Barack Obama and John McCain won the Wisconsin primaries handily tonight, with percentages in the high 50s, better than 15 percent over their rivals, at this late point in the vote count.
This set in motion a night of three speeches, and an unfortunately outburst from Chris Matthews:
1. John McCain has got to be one of the worst speakers in national politics today, let alone running for President, and all but sure to get the nomination of his Republican party. He has a flat, sing-song delivery, which deflates the few decent lines his speech writers give him, including his best phrase tonight about Democrats wanting to take a "holiday from history".
2. Hillary Clinton was in the process of giving a good speech in Ohio, avoiding any mention of or concession to Obama, when Obama took the stage in Houston to give his speech. MSNBC, CNN, and Fox all switched to Obama.
Later in the evening, some of the Hillary's people thought that was rude, Obama's campaign denied it was intentional, but Tim Russert on MSNBC probably had the best take: Obama's campaign was tired of waiting for Hillary to finish her non-concession speech - not the first lack of concession in the speech she has given after Obama won a primary. I'm inclined to sympathize with the Obama campaign on this one. Why should Obama wait if Hillary is just giving another stump speech on the night she has lost a primary?
3. Obama's speech was a pleasure to hear, as always. I admired his courage in bringing up the immigration issue to his Texas audience.
But to show you I don't blindly support everything Obama says: I disagreed with his use of "television" and "video games" as examples of what American kids should spend less time with - indeed, I certainly think television can be a good source of information and learning, and video games don't do any harm.
But that's ok. Neither I nor anyone has to agree with every single position of a candidate we support. It's more a question of where our candidate stands on the whole constellation of difficult issues facing our country and world.
And Obama's position on most of them suits me just fine (just as do Hillary's - I just think Obama's are a little better, and he would make the better, more inspiring, President).
Which brings me to Chris Matthews.
In a segment after the speeches, Matthews interviewed Kirk Watson, Texas State Senator and Obama supporter, and Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter. Matthews asked Watson to list Obama's accomplishments as U.S. Senator. Watson was rendered speechless. This triggered a classic Matthews in rude attack mode, in which he asked the same question, repeatedly, as if he were a prosecutor grilling a hostile witness on the stand.
My take on this: Matthews was entitled to ask the question, once, maybe twice, but not repeatedly badger his guest. Watson, for his part, put on an embarrassing (to Watson) display of his lack of knowledge. Obama's accomplishments as Senator are pretty well known, even to the general public, if only from watching his commercials. He worked on bills concerning lobbyist reform, energy, terrorism, and immigration - you can see the details on Obama's Wikipedia entry.
The Obama campaign can be held accountable for putting forth such a clueless or nervous or whatever-Watson's-problem-was spokesperson. But the American people deserve better than Matthews' uncivil badgering, too. Asking the question once or twice would have been enough.
Embarrassing your guest is unprofessional and not what we need in our media commentators.
Paul Levinson's The Silk Code won the 2000 Locus Award
for Best First Novel. He has since published Borrowed Tides (2001),The Consciousness Plague (2002), The Pixel Eye (2003), and The Plot To Save Socrates (2006). His science fiction and mystery short stories have been nominated for Nebula, Hugo, Edgar, and Sturgeon Awards. His eight nonfiction books, including The Soft Edge (1997),
Digital McLuhan (1999), Realspace (2003), and Cellphone (2004), have been the subject of major articles in the New York Times, Wired, the Christian Science Monitor, and have been translated into nine languages. He has appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "The CBS Evening News," "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC), the "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" (PBS), "Nightline" (ABC) and numerous national and international TV and radio programs. He is Professor and Chair of Communication & Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City.
Yeah, I was so horrified by this. Chris didn't just repeat the question, he ordered the guy to answer the question, like some kind of inquisition. I was glad Keith Olbermann had the guts to challenge Chris afterward. He asked Chris if he, himself could have answered the question, and he admitted it would take some resesarch. Then Chris said, "That's why they call it 'Hardball'!" To which Keith reminded him that this wasn't Hardball, it was election coverage. Thanks for writing this, I was about to do something similar.....
by
Amy Fried (39 articles, 108 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 9:46:49 AM
why Chris Matthews is suddenly being blasted for being anti-Hillary. I have watched him for years and he began boosting her for the Presidency as soon as she and Bill left the White House and Bush moved in. However now, whenever he makes any effort whatsoever to act like a real journalist, the Clintonites pile on him as if he were a traitor. He certainly does go off on a power trip whenever faced with the opportunity. This poor guy was only a victim of the famous Hardball rant. He should have challenged Chris to a duel!
by
Mary Pitt (65 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 176 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM
Olbermann asked Matthews if he could come up with anything the Whole Senate did. And Matthews rightly said that it was a much larger issue and would take research. AND he said that he, Matthews, was not there as a Senate surrogate, whereas the TX guy was there as an Obama surrogate. And he could not come up with one thing. Because there is NOTHING to come up with.
Get your facts straight.
by
fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 7:23:32 PM
I can hardly stand to look at that man. His slobering lips make me gag. I expect nothing good from him and these righties that call him Liberal Left, their judgment stinks and their call is false alarm.
This pandering and pouncing that corpstream media does is just like a Video game. If I want news like Chris delivers, I'll view GlenN Beck...and I certainly can hardly stomach ole GlenN.
The only GOOD thing MSNBC has going for them is Keith O and maybe Dan Abrams(loved him on Court TV) as he seems middle of the road and he KNOWS his law. Matthews' womanizer verbiage should have canned his butt already. Matthews has a mommy syndrome problem(hates women) in my opinion.
I'm a CSPAN viewer most of the time.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 316 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 11:08:24 AM
I think Dan Abrams is MSNBC's best - he's certainly the most even-handed. I even wrote a post about Abrams on my own blog a few weeks ago - Kudos to Dan Abrams on MSNBC
In terms of fairness to all the candidates - and therefore doing the best service for the American people - I'd rate three cable news operations in the following order, with best first: CNN, MSNBC, Fox.
I actually enjoying watching MSNBC more - Olbermann, Matthews, and Abrams are more fun than the CNN anchors. But Olbermann and Matthews leave a lot to be desired in even-handedness...
by
Paul Levinson (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 8 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM
You have to have a big tolerance for political narcissism to watch Chris Matthews in action. He is boorish, impolite, and occasionally, like with the tongue-tied Texan who should have had talking points in his breast pocket, Chris becomes an intolerant bully. I appreciate Keith Olbermann's criticism of him, but it is not enough. While David Shuster wanders in the desert at MSNBC "Old Hardball" gets to make up his own rules. Change the name of his program because it enables his bullying.
by
James Brett (82 articles, 95 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 86 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 11:40:16 AM
Matthews commented during coverage of an Obama speech after a primary that the speech was so beautiful that it sent chills down his legs. He seemed to be an immediate convert, and was politely teased by his co-hosts over the "chills" remark. Makes you wonder if new rules for the general election have already been written.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 329 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 1:44:41 PM
While it may be fair to ask hard questions of your guests, one must remember which of the two candidates are bragging about their legislative accomplishments. The Clinton supporter practically was foaming at the mouth telling everyone about Hillary's experience. Yet Matthews passe up the opportunity to pin her down and get the list of the hightlights of her Senate record for the first and second terms. What a bully. I refuse to listen to this ass.
by
phil yandel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 6:14:27 PM
8 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
