Chris Matthews Humiliates State Senator Kirk Watson On MSNBC

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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).

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).

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

I was very disappointed in the entire segment. I was disappointed in Chris Matthews for not questioning the surrogates equally. I was disappointed in the lack of preparedness of Mr. Watson. Keith Olberman's verbal and non-verbal reactions were affirmation of the extreme disappointment I felt and still feel about this unfortunate event.

Further, I believe that when a voter chooses a candidate; that's it. There is no burden of proof required to validate one"s choice of candidate. Many times, on his program, Hardball, the point has been made that people vote their heart, their conscience, and/or their conviction. None of those things mandate that one list, or as in the case of Mr. Watson, be able to list on demand "accomplishments". Democracy offers the individual right to simply choose.

EXCUSES! EXCUSES!! EXCUSES!!!

If the legislative accomplishments were so many, then you should have been able to give one straight off. In fact you should have been able to give one even if you were awakened at 3 am!

It is only because these accomplishments are so obscure, few and scarce that you could not answer!

And therefore begs this question:

Why ARE you supporting Obama, anyway? If he did not have any legislative accomplishments - at least none that you could remember off the top of your head - why should he get your support?

Is it that you did not get an invitation to the Lincoln Bedroom when Bill Clinton was Prez?

Matthews acts like he has ADD.

I believe Kirk Watson is a great guy and was just blind-sighted by a question he simply wasn't prepared for; nothing more.

Of course Mathews hammered it over and over as this former "sissy on the beach" is far more interested in promoting himself than he is interested in his guest.

What a blow-hard.

How about a dose of original thought? Are you capable of stepping outside the bounds of talk radio rhetoric? LETS GET REAL HERE - Tailgate, Laxault, Keating, Abramoff, Iseman, Enron, EchoStar, shady campaign fund bank loans ...! the list goes on, and on for Senator McCain. Regrettably, your comment only emphasizes the lack of accomplishments of Senator McCain. However, at a minimum the democratic candidates have a valid excuse for their inability to procedurally, get legislation through the Senate. While Sen. McCain does not have any excuse for his ineffectiveness. Except, Tailgate, Laxault, Keating, Abramoff, Iseman, Enron, EchoStar, shady campaign fund bank loans ...! Sen. McCain has been in Washington for nearly 30 years and has authored/sponsored less than 10 pieces of legislation that have passed; although he has been part of the majority republican congress throughout most of his career. McCain has been asleep at the wheel or should one say asleep in the corporate jets of his lobbyist friends. How does it feel being duped by "St. McCain," whose, flipped flopped clad, feet of clay are mired in the muck of corporate greed and, whose shoulders are shrouded in a pallium of say anything, do anything meaningless tautology. Let's watch the republicans make fools of those "good morals, family values," conservatives once again. GET REAL! St. McCain is a phoney just like to other republicans. They will all say anything to get elected.

The senator humiliated himself. He should have been prepared and wasn't.