Anyone see the exchange between Chris Matthews and the Texas Senator? Yowza.

Basically, Chris "Obama's-speeches-give-me-an-e­rection" Matthews picked the post-Wisconsin analysis as the perfect time to ask the Texas Senator, point blank, to list some accomplishments Obama has made in the Senate. And it was crickets. It was awkward.

Anyone think of any reason why Matthews would pick this time to ask that question? Why not, why not earlier, why not later? Is it a last ditch effort to make MSNBC look unbiased? A last ditch effort to boost the Clinton campaign (if so...why?) Or the first minor effort to get a Republican elected in November? If so, how vicious is the republican attack going to be?

Basically...what's up with that?

I saw it, and yes it was a very uncomfortable moment. I'm not sure who chose that particular Texas Senator to appear and speak in support of Obama. If it was a decision made in any way by the Obama campaign staff, they shoudl have learned a hard lesson here.

I also wondered about Chris Matthews' motivation in asking that particular question. He certainly did not ask it of the Clinton representative. However, she at least seemed to have something to say about her chosen candidate. From the moment the man from Texas started speaking, it was obvious he had not carefully thought out what he might say in his interview. I think the statements made by Chris Matthews after the interview was over shed more light on his motivation. He basically said the guy had nothing to say. The message is: if you're going to come on national television in support of one candidate or the other, you'd better be prepared to defend your position.

Homework assignment for all Obama supporters: List all of Obama's legislative achievements.

Gosh I hate it when you don't see the typos until after you hit post...

It was an interesting exchange. But you can kind of see what happened here. The guy being interviewed was a state senator from Texas. Texas has a republican Governer, 2 republican senators and 19 of 32 representatives are republican. Only 3 members of the House of Representatives are currently pledged to Obama, so when MSNBC asks for an elected official from Texas to appear on behalf of Obama, they probably didn't have a lot of great choices, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the first time this guy has bben on TV outside of Texas.

It looked like he was vetted simply with talking points and when he didn't answer a question previously, Matthews pounced. I think Olbermann made a good point at the end that it's hard to describe any accomplishments from Congress in the last 3 years let alone 6 or 7 years.

Interesting point.

I terms of accomplishments, I don't think he meant exceptional acts, i think he meant...things Obama has accomplished while in the Senate. I would like to hear some as well, simply because then i could feel better about getting on board with Obama in the general and not letting McCain take the Whitehouse.

This election is so interesting in that way...we have a candidate who is the great unifier, but a political party that is split in half in a very serious way. I posted earlier that I wondered how this will effect Obama's chances in the general election (when Obama can no longer coast through on the "well, I'm not Clinton" stance), especially after his rhetoric may have lost some of its impact, the youth vote will have lost some interest in the election, and the Clinton supporters (especially women) are so turned off by Obama's (perceived or not) free-ride and the vitriol heaped upon a person that they, very much, admire.

Will the Dems be able to recover from the divisive effect of the unifier? If so, how? Do the inroads he is making into Clinton's core support reflect the supporters who have already voted in the primaries? Is there a national poll that anyone has taken recently that would show if Obama is gaining Clinton supporters who voted on Super Tuesday? Will he take Michigan and Florida?

Any speculation as to how this will turn out in the general?

I can't think of a single accomplishment either Obama OR Clinton has made in the U.S. Senate. For that matter, I can't name a single accomplishment of ANY first- or second-term U.S. Senator. I think it's kind of ridiculous the way the party elders sort of shut the newbies out of sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation: when election time rolls around, the freshmen can talk about "supporting" legislation or "voting for/against" legislation, but they can't point to anything they sponsored or co-sponsored, or a committee they chaired, because those opportunities are not granted to them by their party leadership.

Please, if anybody can think of an Obama, Clinton, or other freshman Senator's accomplishment from the past 10 years, I'd love to hear about it!

Clinton introduced and passed legislation with Lindsey Graham to ensure health benefits for veterans. She passed legislation making the morning after (Plan b) pill available over the counter. She secured $21 Billion for WTC reconstruction.

She also passed legislation to keep America engaged with Darfur. She and Obama worked together to pass legislation to keep America involved in the Sudan. And she and Senator Dodd passed legislation that would extend provisions under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Obama has passed transparency legislation that would create databases to keep track of government contracts, loans, grants and special-interest spending.

I'm not sure if this is the same bill, Obama co-authored new lobbying reform law that requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.

See, is it so hard for the media to mention this more often?

I was surprised at Matthews' overreaction, too. He doesn't unload like that on 99% of his guests. Why did he browbeat this Texan - who later confessed on his web page that he was surprised at Matthews forcefulness and "went blank" on TV. That's understandable.

But here is the rest of the story is: In the last minute of the Wisconsin primary show, co-host Keith Olberman asked Matthews to recite the legislative accomplishments of 'other' senators, meaning Clinton. Matthews stuttered and stammered and said he wasn't there to defend ANY senator's record. The stage crew could be heard laughing LOUDLY offstage. It was a gotcha moment, just before they signed off. And Matthews was visibly pissed while Olberman smiled.

Almost nobody can recite the legislative record of any public official except perhaps the most ardent policy wonk. Quick - name the 10 signature pieces of legislation in John McCain's decades of public service. On national TV.Good luck.

If Matthews wants to be fair, he can ask any Clinton spokesman why she renegged on her infamous 2000 campaign pledge to provide 200,000 jobs to upstate New Yorkers in her first 6 years in office. (NY lost 100,000 jobs in that time). And why does Clinton continue to promise jobs, jobs and more jobs in every campaign venue after she broke her promise to New Yorkers.

In defense of Matthews, no one else is asking Clinton that question either.

True, the press has been strange in its choice of questions.
You're right, Clinton promised to create 200,000 jobs. That was an overblown promise. No one alone can really make that happen. It takes...a village (and a strong economy) :). According to her, she was too exuberant, but she really wanted to make it happen. This seems somewhat similar to Obama's exhuberance. He can promise, but can he make it happen? If he can't, because he'll face opposition and forces that are beyond his control, will he have renegged? Broken his promise? Or did he just get excited in his earnestness and promise things that might not be possible for him to deliver? If so, does that mean it was bad for him to get excited? Or is he lying? I don't think either politician is or was lying, and I honestly think that neither of them are bad people.

I don't know, but it's interesting to look at how we view these issues and how they shape our language. It's also interesting to look at the selectiveness of the press and how they report the issues.

I might be in a good mood today, but this primary has really been fascinating. I still like Clinton, but I'm really interested to see the Obama presidency. Good or bad or both, it's going to be really something to see (as long as McCain doesn't take him down). Then again, i would be fascinated to see Clinton's presidency as well. I wish we could have both, just to see how it would go down.

Your defense of Hillary's broken promise has a flaw. If she was sincere, she might have apologized to New Yorkers but she didnt'. She might have given a public explanation, but she didn't. If it was a sincere promise and she failed, she would have learned her lesson and would not be hopscotching the country making the same hollow jobs-promise. You are giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not.

I voted for her after she promise to deliver the jobs and I think I was lied to and I think she is using the same bogus promise in her stump speech. It worked to get her elected in NY and it might work elsewhere, no?

I do not agree that Obama is getting by on rhetoric alone. Here is a link to a very young voter responding to a question by a reporter as to why he is for Obama. It seems to me that if this young voter can be so well versed in each of the candidates platforms b/f the primary, so could other experienced voters, if they put in the effort.

<link>

I know the responses in the link are more about what Obama will do, which is actually a better question than what has he done. Note that Obama and HRC are both senators so their roles are very different now (legislators) than it will be if either are elected president (executive). As an executive, there is no true power (notwithstanding executive orders) to enact law, so it is extremely important to be able to rally congress (the full congress not just your party) around projects which help the country as a whole as opposed to smaller state or regional constitutencies. As for looking at what the candidates have done--sure looking at legislation passed shows some ability to pull together coalitions, but the type of legislation is more important. Did they pass laws to help small groups or did they pass laws to help the country as a whole and what was the impact of such legislation? The answers to the foregoing better demonstrate a candidate's skill in building consensus than the amount of legislation passed.

Congress knows their role in relation to the president, so for all the mudslinging that has occured and will occur, the eventual dem nominee will be able to patch up the party, b/c a divided party means that nothing will get done and each branches terms in power will be short lived.

ClayBlasdel:

Your defense of Hillary's broken promise has a flaw. If she was sincere, she might have apologized to New Yorkers but she didnt'. She might have given a public explanation, but she didn't. If it was a sincere promise and she failed, she would have learned her lesson and would not be hopscotching the country making the same hollow jobs-promise. You are giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not.

I voted for her after she promise to deliver the jobs and I think I was lied to and I think she is using the same bogus promise in her stump speech. It worked to get her elected in NY and it might work elsewhere, no?

According to what I've read on this, she got 2 of the 7 steps she needed passed into law to create those jobs. The 5 other measures didn't pass. So, indeed, she tried. If anything, she shouldn't have promised those jobs in finite words--she should have said, "I have 7-point plan to create 200,000 jobs, which I will present to the Senate."

I agree that politicians shouldn't make promises if they are not sure they can deliver, but I don't think, and I might just be skeptical, but I don't think that there is a politician in history whose campaign was not built around tenuous promises they may or may not be able to deliver: "I repeat, no new taxes!".

In regards to an apology/explanation, when do politicians ever do that? They should, but is that standard practice?