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

[makatak]

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.

[pearlsofwisdom]

It is fair to say that many fans of either candidate are not that familiar with their candidate's accomplishments, but this guy should have been prepared. Obama's fans have been swept away by his oratory, his preacher style, and inspirational message. I instintively recoil at stylish speakers who blow into town and wow everyone. But many are not so critical, including congressmen and senators on the national and state level. Obama now has a bandwagon effect going for him and it is going to be harder to stop him, but I fear that once he is nominated, his lack of experience will really surface and Democrats are left holding the bag again! I fear another Republican may slip in because Democrats have not been wise.

[Rendon76]

Don't you know the only reason he was being hard on the Obama supporter was because he was being ridiculed for seeming too pro-Obama, with his comment about the feeling he got in his leg when he heard the Obama speech and what not. He is doing this now to try and change that perception and it's sad, he puts a gotcha question out there and thinks he's Mr. Almighty hardball.

[bastrop]

So, Rendon76, is that why Chris Matthews showed a pictured of Osama, when he was discussing Obama. He apologized after his commentary was finished, but to my mind, the damage was done and I think deliberately. Chris Matthews like most of the TV pundits and hosts are McCain's fan. McCain has cultivated a relationship with them over the years, consequently McCain believes his own hype.

[AF2]

Having the right to choose doesn't make your choice right. It's essential to know your candidate before choosing him; otherwise, you may not only look like an idiot, but elect one. It's a disservice to this country, to endorse a candidate without knowing his legislative record, and essentially elicit votes based on hype. Hype has driven this country for the last eight years and unfortunately, continues to do so.

[wotcanisay]

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?

[nomobull]

MCCASKILL FOUND QUITE A FEW THE NEXT NGHT WHY WOULD YOU USE AN ARGUMENT THAT CAN SO EASILY DISPROVED.

[Edgelit]

He accomplished being the most liberal voter in the Senate.Tha­t's it

[jhamm1]

Very well, then name some of Hillary Clinton's legislative accomplishments. Name any.

[rshrink]

This response is totally lacking in logic. Does this writer not pay any attention to politics whatsoever? Secondly, not everyone is comfortable going on TV and being grilled by bullies. Try it sometime and see how you do. I suggest that this writer actually take the time to find out what Obama's accomplishments are. Begin with being a Harvard Law School Graduate at the top of his class and turned down joining big paying law firms who sought him out to instead engage in going back to his community to serve, at great monetary loss to himself.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Matthews acts like he has ADD.

[SCNTEXAS]

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.

[PioneerKing]

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.

[Steamboater]

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

[mariannex1x]

I have to admit, I felt sorry for Senator Watson for the way he was grilled and humiliated. However, this episode raises a very important point--that some, and perhaps many people supporting Obama really don't know what he's accomplished as a legislator. They are simply moved by his inspirational rhetoric, and this is what is persuading them. This is a very, very dumb way to elect a president.­..

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

ELMER GANTRY selling himself to the fan base of Hanna Montana...­.? Obama's campaign success has fatuously become part of his attraction; he's admired because HE'S ADMIRED...­.!

If McPane's very 'able' myrmidons figure out how to "swift boat" Obama, he'll collapse like a speared inflatable­.....!

[winkla]

why feel sorry for him--come on, this guy is a Senator and he has (by choice)come on a national media outlet to endorse his beloved candidate but he cannot give one example of this candidate's achievement,not even one piece of legislation he has introduced or co-sponsored--just plain stupid--feel sorry for him? perhaps feel sorry for the constituants--he is a prime example of what govt. has become--he has been afforded the power to make decisions that affect people's lives --comforting since he appears to be bright and informed? who in a coherent state would not have at least one positive, tangible to mention other than O can inspire change--give me a break--

[BUSHsurvivor]

This kind of reminds me of yesterday's debate, when BO was asked what one crisis in your life prepared you for the possible presidency­....

BO: Well, I grew up in a single parent household and was raised by my grandparen­ts...

WTF?????

[PioneerKing]

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

[PrdAmerican]

Not a proud moment for the Obama campaign, but definately a learning lesson. Vette your supporters, educate your supporters and make sure they are adequate for TV appearance. Matthews was a bit of a joke..even Olberman was like, what the hell are you doing?! Does this lessen Obamas accomplishments, no, they speak for themselves if anyone bothers to look them up...and if you vote, you'd better be doing your research and know what your candidate has or has not done.

[ThinkinAboutIt]

Exchange said less about Barack than it did about Kirk Watson. He's either naive or opportunistic. Or Both.

[lamplighter55]

I like Chris Matthews. I watch Hardball nearly every evening and The Chris Matthews Show on Sunday. I saw this exchange in its entirety. Chris Mattthews took a cheap shot. The question came out of no where. He did not ask any tough questions about Hillary of Stephanie Tubbs. He asked her if Hillary needed to win Texas and Ohio. An expected question given this was supposed to be about the Wisconsin primary. He then turned to Kirk Watson with this. Even Keith Olberman admonished him. Why didn't he, for example, ask how being the wife of a former President makes you "ready on day one"

[sandiegoconservative]

It's not a cheap shot when it is true.

[kikiva]

Well Chris Matthews has been totally pro-Obama for so long I guess he was pressured to be non-partisan one broadcast.
It doesn't come as any suprise to anyone looking at Obama's record that his accomplishments cannot be named. He doesn't have any!
He was the sponsor (note I did not say co-sponsor) of only 2 bills in the Senate...a­nd one was to name a post office. (Wow)
He was chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs and didn't convene one meeting.

[rollingdivision]

The themes, speeches, adulation and over reaching almost worshiping of Obama is reminiscent of the personality cults which brought the world the leaders of the 1930’s. Personality cults are bad, political personality cults are dangerous. Obama’s disciples don’t care about policies, experience or accomplishments. Ignoring the common factual information people normally want to know about a politician is a way to confirm their faith.

[ariadne1]

chris was way out of line on this one.

[TrasKY]

In what way?

[sandiegoconservative]

Because he did not ask a fluff question. That is all Democrats can handle.

[ThinkinAboutIt]

Not out of line at all. Kirk Watson was exposed as a knucklehead as Matthews took on a question many people have been asking--who is Obama and what has he done? And this exchange said nothing about Obama and everything about Kirk Watson.

[la2008]

As an independent, I voted for Hillary Clinton on Feb 5th and considered to support Obama should he become the Democrat nominee. But the recent rhetoric from the Obamas such as “We are the ones we have been waiting for”,” We are the change that we seek." "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." "The question is not whether Barack Obama is ready. The question is, are we ready for him?" starts to disturb me. The interview with Sen. Watson yesterday is the last straw. This guy is all empty suit. With Clinton fading, McCaine you have my vote in this November.

[uheardme]

If you are going to vote for the guy, you should learn how to spell his name, troll. Don't let the door hit you.

[NewRiver]

A vote for Obama is a vote for change. Change to what? Change to Hope. A vote for Obama is a vote for Hope. Hope for what? Change. We need to hope, we need to change, because hoping is changing and changing is hoping.

[rollingdivision]

It's impolite to discuss religion or question a person's religious beliefs.

[winkla]

newriver-this made me laugh! thank you--

[ajax2]

Mr. Kirk could have turned Matthews to Mush by running down the long list of Presidents that have no legislative accomplishments. Before going on TV one must remember that a right wing accusation always begins with a false premise.

[sandiegoconservative]

So, answer the question by saying someone else has done nothing? Does that really seem like a good answer to you?

Obama is the one running for office.

[fourex]

for sandiegoco­nservative
"Mr. Kirk could have turned Matthews to Mush by running down the long list of Presidents that have no legislative accomplishments. Before going on TV one must remember that a right wing accusation always begins with a false premise."
Legislative accomplishments are not a precursor of a successful President. Why are your reading skills so poor sandiegoco­nservative­?