. The good news is of course Obama can handle that with ease, grace and finesse. Imagine McCain's response to a "rock star" allusion - a big grin and stupid quip, relishing a moment of media sunshine in a self-congratulatory way.
McCain = Bush Squared
Listening to Brokaw "interview" Obama this morning with his treasure of Repub bullshit talking points, reminded me of how we got into that Iraqi hell hole/ shooting gallery in the first damn place. Assholes like Brokaw were invisible in 2000 and 2004, choosing to protect their careers rather than report the truth. I have zero respect for anything Brokaw has to say.
I declare Tom Brokaw as the greatest ventriloquist of all time. He read all that with mccains penis in his mouth. Amazing act. Wonder if he's going to take it on the road?
Noah @ 18:
well put i watched the obvious body language/smile
but personally i feel he should difuse it...if you will
not by making a big deal out of it..just reduce it....it's totally demeaning and a negative linguistic frame for people trying to talk negative about obama...but i agree with you
2008 Presidential Election For Dummies (how to defeat the Media Whores)
For Obama to win he has to :
1) MEGA energize the Democratic base - go for the mother of all turnouts
2) Sign up millions of new registered Dem voters as well
3) To win the Independents throw it all at McSame, including negative ads
For example :
a) Ad shows the anti-USA declarations signed by McSame as a POW - question his courage and judgment - Swift Boat him good. Real good.
b) Attack McSame on the economy via the Keating 5 scandal - tie it into current problems with banks
c) Replay the Rove attack ads on McSame from the 2000 Republican S.Carolina Primary - question his ability to fight back (" if he couldn't fight back when his own family was attacked, how will he fight for your family? ")
ad ends showing McSame in that ridiculous manhug with Chimpo a few years after 2000
etc. etc....Replay millions of times!
The wussy Gore-Kerry vibe will NOT work this year!
President Camacho
Corporate mdeia has totally lost it. They can no longer even be called journalists, they are purely and simply propogandists for the corporations they serve. Any thing that might threaten the corporate bottom line must be attacked and any thing that serves it praised.
Here's something I don't get: We know that Karl Rove participated in the 'outing' of a covert CIA agent.
Where I live, that's called TREASON against the United States of America.
John McCain and Karl Rove, a known traitor, are now working together to get McCain elected to the Presidency.
Why does John McCain have a known traitor working on his campaign? Why would John McCain be associating with a known traitor? Why hasn't John McCain publicly denounced Karl Rove? Does John McCain approve of Karl Rove's treason?
Is John McCain, himself, a traitor to the United States? If he isn't, why then would he have any public or private associations with someone who is?
Can someone explain this to me, please?
Why book a venue that holds 200 000 when you can have a photo-op at the Applebee's salad bar?
Obama handled brokaw's cynicism with aplomb further convincing me that Obama is the right choice for America.
Obama handled himself well. He rode right over Brokaw and made clear that David Brooks is a conservative. I wish I'd seen the entire interview, but my TV has died on me. So I am depending on C&L and democraticunderground for my TV news. Oh, yeah. And Brokaw needs to retire. RIGHT NOW.
Post American @ 6:
Absolute sellout George Staph infection had four conservatives on his dog shit show this morning with their balanced views on Obama's trip....liberal media my ass.
Lol @ cg. I watched this morning and he was tying to confront Barack the best he could, but who he cited is a big issue. What are you gonna do though, this was probably planned recently as a "cap" to Obama's trip.
i would like to see a debate format where they use YouTube......mccain hates YouTube.....because he is playing both sides and sometimes the middle.
mccain can easily be exposed regarding staying in iraq for 100 years as long as there are no causalities. he didn't
care about conditions on the ground they want occupation.
Aren't they euphemisms, not memes?
Or better yet, lies.
How exhausting it must be for Senator Obama to have to deal with buffoons like Brokaw on a daily basis! It must have been all Obama could do not to laugh in his face when Brokaw brought up Kraphammer and Brooks! But our next president brought it home with his pointed yet gentle, "But let’s get to the point. No one speech does everything, right?...." You just have to talk to some people that way!
Brokaw should have stayed retired. Even Timmeh was better than that.
obama handed brokaw his hat. damn, obama is fine.
cg @ 25:
Hehe. Maybe that is what McCain has been searching for, at which he will finally make his mark: that elusive Applebee's salad bar...
Otay @ 34:
I like the Applebee's salad bar. yummmm.
Especially the fruit.
burnt @ 5:
Add to that the fact that Obama ( or Clinton or hell, even Kucinich ) would smoke Mccain in a fair general election unless Mccain came across as the anti-Bush , and that just isn't happening . That leaves the corporate media with plan B, which is to subtly smear Obama while showing only "polls" that have them relatively close . As long as there's an illusion of a horse race, corporate America can rig the final result .
Plan C ? Invade Iran and install martial law .
The first one to bring up domestic issues in that interview was Sen. Obama. Brokaw's interview was awful. Almost makes me miss Tim.
It just goes to show you that Sen. Obama can handle himself with style and grace even in dumb fu*k interviews like this one. He used humor to get his point across and didn't cower or look like a deer in the headlights. Man if he loses this election, it's going to make our country look like total idiots.
Actually, I didn't think the Germany speech was exceptional. It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. I'm not going to get into the details because that's not the point of my post. The point of my post is Tom Brokaw and, to steel a term from some idiot, that pin-head David Brooks.
My comments:
F David Brooks.
Brokaw, learn to develop an opinion and ask your own questions - not use someone elses opinion of the guest. This is just plain out, lazy journalism.
"So and so said you snort when you laugh. So and so said you slurp when you eat soup. So and so said you're an idiot. What do you have to say about that?"
So sad where American journalism has decided to go.
David Brooks is a Bush suck up. He was invited for a private meeting with the President and one would think it was him enjoying sex. David refers to himself as a White House insider and proud of it. When Obama gets in office David will need to work at Fox News as all the White House insiders will be applying for jobs. Chris Matthews was funny as he did his best to say he wasn't a Bush insider while for 8 years Chris has been speading the lies for the GOP even campaigning for the GOP while working at NBC. Brooks, Matthews and Mitchell now say they give fair/balanced news in hopes Americans are so stupid they have forgotten the pass 8 years of cheering the Bush Administration Criminal Team.
This man, Senator Barack Obama, has got such clear, complete responses to these idiots and their rude, brain-dead, and antagonistic attacks, that he makes me want to vote TWICE for him when the election finally comes.
brokaw has demonstrated he is nothing more than another "corporate pawn" that tries to play the part of tim russert, but he hasn't a clue on how to be anyone but himself...a pathetic, washed up news host. Now, just a pathetic prospective propaganda spinner.
Go to hell brokaw, and take all your brooks and other neocon/fascist party pigs with you.
I'm fine with the biased questions. It's easier to hit a home run off a fast ball if you can hit it. A good way to change someone's mind is by answering the hard question well. Platitudes bounced off softballs get you nowhere. You want the opportunity to confront your critics comments.
Couple more interviews like this and Brokaw will kill Meet the Press.
I do remember that the last interview Tim did with Obama, Tim spent about the first 18 minutes of the show talking about the freakin' flag pin.
I was over at the JedReport last night. It was suggested that we check out the complete Charles Gibson interview ("harassment" is probably a better word) with Obama. It was disgusting. Brokaw wasn't quite as bad...but it was obvious he's playing for the home team (the corporate boys who want a Republican sitting back in "their" White House).
I admire Obama's abilty to stay cool during these charades. I liked his comeback when the only people Brokaw could quote were Conservative pundits.
"How hard is it to even occasionally acknowledge a pundit from the other side of the aisle? Why on earth do they continue to give so much gravitas to pundits who have been so tragically and disgustingly wrong every step of the way?"
The MSM anchors and pundits have the exact same attitude towards liberal blogs. Olbermann is the exception.
Brokaw, Williams, the late Time Russert.
This crap has been going on at NBC for decades
Tom Brokaw is a Director of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has sold us out. He is selling a hidden agenda every time he speaks.
Any "perceived" conflict with Obama here by Brokaw is fictitious. This is just scripted garbage. Obama is also a member of the CFR. Let the perception management continue.
They control both sides. McSenile is also a member (although he may not remember). So, the CFR doesn't give a shit who wins in November. If there is even going to be an election.
Billionaires for Obama or McCain.
Brooks and Krauthammer - why would anyone expect them to be impartial, or say intelligent things? Brokaw has shot his load years ago. Krauthammer is a loyal patriot and we should always remember that. Unfortunately, his allegiance is to the right-wing Israeli faction, who are trying to force a neo-colonialism agenda, in their region. It is not focused on his home country of America. He will gladly send thousands of American servicemen to their deaths, and bring our economy to its knees, in order to do so. In short, he is a traitor.
I thought Barack did a very good job with Brokaw, a man who is well-established and a full generation his senior. Obama came across as a kind mentor, patiently explaining advanced ideas to a favorite pupil.
Brokaw...gurgle gurgle "Tax C*nts"
Link
detrius @ 2:
Excellent point!
Thomas Stone @ 38:
Actually it was a great friggin speech!!
Obama restated FDR's Four freedoms to a European audience that ate it up like candy!!
He re-established that America still has the vision of who and what we are and what our international relationship is supposed to be.
It may not seem like much to Americans, but Europeans recognize a Rock Star when they hear one!!!
No way could McSimpleton get a crowd of even 10,000 that aren't bused in by the goopers!!
ps.... and you didn't even notice the FDR reference!! Shame on you!!
Patty @ 26:
Yes, he certainly did. I loved him laughing (at) with Brokaw, telling him "I've seen at least 9 good editorials to your one, but, hey,..." and he answered it.
Obama '08. Naturally.
If Obama had been specific, they’d whine about that too. -nb
as they would if he HAD gone to that hospital... and any other perceived infraction...
damned if he do. damned if he don't.
The real focus here should be Brokaw first, Obama second. In reverse order, Obama was great. Brokaw was a sell-out. Brooks and Krautheimer? Piffle! Those guys don't think, don't listen, don't interact. They are the equivalent of a music box: You wind it up, knowing exactly which pre-programmed tune it's going to play, and sure enough…. That's the reason they're on the networks' payroll. No genuineness. No surprises. Ever!
The first question has to be, Why would Brokaw and/or his producers choose two buffoons to represent a viewpoint contrary to Obama's? Does this mean that in our entire nation there is not a single right-leaning expert with genuine education, experience, and positive track record to represent that perspective?
Three possibilities leap instantly to mind: (a) There are no such persons (impossible to believe). (b) There are such persons, but the network either doesn't recognize the difference or doesn't have them under contract. (c) The network really likes having the right represented by buffoons. (Before putting them on air, the networks know exactly what the wind-up dolls are going to "tinkle" forth. And the networks are never disappointed.)
The second question has to be, Why have *two* right-wingers on to counter just *one* slightly left centrist? Implicitly a compliment to Obama, perhaps. He easily handled the two-on-one attack. But why did the network force him to do so?
How about this for a format? The "host" will be and will act as a true journalist, trying her or his best to be fair, neutral, and unbiased. The guest will be whatever the guest is. One "pundit" will be recognized as left-leaning and the other as right-leaning. The host will direct the discussion, quashing shouting and interruptions, and ensuring that both "pundits" have equal opportunity to query/respond to the guest and to one another. And that the guest has ample time to respond to all, of course.
No conservative bias. No liberal bias. Just genuine civil discourse, conducted on terms of civility, conducted on neutral ground.
Yeah, I know. That would be true journalism. That would serve the interests of democracy and civic discourse. But neither true journalism nor true democracy matters to the networks. What matters to them is ratings and money. Yes, they license a slice of the public broadcast band, supposedly for the public good. Yeah. Right! Honor and principle and public good be damned. How many advertising minutes have we sold, and at what price? How much "viewership" have we built? That, of course, is the way a guy like Brokaw keeps his job.
Funny. I used to respect him.
The neocons should lead by example. For being wrong with their "Contract on America" for the last 16 years and to do penance for their ringing up $5 trillion in debt in the last 8 years, David Brooks should shove a stick of dynamite up his behind and light the fuse. We would also appreciate the metaphor.
Brokaw works for NBC. NBC's parent company is General Electric. General Electric makes jet engines for war planes. What else is there to figure out?
pissed off patricia @ 37:
Me tool. From what little I've seen, Brokaw won't last. All he's got is that cool-low-documentary style voice. Maybe that's enough for the average American voter.
I like a few neurons firing behind the voice. A few good neurons, that's all I ask...
I can't ever remember Obama saying that he wants to be another Kenney (God forbid. That guy was good to fuck anybody in Holiwood, and then called himself "A donut" in Berlin) Where is the MSM getting this from?
Somebody explain that one!
I would love to have had Brokaw play a clip of one of c. Krauhamer's early talks when he excitedly (understated) bragged about america being the greatest empire ever, greater than Rome even and on and on like some little kid bragging about his daddy, how he could beat up everyone. Sickening. And why would Brokaw choose those two to quote--if you had to have conservatives, why not choose ones that are a little more reputable. I think seeing Brooks on PBS with that sneaky little, condescending smile which says, "I am really too important to be on this PBS Newhour with these awful people" is enough Brooks to go around.
To paraphrase: But substantively, stupidity divorced from reality isn't foreign policy. It's just bush.
Would Russert have done any different?
A million-to-one David Brooks didn't even hear the entirety of Obama's speech - any takers?
Is there any possibilty that Jon Stewart or Stephen Corbert to host MTP? I know it would be a pay cut but do you think they could take one for the guys.
Perhaps Brokaw was using Brooks' column to give Obama a chance to refute it and hit the homerun that he did? Just a thought.
Brokaw and company sound like bitter, nihilistic bastards, tearing Obama down to build themselves up.
Remember, Brokaw and comapny are the people who supported Bush (and still do) wholeheartedly, and an intelligent, thoughtful, and dare I say (yes, I dare) inspiriational man like Obama is giving them fits. Bush is the MSM's inspiration; he's the man they think is best suited for the presidency. They think that McCain is the best shot at continuing the "brilliance" of Bush. McCain and the MSM set up Obama for a fall, and he didn't fall. He pulled it off brilliantly.
regnedit @ 63:
Based on the evidence, I simply couldn't give anyone in the media that kind of credit.
Mercifully I was one of the lucky Minnesotans whose audio was hijacked by DirecTV so I missed this mess. And spent an illuminating half hour with FTN instead. Best Sunday morning talk show around.
I have been asking the same question for years. Why, oh why, are the same brain dead sons of bitches who were wrong about everything under the sun still brought on as "experts" to talk about the shit they've been wrong about all along?
Where are the Scott Ritters and others who were right?
JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin @ 64:
Yes, so true...Obama did very well, with one exception. He had the opportunity to
react to the Brooks "Disney" statement and missed that chance. That is, Obama should
have said something like, "Yes, Mr. Brooks should certainly qualify to join me in Disney
Land, in his Goofy or Mickey Mouse unifrom."
David Brooks is one of the idiotic riech-wing pundits who believed everything Bushie and the Boyz foisted upon an unsuspecting public in the lead up to the preemptive strike on Iraq and then blamed faulty intelligence. Screw David Brooks.
Obama handles this kind of attack with aplomb and a smile. He is a breath of fresh air after 7 1/2 years of Bush's snide, sneering attitude with the press. Heh, heh, heh.
brokaw is a jackass. he was the first to tout voting for the guy in the next barstool.
Obama conquered Europe.
He had a crowd of 200,000 Germans listening to him speak English.
Blah blah blah blah... blah blah blah blah-blah... BLAH BLAH BLAH ----- B L A H!!!!
The crowd cheers.
Tom Brokaw is very far to the Right...and I stopped watching 'Meet The Press'.
Unless a big change or fix is made fast to this show,it will sink more with Tom Brokaw bringing these Right wing idiots Brooks and others like him asking their opinion..which is known already before they even open their mouths.
Good luck for NBC.
Why does David Brooks' opinion on anything matter? He's blinded by extremist ideology, and he's not very bright to boot. He's been wrong about everything.
I know corporate types rely on the myths Mr. Brooks talks about to convince themselves that they're the cream of the crop rather than greed-driven pond scum, but still. At some point I think you have to acknowledge basic reality and realize that Brooks and his ilk are worthless.
translation: David Brooks doesn't believe a situation has value unless it stresses conflict.
Brooks may be a knucklehead, but he's quite often still worth hearing, whether or not he's right on a specific issue.
It's been a tough week for the McCain Vapid Response Team...Read more. http://www.tagg-lines.com/2008/07/mccain-vapid-response-team.html
Tom Brokaw has asked one straight hour of LOADED QUESTIONS! Omg, if John McCain faced the same bogus questions he would have jumped over the table and started choking him. Obama isn't the leader of Black people so why does he have to answer or account for a poll about race???
Brokaw pushed him to see what he'd do. And Obama handled it effortlessly. That's as it should be, he doesn't get any freebies if he wins in 4 months, so now's the time to find out about his give and take skills.
ya,, this was truly amazing, I couldn't believe that line of questions, I wished so hard that Obama hadnt been so civil and had just called the two of them(Krauthammer and Brooks) for being just so insanely incorrect about everything this past 20 years.
Krauthammer ia a pig of a human ,, Tom B ain't no Russert.
nicolle, unless i'm mistaken, "winning" to this crew entails slaughtering the men, loading up the booty, setting the village on fire, then dragging the women by their hair back to the ships and finding some new avenues for their bloodlines.
pete c. @ 77:
I wasn't disappointed with Tom question and it does appear that Senator Obama is ready to start pushing back on the Media. He gave them the opportunity to be fair but since that seems to be impossible you have to now call them out.
Senator Obama did his job on Meet the Press and CNN
Hagel and Reed took down McCain on Face the Nation
Over all a great Sunday
Could NBC Be Anymore Bias
If I didn't know any better, I would say the Meet the Press interview was a planned hit job. From the start, to the end, Tom Brokaw did his part for the Republican Party. Although Barack Obama held his own in his Meet The Press interview, there is a attrition factor to account for within a conservative driven media. The more Obama is exposed to a hostel media the more the perception becomes that of conservative rhetoric about him.
It would be wise of the Obama camp, and C&L for that matter, to show bits and pieces of this interview compared to today's interview with John McCain on ABC's “This Week.” This should settle this claim that there is a bias in the media. Within that comparison is the truth about where the bias truly lies.
As it is, with the conservative control of the media, the powers to be in the media are making assumptions that Obama is in a close race with McCain. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must not forget the last two presidential elections were very suspicious and thought to be taken away unfairly from the Democrats. I must admit I am one of those who feel that way. The media is well into a plan to do the same. We need to get started on a Democratic plan to see that we don't get cheated again.
Joseph
Of all the people in the world, why ask David Brooks anything on national TV? Why ask HIM of all people what HE thinks about the next president of the United States of America on ANYTHING? It would be more insightful to randomly pick and ask a man and woman on the street. David Brooks wrote a couple of books. There are many people who have written more books than that! He's just a journalist. There are many journalists. What is David Brook's claim to fame? In the workplace, the question would be: who did he sleep with?
thank you so much for pointing out this. I'm so sick and tired of MSM. same s*it, different day.
"Why on earth do they continue to give so much gravitas to pundits who have been so tragically and disgustingly wrong every step of the way?"
C'mon guys you should know the answer to this one.
The MSM is really the Korporate Media, and what sense would it make to put someone on the air that might take us off message! you know, if you say it enough times it becomes the truth to some people.
No matter how wrong or fact free these right wing hacks are, They're their hacks and they will "stay the course" no matter how ignorant or bought off they appear to be to those watching. (I usually don't bother)
If the media is so liberal, why is it so hard to find one on TV during the Sunday morning news shows?
The question needs to be asked: What is it that makes 200,000 people in Germany, come to see Obama speak? So many reasons:
1> They're enthusiastic to see a potential American President with a greater mastery of the English language than their own. (It's been 8 years!)
2> There is an American leader whose first answer to problems isn't from the barrel of a gun, or a missile.
3> He is keenly aware of the need for sober, empathetic diplomacy, in hopes of solving the many challenges ahead of us. Oh..and he's aware that we HAVE challenges ahead of us!
4> He understands our importance in world affairs, and the world's importance in ours.
I could go on and on. Listen, I really don't agree with everything Obama stands for, and certainly would have preferred Kucinich. I don't agree with everything Abraham Lincoln did, either. (The emancipation proclamation came sorrowfully late.) Still, given the history of the moment, I am starting to feel that Barack is just the right person, at just the right time. I believe he understands this very well.
Brokaw is obviously not intelligent enough to realize that Obama's policy of progress through dialogue and unity is in fact a hard reality for the future of the world to face. It goes entirely against the failed separatist policies of the cold war and the Bush era. Obama should have caught him out on that false framing.
I hate that right wing rat Brokaw.
The professor, Obama, treated the kindergardner, Tom, as he should hve. You respect those less equip. There was no reason for Obama to embrass Tom, beacuse Tom did that by himself.
regnedit @ 63:
Maybe, because Brokaw read practically the entire friggin column! Hell, why not just have Brooks host the show.
Brokaw is little more then a right wing hack. I remember back to a time when He and others in his industry earned respect...now he might as all go to work for Faux News...at least there we would expect him to act like this!
Is it just me or did Obama do a great job of answering Brokaw's near entire reading of the Brooks column? The first thing you point out is they are conservatives....duh! And gee, they probably don't agree with you and support your opponent. Simple stuff.
Is it just me or did Obama do a great job of answering Brokaw
He just sank another 3 pointer.
Nothing but net.
*swoosh*
This clip is but one example of the deftness, thoughfulness, and measured tones with which Obama responded to attacks from Brokaw, each of which was framed right out of the right wing playbook. How refreshing. I hope you'll put up more clips, to show how Brokaw again bought into the right wing frame that the "surge" tactic and not the Iraq War itself, is somehow the center of debate. I kept thinking that Obama should reject this frame and talk about erroneous strategic decisions such as invading Iraq in the first place. When Obama did so, I was most impressed. I also found Obama effective in attacking Bush and McCain from the RIGHT regarding terrorism, explaining that they have been too distracted by the Iraq invasion to fight the real "war on terror" against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and its border area with Pakistan in the most effective manner. That's what John F. Kennedy did in 1960 regarding the "missile gap" and other foreign policy issues, and it was very successful, because, as is the case with Obama, Kennedy was right.
It was such a lame interview I turned it off. I don't think Tom Brokaw is the guy to replace Tim Russert.
I was no fan of Tim Russert -- I called his show Press the Meat -- but even when Tim Russert was hosting Cheney and allowing him to lie through his teeth without calling him on it he was still a thousand percent better than that moron Tom Brokaw.
John McCain surrogates, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks and their ilk, sound especially shrill, almost childish, up against the smooth, calm, honest campaign currently being run by Barack Obama, the one adult in the room. Which mindset do you want running the big show after the next presidential election? Case closed. Case frickin' closed.
Tom Brokow is morally and intellectually dishonest, but he is serving his boss GE in the way all right-wing shills do. Unfortunately, Mr. Brokow doesn't seem to understand that most of America knows that GE is also the world's 3rd largest manufacturer of weapons and the longer the war goes in Iraq and Afghanistan the richer GE becomes.
Therefore, anyone, including Obama, who would want to stop the senseless and illegal wars becomes the enemy. Only those like BOMB, BOMB, IRAN, McShame is their pet. They look forward to making millions off of his election. Tom Brokow is just another paid propagandists that will try to make this happen.
TOM, RETIRE COMPLETELY BEFORE YOU TOTALLY RUINED YOUR REPUTATION.
BHO schooled TB numerous times this morning.
I thought of Samuel J. Jackson in 'Pulp Fiction'... "Well allow me to retort."
TB met his match, and then some. Plain and simple.
Additionally, The Big O could have responded to Tired Tom; "Hey toobag, all the bad shit that happened, according to Douchebag Dave, happened under Chimpy's watch."
Obama is so much more impressive than the folks who interview him and report about him.
David Brooks is the entire Liberal Nation's idiot brother-in-law. The minute he opens his yapyuo can almost feel 100 million people all saying "wrong!" at the same time.
Mike @ 102:
yap, you
Damn, I'm dumb. Color me Chimpy!
Tom Brokow tries for gravitas to offset a head full of helium. MSM, with Brokow as a sperm donor, is an example of a little fish in a shallow pond.
lewisnclark @ 90:
That was my exact thought when watching the Brokaw "interview". If you're going to read the entire Brooks column, why not just have him there?...if you can't come with your own questions or original thoughts. I guess he was trying to follow the Russert-esque format of reading quotes...it just didn't fly when it was so blatantly biased from such a partisan hack like Brooks.
Lost all respect for the man I grew up with in my living room when he said "there may have been secondary explosions as well that detonated in the buildings by these terrorists" and then he shut up. Poor tortured soul. I wonder what he would really say if we had freedom off press?
All, and that is All of the major media outlets are owned lock, stock and barrel by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission memberships. They have their own agenda and it is not pretty. Frankly they (MSMedia) should be made irrelevant and not given so much print space on the NetRoots. It is increasingly propaganda laden and filled with lies, fabrications and gross distortions. Brokaw is a member of the CFR as are EVERY other major media mouthpiece from Barbara Walters to Jim Lehrer. Their motives should be highly suspect and taken with a very small grain of salt. There are NO mistakes.
I have disliked that turd Tom Brokaw since the late 1970s. He was making a lot of money but he got the Small Business Administration to lend him $ 300,000 to buy a radio station in South Dakota.
His career has been a trail of mediocrity and non-achievement. Maybe he should have read some of the critique leveled by Russ Limbaugh against Obama during his radio show during and after Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe.
This shows that Brokaw is an ass kisser of the Bushit administration, corporate media and MSM.
It's strange. Most Germans and foreigners don't understand or speak English that well and that idiot Brokaw wants Obama to lay out complete detailed policy pronouncements. But at least German's and Europeans have better taste in selecting Obama as a candidate for the US president.
Anyway nothing matters, the US will elect McCain to complete Bush's mission. Bush only destroyed 90% of America's ethics, institutions, finances, army, defencse, economy, etc.
America needs to elect McCain president to destroy 100% of America.
I'm sorry but I just cannot watch Meet the Press, not even to see Senator Obama, because I know what is coming his way. I just hope he discontinues giving these fools rateings.
We would all watch him with Keith Obbermon because that is the only place on national TV, he will get a fair shot of getting his message out.
These other ass holes, like Tom Brokaw are looking out for their own salvation and interest, which has nothing to do with any kind of truth, honor or justice.
When Brokaw asked Barack, "What would Michelle think about your speech?", I knew MTP was going to be hard to watch. When I saw Brokaw get upset that Obama wasn't agreeing with him, I felt better.
burnt @ 5:
Totally agree. Great comment. Nothing wrong with the press for asking these kinds of questions. If Obama can't handle them well, then he shouldn't be in the race. He does handle them well, so no harm, no foul.
Obama supporters should picket NBC's New York City office. Maybe that will get some attention.
Meet the Mess goes from ' Gotcha ' journalism with Timmer Russert
to the ' Gong ' Show with Tommy Brokejaw ..............
His cross examination of Barack Obama on MTP even left the Last Great Hope laughing .
My question is ................ who writes these scripts ? Is it General Electric , the AEI , AIPAC , Karl Rove or Rod Serling of the ' Twilight Zone ' ?
Brokaw even goes as far as to reference and quote Charles Krauthammer
and David Brooks ............... that seems fair and balanced to me . Mr.
Right Wing and Mr. Far Out There ............ very far .
The biggest joke of all is the continued practice of neo - cons tagging
the Main Stream Media as liberal .
Meet the Press is to the MSM as The Hoody Doody Show was to gteat
drama .
Nevada Bob
ddc2008 @ 14:
I thought I heard some laughter in the background and I wondered what it meant, MTP not being Countdown.
If Brokaw was being snarky, that was the wrong forum to do it in as MTP has a certain credibility.
I thought his questions were pointed and "well crafted" but the subject of those questions was petty and designed to be gotcha's. I was really disappointed in Brokaws questions and they left a bad taste in my mouth, especially since I know mcsame would never be asked such pointed questions.
Questions about polls say? I mean, come on. What the hell can you really say when someone throws random poll results up in your face.
Damn you all. Now I'm staying up to watch this trainwreck of an interview on the MSNBC replay.
I knew it! Brokaw is not fit to moderate Meet The Press.
That dumb son-of-a-bitch could have asked two questions in the time it took him to read that pap from David Brooks. Tom Brokaw's presence on television is testament to affirmative action for the differently-abled.
I almost fell out of my chair when Tom Brokaw decided to quote almost the entirety of David Brooks' latest conservative rant. Did you notice how he prefaced the recital by saying that Brooks was an early Obama admirer? As if Brooks only recently converted to hating Obama, based on something substantive?
Tom Brokaw a dishonor to Tim Russert's vision for "Meet the Press." The show should immediately be turned over to Johnathan Turley from George Washington University. At least Turley has a legal mind and won't wast viewer's time reciting yellow journalism and then not even following it up with a question. Brokaw should be ashamed of himself.
David Brooks and Tom Brokaw are both very full of it. I also saw Charles Gibson trying to do a number (trap him in a corner) on Obama. All of these so-called reporters use bad journalism standards when they interview Obama. They are all A-Holes.
I was down on Obama for a while but after reading and seeing this drivel from the media, I went out and put an Obama bumper sticker on my car.
Americans are tired of sicko reporters who are obviously against Obama for whatever reasons. The main reason is that all these media people work for the biggest traitors in America --the Zionists. But they either work for them or they don't work, unless it's for folks like C&L and others like them.
Fortunately, most Americans are catching on to the Zionist's drivel and propaganda. It's too bad the American media has become their whores.
Ahhhh David Brooks you fickle old fraud. Without the Disney factor how can anyone expect to communicate to the magical people at the Imaginary AppleBees Salad bar you love so much?
Yet another has-been dinosaur that will not retire for good. First it was his myopic and arrogant "Greatest Generation" book, and now he just can't seem to stay at home, appearing again and again on the network. Mitchell, Schieffer, Rather...all of them need to RETIRE FOR GOOD. And I say this having grown up with Walter Cronkite et al. Time for a new generation to take over, let it go.
Unlike most of the posts here I feel that the Brokaw interview was OK. Unlike other hosts Brokaw allowed Obama to answer his questions without interrupting him. Obama handled the pointed questions very well. If Brokaw threw softballs then we wouldn't know much about Obama's ability to handle pressure or how much smarter and articulate he is than McSame. I don't care about Brokaw's personal political leanings. I agree that he gave too much time to Brook's junk, but it gave Obama an opportunity to talk about all the positive reviews.
The real test is how Brokaw handles McCain and how much McCain fumbles.
At least I wasn't yelling at the TV: "Let him finish, dammit!!!"
David Brooks is not a "conservative" he is a radical with a regime change agenda in the middle east. He is not a journalist he is an operative for the radical regime change groups that lied our country in to Iraq based on a "pack of lies" Brooks has and continues to repeat claims about Iran that have never been substantiated.
Brooks is a very serious radical and is joined by Bill Kristol, Krauthammer, Micheal Ledeen James Woolsey, John Botlon, Cheney etc with the most radical plan in the middle east that has caused a disaster that millions will die and live with daily for the next 50 years.
As long as there is a need to fill airtime noxious windbags like Krauthammer and Brooks will collect a paycheck. It's very apparent there is no standard of accountability. In any other business, they'd join the ranks of the homeless.
"Why on earth do they continue to give so much gravitas to pundits who have been so tragically and disgustingly wrong every step of the way?" - Simple: they have an agenda. It's not a mistake.
Since Brokow and David Brooks feel so adamant of what Obama said or didn't say. Where Obama should have spoke and where they think he should of qualified to speak.
How about Brokow and Brooks take their Steven King world views, put up the money to send John McCain to Germany and let their idol give his own speech. See how Mccain is accepted, where he qualifys to speak at and what he should say and shouldn't say. Let alone if John can draw a crowd to even listen that aren't paid GOP applauders.......................
Does anyone remember the Brooks collumn where he stated we will have won Iraq when the Iraqi's ask us to leave?
Didn't Maliki do that with the approval of Obama's withdrawl goal?
Brokaw is unwatchable. His interviews are terrible.
Login or Register to post comments.