Following a week of "Hardball" encomia to Barack Obama coming off the Washington Post/ABC News November 20 Iowa poll, this morning's NBC "Chris Matthews Show" had the rat-tat-tat commentator declaring Obama "ahead" in that state.
Culminating in an eye-widening leading question to his panelists -- did the Illinois Senator have his best chance ever to beat Sen. Clinton in Hawkeye-land -- the network show exposed Chris Matthews as ballistic on Barack Obama. Perhaps escaping the chance to be invited back, Elizabeth Bumiller and David Brooks demurred and refused to catch Matthews' Obama bouquet. Bumiller said she didn't know; Brooks said there was an improvement over six months ago.
What are the facts about this poll?
First, the "ahead" moniker is false. The poll shows Obama ahead within the margin of error. In fact, the poll shows that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are each commanding so substantial a part of the caucus voters that a victor is unpredictable. And all polling in Iowa is suspect because diehard supporters can change their minds through the caucus process; many are undecided until the end; and supporters of candidates bringing up the rear (who may get less than the 15% of those present required to be considered) can throw their support to a front-runner, a result no poll can anticipate.
Second, some of the poll was done in the two days prior to the Nevada CNN debate. In that debate, both Obama and Edwards were booed when attempting to knock Hillary. She showed strength and leadership in deflecting their attacks, something that some poll respondents did not know or see.
Third, it depends who shows up at the caucuses. If caucus-goers are predominantly from the group of Iowans who think strength and experience are most important, Hillary Clinton wins running away. The fact that those polled are "likely voters" does not disclose whether they are "strength and experience" voters or "change" voters or, indeed, whether such arbitrary designations are mutually exclusive (they are not).
It is indeed unfortunate that Matthews has attached himself to this poll like a barnacle to a hull. Most commentators would cite the results with at least the caveat regarding the margin of error. Not he. And he hardly ever mentions Edwards, a formidable player is Iowa with an experienced and dedicated cadre of caucus voters.
The fluid situation in Iowa deserves a more balanced account than that being broadcast by Chris Matthews.
I no longer watch Chris Mathews. That is my answer to his behavior. But no one is polling me!
Please. Are you a Clinton campaigner? What experience? Five years as Senator?
Her WH experience is the same as the current First Lady: two-term wife of a Governor. Two-term wife of a President. And Mrs. Bush said recently she is involved with policy decisions daily.
So Mrs. Bush's WH experience equals Mrs. Clinton's.
Clinton does not have the strength and experience; she has the ambition. Big diff.
His topic tonight is the politics of personal destruction. It will be interesting to see who he targets. I bet the politics of personal destruction will center on Rudy and Obama, but not Clinton. Hillary and Bill's personal problems are important for the country to consider, Rudy & Judy's are not. While we may disregard this, history will not. If Judith Giuliani becomes First Lady, history will note that she is the first openly adulterous woman to achieve this title. What is Good Housekeeping going to ask her in all those magazine interviews, "Are any of his kids speaking to you yet?"
By the way, I am not for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I like Biden, but he has no chance. I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination, regardless.
My problem isn't with Matthews supporting someone, it's that he is a hypocrite about it.
Speaking of Fox News, I got a good chuckle today when I heard Thompson, another Republican jerk, complaining that Fox News is not giving him fair coverage. Ha. Ha. Ha. Just goes to show, if you report ANYTHING, one fact that is negative about a Republican, they call you a bad journalist and target you for termination, even if your name is Dan Rather. Republicans are assholes. Period. They just can't take any scrutiny whatsoever, but they sure know how to dish it out.
The one man band Matthews, with his drooling, grimacing faces gets lots of attention, but Russert with his tired, mouldery old circle of the same old conservative religious self-congratulatory hacks, is just as noxious. They're the ring leaders in the Jack Welch faction of the even vaster now, right-wing conspiracy.
They're ALL OUT TO DESTROY HILLARY CLINTON or any Democrat for that matter for .... Rudy.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, he's their boy! All of a sudden it's OK to be a freaky, corrupt perv while running for president, isn't it?
I see now that Rudy and Mitt are sparring with each other, and it's all of a sudden an unseemly, destructive way to conduct oneself in a campaign according to Fox, MSNBC and CNN on today's right-wing agitprop broadcasts.
It was OK when Barack and Hillary were going after each other, in fact, it was encouraged by the media jackals, they were actually baiting Hillary and Barack to fight. Too bad they ever fell for it and did begin to attack each other. Just as it was brave and honorable to say no to a debate on Fox News, it was simply dumb to start fightng amongst themselves to pander to the craven media.