Chris Matthews Dresses Down Texas State Democratic Senator (Kirk Watson) regarding his support for Obama (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I saw it live (I usually switch back and forth between MSNBC and CNN for election coverage)-- and it was definitely ... But in that guy's defense-- aren't they supposed to be briefed by the producers on what questions are going to be asked by the host? You know, since they're on live TV and all?? I realize that this doesn't excuse the guy- an Obama supporter- for not knowing anything that B.O. has done, but I'm surprised that they didn't prepare him more.

 

[JimEverett]

What we do know is that moderates seem to be rejecting Hillary en masse. The Blues don't beat McCain without moderates. So if you're concerned about getting a Dem in the White House, the rock star may be your best choice.

Speaking of not standing tough in a hard brutal campaign, when do you think Hillary's gonna nail down a winning message? Or give a satisfactory answer for her support of the Iraq War?

I hope you are right about Barack. I don;t necessarily agree that moderates are rejecting Clinton en masse though. I mean he is doing better than I thought he would, particularly looking at Wisconsin (although Clinton really bungled that by not deciding to campaign there till last weekend), but his support is pretty clearly with blacks adn the liberal establishment of the party.

As far as Hillary's winning message - I have never thought Hillary was a general election winner, only that among the two remaining candidates she is better able to campaign against the Republicans.

 

[TPS]

>>but i do think that it's pretty "smart" compared to the others. matthews and scarborough are very intelligent, and i never liked pat buchanan as a politician but he's a great analyst. and his command of history and vocabulary is nothing short of impressive.

Absolutely. The journalistic discourse is over the heads of most proles. And they trot out Russert, Williams and Brokaw on big nights, so there are always quality journalists waiting in the wings.

>>and like how there's viewpoints from the left (matthews, olberman) and the right (carlson and scarborough) on that network.

Agreed. All networks do this to some degree, but I find that there is more cheerleading at Fox and Wallace and Hume are angry white guys.

>>personally, i just can't watch lou dobbs or sean hannity or whoever. it's so drone.

I love Lou Dobbs. He reports the hard news. I know it's not for everyone, but he dressed down HARD last night the idea of Texans paying for the Mexicans/NAU to be able to move more easily along the planned highway stretching from Mexico to Canada. He breaks all the incredible stuff that everyone else shys away from too much.

FWIW, Fox was mostly awful last night. Their wimpy graphics board is like a candle to the Great Chicago Fire when compared with CNN's. Hemmer's (sp?) hand was a full second ahead of the graphics. It was awful.

>>Obama's only platform is hope and change because he has not done anything he can stand on other than getting elected to the Senate. NOTHING.

Did you vote for President Bush?

>>I'm not sure what's worse...that the Texas Senator didn't know any of the four Obama legislative accomplishments or that he thew his support behind a candidate with such a meager number.

Did you vote for President Bush? If so, you guys are being pretty hypocritical IMHO.

TPS

 

[Rickboy]

Apparently Matthews angirly demanded a list of Obama's accomplishments. Fair enough.

Can anybody list for me Hilary Clinton's legislative accomplishments???

What are the things she has done other than be married to a President that has impacted our lives?

I'm not sure I really want someone who has been tainted by over a decade in Washington D.C. In keeping with Bismarck's maxim on lawmaking, in reality a long legislative record is probably strongly correlated to particiaption in graft, corruption and cynical deal making.

I'm fine with the outsider.

I don't even like Hillary but I can tell you that she has co-authored legislation (with Senator McCain) to insure Veterans benefits are properly funded and in some cases improved. She is actually quite strong on most defense issues. One of the few things I can appreciate about her.

Also, while I don't like her ideas on Heath Care reform, I'll grant her that she is very likely the most well informed politician in DC on our Health Care system. Her ideas for streamlining paper work and doing a lot of administrative work using comptuers are very sound. She took a very long amount of time to really evaluate that section of Health Care and proposed a very viable solution that can save Billions for consumers. Her only real problem is that she has bundled that one solution with the rest of her Health Care reform plans. She is a Policy driven person that has some good policy ideas (and some very bad ones)

On the negative side, she wants to freeze interest rates for existing mortgages. That would pretty much kill the mortgage industry because it would drive up interest rates on new loans. It would kill home sales overnight. Also, she wants health care to be manditory for all people and is willing to garnish wages to make it happen.

 

[blackadder]

I don't even like Hillary but I can tell you that she has co-authored legislation (with Senator McCain) to insure Veterans benefits are properly funded and in some cases improved. She is actually quite strong on most defense issues. One of the few things I can appreciate about her.

Also, while I don't like her ideas on Heath Care reform, I'll grant her that she is very likely the most well informed politician in DC on our Health Care system. Her ideas for streamlining paper work and doing a lot of administrative work using comptuers are very sound. She took a very long amount of time to really evaluate that section of Health Care and proposed a very viable solution that can save Billions for consumers. Her only real problem is that she has bundled that one solution with the rest of her Health Care reform plans. She is a Policy driven person that has some good policy ideas (and some very bad ones)

On the negative side, she wants to freeze interest rates for existing mortgages. That would pretty much kill the mortgage industry because it would drive up interest rates on new loans. It would kill home sales overnight. Also, she wants health care to be manditory for all people and is willing to garnish wages to make it happen.

So, she's done a few things while in the Senate. Other than the Vets benefits, the advisability of which is open to deabte.

She has a longer record than Obama, that is for sure. But I don't know that she is particularly "distinguished" at this point as a legislator.

She's defintely a policy "wonk" though. Just the sort of person that has built up the modern dc bureaucracy.

 

[stunpals]

I watch CNN because Wolfe is awesome in HD.

Seriously, I just want the info and the numbers during coverage so I use CNN because their production is the best. I don't need Olberman poking fun at a guys suit while he's speaking.

 

[Rickboy]

So, she's done a few things while in the Senate. Other than the Vets benefits, the advisability of which is open to deabte.

She has a longer record than Obama, that is for sure. But I don't know that she is particularly "distinguished" at this point as a legislator.

She's defintely a policy "wonk" though. Just the sort of person that has built up the modern dc bureaucracy.

All your points are true. But you were just asking if anyone could name her accomplishments other than being 1st lady. I'm not even one of her supporters and I can rattle off several without looking anything up. I know that she has co-authored many other items as well.

Obama has done a lot less in the Senate. Well, actually he's done much of nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the guy, though I'd never vote for him. But, IMO Chris Matthews actually had a valid point. Like a stopped clock, even that moron can be right twice a day....

 

[Rickboy]

BTW, I would love to have a policy wonk in the White House. Just not Billary's policy

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Seriously, I just want the info and the numbers during coverage so I use CNN because their production is the best. I don't need Olberman poking fun at a guys suit while he's speaking.

Yeah, but MSNBC is a lot more than Olbermann; honestly, though I agree with about 95% of what he says-- the guy annoys me. Just his style and smugness kind of turn me off... I watch MSNBC because of the interplay between Matthews, Scarborough, Norah O'Donnell, Mika Brezinski, Robertson, another guy they had on last night (black guy with glasses, can't remember his name but I really like him) and others. If you just like the numbers and stats, and are OK with the dryness, then I can see how you'd prefer CNN. But, me, I like a little debate, some opinions and, yes- some entertainment with my politics.

 

[DMaestro]

I hope you are right about Barack. I don;t necessarily agree that moderates are rejecting Clinton en masse though. I mean he is doing better than I thought he would, particularly looking at Wisconsin (although Clinton really bungled that by not deciding to campaign there till last weekend), but his support is pretty clearly with blacks adn the liberal establishment of the party.

As far as Hillary's winning message - I have never thought Hillary was a general election winner, only that among the two remaining candidates she is better able to campaign against the Republicans.

Be encouraged that Obama is actually expanding his base this late in the game. He's winning over blue collar conservative Dems. He's winning over Latinos. He's even chipping away at white women. To be honest, I'm rather impressed with his campaign and how he's been able to tailor his message while retaining his core. He seems to be growing stronger as a candidate.

Both he and Hillary have strengths and weaknesses running against the Republicans. In my perhaps overly-sunny estimation, the mood of America is such that he's the perfect contrast for McCain. A Clinton-McCain matchup would not energize the electorate as much as Obama-McCain. An energized electorate favors Dems.

Besides that, McCain's one undeniable advantage over Obama will be diluted by his unpopular stance on the War. Many Americans aren't in the mood to hear about billions more dollars being spent in a prolonged military conflict with hazy objectives when they're worried about health care and mortgages.

McCain would definitely have a strong argument that he's the proven bipartisan dealer whereas Obama's just a talker. But I think he wins that debate against Hillary as well, because Hillary is perceived as the political warmonger. And if there's anything this primary campaign is proving, it's that Hillary is not good at making a persuasive case.

Obama does have a high gaffe potential that Hillary doesn't, probably because Hillary is so covered in mud that a little more wouldn't stand out on her like it would Obama. He's a roll of the dice. So in that regard, I understand your concern.

 

[blackadder]

All your points are true. But you were just asking if anyone could name her accomplishments other than being 1st lady. I'm not even one of her supporters and I can rattle off several without looking anything up. I know that she has co-authored many other items as well.

Obama has done a lot less in the Senate. Well, actually he's done much of nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the guy, though I'd never vote for him. But, IMO Chris Matthews actually had a valid point. Like a stopped clock, even that moron can be right twice a day....

I was wondering because off the top of my head I could not. I read a lot, but I do not really follow detail on the Hill.

Here's a look at part of Obama's record:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200003

 

[easydave]

Don't feel so bad for Senator Watson. He is just another who had an obamabotomy. He will obviously be drinking the kool-aid sooner than the rest of the cult.

 

[cruize]

I understand hope. I understand most wanting change in Washington. I see how some can argue Clinton and McCain would simply be more of the same. But, can Obama actually get anything done with his limited experience and not being in the least way a Washington player? He gives a great speech. That may get him elected. But, in my opinion that isn't going to get anything done in Washington. Is just a change enough for America?

 

[blackadder]

I understand hope. I understand most wanting change in Washington. I see how some can argue Clinton and McCain would simply be more of the same. But, can Obama actually get anything done with his limited experience and not being in the least way a Washington player? He gives a great speech. That may get him elected. But, in my opinion that isn't going to get anything done in Washington. Is just a change enough for America?

How you gonna know if you don't try?

The Clintons and McCains are part of business as usual in Washington. Obama may ulimately be just that himself. I tend to believe that anyone who is successful in Washington has ultimately sold out in many back room deals you will never learn of, or won't know of until long after the fact.

But I'm willing to give him a try. Can't get any worse.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I understand hope. I understand most wanting change in Washington. I see how some can argue Clinton and McCain would simply be more of the same. But, can Obama actually get anything done with his limited experience and not being in the least way a Washington player? He gives a great speech. That may get him elected. But, in my opinion that isn't going to get anything done in Washington. Is just a change enough for America?

I agree.

I'm about as excited about Obama as I was about John Kerry in '04... In a different way, of course. With Kerry, I felt like he had the political experience and qualifications, as well as military credentials (the guy still has shrapnel in his body from Vietnam)-- but lacked any pizzazz... With Obama it's the opposite- loads of personality, but no experience to speak of. I hear him speak, and he sounds great-- but what does he actually say?? Just like with Kerry, I'll vote for Obama because I don't agree with the Republican philosophy of how our country should be run-- but it sure would be nice to have a candidate I could get excited about.