Skip to main content

President Barack Obama joins former President Bill Clinton (R) onstage after Clinton nominated Obama for re-election during the second session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 5, 2012.   REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNI
A winning team. The AP hates that.
Man, there's still some potent media hate for Bill Clinton. Case in point, the Associated Press's Matt Apuzzo and Tom Raum, who were assigned fact checking duty on President Clinton's speech. Maybe it was all the ad libbing that threw them, and they're pissed off that they actually had to listen and couldn't just work off the transcript. Or maybe most of it went over their heads, since it was actually a substantive policy speech. Or maybe they just can't get past the fact that the American people ignored all their best efforts back in the 1990s to vilify the man, and we still love him.

No matter the reason, this fact check is a steaming pile of misdirection and straw men, starting with this.

[W]hen former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, he portrayed President Barack Obama as a pragmatic compromiser who has been stymied at every turn by Republicans. There was no mention of the role that the president and the Democrats have played in grinding compromise to a halt on some of the most important issues facing the country.
Oh, really? Well, then, let's look at their examples of Obama's uncompromising actions. First, they say, he brought Rahm Emanuel in as chief of staff, "a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along." What did Emanuel actually do to block compromise with Republicans in his tenure? They don't say. His mere presence was enough to prove Obama's bad will toward Republicans.

Then there's this one, stunning in its obtuseness.

One of the more high-profile examples of a deal that fell apart was the outline of a proposed "grand bargain" budget agreement between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011. [...]

Boehner couldn't sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.

Damn that Barack Obama for fixing it so that Boehner couldn't control his caucus. Maybe he's a hypnotist. Or maybe the authors are full of shit. They also conveniently leave out the fact that the whole grand bargain discussion came as a result of the unprecedented refusal of the Republican House to raise the debt ceiling and the entire manufactured crisis that ensued. But providing that context would have gotten in the way of their Obama/Clinton bashing.

Also, too, they say, Obama walked away from the Catfood Commission recommendations, even though the authors admit "he later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported." Never mind that enough of the commission members, including Paul Ryan, walked away from the effort and it failed to even produce official recommendations, it's all Obama's fault. Which Clinton totally didn't talk about in his speech.

Then there's a whole bunch of hooey about health care and the economy, in which the authors stretch the bounds of what actually did happen and what actually might happen to refute President Clinton. (Did you know that the economy wasn't as good in the Clinton years as we all remember it? Well it wasn't. Just shut up.) That's all just a lead up to what really has these two in a permanent snit: A blow job. Seriously.

CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, `We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself - I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."

THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth.

Get over it already, guys. Seriously. You lost that one, years ago. Just let it go. And the next time you're assigned to fact check, well, just don't. You're not doing it right.

There's plenty more discussion in MPociask's diary.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:08 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I listened to (25+ / 0-)

    David Waldman and Armando on Netroots Radio -- I thought Armando was going to have a coronary over this repulsive hit piece.  Honestly, he was beyond himself -- which we all know -- is extreme beyond oneself.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:13:01 AM PDT

  •  On the first two points, Bob Woodward (6+ / 0-)

    is going to give them some help.

    On Rahm not compromising:  

    With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying.
    On the supposed "going too far" in the debt negotiations:
    The book, "The Price of Politics," on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs.

    But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal -- a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he'd already gone.

    The president called three times to speak with Boehner about his latest offer, according to Woodward. But the speaker didn't return the president's phone call for most of an agonizing day, in what Woodward calls a "monumental communications lapse" between two of the most powerful men in the country.

    Apparently, the book is going to say that Boehner agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases and when Obama asked for an additional $400 billion, that's when Boehner stiffed him.  

    On his dealings with Congressman Ryan during the negotiations:  

    One important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation's long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.

    The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as "changing the basic social compact in America." Ryan left the speech "genuinely ripped," Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in "game-on demagoguery" rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.

    "I can't believe you poisoned the well like that," Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.

    The president told Woodward that he wasn't aware that Ryan was in the audience, and he called inviting him there "a mistake."

    If he had known, Obama told Woodard, "I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him… We made a mistake."

    From the advance, the book is not going to be pretty.
    While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.

    "It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes.

  •  Here is his twitter - @mattapuzzo (26+ / 0-)

    https://twitter.com/...

    It wasn't a fact check it was a hack check, and bringing up Lewinsky in a supposed fact check is disqualifies this man as a serious journalist.  He's nothing but a republican mudslinger masquerading as a journo.  

    We have a greed with which we have agreed. -Eddie Vedder "Society"

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:25:30 AM PDT

  •  Woodward praised Bush on lying us into war (32+ / 0-)

    Woodward lost all credibility when he wrote the book about how deliberative Bush was when he cost this nation a big part of it's future by wasting $trillions on an unnecessary war.

    Woodward might as well do commentary on Fox, he lost his credibility.

  •  Bob Woodward has a book coming out (7+ / 0-)

    trying to make the same argument through his opinion...but reading it proves the President was the only one working for compromise, include Dem hilll leadership ...

    (I was with Hill leadership on strategy by the way, although the way they acted if the article is right was pretty shameful)

    The President still thought Boehner was a good guy as late as 2011.  He paid the price.  But that makes me that much more excited about the next term, as I can only hope he now knows playing Mr. Nice Guy won't work like it did in the IL Senate.

    By the way...Ivan Seidenberg is not very nice...that is all.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:03:11 AM PDT

  •  This is why they lie. (12+ / 0-)

    They lie because they know that they can get "both sides do it" out of the press if there's some kind of, oh, the Dem said 4.2455 million, but the actual number was 4.2554 when the Republicans are just making stuff up.

    All of these messianic self-important narratives about the Fourth Estate, when, in reality, the lying is enabled by them, spread by them, and they are too cowardly to do anything about it.

    GOP: The Party of Acid rain, Abortion of the American Dream, and Amnesty for Wall Street.

    by Attorney at Arms on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:03:42 AM PDT

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      Yep, this seems to me to be a deliberate strategy, both in lying and in overall messaging.  Make every issue seem like a petty children's squabble, and the voter has the same reaction as most parents, just wanting to get away from the noise 'cause determining what really happened is too difficult.

      Another recent example is the Money/Lyin campaign coming out and saying that Obama "will end Medicare as we know it," in an attempt to use the attack line they know the Democrats have used, and will continue to use, against Ryan's plan to voucherize/privatize Medicare.

  •  Not just AP (9+ / 0-)

    Politico is even worse

    http://dyn.politico.com/...

    These are examples of why we hate fact checkers. Dissecting every statement down into a million parts in an attempt to not show bias and give both sides a nice talking point.

    How exactly is society served by this?

    •  I was naive I thought the AP was more legitimate. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBinPS, Larsstephens

      "A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth gets it shoes on." Mark Twain

      by pipercity1 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:06:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, we should learn from this. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBinPS, Larsstephens

      ... and we should learn from Fox News:

      Make a couple whoppers, or a couple extreme hosts, so that the other little lies and distortions seem inconsequential, even reasonable, by comparison.  The big lies are noted, but the little lies slip through untouched.

    •  I don't see anything wrong with the Polito one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBinPS

      They say almost everything is true, the "half true" on "no cuts to Medicare Benefits" is stupid, but if you read it, it's obvious that they're really saying "true."  And "true but misleading" on health care spending growing under 4% is problematic because I'm not sure Clinton actually said it was causal, it was important for Clinton to say that because I've seen a lot of people claiming health care costs are absolutely exploding at unprecedented rates, which I know isn't true, but Clinton shot that down nicely.  I don't really see what other objections you could have to Politico other than those two.  The AP one in the lead article here however isn't even fact checking, it's an opinion piece.

      "You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."-Clarence Darrow

      by cwech on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:18:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh I know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cwech

        But still, I thought waffling on "mostly true" was an attempt to look non-partisan.

        •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

          I'll give you that.  What I see a lot in these is that they apply labels of something like "Mostly true," or "true but misleading," and then if you actually read the analysis one of two things is happening.

          1) they're REALLY parsing words to mean something the speaker didn't actually even intend.

          or

          2) the analysis demonstrates that they should have said it was "true" they just thought more context would be nice.

          "You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."-Clarence Darrow

          by cwech on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:50:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Problem with "Fact-checking" Articles (0+ / 0-)

                The problem with fact-checking articles like these is that even if the speech is 100% true, the author can't just say "Yes, everything he said is true," because that would seem "biased" and he wouldn't have an article to write.  

                 The fact that the writers have to STRETCH so far to find some sort of counter-claim only proves that the facts are TRUE.  

                  But the purpose of "fact-checking" is not supposed to be making counter-claims or bringing up other irrelevant issues in an effort to be "balanced."  The purpose of fact-checking is to determine whether or not what was actually SAID is TRUE.  

                 It's like going to a doctor for a second opinion on your cancer diagnosis and hearing him say, "Yes, the doctor was right about you having cancer, but what he didn't tell you is that his dog is ugly."

                 If Clinton had used the phrase "the sky is blue" in his speech, some idiot would write an article headlined:

            "Clinton Tells Half-Truth about Color of Sky, Fails to Mention Nights or Rainy Days"
  •  they are pissed that it went on for 45 minutes (9+ / 0-)

    so they actually have to work

    I knew they'd mention the finger wagging

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:04:01 AM PDT

  •  Clearly...the term fact check is not understood by (15+ / 0-)

    AP

    CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, `We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself - I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."

    THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth.

    THE FACTS???

    Go to the opinion pages if you want to write an opinion piece....how horrific...

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:05:07 AM PDT

  •  The swoon still going on after Bubba's speech (7+ / 0-)

    is making electro-magnetic, laser-pulsing waves of energy so vast and universal that it's washing away whatever feeble analysis the AP can come up with.

    I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

    by Wildthumb on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:06:18 AM PDT

  •  The bitterness from douche bags like these two (12+ / 0-)

    just make Clinton's homerun speech all the sweeter, and all the more evidence how good it was.

  •  Shitweasels! Woodward's just a tree killer anymore (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, laurnj, Eric Blair, pipercity1, No Exit

    and opinions, his included, aren't facts.  

    "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

    by jakewaters on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:08:49 AM PDT

  •  Because lying about your personal sex life (16+ / 0-)

    is exactly the same as lying to the American voters about the actual policies that will dramatically affect their lives and who they choose to vote for.

    Yep. Exactly the same.

    •  Unfortunately President Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      will have that follow him forever, I think.  A federal judge found that he had failed to testify truthfully under oath, and President Clinton surrendered his law license rather than contest that.

      While Congress found that this was not sufficient grounds for removal from office, that clearly was a stain on his credibility.  That kind of thing is going to have an effect.  Any time he accuses someone else of not being credible, or says something to the effect of "you can believe me," someone is going to raise this, I suspect.  

      •  more of a criticism of the Village (0+ / 0-)

        sad that they can't let it go, the hacks. They blew their credibility on that story, and the 6 prior years of the Whitewater witch hunt.

        Why they think repeating the story that did more than anything to destroy the notion of an impartial, honest press corps will somehow restore their reputation is a mystery.

        •  You think that if it were somebody else (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, VClib

          who had been found in contempt by a federal judge in a very high profile case for failing to testify truthfully under oath, and who did not contest that finding, the press as a whole would just forget about it?  

          Being held in contempt of court by a federal judge for failing to testify truthfully under oath is a serious thing, especially for a lawyer (which Clinton was), regardless of how silly  the topic on which he gave false testimony.  

          I think that when Clinton decided not to contest that, he was smart enough to know that it would follow him around for a long time.  

          After all, when somebody like a Mark Furhman is raised, those of us old enough to remember the O.J. Simpson case immediately think "lied under oath about using the "n-word."  That kind of thing follows you around.  

          •  ha ha ha (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            Seriously, like the Village, you're only hurting your "centrist" pose.

          •  You have to look at what the lie was (4+ / 0-)

            don't you? He lied about having sex outside his marriage.

            I do. And I think most Americans agree with me. That's why his approval ratings are so high.

            The general rule "lie about one thing, you'll lie about anything" doesn't hold true if the lie is about sex.

            •  That's a completely legitimate (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JustGiaco, VClib

              analysis for you, or any voter to make.  As I said below.

              This:

              The general rule "lie about one thing, you'll lie about anything" doesn't hold true if the lie is about sex.
              is certainly a legitimate opinion for someone to have.  From a legal perspective, however, you don't have to look at what the lie was, as long as it was about something "material" to the case he was testifying in.  From a legal perspective, the law presumes that if you lie under oath once, that is evidence -- not conclusive, but evidence -- that you are not truthful.  
              •  The whole thin was a blatant political prosecution (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larsstephens

                A la siegleman.  In my mind that is the far greater crime than lying about sex.  

                That he did so is irrelevant in this situation.

                No System of Justice Can Rise Above the Ethics of Those Who Administer It. (Wickersham Commission 1929)

                by No Exit on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:41:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  That has absolutely zero to do with rebutting (5+ / 0-)

        the quote that it supposedly rebuts. As a refresher, here's what "the facts" are countering:

        CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, `We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself - I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."
        Presenting an ad hominem argument against Clinton does not counter what was stated here. Suppose those words had come from me:
        Nowhere Man: "Their campaign pollster said, `We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself - I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."
        How would you counter them then?

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:27:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JustGiaco, VClib

          It's a permanent stain on President Clinton's credibility generally, but it doesn't refute that fact.  

          My point is that, when you have a stain like that on your own credibility, and that stain came from such a high-profile matter, it's not surprising that the press will raise it when you accuse someone else of lying, regardless of the context.  It may be unfair, but it's not surprising.  
           

          •  How did it come about (0+ / 0-)

            How did the question of whether he had sex with Monica on the stand come about ?

            Let's hear the whole story ?

            People love to talk about sex.

            Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

            by yet another liberal on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:36:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In the context of a fact-check? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferg, Cassandra Waites, pipercity1, mcmom

            Yes, it is surprising, since fact-checkers are supposed to be nonpartisan. Because they introduced a completely irrelevant and fallacious ad hominem argument, it's the fact-checker's credibility that was tarnished, not Clinton's.

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:41:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree that it was an unfair attack (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              on President Clinton in this context.

              I simply said it was not surprising.  The mainstream media tends to bring up that kind of thing whenever someone involved in a very high profile "scandal" (a former President being held in contempt for lying under oath) returns to the spotlight.  

              It certainly was not a factual rebuttal to what he said.  Instead, it was more of a "he's accusing somebody else of lying when he famously lied under oath" statement.  It clearly was not a "fact check" of what he said.  But, because it goes to credibility, it's not surprising that the media will continue to bring it up whenever President Clinton asks people to trust what he says.  

          •  The press will raise it, sure (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elphie, No Exit, Larsstephens

            But it doesn't mean we have to buy it. It's a bogus argument.

          •  $79 million spent to unearth this affair! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

               Wonder what the Democrats could have uncovered with this amount of money? Of course the Democrats would have been demonized and almost ran out of town if they had tried the same thing!
                This is an insight into how long the media coverage has been so blatantly biased !

            "A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth gets it shoes on." Mark Twain

            by pipercity1 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:22:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Please (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferg, entrelac

        It's a stain on the adolescent society obsessed with talking about the sex lives of famous people.

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:30:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I completely agree that the topic he (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          gave false testimony about was frivolous.  It's kind of sad, and disgusting, that this country descended into discussing what kind of sex Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky.

          Being found in contempt by a federal judge for giving false testimony under oath is not frivolous, however.  As President Clinton (being a lawyer) surely knew when he decided not to contest it.    

          •  The question was frivolous (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferg, mcmom

            The purpose of it was so they could then say Clinton has no credibility because he had sex with that woman.  Just like you're doing here.

            Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

            by yet another liberal on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:40:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Absolutely true. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask, VClib

              But when someone asks a frivolous question at a deposition, the lawyer is supposed to object to the question.  If it's an intentionally harassing question, the lawyer can instruct the witness (Clinton) not to answer.  The issue of whether he has to answer goes to the judge.  

              In this case, because the President was involved, the judge was sitting in the room.  And there was no objection that the question was frivolous, or instruction not to answer.  Instead, President Clinton simply responded to the question, but he responded untruthfully.  And that you are not allowed to do, no matter how harassing or frivolous you think the question is.  As a lawyer, Clinton surely knew that.  

              There were legitimate options available to him if he believed the questions were harassing and not relevant.  Providing false testimony in response to harassing questions is not one of those legitimate options.  

              •  Come on. You're a lawyer (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mcmom, No Exit, Larsstephens

                You know that under the rules of discovery there was no valid objection the line of questioning.

                Yeah, he shouldn't have lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. But to make the jump from lying about sex to lying about policy is simply not warranted.

                Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have Republicans caught lying, and blantantly lying about policy. What does that do to their credibility on policy?

                I will stipulate that they don't lie about their sex lives. If any.

                •  I agree that the attack in this context was unfair (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  just not surprising.  

                  The fact that he lied under oath about sex does not mean he will lie about other things.  And it was wrong to infer that it does in this context.  

                  But it's not surprising that, when he's challenging someone else's credibility, the media will remind people of his own credibility issue.  

              •  It's a good ole fashioned (0+ / 0-)

                Political/sexual witch hunt.  Even has a legal leg to stand on !

                Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

                by yet another liberal on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:03:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  He didn't contest it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            because...what's the point?

            And lest we conveniently forget: Paula Jones lawsuit was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

        •  Remember those days (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chayanov, MPociask, mcmom, Larsstephens

          of peace and prosperity when all we had to worry about was details of the President's sexy times with ladies not his wife?

      •  thank you for providing a view into what the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcmom

        conservatives and disaffected dems are thinking and will be pointing out over the next few days.  We appreciate the heads up.

        “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

        by justmy2 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:35:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferg, No Exit

        It would be a stain on his credibility if you were considering dating or marrying him. It's not a stain on his political credibility. Show me an example Bill lying about a matter of policy.

        •  A contempt finding by a federal judge (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          for giving false testimony under oath is a stain on credibility.  Period.  Whether that false testimony is about sex, or whether you graduated from college, or whether the light was green when you went across the intersection, when a federal judge expressly finds that you gave false testimony under oath, and you do not contest that finding, that's a credibility stain.  If he were to testify under oath in another case, for example, evidence of that contempt finding for dishonest testimony could potentially be brought up to challenge his credibility for the new testimony, regardless of the subject of the new testimony.  Legally, it's a credibility issue.  

          Voters certainly can -- and should -- make their own decision about how serious that stain is, or whether lying under oath about sex in a civil case means he would lie about other things.  That's certainly a decision people can come to for themselves.    It's certainly, certainly legitimate for voters to say, yes, he lied under oath but it was about sex, so I won't let it affect my opinion of him.

      •  Except, his favorability rating is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        phenomenal for a former president. I am, and have never been, a fan of Bill Clinton, but do credit him with having a good administration (tho not as progressive as I wanted), in comparison with what went before and after.

        I think, therefore I am. I think.

        by mcmom on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:14:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Does anyone actually read AP anymore... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, pipercity1

    are they still in business?

    If so, why?

  •  What™ is an AP? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:10:10 AM PDT

  •  You misunderstood... (7+ / 0-)

    They did a fact check against the Republican Belief Bias Database.

    Once you understand the source being checked confirming the of the fact belief being checked.

    Belief's require no facts, but a lack of facts never stopped a Republican.

    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:10:14 AM PDT

  •  They might be basing the Boehner budget crap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eztempo, MPociask

    off of Bob Woodward's "factual" forthcoming book wherein he blames Obama for the partisanship, says Boehner only walked away after Obama threw a fit, that Obama became so enraged a "witness" thought he was going to break the phone he was holding when Boehner said there wouldn't be a deal, that Pelosi put Obama on hold and forgot about him while she was hard at work with Harry Reid, that Boehner and the rest of the Republicans are convinced that no one in the WH knows who is "in charge."  You know...a factualized fictional account of Obama's WestWing.

    But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. – Yeats

    by Bill O Rights on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:11:38 AM PDT

  •  Please, these are the SERIOUS PEOPLE (5+ / 0-)

    As we all know these are the VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE who must be "fair and balanced."

    That means it must always be shown that BOTH SIDES DO IT.

    After all, there is no more middle because extremists have taken over both parties.  Of course, that is right.  The extremists in the Republican Party don't have to be bothered by facts.  The extremists in the Democratic Party think that facts cannot be ignored.  

    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

    by MoDem on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:12:05 AM PDT

  •  Fuck you, AP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JL

    You have failed, for America is in the throes of a Billgasm.

    VULTURE/VOUCHER 2012. FUCK YOU, MIDDLE CLASS!

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:13:15 AM PDT

  •  fact check Q (0+ / 0-)

    Did Bill mention the role of deregulation in the 2008 finance FUBAR?

    It's fun to blame it all on the GOP - and they do deserve a lot of the blame, but not all.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

    •  Oh Bill's administration did a lot of bad things (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Larsstephens

      but he told the truth last night and did in, perhaps, the best political speech I have ever heard.

      I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

      by Eric Blair on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:28:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Being factual doesn't mean.......... (3+ / 0-)

      .....you have to tear yourself down and reduce yourself to the version of you that your detractors hold! It does mean that you shouldn't tell blatant falsehoods, which Clinton did not do. I mean seriously does anyone really think he was supposed to go up there and tear up his own administration and the current one too? Feel free to criticize and use his speech as a stepping stone for that criticism but that isn't fact checking. Just saying.

  •  "Or maybe they just can't get past the fact that (0+ / 0-)

    he American people ignored all their best efforts back in the 1990s to vilify the man, and we still love him. "

    Speak for  yourself. Clinton and the DLC/Blue Dogs/Third Way led the Democratic party to it's current status as a center-right party by world standards. The Clinton "economic boom?" An asset bubble in dot-com stocks. Repealing Glass-Steagall? "Ending welfare as we know it?" The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children that were "worth it" to his hideous Secretary of State?

    Clinton belongs in the Hague along with Dubya and Cheney.

  •  There is a term for this: (8+ / 0-)

    FALSE EQUIVALENCY.  They are trying to equate an extremely small inaccuracy (which may not actually be an inaccuracy) with the GIANT FUCKING MOUNTAIN OF LIES that was the RNC convention.

  •  Weatherman said it would rain today. (11+ / 0-)

    Ten years ago, he told me he wasn't the one who'd nipped my Butterfinger bar. Then I found the wrapper in his desk.

    So the water falling from the sky isn't rain.

    See, that's fact-checking.

  •  I thought AP's tilt to the right................. (0+ / 0-)

    coutld largely be attributed to Ron Fournier; since he is gone clearly they are all pricks.

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:18:17 AM PDT

  •  Broken link (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    South Park Democrat

    I think this one goes to the article: http://www.google.com/...

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:18:35 AM PDT

  •  Washington Post Fact Check not much better.... (5+ / 0-)

    On the statement that Obama is not gutting the work-to-welfare requirement and has in fact strengthened it, the WP FC wrote that "some prominent critics" disagree and then linked to the Heritage Fund.

    That is akin to supporting a charge that Romney is a fascist by linking to a site run by the Communist Party.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:19:56 AM PDT

    •  The WP became a broadsheet version (0+ / 0-)

      of the NY Post years ago.  Woodward, the late Kat Graham, Bradlee? All gone over to the Dark Side.

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:56:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How can you "fact check" (4+ / 0-)

    the contention that grind lock is the fault of GOP or Democrats anyway? Isn't that pretty obviously a matter of opinion?

    That they felt the need to fact check it sounds more like they saw their job as not so much about checking empirical evidence as providing "balance."

    You're not being "oppressed" when another group gains rights you've always enjoyed.

    by Scott Wooledge on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:20:29 AM PDT

    •  Its not opinion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, MPociask, Cassandra Waites

      Its a matter of fact that the filibuster has been used by the R's however many times.  It is a matter of fact that the Rs have held up judicial nominees.  It is a matter of fact that the debt ceiling kerfuffle was caused by R intransigence.  There are plenty more facts in there.  

      The dumbest opinion in America is that opinions cannot be false, cannot be refuted, cannot be challenged, argued or otherwise devalued.  

      Some opinions are more plausible than others.  

      So, even if its a matter of opinion, the question immediately following is, are the various opinions equal in value, and the answer to that is ALWAYS no.  

      The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

      by not2plato on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:22:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not2 - it's a fact that the GOP members of the (0+ / 0-)

        Senate used the filibuster to block much of what the House passed from 2009-2010. But it is also true that Harry Reid has not allowed hundreds of bills from the GOP House to even come up for a vote. So who is responsible for the gridlock is a matter of opinion, not fact.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 05:42:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ryan lied so they have to do that fake equivalency (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eztempo, laurnj, ferg, Eric Blair

    thing thats so frustrating

    I saw that article on yahoo news, most americans will see it 1st thing in the morning... and only skim through and assume clinton lied when all his facts were in order.

    v. frustrating!

  •  During the "Swiftboat" debacle (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JustGiaco

    I stood outside the Oregonian with a sign that read; "Will fact check for food". They didn't take me up on it:)

    White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

    by BOHICA on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:23:53 AM PDT

  •  it is not bias (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JustGiaco, krkaufman

    it is an attempt to produce parity between the two parties.  The republicans lied so very much about blatant bald-faced horrendous lies that they were caught red-handed.  To prevent a significant fallout, the MSM had to produce a similar report to be projected onto the right-wing media outlets to make it look like the dems lied as much as the republicans and keep the race close.

  •  There should be... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, Cassandra Waites, stellaluna

    A parallel law to the Godwin law.  Maybe the Lewinsky law?  It states that with respect to Democratic policy, if you bring up the Clinton blow job, you automatically lose the argument.

    “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” - Plutarch

    by RichM on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:26:16 AM PDT

  •  That's not a fact check, thats a partisan rebuttal (6+ / 0-)

    NT

  •  You know....we are about to find out which side (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, MPociask

    of our pie fights the first two years was right.  I hope I was way wrong as one who thought it wasn't worth reaching out just to get pushed away.

    Some thought that be reaching out, even if the President was pushed back, it would show he was the "compromiser" and it would prove Republican obstruction.

    What we are seeing now is a concerted effort by the media, led by Bob Woodward to send the President's willingness to bend over backwards down the memory hole. We are going to see if the public give the President the credit he deserves and was looking for.   I didn't think it would have the intended effect, but I think the Dems are using it to their advantage now...regardless of what the fact checkers say...and I hope the public really think about who is to blame...

    Even though the compromises didn't work well then, I am really hopeful it built up political capital that the public will cash in this fall.

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:26:59 AM PDT

  •  No False Claims in Clinton's Speech (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WORK
  •  What do you expect the fact checkers are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JustGiaco

    probably closer to the 1% then they are to the 99% why should we expect honesty from a lot of them.

  •  Bloomberg Fact Check (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WORK, cazcee, ferg, Pola Halloween

    This one is a little better: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/....

    AP is just doing what the media have been doing all along: maintaining the false balance, trying to control the narrative, and trying to be influential in an environment of diminishing relevance. The only thing they're diminishing is their own credibility.

    It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Fish in Illinois on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

  •  Since when is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, WORK

    "THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth."

    ....a "fact check?"  It might as well say "Clinton lied, so every fact he cites here on out is presumptively a lie."

  •  Total crap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, Pola Halloween

    But you knew that the media was going to do it's damnest to mute the bounce from this convention.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:37:47 AM PDT

  •  Whatever AP (0+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:44:01 AM PDT

  •  President Bill Clinton (0+ / 0-)

     what a great guy    hope all continues to go well

  •  Redefining fact-checking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WORK, MPociask, schnecke21

    Apparently the tradition of fact-checking and the term itself have been appropriated by a group who is interested in asserting their own ideas.

    A real fact checker asks questions such as:  Is your name in fact XYZ and is it in fact spelled "XYZ"?  Were you born in Yourtown USA in such-and-such a year?  Did you say "quotational text"?  

    A real fact checker does not editorialize.  Countering a truthful claim of Bill Clinton's with the assertion that he once lied is not fact checking.  It is editorializing.

  •  AP is a right wing org like Fox (0+ / 0-)

    no difference.

  •  network for sale (0+ / 0-)

    So who owns AP now?  We know who owned NBC ... and Fox.

  •  Info@ap.org (0+ / 0-)

    Write them.  Demand a retraction.  I let them know I'd be writing all of my favorite newspapers and demanding they switch from AP to Reuters if they don't act on this immediately.  Just unacceptable.  Shameful.  Disgraceful.

    "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." ~Barack Obama

    by MagnanaMouse on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

  •  The AP is a joke (0+ / 0-)

    ...a mere shadow of its former self. I rarely click on any AP story anymore because the headlines alone blare their obnoxious Republican bias. There was absolutely no reason to bring up Monica Lewinsky, and the fact that they did shows their real agenda. Blegh.

  •  Why is Clinton's definition of "sexual relations" (0+ / 0-)

    more offensive than the Republicans' trying to redefine rape?  

  •  "There Was No Mention of The Role Democrats And (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask

    the President played in grinding compromise to a halt." Yeah, and there was no mention by any of the speakers at the Republican convention of the jobs Romney outsourced when he was CEO of Bain Capital.  And of course, let's not forget that "compromise" to the Teabaggers/right wingers means the Dems have to give up everything they want with nothing given up by the other side. AP and the two
    so-called "fact checkers" are irrelevant.  

  •  A blatant ad hominem fallacy? Really? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, MPociask, cwech

    Clinton says that proposition P is true, but Clinton had a sex scandal.  Therefore, proposition P is false.  

    That seems to be the reasoning.  

    Every logic teacher in the country ought to be all over this news paper for publishing that tripe.  

    The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

    by not2plato on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:14:46 AM PDT

  •  One line I really hope Obama uses in debates (0+ / 0-)

    "Mr Romney, you are entitled to your own opinions. What you are not entitled to is your own facts"

    Not sure where I heard it but it's soo applicable in this election.

  •  Speech Question (0+ / 0-)

    Who was the Republican Congressman Clinton referred to who lost his primary after he said he did not need to hate President Obama in order to disagree with him?

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:49:14 AM PDT

  •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WORK

    Thanks for posting this commentary on the AP's "fact check" article. I was appalled at how sloppy/biased it was.

    For example, take a look again at their evidence for Obama's failure to compromise on the "grand bargain":

    Boehner couldn't sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.
    The AP nitwits, themselves, cite evidence of Obama having gone far beyond what his Democratic legislatures were comfortable with, yet they consider this paragraph evidence of Obama NOT compromising?

    This sort of incompetence would merit a "reassignment" in many lines of work.

  •  This just isn't a fact check (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WORK, Larsstephens, richardak

    It's an opinion column calling itself a fact check.  None of the things they talked about are even factual statements, they're opinions.  Stunning.  If they actually did their job, one thing Clinton said stood out to me as something worth fact checking, I'm not saying it's false, I just don't know and would like to actually see a legitimate analysis of this.  Clinton claimed that health care costs have risen by dramatically less per year since the ACA than before the ACA, and he attached specific numbers to that which I can't remember.  Of course since I trust Bill Clinton and loved his speech and think Democrats need to start strongly defending the ACA, I'm inclined to believe him, but that's actually fact checkable, and was something I've never heard before.  They could have actually fact checked that instead of writing an opinion column , but they were obviously uninterested in actually fact checking.

    "You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."-Clarence Darrow

    by cwech on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:58:21 AM PDT

  •  Pick one. (0+ / 0-)

    1) Maybe he's a hypnotist.
    2) Or maybe the authors are full of shit.
    Thanks Joan. Seattle deserves your articles, not the fact-vacant Seattle Times.

    See this:  http://seattletimes.com/...

    “My first choice is a strong consumer agency,” she said. “My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.”

    by mrobinson on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:20:57 AM PDT

  •  Seattle Times zinger on day of Obama speech (0+ / 0-)

    More bias from Seattle Times online: Report: U.S. health care system wastes $750B a year. September 6, 2012.  Oh. It's the guys from the AP band. By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR.

    Here's another fromTOM RAUM and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP in the Republican loving Seattle Times, the paper that can't find a Jay Inslee for WA-Gov. event to cover. They endorsed the Republican what's his name who sued Obama over ObamaCare. That's the guy they like.

    Shocking news! The Democrats favor their president at their convention!

    Some Obama programs embellished by Democrats

    Speakers at the Democratic National Convention portrayed President Barack Obama's presidency in glowing terms Tuesday evening, but sometimes left out important details or embellished his record
    .

    “My first choice is a strong consumer agency,” she said. “My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.”

    by mrobinson on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:45:10 AM PDT

  •  Yahoo just put this on their front page (0+ / 0-)

    I didn't bother to read the comments as I'm sure I would've ruptured an aorta. What a disgusting load of right-wing garbage written by a couple of hacks. Fact checking, indeed.

  •  I knew when I saw the headline (0+ / 0-)

    on my Yahoo browser home page pretty much what to expect, considering the source, and it wasn't disappointing (in a mordantly funny sort of way). I commented there, and I urge everyone reading about it on dKos to do the same.  

    "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

    by dumpster on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:41:08 PM PDT

  •  It's Bad When You Can't Trust AP (0+ / 0-)

    Posthumously Baptized and Retroactively Retired. It’s 1950 If Romney Is Elected.

    by wild hair on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:48:17 PM PDT

  •  I just had a minister I grew up with (0+ / 0-)

    make a comment what a liar Clinton was and that the Fact Checkers didn't know what to do with all his lies.

    Now, when I  go search for AP news and Fact checking, that is not what I come up with at all.

    More like AP was SEARCHING for something on Clinton and since his speech was already fact checked (the DNC didn't want a repeat of the RNC), they didn't know what to do with the speech.

    So they insinuate that this is the man who got a BJ in the Whitehouse and lied about it (all those jealous Republicans, can you imagine?).

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:51:34 PM PDT

  •  AP is run by Rupert Murdoch puppets (0+ / 0-)

    ... on the board of directors.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site