Chris Matthews dropped some major blows on Senator Watson from TX last night—completely embarrassing the man. In general, I like Matthews, but he does have a tendency to fly off the handle and humiliate his guests at times (sometimes appropriately, sometimes not). Last night, while watching the election results on MSNBC with Matthews and Keith Olbermann here’s what caught my attention:
I loved Keith Olbermann’s response to Matthew’s attack (he’s clearly the wittiest and most hilarious news personality on TV and often makes the most on-point arguments). But, the bottom line is that Watson still came off pretty poorly. I feel so bad for the guy that I’ve decided to help him out. Senator Watson, feel free to lift my suggested statement (with proper citation of course) the next time Matthews or anyone else asks you that question:
That question is not pertinent to why I support Obama and think he is a strong candidate, Chris. Obama’s strength and appeal is not in his past legislative accomplishments. His strength is in his leadership ability—the ability to understand the American people, to respond to their concerns by identifying the best solutions, and to generate the political will across party lines to produce policy that addresses their issues. These are critical qualities to possess for the leader of our country and ones that tend to be minimized in the discussion about Obama’s limited political experience and past legislative accomplishments.
[NOTE: Make sure to emphasize the word “political” at the end. This implicitly highlights the fact that Obama has other kinds of experience and accomplishments that are non-political in nature]
Boom, there it is. National embarrassment sidestepped. If you get pressed further like Chris did to you, just do the political two-step and keep paraphrasing the above statement. I doubt you need any help with that part.
9 responses so far ↓
1
V
// Feb 22, 2008 at 8:02 am
I hear you. I was hating it for Watson but, while I agree with you about Olberman, I am not sure that the repeated question by Matthews was an “attack.” From my perspective, if you are going to allow yourself to be interviewed as the Obama representative (which Watson was), you must be prepared to address the major criticisms that have been launched at your candidate from the start. Obama’s inexperience has been the major distinction his opponents have proffered as the reason Clinton should be the nominee.
That said, while I agree with your analysis and some variation of your response could have saved face, I think it overlooks the reality of Obama’s legislative history. Since taking office in the 109th Congress, Obama has:
-had P.L.No. 109-456 passed (promote relief in the Democratic Republic of Congo);
-had P.L.No. 109-333 passed (Illinois-specific legislation); (it should be noted he had two bills passed to Clinton’s 4–her average for each year she has been in Congress, though neither have had anything passed in the 110th Congress);
Obama has had 15 amendments passed to Clinton’s 7.
In the 110th Congress Obama has had 8 amendments passed to Clinton’s 5.
Obama has also:
-co-sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act;
-introduced the Clean Up Act;
-introduced (with McCain) the Federal Funding Accountability and Transperancy Act;
-introduced the Office of Public Integrity (to conduct oversight of ethics violations for Congress, no shock it did not pass);
re-wrote (with Feingold) the ethics provisions;
-co-authored the Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act;
-co-sponsored the Wounded Warriors Act;
-introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act;
-introduced the Presidential Funding Act;
-penned (with Brownback) an op-ed piece calling for new American policy focus in Darfur (in 2005 which Bush is just getting around to in 2008!);
-was selected by the Senate to reform Congressional Ethics because he was seen as a Senator that could make people listen…
Obama began running for President in 2007, so all of the above occurred over about two years (give or take). Accordingly, I do not see his record as lacking or that it is something to be glossed-over, I see his record as amazing—not only has he “kept-step” with Clinton but he has been super-effective for a junior senator! Further, Clinton has only been in the Senate for two years more than Obama—does that really give her more experience? I mean once you are able to effectively manuever within the process, what more do you need? The President will not be a legislature! The only experience for being President is being President and I do not think being the wife of a former President qualifies.
Obama supporters should not shy away from his “experience” because, all things considered, I think it works to his benefit—he has been able to accomplish much in little time, isn’t that what we want in the next President?
2
Mike
// Feb 22, 2008 at 8:56 am
I completely agree with you that Watson should have been better prepared–no doubt about it. Matthews pressing the issue actually probably helped Obama by showing that his campaign and others who support him need to seriously address the experience issue. Clinton brought up this issue again (and the actual blunder by Watson) last night during the debate and Obama dealt with it very well.
But I also think it is very appropriate to address questions like Matthews’ by emphasizing your other point–the president will not be a legislator. Of all the skills required of the president, I don’t know that this is the most critical. So highlighting Obama’s leadership skills and their importance in the role of a president is another effective way of addressing the question.
3
V
// Feb 22, 2008 at 9:48 am
I agree. But, I think that is what his experience in the Senate shows, he not only got in there and took on huge issues but he did so with enough support and respect to get things done quickly—-without taking the time to earn favor.
Minority Leader Reid was quoted as saying “Barack Obama has a unique ability to walk into a room and make people listen,” and, therefore he was charged, as junior senator, with the task working on hot button issues because he was seen as nonpartisan—isn’t that precisely what is expected from a President?
For that reason, I think his experience is important and should be highlighted. He has demonstrated that he has the ability to not only propose ideas but get Congressional approval quickly. And, for all of her ideas and experience, I think Clinton’s record proves she is not nearly as effective. Therefore, as a President, what chance does she actually have of getting her agenda passed through Congress?
I suspect this is the reason the Clinton campaign has steered cleared of specifics and have only generally attacked Obama’s experience. In light of how much time has been spent pushing the Deval speech issue, I think it is fair to say that if her record could actually stand up to the scrutiny she would have tried to attack the specifics of his record.
4
SL
// Feb 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm
V. I agree with you that Watson should have been better prepared. It was painful to see him trying to find something to say and Hillary was right to bring it up at last night’s debate.
Thank you for the update on Obama’s role as a senator. I wouldn’t have been able to answer the question myself.
Although I think that Matthews was a bit too aggressive, it was a good question to ask since Hillary’s platform is based on her experience over Obama.
5
L
// Feb 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Sure, Obama’s record in Congress is proportionately in step with Clinton’s, and her status as wife of a former President should not, itself, be credited toward her experience. However, three further points should be noted. First, Clinton’s record does not begin when her husband was inaugurated or when she was sworn in as a Senator. Rather, her argument is that she has effectively maneuvered at various levels of politics for decades at the state and national level. That’s why she noted earlier on that she was pushing legislation back in the day when Obama was trying to get traction on the South Side of Chicago with local organizers. Second, her role as First Lady was not merely window dressing. She was responsible for setting major policy platforms, the failed universal health care initiative the most notable. However, she played a huge role in the Clinton administration’s humanitarian efforts in Africa and she was the catalyst to much of what former President Clinton is now doing in respect to AIDS/HIV awareness and prevention around the world. Finally, the thread that runs through her experience argument is that she is somehow an insider while Obama remains an outsider. That was the force of her distinction between King and LBJ on the Voting Rights Act of 1964. That is, activism is necessary to advance the ball (King), but you need the President (the quintessential insider) to score the touchdown (LBJ). In this way, she was characterizing Obama as the well-intentioned activist who would ultimately be ineffectual at the goal line because he would have no one blocking for him or giving him a push (just to torture the metaphor a bit). I think Obama is wise to limit his rejoinder to the foregoing to the third point. Given the overall ineffectiveness of national politics, what America needs is an outsider. The most recent issue to highlight this dichotomy is Obama’s and Clinton’s proposed strategy toward Cuba’s new leader. The classic insider’s position is to stand pat until the new Cuban president shows and proves (shout out to PRT). The classic outsiders position is to “bring everybody to the table” (an Arthurian round table of course) to see what’s up now. In short, the answer to Clinton’s experience argument is “do you want more” (shout out to the Roots and Jigga)? To Obama’s credit, America seems to be saying, “No.” I expect the insider/outsider theme to develop more fully during the general election, assuming Obama faces McCain. V, your points are right and exact (peace, Rakim), but they are undercut by your lack of objectivity. I don’t even think Obama would himself would argue that his experience counters Clinton’s, which, again, is kind of his point.
6
L
// Feb 27, 2008 at 10:02 am
This is how it should be done (shout out to Rakim): http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/
7
Mike
// Feb 27, 2008 at 10:44 am
His “…style is identical to none.” No doubt about it. He represented nicely and his on-the-spot analysis was so on point. He’s blown up a bit since this video and did a response video here: http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/02/derrick-ashongs-powerful-emotional.html
8
L
// Feb 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I was feeling a lot of what dude was saying about the immigrant viewpoint. So much so that I could ignore that thing around his neck for almost half of the video. Makes me sad, though, that we who are born here often never appreciate the power and privilege of the right to vote. I like that Obama has some of us interested in voting for the very first time.
9
Mike
// Mar 3, 2008 at 12:45 am
Very true about us not caring enough about voting. I’m happy to see the dramatic increase in interest but it’s not nearly enough.
Here is another follow up by the same brother–”thing around his neck” and all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-JirI45yGs
Leave a Comment