Except when then don't. Chris Matthews, otherwise referred to as Tweety on some progressive sites, interviewed State Sen. Kirk Watson (an Obama supporter) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (a Clinton Supporter). Matthews let Rep. Jones attack Senator Obama with the usual talking points about expereience, hope, etc. and without challenge. Matthews then asked Sen. Watson to name one legislative achievement by Senator Obama and Watson could not and said he could not at this time. Matthews then asked him three more times. When Watson tried to change the subject, neither Matthews or Jones would let him.
Chris Matthews then asked, "Name one achievement...Now." Sen. Watson could not. After this last question, you could here laughing in the background from their panel...
Of course, Kieth Olbermann then asked Matthews to name one accomplishment of the US Senate in the last year, an easier question, and Matthews could not.
7 comments:
The closer he gets to locking up the nomination, the more and more of this you will see. Throughout the General Election season, all gloves will be off, swiftboating will be in high season.
He can win the whole enchilada, Harrogate believes this. And though he's a little pissed about how this has played out, Harrogate in the end will be hoping for that win as much as any die-hard Obama supporter out there.
But it's gonna be much more upstream the rest of the way.
I do not know. I have other worries...
But, if the Clinton camp could not dig something up against him, then I am not sure if McCain can.
The attack here was against the Rep., not Obama. At the end of the talk, Matthews said he needed to vet some of the candidates (I guess so they do not just say anything and repeat the talking points, though that is what Matthews did with the Clinton supporter.)
But, you cannot in good faith uphold what Matthews, Olbermann, etc. do with respect to Obama or Clinton at this point, as some sort of example of what they did through most of the primary season.
In short, so what if NBC encouraged a Clinton supporter to criticize him for a segment or two, at this point. Lock the barn door, the horse has been stolen.....
Why didn't he ask the Clinton supporter to do the same?
Summary of Obama Legislation:
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
Now that is an interesting legislative record...
As for your point on the same treatment, if you narrow the scope to the time when Hillary began losing primaries and caucuses, then of course she has received worse treatment.
If you widen the scope to before the primaries, Clinton was "inevitable," the presumptive nominee (this continued on MSNBC until Super Tuesday).
Before the primaries, Obama was attacked for being a Muslim, for being inexperience, going to a terrorist school ,etc....
It seems that a person's sense of fairness correlates to their sense of time and context...
No. Do not descend to such a line of argument, this is not about scoring points, and even if it was we are able to see what one another is doing well enough. Not Everyone's sense of fairness, with respect to this topic, "correlates to their sense of time and context..." Not Harrogate's, not on this issue.
You, friend, have several admixtures going on here:
Harrogate hesitates to place them according to the Bait-and-Switch: More accurate to say, you are moving goalposts. What they do with Obama now is qualitatively separate from, will soon be revealed anatomically distinct from, the way they handled the primary these last several months.
It is not nearly the same thing to say, someone is likely to win, or that they are a shrewd politician, or the like. How the thing is Framed means something. For example, during the run-up to Iraq war, television with all its graphics and music created an air of inevitability, but they were not gnashing their teeth over it. Instead they were naked rolling around in it, making a lot of money off of it.
Dare Harrogate eat a peach, and point out that they pimped the war for the GOP? He thinks he does dare.
No. Not the same to say, this candidate looks unstoppable with a presentation similar to how one might say, this milk tastes expired. Not the same as to engage a candidate on the level of her Arguments and Ideas. This, NBC, and the television coverage in general, never did.
Whereas the goosebump-birthing quality of Obama's oratory and broad vision, the resonance of his message with America's Youth, these were constant memes that we are all asked, in your words, "to think about."
Not told what to think, it is true. Not told, think Hillary Clinton is ruthless, and she might well be inevitable. Instead asked to think about, whether Hillary Clinton's ruthlesness is good for the country (do you still beat your wife), will it work to her detriment, or to her benefit, in the General election?
What Matthews and others do with Obama Now, is a different Rhetorical Situation altogether, and cannot be invoked to complicate discussions of how they treated him and his opponent in the Before Tine.
For yea, the primary Object of averting a Clinton presidency is on the cusp of being granted by the electorate.
One thing to suggest about Iraq...
It was going to happen because there were votes for it, from both Reps. and Dems. Even if the Dems stood up, there were still enough vote by Reps.
I think the media knew this and in the hyper-charged realm of Patriotism, it could not fight it (though some media outlets did).
Post a Comment