Chris Matthews Humiliates State Senator Kirk Watson On MSNBC

Texas State Senator Kirk Watson (D-TX) learned a lesson in preparedness Tuesday night when he was humiliated on MSNBC. Watson was on to talk about his support of Senator Obama alongside Representative Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH), who backs Senator Clinton. Watson has endorsed Obama and writes glowingly of all the things Obama will do for the country, if elected.

But he was unable to answer Chris Matthews most basic demand: "Name some of his legislative accomplishments... name any..." A fantastically awkward mix of dead air, stuttering, laughter and repetition ensued, as Watson could not name a single one. Matthews laid off part way through, it seems at the demand of his producers, but came back around to lay a final blow at the end.

Watch what must be the most awkward clip of the night's coverage:

Kirk Watson, stumping for Obama, was unable to answer Chris Matthews most basic demand, "name some of his legislative accomplishments." A fantastically awkward mix of dead air, awkward laughter and repetition ensued, as Watson could not name one. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1422253679http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1178199204

Update: Kirk Watson has written about last night's interview on his website:

So . . . That really happened.

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. "Hardball" host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama's legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn't summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Read his entire commentary here.

Comments

[Silpat]

Honestly, this says more about Sen. Watson's lack of preparation and knowledge than it does about Obama's level of experience.

Think about it, just because you may not be able to name or outline a certain politician's accomplishments doesn't mean that person didn't accomplish anything.

[pilgrim7]

For the record and for comparison, here's a list of both Clinton's and Obama's legislative accomplishments:

In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following 20 (twenty) laws and resolutions enacted:
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson
6. Name post office after John A. O'Shea
7. Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death
10. Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are, according to Morris, "substantive":
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11.
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System
Concludes Morris and McGann: "In the face of Hillary Clinton's reputation as an effective U.S. senator, this record of paltry accomplishment is sobering. As much as Alexander Hamilton, Harriet Tubman, and the American Revolution deserve our recognition, one thinks the voters of New York may have expected more of their junior senator."
The list of Obama’s legislative accomplishments is too substantive to post.

During the first 8 (eight) years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 (eight hundred twenty) bills. He introduced 233 (two hundred thirty-three) 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 (one hundred fifty-two) bills and co-sponsored another 427 (four hundred twenty-seven).

These included:
1. **The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act - passed the Senate,
4. **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
5. **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill - in committee,
6. and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 (eight hundred ninety) bills and co-sponsored another 1096 (one thousand ninety-six).

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that
this comparison not be made public.

Obama is not just a talker.
He's a doer.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

How many of the above laws that Obama co-sponsored were enacted? How many laws has hillary co-sponsored that weren't enacted. You're comparing apples and oranges and it's dishonest.

[Araxiel]

This argument about Obama's legislative record and the very arrogant way Chris Matthews tortured the Texas legislator is BS. I'll wager my lunch money that I could easily find 100 state legislators who are Hillary supporters who, if put on national television and asked the same question, could not name any of her accomplishments. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that Matthews himself can't name more than two or three of Hillary's legislative accomplishments, scant though they be.

It would be like asking Matthews what he thought of the legislative accomplishments of John Hanson. I'd love to see him answer that, and watch his sorry ass squirm in front of a national TV audience.

[frenchie25]

here'a another "must see" video. scared the "bamboozle" right outta me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

[fourex]

All right wing attack questions begin with a false premise. Mr. Watson should have known this signature. The false premise presented by Matthews was to imply that legislative successes are common and required for Presidents (almost never the case).

[carlgt1]

Repukes, please post the great legislative backgrounds (pre-presidential) of 1) Abe Lincoln, 2) Ronald Reagan, and 3) G H W Bush and 4) G w Bush.

[frenchie25]

great argument to bolster the propostition the last three on your list should never have been elected in the first place.

[carlgt1]

Obama has more experience than twice Senate-failed Abraham Lincoln (who at his presidential election in 1860, had two failed Senate runs, and only one two-year term as Congressman from IL).

[carlgt1]

Obama has more experience than twice Senate-failed Abraham Lincoln (who at his presidential election in 1860, had two failed Senate runs, and only one two-year term as Congressman from IL).

[OSUMercutio]

The Clinton supporters are strangely quiet in this post. I guess they're only upset when he goes after Hillary...

[Seral]

I think what we see in this news proves one thing: "It is not about what Obama achieved, a lot or not; it is about what his supporters, even the ones at the highest level, are knowing about him, and even though knowing nothing about his achievements supporting him with that knowledge of NOTHING."

And that is what we see in the Democratic race. May I say this is really sad?...

Anyways, as claimed by many already, this is a popularity contest, the contest of who speaks better (call it rhetoric if you like), nothing more. You cannot expect anything more than that, if the candidates themselves admit that neither is more different than the other more than 5 percent. And this 5 percent might just be the difference in their health care policies.

By the way, knowing that I still support Hillary. Because, I would definitely prefer getting two proven Obama calibers compared to getting one yet-to-be-proven Obama.

[MsDoni]

I don't have a problem with Chris Matthews asking hard questions. However, let's be fair. Asking Obama supporters to spout off his senate record furthers the notion that his supporters are non-thinking, emotional, kool-aid drinkers, especially IF the same question isn't be posed to Clinton and McCain supporters as well.
Ask an average Joe on the street to spout off Clinton or McCain's legislative records. Sure, they can tell you that Clinton was the first lady, and McCain is a maverick/war hero. But can they describe any legislative accomplishments? I don't think so. Do people go around saying their supporters are voting on emotion? I don't think so.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Lemme see, we castigate the media for not asking the tough questions of Bush when he ran, Judith Miller sucks for not questioning the rush to war in Iraq. Yet when Chris matthews asks some Senator who is on his show endorsing a candidate what should be a really simple basic question, why he's endorsing the candidate, and Matthews is castigated for being a bully because the guy has no answer.
I don't care about Chris Matthews, nor do I care one way or another about Hillary or Obama, but I do believe that people complaining about Matthews' behavior in this instance should for one moment, honestly explore their own hearts. Because it seems to me, a lot of you want balanced, unbiased news only if it echoes and supports your own beliefs. Which may be why the media is in the sorry state it is. Are you complicit?

[winkla]

Womaninorange--you resonated my thoughts.p­erhaps if the media (esp. matthews)had pushed more about obama instead of constantly nitpicking the Clintons, all of us may have a better understanding of this emotional high sweeping the country--perhaps matthews did this because so many brought to the media's attention the fact that Mr/lady O have been dealt a media love fest--it has to be apparent to even the staunch O supporters, really now? MSNBC has been most notably biased beginning with JOKE SCUMburo and MUSKA in the morning--for weeks,( only pausing on this channel) i heard I wanna be cool Scumburo carrying on incessantly about Bill Clinton in SC--long after he SC primary ended--talk about race baiting--

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

The point is, they're not furthering any real conversation. They're dealing in speculation and innuendo, not news. They've reduced the news to something more like TMZ. Even the freaking NYTimes couldn't decide whether the McCain story was an "illicit lover" story or a "unethical hypocrite" story. So they did both half assed and wound up with tabloid fodder. But maybe that's what we really want. Because the crap reporting seems fine to most people, unless the fodder is embarrassing to whoever we happen to like that day.

[rshrink]

I don't think the media needs anyone to be complicit. The media has become a ad firm for people in power, only. Chris Matthews is an example of that. Does he have on known experts to find out what Obama and Clinton have done and supported? Absolutely not. He has people on who have only opinions and then he does what he can to stir up controversy. How does this serve us? I have written to Matthews and the network he works on. They never respond.

[trubluelefty]

How many times is Matthews going to repeat this 'moment' ? again last night and Hillary got to use it in the debate. I am going to vote for Senator Obama and not Matthews or someone who appears on his show. This is the moment I have waited for but Matthews needs to know that there was nothing cute about his styl if I had someone screaming at me and slobbering like a raving maniac I wouldn't come up with many cute ways to describe it either. Keith showed the maturity .... as usual.

[tbone99]

he's a Texas politician - you expect real substance?

[Rendon76]

Wanting to have a beer with George Bush got him into the White House.

[Nonamnesiac]

I didn't think Watson was humiliated, I thought Matthews was humiliated -- exposed for being a useless, stupid bullying moron who is so full of himself that he intentionally asks questions of people he knows will not have the answers, and then tries a game of oneupsmanship to give his stupid point some weight. He didn't even ask Hillary's surrogate a similar question about Hillary's record.

Neither Obama nor Clinton have particularly distinguished accomplishments in anything -- so this whole thing is the hype of a group of treasonous pundits who will do anything to stir up controversy, at the expense of truth, nuance and substance, in order to mislead the American people into what is and isn't important.

Matthews and the rest are an argument against the First Amendment -- lying us into war and then continuing the lies that keep our young being killed and maimed. Their whole style is, and has been, the equivalent of screaming fire in the middle of a crowded theater.

[FreedomLoverX]

So what? Maybe the lazy Americans can look at the record for themselves! What is the issue? We are going to have our candidate picked by atalking head or a guest?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633