I just found the announcement by Brokaw about his death and sifted it. Really is sad !_!

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Tom-Brokaw-Reporsts-on-the-death-of-Tim-Russert

>> ^RhesusMonk:
Sweet moves, coach.
Also, check out what http://moveon.org/ is calling for him to do with all that book money he's making.



Thanks, Monk.

And yes, the suggestion that McClellan donate part of the proceeds of the book to the Iraq War vets is brought up by Russert in the second clip, to which McClellan states that it has been an intention from the beginning.

How much and to what extent, we'll have to wait and see.

This senile old man was asked back in 2000 by Tim Russert if he had any intentions for running for President. He said that he would be campaigning for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and by the time 2008 rolled around, he'd be sitting in the nursing home waiting for the final "cavalry charge."

I think that's where he belongs.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Tim Russert is saying right now that she has to throw in the towel now. She has no chance.

♩ Ding-Dong the witch is dead. ♩

Edit: we're obviously watching the same show.

Keith Olbermann: "Tim, did it just end tonight?"

Tim Russert: "We now know who the Democratic Nominee is going to be, and no one's going to dispute it."

Chris Matthews earlier answered the question with a simple "Yes".

Very, very good news.

The media narrative is shifting: Tim Russert talking about how Obama is connecting with the working-class!

That's a big victory right there, if the chatterboxes stop lambasting Obama, even if he loses.

Seemingly pointless gestures... who knows. That FOX virus video was very compelling. And here I thought Tim Russert was just an idiot.

Why exactly would this be hard?

Because he was probably pissed that Russert pulled that crap and maybe he was a little embarrassed that he didn't remember that those were his words from 15 years ago. That's the point of Russert's game - to get the guest off balance and hope they make a fool of themselves. McCain didn't in this case.


Presumably, McCain is capable of recalling his position with respect to Somalia and how it differs from his take on Iraq and articulate this, perhaps not eloquently, but clearly. Unless, of course, his positions are not well-conceived or inconsistent.

He was pretty clear, IMO.


Frankly, if this sort of thing throws him off, I would seriously question his qualifications for the job he is seeking...

I don't see that it really threw him off. Russert played his little game and McCain responded pretty well.


Russert is a horrible excuse for a journalist.

T-man - In response to your comment "It's a little hard to have a well thought-out position when you are recovering from Russert's "In-Yo-Face, Flyboy!" gotcha - Why exactly would this be hard?

Presumably, McCain is capable of recalling his position with respect to Somalia and how it differs from his take on Iraq and articulate this, perhaps not eloquently, but clearly. Unless, of course, his positions are not well-conceived or inconsistent.

In the latter case, I would expect generating a coherent response to be "a little hard".

Frankly, if this sort of thing throws him off, I would seriously question his qualifications for the job he is seeking...

There's a WORLD of difference.

Somalia (and Darfur): of no strategic interest to the US whatsoever.

Iraq: a burgeoning democracy in an otherwise tyrannical, backwards part of the world and a nice place from which to nuke Iran as needed.

Fat-faced russert on meet the Depressed. LOLZ.

I probably wouldn't vote for McCain but I'll give him props for deflecting the question. After reviewing the links on Russert I guess I would agree, but then they were attacking his style and shenanigans, there was no argument supporting him. Now perhaps there are none to be had.

Let's not forget Tim Russert is the clown that, during a debate, asked the Democratic candidates "What's your favorite Bible verse?"

Tim Russert: Stop the Inanity

This was perfectly fair - in fact it should have been a slam-dunk for McCain and would be for anyone with a well thought-out position.

It's a little hard to have a well thought-out position when you are recovering from Russert's "In-Yo-Face, Flyboy!" gotcha. In a reasonable discussion we may have better found out why McCain feels differently about Iraq and Somalia and we would all have a greater understanding of the person who may be our next president. Instead we're saying "Oh, SNAP!"

What's so bullshit about this?

What's bullshit is reading someone's words from 15 years ago (that he obviously doesn't remember) as if they were a current statement about the Iraq war when in fact they were about a situation that doesn't really relate to the current one and then asking for comments. The fallacy is that it assumes someone's statements about Somalia could be applied to Iraq today. They can't necessarily. These were different situations at different points in history and it's very reasonable for somebody to have different opinions about these situations. It's certainly not a sign of inconsistency, as Russert implies, if they do. It's not that McCain has changed his opinion - it's that he has two opinions about two different situations. Isn't that what we want from our leaders?

And Russert knows this is bullshit. This type of questioning is not designed to give the audience any real information, it's designed to trip McCain up and make "news" for Russert.

This is Russert "Gotcha" 101. And it sucks... hard. Take a look at "The Unbearable Inanity of Tim Russert" by Matthew Yglesias for more info.

--------

And that's really the game here. Russert's goal isn't to inform his audience. He's there to "make news"—to get his guest to say something embarrassing that lands in the next day's papers or on the NBC Nightly News.

>> ^T-man:
I'm no big fan of McCain, but this is just more Russert "gotcha" bullshit. That guy is horrible.


What's so bullshit about this? Regardless of whether he could be expected to recognise his words now or not... the point is this:

"What are your thoughts on these words I'm reading?"
"I disagree with them"
"You said these words"
"Erm, well, what I was talking about then was completely different to now, even though you can clearly see how they're the same, I'll ignore the similarities completely"

It's perfect, it's putting politions to task about their ongoing hope that people never remember what they did in the past that they don't want you to remember... they talk up their past victories, and try and bury anything else.