Matthews says Obama's running mate should be "[s]omeone who's palpably patriotic," calls women voters "low-hanging fruit"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Chris Matthews said that Sen. Barack Obama should pick as his running mate "[s]omeone who's palpably patriotic, who sort of exudes it." Also, referring to Sen. John McCain's 6-percentage-point advantage over Obama among suburban white women in a recent poll, Matthews asserted, "[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, 'I'm pro-choice, he's not.' "
A week after saying that "it's a hard thing for someone like [Sen.] Barack Obama" to express a "gut sense of Americanism," MSNBC host Chris Matthews said that Obama should pick as his running mate "[s]omeone who's palpably patriotic, who sort of exudes it." Matthews was commenting on NBC political director Chuck Todd's assertion that "[i]f you figure out a way to pick a running mate, for instance, that passes that character test, it's -- say it's a Joe Biden or somebody in a military uniform that has a whole bunch of ribbons, that gives you that security, that gives these men saying, you know what, I'm not sure about Obama, but, you know what? He's got somebody there."
The exchange took place on the June 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during which Matthews hosted Todd to discuss an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released that day. Referring to Sen. John McCain's 6-percentage-point advantage among suburban white women in the poll (Obama leads among women overall, 52-33), Matthews asserted, "[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, 'I'm pro-choice, he's not.' " He then added, "But you're playing for a close election. If you want to reach up for the higher, for the harder ones to reach, you can win big." Matthews' comment about women voters recalled generalizations Matthews has made about other constituencies. On the April 16 edition of Hardball, Matthews said, "[I]f you're a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that's a safe bet. You have one key concern. " He continued, "I can't think of other groups that would make it that simple. But clearly, if you're African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That's a generalization, but probably true. You're more progressive."
Of the NBC/Journal poll's finding that McCain leads Obama among white men, Matthews asked Todd, "Is their concern with Obama that he's more an elitist or that he's African-American? Is there any way to distinguish that?" Todd responded, "You can't distinguish between it."
Todd then repeated a claim that Matthews made the previous week and that Obama directly rebuts in his autobiography -- that Obama has never been in the middle class. Todd asserted, "The values question, I think, takes it -- that, you know, goes to what you, I think, have put very eloquently, when you say, you know, Obama does well with rich and poor because he's been both, but he's never been anything in between and he's not connecting on that in-between with these folks." On June 3, Matthews said of Obama: "He's gone from being a poor kid, growing up in Hawaii, in Indonesia, part of his youth, mixed family background, had to struggle, worked with community organizations; went to these incredibly elite schools, Columbia and Harvard Law, making Law Review and all that. He missed the middle part." However, as Media Matters for America noted following Matthews' June 3 remarks, Obama makes clear in Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Crown, 1995) that he has life experience in the middle class.
As Media Matters noted, on June 10 Matthews asked if Obama is "too University of Chicago or too South Side Chicago" for working-class voters. On April 1, Matthews asked Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): "Let me ask you about how he -- how's he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?"
From the June 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Why do men tend -- let's go to this men question here. Among white men, here we go, really breaking it down, McCain's killing Obama, 55-35. Your thoughts about that category?
TODD: Well, this is already at Bush levels. But what should really frustrate the Obama people is that these white men believe the country's headed in the wrong direction, believe the country -- that there should be a change president over sorta somebody that keeps things not necessarily status quo but smaller changes and security. They just - they don't like Obama. Obama's upside down. They don't believe Obama shares their values. They believe McCain shares their values.
MATTHEWS: Is their concern with Obama that he's more an elitist or that he's African-American? Is there any way to distinguish that?
TODD: You can't distinguish between it. The values question, I think, takes it -- that, you know, goes to what you, I think, have put very eloquently, when you say, you know, Obama does well with rich and poor because he's been both, but he's never been anything in between and he's not connecting on that in-between with these folks. So, I think when you look at this, and our experts, our pollsters said, boy they would worry about the suburban women thing. If they were Obama they'd worry about the suburban women thing first, before the men. They say, you know what? Hey, Bush won men by this much; you can still win it by losing men by that much. I'd argue and say if he slices men from 20 to 15, and you assume those women come home, then that's how he wins a big win. And he forces McCain to play defense.
MATTHEWS: But in a political [unintelligible], women are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics.
TODD: Correct.
MATTHEWS: You can reach up and say, "I'm pro-choice, he's not."
TODD: But you're playing for a close election.
MATTHEWS: But you're playing for a close election. If you want to reach up for the higher, for the harder ones to reach, you can win big.
TODD: And you can make the argument that if you figure out a way to pick a running mate, for instance, that passes that character test, it's -- say it's a Joe Biden or somebody in a military uniform that has a whole bunch of ribbons, that gives you that security, that gives these men saying, you know what, I'm not sure about Obama, but, you know what? He's got somebody there.
MATTHEWS: Someone who's palpably patriotic, who sort of exudes it.
TODD: It's not just patriotic, but exudes competence. I think there's a competence thing here that Obama has a threshold that Obama hasn't passed.
What's really bad is this political ad suggesting (again!) that Obama is a closet muslim. Republicans have no shame or morals, do they?
Republicans have no shame or morals, do they?
Nope. And no ideas or brains, either.
I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.
In Chris Matthews world an African American can never be a regular person.
This is what he sounds like:
"O'Grady, Goldberg, Giovanni, Johnson?... You got a Mick, a Hebe, a Wop, and an ordinary American!... That's what I'd call a balanced ticket!"
That was Archie Bunker studying a ballot.
I know it was purely rhetorical Snoop but I felt the need to answer anyway.
NO!!!
Like I said in another thread, that's the final stop.
Matthews sure is eager to get there quickly indeed.
Maybe Jim Webb for VP?
The "low-hanging fruit" reference was weird and nonsensical even for Tweety.
Webb might have some Confederacy problems.
Webb's rebel roots: An affinity for Confederacy
Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting team will undoubtedly run across some quirky and potentially troublesome issues as it goes about the business of scouring the backgrounds of possible running mates. But it’s unlikely they’ll find one so curious as Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s affinity for the cause of the Confederacy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10994.html
He is assuming that with our little minds our concerns are very narrow.
"he's pro choice=easy pickin's.
We know he has very little regard for women, he tends to deman them pretty regularly.
Even many of those hey one of the women?
Steam comes out of those ears.
;-)
Poor Tweety. I'm sure he's still upset about Bush having to stuff his codpiece to make it stand out.
R u kidding me Heru? Did you forget about Roadblock? And I've always had a sneaky suspicion Snake Eyes was a black man.
Heru you bring up a great point, but it's part of the political game. If Barack needs to find a blonde hair, blue eyed candidate to appease America, don't you think that's what he'll do. Unfortunate as it may be, race matters. It matters to conservatives, it matters to many white people, it matters to independents, it matters to some democrats, but it doesn't matter to black people. I say this because African-Americans have traditionally and overwhemingly voted democrat, regardless who was on the ballot (mostly white men by the way). But race matters and if it'll get Barack the neccessary states he needs to take the White House, I for one hopes he picks someone America deems respectable and patriotic. Because as you put it and the media portrays it, you can't be black and a patriot unless you're Colin Powell.
I think you are on the right track Heat. But, there is no reason he can't pick someone who will sway the rednecks and be a great progressive VP.
Biden, biden biden.
How do we know the "low-hanging fruit" reference isn't really coded homophobia?
(Incidentally, "fruit" is British slang for a homosexual.)
As for the suggestion of Barack Obama choosing a "palpably patriotic" type for his Vice-Presidential candidate--don't we already have enough non-issues in Indecision 2008 already, come to think of it?!
Seriously, how many women spend that much time thinking about abortion.
I doubt Roe vs Wade would ever be overturned anyway. Nor should it be. But this is the *boogeyman* issue the Dems haul out every election.
Oh Sweetie, surely you are jesting with that comment. Really, who has been thinking about abortion and bringing it up forever? That would be Republicans who try to foster the false image that they have more "values" than us heathen liberals.
Julia darlin let's call it a draw. Libs warn that Cons will take choice away from them. Cons warn that Libs want to kill babies.
Either way, it's an issue that isn't high on my list considering the other pressing issues we face right now.
Well, WE agree on that, about the priority. But the more radical fringe that's enlivened by this issue is another story. And I think you must concede that your team uses this a lot more than my team. So your original statement is pretty fallacious imo. But since I'm oh so reasonable I will call it a draw as long as you don't make the same mistake again. :-)
I doubt Roe vs Wade would ever be overturned anyway. - Jeter2
I'd like to believe you're right, but I don't think I'm being alarmist in thinking you're understating the threat. Right now I see a continuing pattern of creeping incrementalism in which more and more restrictions are introduced and upheld. I believe that a President McCain would consider the wrath of the right as a bigger threat than outrage from the left when he picks judges and justices, and would select accordingly. I'm sure there are member of the Supreme Court sitting there right now who would overturn Roe v. Wade if they saw the chance to do so.
Of course, reproductive choice wasn't the point of my post. I was ridiculing the patronizing attitude exhibited toward women.
Beg pardon?
But this is the *boogeyman* issue the Republicans haul out every election.
Fixed that for you.
"Exactly, and further use a ridiculous scare tactic like abortion doctors and women will be thrown in jail when it's illegal. Which it will never be, regardless of Roe v Wade.......it will just go back to the states."
And...of COURSE...the states would NEVER throw people in jail for something that's illegal...now would they?
"You misunderstood, the scare tactic is saying it will be illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned, when it will not be."
No it will be in legal limbo until the states do someting about it. At which point it will eventually end up BACK in the hands of the Supreme Court. THAT is the hope of the anti-abortionists. That it will be back in the SC and THEN it will be made "illegal" They have, of course, NO concept of the difference between legal, illegal and unconstitutional.
"It will go back to the states where most will keep it legal, so there will be throwing anyone in jail."
Freudian slip?
" With their track record its a safe bet to go with the opposite of their prediction."
Trust me...that's EXACTLY what I'm doing!
Which political party is it that has consistently proposed state and federal anti-abortion legislation including in several states putting laws on the books that will indeed make any and all abortions completely illegal the moment that Roe V Wade is overturned if that were to happen? Which party is it that tried to block FDA approval of Plan B birth control? Which party supports female birth control pills not being covered by government or private health insurance?
It's not a scare tactic, there is a very real movement within the Republican party to completely criminalize abortion and severly reduce access to pharmacuetical birth control.
That does not change the fact that there is much more interest in pushing their base to vote based upon abortion from Republicans than the other way around.
Were it not for the threats from the right, the left would be satisfied with the status quo. It's the Republicans threatening to change the status quo that causes the Democrats to even mention it. Democrats are not looking to increase the number of abortions. Republicans are looking to outlaw what is now lawful, even though there's virtually no chance that it could happen even if they tried really hard and were able to get another couple of justices on the US Supreme Court. Even though they know that it's settled law in most judge's view, they still try to rally their base with those charges.
It's not "they both do it" argument you can win.
How exactly is actual legislation being passed and multiple court challenges forced because of that legislation "fear mongering"? Anti-choice legislators have been doing very well in waging a campaing of incremental change in this area. If you simply don't care one way or another about the topic, that's fine, but it is a legitimate concern and definitely a factor to consider since the Supreme Court is very close to having a majority in favor of changing Roe V Wade and the next President will definitely be appointing a new justice.
By the logic implied in your limited vision of this issue one may as well say that the NRA should shut up and stop all their "fear mongering" because there will never be a serious challenge to gun ownership rights.
...somebody in a military uniform that has a whole bunch of ribbons...
I wonder of Obama can get Colin Powell? Would that be a dream ticket or what?
"I think he should pick the governor of New Mexico. That would be a real dream ticket."
I agree...THAT would be a dream ticket!
You are kidding aren't you? Colin Powell was part of the Administration that used the United Nations to show their video game about WMDs. He walked away and said nothing. Colin Powell, while being a good soldier, has yet to give his true take on this occupation and the run-up to it.
If he were running for VP with Obama, those same creeps he worked with would stab him in the back saying he lied on his own.
Sorry AA, the Dems won't fall for that.
Colin Powell is the most respectable former Bush Administration official.
But that ain't sayin' much. The bar's been set pretty low.
Regardless, Powell is now and always has been a right-winger. Just because he's somewhat come to his senses vis-a-vis Iraq doesn't mean he's suddenly grown up enough to be a liberal.
Colin Powell is the most respectable former Bush Administration official.
That's like saying of all the bags of garbage in this dump, this one smells the best. :-)
"I wonder of Obama can get Colin Powell? Would that be a dream ticket or what? "
Why? So he can lie to us like he did to the UN? It would NOT be a dream ticket.
I wonder of Obama can get Colin Powell? Would that be a dream ticket or what?
We don't need another pathological liar in the VP position. Cheney was enough.
Actually no, AA ... Colin Powell can thank Dubya for permanently sinking any chance he ever has of being nominated, let alone elected to anything. He will forever be remembered as the chief public salesman for this misguided war. A shame really, since Colin Powell has more honor than all of Bush's cronies put together.
"Colin Powell can thank Dubya for permanently sinking any chance he ever has of being nominated, let alone elected to anything"
Nope. He has no one to blame but himself. Dubya gave him the opportunity to trash his reputation...he didn't HAVE to take it.
I have never heard the "low hanging fruit" reference before, it is silly, not to mention disrespectful. Matthews is implying that women vote primarily on choice, is he right? I have no idea but I would tend to think they vote on a whole host of issues, as do men. I think many pundits love to pigeonhole demographic groups for the sake of discussion and it's more anecdotal than anything else, not much truth, a lot of assumptions.
As for the "palpably patriotic' comment, ridiculous. More of the narrative that Obama is somehow lacking in that department when there is no evidence to support it.
As for the "palpably patriotic' comment, ridiculous. More of the narrative that Obama is somehow lacking in that department when there is no evidence to support it.
Would you also say that there's no evidence to support that Mrs. Obama is lacking in the patriotic department?
Then your desperation is showing Governor, I know I am one of the stupid ones for even engaging you now and then, considering most here don't, albeit for sport, but if you knew I wouldn't answer, why ask? Shouldn't you be buying lumber to nail over Fox News studio's windows?
Stay on topic if you want an answer, stop derailing threads.
I know this is like the 12th sign of the Apocalypse or something...but I'm with Tommy on this.
Governor, you are WAY off topic. This thread is about Matthews' asinine comments regarding Obama's patriotism and "low hanging fruit."
Sub-topics may include potential Obama running-mates.
Michelle Obama is irrefutably off-topic. As such, your comments indicate that you are, for lack of a better word, being a troll.
(But to answer your ridiculous question. No, Michelle Obama does not have a "patriotism problem" and never has.)
(But to answer your ridiculous question. No, Michelle Obama does not have a "patriotism problem" and never has.)
I agree with you there.
But to dismiss it as being off topic is just plain silly.
And UN-American right Gov? Don't forget that!!!
::eye roll::
Really J, the Gov is so transparent. He is bored, he knows he can't get me to diss Obama in the way he wants, so he hopes I will do it to his wife, then he can spend 100+ posts, and then next few hours with it. If I didn't diss her, he would be disappointed and work another angle.
I guess putting Fox in the dumpster isn't keeping him busy enough.
Tommy,
I think it's pretty obvious Gov is just here to cause mischief. Next time folks here complain about threads getting derailed, they need look no further than Gov. Gov has nothing of interest to add here [or on most threads] so he just likes being a pest.
You know when Gov acts up like this it's just so UN-American ;-)
Oh Colonel, is that what it looks like to you?.....well, considering the Gov is usually the last one to haul off and pout in disguist, "From this I glean that you are a blowhard. That's all"
I think ya got your barnyard animals a little mixed up.
But you go with it anyway......
He gets my goat? Nah not really, he's more like that one annoying fly at a picnic. Hey I even find him amusing at times cause I can't figure out if he's bored or just nuts.
Since you obviously don't mind the threads getting derailed by your little guy Gov, then I'm sure you won't mind when one of the Cons here do it. Ha! ;-)
Like I wrote on the other thread...sometimes I feel like I'm flying over the cuckoo's nest here.
I very hesitantly recommend trying Impulse perfume, JuliaJayne. The bottle I have says; When a man who claims to be ignoring you uses your name four times in four consecutive sentences. I find it work a little too well.
Aw Julia darlin I luv you :-)
Just think of Gov as that annoying nerdy friendless kid brother who keeps interrupting our pillow talk because he's bored. Now about that rendezvous in the janitors closet...better yet let's lock Gov in the closet & I'll meet ya in the breakroom, they have a comfy sofa in there ;-)
Tommy,
The col. and I nailed it earlier. It simply means 'easy pickins'. Deer and other critters can reach it.
Obamviously you do not agree, but Matthews is speculating that a Patton type would shore up the perceived weakness by many regarding Obama and national defense.
Perceived weakness isn't the same as actual weakness.
You are aware that actual weakness is what matters, right?
rabbit,
In an election it is what the voter perceive that counts. Obama might be the strongest national defense president in history, but if he's perceived as being weak, he'll lose the national security vote.
"the national security vote"?
Is there such a thing?
Isn't that like "values voters"? Aren't we all "values voters"?
Over-differentiation of voting blocs makes the differences even less meaningful.
And how ironic is that, considering that the rightwing luvz to talk about how FACTS are oh-so-important! But naw... who cares about facts - which require EFFORT to seek out when we can instead just rely on 'perceptions' which require no more effort than to turn on the AM radio and listen to a bunch of nutty wingnuts spew partisan, racist, sexist, you name it garbage.
Ah yes... now I know why the rightwing likes to take the easy way out... LAZINESS.
Mr. Matthews, I address this to you and the other 1,000,000 pundits and TV advisers of Sen. Obama....Do you really believe this guy needs your help? Did you really believe he needs input from TV talkers? Do you really think he should care what any of you say? Aren't you the guys that spread the gossip and rumors for ratings.? Besides, if he listened to any one of you, the other would be throwing a hissy fit and would label him as "caving-in". Mr. Matthews, listening to you would be much worse than listening to Rove or even Carlson Tucker. Please, stay within your comfort zone. Your advice is on par with a weatherman predicting next weeks weather.
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
Sounnds like Matthews is implying that Obama isn't patriotic enough. Wow... haven't we heard this before from certain MM posters?
rabbit,
You're going to hear it from the right for the next five months. It is Obama's achillies heel.
Wow, if that's his Achilles heel then you guys are in for an asswhuppin' come November.
That's the best your side can come up with? Are you serious?
Rabbit, if the media keeps pounding away at this the GOP won't have to lift a finger.
So far, Obama's handled it with ease, so I highly doubt that this issue is going to be a big deal to the people who are still on the fence.
For instance, the right-wing bloggers have ginned up the "His real name was Barry, He was born in Kenya, and his middle name was actually Mohammed before he actually changed it." And then kept wondering why he wouldn't release his birth certificate.
It's because they didn't ask. Kos did, and the Obama campaign sent him a copy:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
He'll handle any perceived weakness with grace, or at least he has so far.
I like Obama's one page medical report that shows his blood pressure is 90/60 and he's got lean muscle mass and is in excellent health.
That compared to the coot who has (what was it 300 hundred pages or so) a medical report so long, it will take until the next election to read it.
Yep. And access to it was strictly controlled too.
Insane. And they think we can't see right through their charade?
I like Obama's one page medical report that shows his blood pressure is 90/60 and he's got lean muscle mass and is in excellent health.
And he's a smoker Julia!! Yeah I know he tried to quit but I read he's fallen off the wagon a time or two already. But that aside, he has smoked which means if you keep yourself healthy in other ways sometimes you can counter that bad habit's risks. And no I'm not promoting this bad habit :-)
Speaking of bad habits, no not you darlin, you're my good habit...it's time for a quick break. Coffee & a cig ;-)
Rabbit,
Let me clear up something with you from the git go. I am not supporting McCain. I may end up writing in Hillary's name on my ballot. Or I may vote for Obama.
Now to your question.
Well of course one can only speculate here, but my guess would be that some of what's contained in that report might include a condition that could be interpreted by some as a health issue that might, in the opinion of certain physicians, prove worrisome over the next 4 to 8 years. And McCain's people would rather not release it for fear that doctors will be appearing on every political program offering their own diagnosis.
Obviously if the guys not fit to serve, he shouldn't. Then again, had the public been more aware of JFK's many health issues, he night not have been elected.
I agree with your assessment.
But doesn't this fly right into the face of what he says about 'change'? Yes, Obama started his campaign with that mantra but McCain has taken it up as well. Isn't being more open and candid with the American people a significant part of 'change' since, after all, we really cannot say with a straight face that the past seven years were filled with openness and candor? If he cannot be candid about his medical history then what else is he willing to hide?
Just sayin...
had the public been more aware of JFK's many health issues, he night not have been elected.
Boy, where did that whopper come from? Gramps McMaverick is nearly TWICE as old as Kennedy was. That's the point.
Well, Jeter, I already knew you were "smokin" (hot), but there's no ciggy breath in my fantasy. Just sayin' :-0) I have no bad habits (except for you). Not even sugar, sugar.
God help me I've tried to "quit you".
Thanks for posting that. Just shows how low the right-wing slime machine is prepared to stoop.
Of course, this crap only resonates with the knuckle-draggers who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway, so ...... They're preaching to the choir. IMO.
Actually no.
That's the wrong metaphor.
The mythical Achilles had an unprotected heel was an actual weakness.
Do you see the difference?
You're going to hear it from the right for the next five months. It is Obama's achillies heel.
Wait, we're in Iraq because of : "There simply isn't a case that this is a peace-loving man who wants to be left alone," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said......"Increasingly, we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities," Cheney said...... "And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons....The tubes....... Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." Centrifuges are one way to separate weapons-grade uranium from natural uranium....."We're at the point where we think time is not on our side," Cheney said.
And YOU think the Republicans have a lock on Natl Security?
LOL
Massive home foreclosures, home values decline, job loss, food prices rising, over 4 dollar gas prices and still rising, largest deficit ever and billions spent, 4100 killed, over 25,00 seriously injured on a war of lies. Yeah you got a lock on Natl Security.
Hear!! Hear!!
Pearlene if that isn't the most backward logic. I just don't get their angle. How can you question patriotism in a man that voted against sending 3,000 plus Americans to die? Lost in this is the hundreds of thousand Iraqi's who've lost their life and the CIVIL WAR the country is currently in thanks to a bogus weapons charge. There are so many things wrong at home, why don't certain Americans (ah-hem conservatives) wisen up and see that every problem you listed would and could be helped by ending this war!! Baracks patriotism problem isn't a problem of loyalty to his country, but tint of his skin. If the republican slime machine could make John Kerry, a decorated war hero, out to be a coward what do you think they're gonna do with Barack?!? It's up to voters to see past the bs and understand the problems at home will not be alleviated by winning an unwinnable war.
Well put, August, but you are being too mild with the Confederate flag. The country was not merely divided, but the Confederacy was an open revolt against this country. Aside from all of the racial and slavery implications, which I would hope would be MORE than enough to make the Confederate flag disgusting enough, the Confederacy decided it did not want to be a part of the United States. For all of the idiotic questions Obama is facing about his patriotism, why not ask those who fly the Confederate flag about theirs? After all, its a symbol of revolt against this country, is it not?
Well put, August, but you are being too mild with the Confederate flag. - Fried
I'm only being mild out of respect to other posters of other races. Had I been in a barber shop, my language may have been different. It's utter bs to be honest with you. These same people who question Obama's patriotism, believe in flying America's shame and will aggressively debate you on its right to fly. So if republicans don't have to address it, which McCain has (even though he flip-flopped), why does Obama have to address all of this garbage on patriotism? I guess the rule of thumb:
White is right, but Wright was wrong, so Barack is unamerican.
Baracks patriotism problem isn't a problem of loyalty to his country, but tint of his skin.
August, I really tried to find another reason but I can't.
I've read comments about how Obama sat in his church for 20 years listening to Wright but it appears acceptable to attend a Catholic church were the priest molested children for years. It appears acceptable for member to still attend the same Catholic church that moved priests to avoid prosecution. Now what is the difference between Wright and the Catholic church? Why are Wright words so very wrong but the actions of the Catholic and those who continue to attend so easy to ignore?
Farrakhan hate whites is wrong but Hagee and Parsley's hatred of gays is acceptable. WHAT? What's the difference between Farrakhan hate and Hagee and Parsley's hate?
Patriotism? Did anyone question Dick Cheney's patriotism when he choose to avoid serving his country? Why? What's the difference?
It's 2008 and African Americans have voted a Democratic for years, why is it suddenly important to note that African Americans are voting for another Democratic? Did African Americans vote Republican last year?
And I'm just imagining things.
If you want to talk about picking fruit, then talk about "cherry picking".
Why did these political media hacks (matthews and todd) choose to comment on the narrower subset of "suburban white women" in this NBC News/WSJ poll, when the poll indicates that Sen. Obama is overwhelmingly preferred (52-33) by the more inclusive and encompassing set of simply "women"?
Looking over the pdf file of the poll (and it's a terrible report, for it's complicated and scattered form)... looking at it, I see immediately that it's a cross section of 1,000 interviews, and that 51 percent of the interviewees were women: and that of course is the group that favored Mr. Obama, 52-33... but the report is such a mess, that I can't even see without studying it, just how the subgroup of "suburban white women" was found, or how many of them there supposedly are in this study... whatever their numbers, they weren't significant enough to affect the overall 52-33 preference shown by women for Mr. Obama...
Why then was the "suburban white women" subgroup "cherry-picked" out?
Further (and this is important), why did chris matthews suggest that Mr. Obama make an appeal to this "cherry-picked" subgroup, by perhaps saying "I'm pro-choice, he's [McCain] not."
Why would matthews suggest that as an issue, when the poll shows that among all the issues the interviewees identified as "the top priority for the Federal Government" (Questions 6a and 6b in the poll), no one identified that issue in numbers enough to even be cited in the poll?
Here are the results to Questions 6a and 6b, about "the top priority for the Federal Government":
Job creation and economic growth... 27%
IRAQ... 24%
Energy and fuel costs... 18%
Health care... 8%
Immigration... 5%
Environment... 4%
The mortgage and housing situation... 1%
...and no other issue was mentioned enough as "the top ptiority for the Federal Government" to be included in the poll report!
That's 87% of "the top priority for the Federal Government" answers, and none of them are about "pro-choice" or "pro-life"!
Again, why did matthews "cherry pick" that particular (and somewhat statistically insignificant) subgroup of "suburban white women", and then offer some type of suggestion about an issue that supposedly would appeal to them, when in fact that issue appears nowhere among the issues cited by the interviewees in the poll?
There's a trend going on here, and it's easy to spot: for what seems the third time this week, this political media hack chris matthews has strained to claim that Democrats should initiate a certain Political issue in the campaign, an issue that otherwise would not be listed as very important to voters right now: and he's straining to rationalize his strange and bad advice... because as an issue, it would surely alienate millions and millions of "red State" Americans from Democrats, were Democrats to strangely choose to advance this issue... advance it out of nowhere, and advance it for no good reason... no reason at all, other than that the political media hack chris matthews keeps harping on it.
And as far as what qualifications Mr. Obama should be looking for, in a Vice President, those qualifications should of course compliment his own, and should also address any special circumstances there might be, to the challenges the 44th President of the United States of America will most likely face.
As far as what those special circumstances might be in the present case, I cannot remember any recent time, when an American President inherited a Military occupation by U.S. Armed Forces, of a Middle Eastern country... nor can I recall at any time in U.S. History when those same U.S. Armed Forces have been stretched so thin, as to cause such a strain on the numerous State's National Guard, or to cause such recruitment and retention challenges (most particularly in the U.S. Army, and the Marine Corp)... as a matter of fact, not only have I heard People characterize the present U.S. Army as being "broken", but I have heard many People characterize the Pentagon, the Headquarters of our Department of Defense, as so corrupted by defense contractors, that the Pentagon does seem presently to be nothing more than a clearing house, for hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in defense contracts... many People think of the Pentagon this way at the present time: I am one of them.
But the difficulties that our next Commander in Chief shall face immediately, in assuming the management of a Military occupation of a Middle Eastern country, one that borders Iran and Syria and Turkey, and saudi arabia...
This is a challenge and a responsibility that would make any man flinch: even a Professional Soldier, and Career Military Officer... there are some among those ranks who are equal to such a task, but they are special, and not too many, I assure you.
Such a Professional Soldier as General Eisenhower was, he would not flinch from such a Command I don't think... our next Vice President should have qualifications, if not exactly equal to those of General Eisenhower's, then at least similar.
General Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force you know... that's akin (but not equal) to being the Supreme Allied Commander of European Forces.
I think all of the qualifications would be held, and all of the special current circumstances addressed, by someone who has the experience of Supreme Allied Commander... I think the fixing of a "broken" U.S. Army, and the purging of a corrupted Pentagon, and the mangement of a U.S. Military occupation of Iraq, could be done by any current or former Supreme Allied Commander.
Volunteers?
What is wrong with this person?
Can we send him to a "race/class/gender course of study?
Keep it up Chrissy, you can end up on more than one sh#@ list you know.
Actually, it would be amuzing if it wasn't so painful watching him for what his next insane/inane/off the wall statement is going to be... and is this going to be the one where his whole viewer-ship loses it!
He needs to be sent over to Fox. A much better fit.
Yeah, but if we applied that standard to all of our punditry, they'd all be working at Fox.
Wait a minute, that's an ingenious plan! To Fox with all of them. Then maybe we could get more thoughtful people back on the air and let Fox have all the rubbish.
She has a dream!
All for it JJ and I'll do everything I can do to push it over the top. I'm am an experienced windmill tilter. Worked my way up too it from cow and outhouse tipping.
Not one of those you wake up from and immediatly wonder how you came to be clutching a policemans hat, or why your tongue seems to have melted onto your teeth then?
I've had some weird dreams but none that involved a policeman's hat. :-)
Attention Media Matters:
Some right wing personalities have mastered the art of saying nothing but childish insults.
These guys deserve two or four weeks of being ignored, so the rest of us can discuss substantive matters.
The low hanging fruit comment is pretty much illustrative of Matthews' obsession with horse race and statistics, rather than sexist, although it is probably both. His mind seems to be programed in permanent campaign mode with no thought of any politician actually doing anything but talking, and little groups voting robotically in "blocks".
I'd so like to have Matthews and other "commentators" replaced with some real news.
Well, Chrissy does think life is one big campaign, as delineated in his book.
Maybe Chrissy could listen to all the outsiders for some tips for covering the election
I'd so like to have Matthews and other "commentators" replaced with some real news.
The problem with that is it would actually take some real WORK. It's much easier (and cheaper) just to pull comments out of your a** all day long.
That's why I watch CNN International - no tabloid crapola or strategist "debates/arguments".
In my opinion,
Shouldn't it be someone we respect and trust to get the job done, even though he or she may not agree with the president and is not afraid to say it, especially to the few who scream the loudest? Definetly not a politician who just wants to line his pockete, whether directly or indirectly