Chris Mathews On Today Show

[liberalmike27]

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, though I'm not against him either at this point. I like him better than Hillary. But Chris Mathews just turned a phrase like "Did Obama do himself harm by saying I agree to meet with a Holicaust Denier."

Jesus, he didn't say that. He just said he would use diplomacy and talk instead of dropping billions of dollars worth of bombs before even using diplomacy, and starting a multi-Trillion dollar war. God, talk about mischaracterization.

The major steering has begun, and apparently Obama has touched on something sacred to the media.

[Totally Committed]

1. Nice to see AIPAC alive & well, and plying their influence even on the MSM....

:sarcasm:

Bad enough they have most of our elected politicians in their pocket, but now the media, too.

Ugh. I predict: War with Iran within the next year.

TC

[MUAD_DIB]

14. AIPAC should be booted from D.C.; right along with all the

other lobbyists.

[Totally Committed]

42. I agree.

:applause:

TC

[polichick]

54. Absolutely! nt

[WCGreen]

46. I don't know who is worse....

The Saudi Princes or AIPAC...

Way to much private foreign intervention in US deplomacy...

[Tellurian]

2. The more Obama-Lite is off his stump speech...

the more it becomes obvious how unsuited he is to the position of the presidency.

Obama-Lite, open a US History book and read it!

[Ethelk2044]

3. Obama will do well. People know the media has been pushing

Hillary for a while. Go to MSNBC website. They are fed up with it.

[Rydz777]

5. It is clear that Hillary has been anointed as the Establishment

Candidate. I don't see this as altogether a bad thing. It means that the "smart money" foresees a Democratic win in 2008. But the country wants - and needs - serious change, and if she becomes President, I hope she doesn't try to settle into the status quo.

[Tellurian]

8. I'm looking at "capability" and Obama-Lite is out of his league...

[liberalmike27]

13. Yes, Hillary is the Establishment Candidate

If you like what both of the Bush's are doing, but want a democrat to do it this time, then vote for Hillary.

Personally, It is far to early to make up my mind. But I vote for the candidate whose positions I like best. Right now, Kucinich, Gravel, and Edwards are being the most truthful.

I have no interest in keeping the "establishment" in power, as they are the war-mongering bunch, they are the hate-the-poor bunch, they are the ones who have made the mess. We've gone astray badly, and we need massive change, the kind of Change I don't see in Hillary.

But you guys are right, Hillary is the one the media likes best, and like I alway say, whichever one the media likes, you should run away from sprinting. The ones they demonize, you should consider.

[LeFleur1]

32. From Freeperville?

"If you like what both of the Bush's are doing, but want a democrat to do it this time, then vote for Hillary."

You'll excuse me if I don't take anything you write from now on seriously. Anyone, ANYONE who actually says, in public, that Hillary is the same as these a**H(L&^, now in office, should have treatment immediately.

[LibDemAlways]

34. The media only "likes" Hillary for now.

I predict if and when she gets the nom the press will be singing a far, far different tune. Demonize won't begin to describe it.

When I hear the corporate whores heaping glowing praise on her like CNN did the other day in declaring she even had the best "body language" in the debate, I smell a huge rat.

[jefferson_dem]

7. If Chimpy-Cheney Lite had read the NIE before promoting the war...

we might not be in the fucked up mess in Iraq today. Tragic "naivety" on her part --- trusting Chimpy and the neocons, whose foreign policy she seems to have adopted in full.

[Tellurian]

10. As usual, Obama-Lite is "off point"...

after seeing Axelrod, his chief strategist on Tweety last night, no wonder you people are so confused. The guy is a mental case. I doubt he could draw a straight line between two points he so confused and could be ADHD!

I mean, don't you ever think to yourself, if the information you're getting from them makes any sense at all?

The Bush/Cheney thing is so far off point, it has no effect on Hillary...Don't you guys get it?

[jefferson_dem]

12. Funny, i saw that Tweety segment and the one on CNN and was thinking how much

of a smug, smarmy, slimeball Wolfson is.

It remains to be seen how much impact this thing will have. If nothing else, it lends an opportunity for Obama to change the dynamic of the race, which was sorely needed...from my perspective.

[Tellurian]

15. Axelrod was spitting and sputtering nonsense. Wolfson was cool and collected...

Trust me, the rebuttal arguments Obama-Lite is putting up are Axelrod's disjointed thoughts. Nevertheless, it doesn't excuse Obama-Lite from thinking for himself, unless his head hurts so much, he can't think.

[jefferson_dem]

18. So here's a Hillary supporter criticizing Obama for leaning too much on handlers...

LOL! Ok.

[Tellurian]

39. Wha- I was cutting Obama-Lite some slack..

because he ultimately always blames his staff for his mistakes...

[liberalmike27]

24. As Usual

The yell at each other, and interrupt forum didn't do justice to a civil argument. I admit that the Hillary debater was more skillful at continuing debate while everyone was talking. It is a skill that a lot of people, including Obama's spokesman, don't have. It is important for people who go on these shows to have the ability to keep talking while someone else is interrupting, not only talking, but making sense. He, unfortunately, went into a "broken record" type of pattern. I see this a lot, where they keep repeating the same phrase, rather than just continuing to make their point, which is far more effective to the listener.

But like I said, the media is pushing Hillary, and from Clinton's "best Republican President ever" presidency, I run, I run so far away, and I run, I run from night and day, etc...

[Honeycombe8]

25. This is unnecessarily rude about a Dem. candidate, isn't it? Flame bait?

I'm neither for nor against Obama or Clinton...but to get to the point of using derogatory terms for someone who may become your party's nominee seems unnecessary to me.

Besides, I think you're wrong. I think Clinton did better than Obama at the last debate, but the next day I read polls that indicated that most people think Obama won that debate, and that Edwards and Biden did well....with Clinton coming in third or fourth. Boy, was I off-base in my judgment, compared with the majority of those who watched the debate.

Compare with Bush....not very experienced at all, but won the Presidency....twice.

What matters is thinking on your feet, intelligence, curiosity, listening ability, and ability to pick experts to surround yourself with. These were the traits that Bush was lacking. Obama seems to have these traits, as do some of the others.

[liberalmike27]

30. I think the tendency is

For most people to like the person they already were for, in debates.

I don't mean to "flame" or whatever. And I'll probably vote for her if she is the nominee. Even if she's just a bit better than any of the loutish Republicans, then I guess that is what I'll have to settle for.

But this is a time where we decide from between our candidates, and I think some debate is inevitable. We must discuss the good and the bad, as these are the things we will be talking about, and the techniques we'll be using in the general elections.


I hope the DU doesn't get all spastic about deleting posts like they've done in the past, unless they are obviously against all Democrats, and are just republican posters. I am soundly democrat, to the left of the democratic party, and would like to get a candidate for whom I can give unabashed support. A lot of people have not yet accepted that the media is going to push the furthest right candidate. A lot of people don't understand the true number of hyper-conservative Democrats that are in Congress already, and the effect of the media in achieving this. A lot of people don't understand how many people don't vote for this very reason, that they don't see a person in the race that is worthy. I think it isn't a good thing, but I'd like to give them someone who they might think would care enough about them to use government to make things more fair. But the media is not your friend, and they are pushing Hillary, and I know why. But, if push comes to shove, well...

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

35. Seriously? You really think that?

You really think Obama was wrong about what he said in the debate? After what not talking has achieved under Bush? I know I am for Obama so I am a bit biased, but Clinton's rendition on Obama being naive and irresponsible was rather rich coming from someone who won't apologize for supporting the war.

[CTyankee]

4. I'm sorry, but this Obama-Hillary thing is a tempest in a teapot.

I don't think at the end of the day, they are so far apart on this issue. Obama explained his position well. It has all been clarified IMHO. This is a big waste of time.

[Tellurian]

16. The problem is..Obama-Lite doesn't know what he's talking about!

[CTyankee]

20. Not in the sense that Hillary does, I agree. She really has seen this

up close and being smart, she learned from it. I don't think there is any argument on that. But the merits of this issue have been hashed out and not much more should or could be said on it.

The reality is so much more complicated. If you ever get the chance, read "The Missile Crisis" by Elie Abel, an old book. It outlines the incredible diplomacy that JFK exhibited early in his presidency. An amazing story.

Anybody who runs for President has got to be awed by the tasks of the office (excepting Bush of course). And Obama is not stupid. He can come across as simplistic and I think he should just drop this.

[Tellurian]

53. I've read "The Missiles in Crisis" and agree with you 100%

but it's BO that won't let it go..he's changed his argument so many times since Tuesday am...The new meme is their "answers are the same".. Theres a new thread on it on this board! go figure!

[CTyankee]

61. And JFK was "just a senator" also! But what he did! What a difference

in what W does (or doesn't do).

Yep, I think you are right. Obama seems more bent on this than Hillary is. I think she is smart not to get drawn in a lengthy argument on this issue.

[Tellurian]

65. One of the primary reasons I like her...

==="I think she is smart not to get drawn in a lengthy argument on this issue."===

She has Obama twisting in the wind. Plus, It doesn't help, he's letting ego over-rule intellect. Something Kennedy never did.

[liberalmike27]

27. I don't either

But I must say, if anyone is using Bush-like tactics, it is Hillary.

What, is she not going to use diplomacy, and her campaign thinks that if you talk to anyone you will take up all their positions? Sorry, that's just more Bush deception.

Be honest. Talking to Chavez, Amidinajad, or anyone, does not mean you agree with all of their positions, nor does it make them more valid. This type of rhetoric from the Clinton campaign just isn't called for, and it does remind me of the stuff Bush is using, and has been using to deceive.

The Clinton's are far too chummy with the Bushes too. I find it nearly as disgusting as McCain's lip-prints on Bush's butt that have accumulated throughout the years. Sorry, but if they treat you like an enemy, and have all their forces attack you throughout the years, you should probably be a bit angry, and be hanging out with Carter, not Bush daddy. You can forgive someone for their Republican transgressions, but you don't have to rub elbows with them.

[CTyankee]

33. I don't agree that Hillary is Bush like.

I just don't think what she actually said should be taken that way.

But debate on these things is good. I just think that all that constructively could be said by both candidates has been said. Enough, already.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Completely absurd...if we were to boycott anti-Semites, we wouldn't be talking to anyone in the ME

plus, we're already talking to Iran:

Why the U.S. and Iran Will Talk

...What's in it for the U.S.?

The reason for Washington's eagerness to talk is simple: As much as it would prefer not to admit it, the U.S. will struggle to achieve its goals in Iraq without Iranian cooperation, because Tehran retains far more influence than Washington does over the Shi'ite religious parties that have emerged dominant from Iraq's democratic elections. Right now, the political process in Iraq remains stalled by the failure among its elected leaders to agree on a unity government, as the Shi'ites push back against Washington's urging to do more to accommodate Sunni concerns.

If Washington were to act on its threat of withdrawing support from the new government in order to squeeze concessions from the Shi'ites, the Shi'ites in turn might look to draw Tehran into a more active role in the country. But if the U.S. could find agreement with Iran over the principles of power sharing in Baghdad, Tehran's help in delivering the Shi'ites could prove decisive. At minimum, Iran's help could be indispensable in restraining the Shi'ites in the face of provocative sectarian attacks by al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The Bush administration had, in fact, some time ago authorized its Baghdad ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, to seek talks with Iran about the situation in Iraq.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1174358,00.html

[David Dunham]

9. Obama's standing is melting away slowly

[BeyondGeography]

11. Let me help you here...first your candidate authorizes a war that opens the door for Iran

to expand its political power in Iraq, and then she plays hard to get on the issue of talks with Iran.

Naive and irresponsible.

[Tellurian]

17. Cliue Phone...your argument has nothing to do with the issue at hand..

back-up and try defending Obama-Lite with something that works.. Old canards get you no points!

[BeyondGeography]

22. EJ Dionne was thinking about you this morning

Obama Wins the Debate About Change

...But the eagerness with which Obama's camp kept the battle going reflected a cardinal rule in politics: Front-runners should be wary of picking fights with challengers. In this case, Clinton allowed Obama to make one of her prime vulnerabilities, the Iraq vote, a central part of the campaign dialogue. She also let Obama get to her dovish side.

In a Democratic primary, that's not where she wants Obama to be. It was Obama's good fortune that as the controversy was building, Iowa Democrats were receiving a campaign mailing headlined: "Barack Obama said No to the war in Iraq from the start."

The most intriguing aspect of this controversy is that both campaigns were operating from their respective positions of strength. Clinton has successfully cast herself as the toughest candidate of the Democratic bunch and has Washington experience that Obama can't match. Obama, precisely because he exudes newness in every possible way, promises the most obvious break with the past.

If Obama wins the nomination, Republicans will try to make him pay a price for his negotiation-friendly attitude. But this week, at least, Clinton started a battle about experience and Obama turned it into a debate about change.

This dynamic, over a stray comment in a single debate, could be remembered as the moment that defined the Democratic presidential contest. Clinton faces trouble if she allows Obama a monopoly on the future.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/obama_wins_the_debate_about_ch.html

[Tellurian]

26. Obama-Lite is running away from the mistakes he's making..

Here is the salient comment in the piece you posted:

"The Obama-Clinton confrontation might easily be written off as midsummer meaninglessness."

That means, this little flap will be forgotten and forgiven and no one will remember Obama-Lite's faux pas.

Just remember one thing, there were two people in this skirmish and Hillary is not about to forgive and forget.

Obama-Lite is finally understanding what Hillary said and the meaning of her response in the debate. And if you care to be honest for once, so do you.

[BeyondGeography]

28. "Hillary is not about to forgive and forget"

Do you realize you're a walking advertisement for why so many people don't like your candidate?

Then again, forget I said that and keep up the good work.

[Tellurian]

38. Do you realize your a walking advertizement why people won't vote for Obama-Lite?

Because you lack the character to admit your candidate made a horrendous blunder, the second blunder in the second SC Debate.

Heres a refresher:

Here is the "skinny" on what the Obama supporters don't understand. Or choose denial as cover for their hero.

Obama was asked this question at the 2nd. South Carolina debate:

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would."

Heres what I think happened. Obama made the same mistake he made at the 1st. SC Debate. He doesn't listen to or hear the entire question OR he doesn't understand what the correct response should be. In this case, he missed 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition. He only gave #'s (3), (4), and (5) consideration before he answered.

Obama did the same thing here in the last debate:

When Brian Williams asked:

"Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

Senator Barack Obama responded:

"Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake."

Consensus of opinion is Senator Clinton gave the correct answer here:

When Brian Williams asked Senator Clinton:

"Senator Clinton, same question." (He also previously asked it of former Senator Edwards, but his response wasn't discussed by the analysts.)

Senator Hillary Clinton's response:

"Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

Technically at this point, another 'inept' response to a presidential question would be Obama's Third Strike against him.

[NYCGirl]

37. And then at the end of the article, Dionne says this:

This dynamic, over a stray comment in a single debate, could be remembered as the moment that defined the Democratic presidential contest. Clinton faces trouble if she allows Obama a monopoly on the future.

"Little flap" indeed.

[Tellurian]

21. Actually, Obama-Lite brought this world of hurt on himself...

He himself is in meltdown mode. Obama-Lite doesn't know which way to turn to defend himself...Certainly not someone I'd want in the WH defending our country against experienced enemies of America. Obama-Lite would be drawn and quartered in a heartbeat
by Castro, Jong, Chavez; after all the BS they've had put up with Bush!

[liberalmike27]

31. It really is a little early

To make up your mind who you support, isn't it?

I hear a lot of folks dismissing it as if the election was so far away. The first primary is in January, or February, and that is the date we are working toward, not November. That said, it is a while yet before any of us should make up our minds completely.

I would have a hard time with either of the most discussed here, as Hillary is too establishment, and it has been hard for me to get a fix on Obama.

I haven't even given any money to anyone yet. This is funny, since I supported Dean way before the primary season even started. This year it isn't so clear.

[Tellurian]

41. What is happening now is a preliminary test of who we shouldn't support and why.

Obama-Lite will never get my vote because of his lack of skill in diplomacy and lack of experience in presidential matters. I was afraid that was going to be a huge factor in this race..and Obama is validating my initial fears as justified.

[Forkboy]

55. Never? What about the General IF he wins?

[illinoisprogressive]

19. Obama has actual experience in life with other cultures and countries.

[Tellurian]

23. Impressive, I'm sure to you... But not to me. I want a "real" president...not childhood memories..

of someone thinking and acting like a child running our country..

"Obama seriously thinks that because he lived in Indonesia when he was 6 years old (he was there until he was 10) somehow makes him presidential timber? Because he has family overseas he is presidential timber? That agreeing, without preconditions, to meet with dubious (to say the least) world leaders demonstrates quality judgment? Maybe Obama thinks Hawaii, where he lived as a young man, is a foreign country. How else to explain living overseas as a pre-teen signals a future claim to occupancy of the Oval office?"

http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=176#comments

[ellacott]

29. It would be great if you laid off that obama-lite thing

I would not be surprised if we had another Republican as President. We eat our own. I don't understand how we continue to fall for this trap.

Obama's response may no have been the best answer but Hillary escalated it when she called him naive and irresponsible. This issue is so stupid. It means nothing in the grander scheme because it probably wouldn't happen. This was an opportunity that Hillary chose to pounce on Obama because he's closest to her in the polls. And when he hits back they said he's being "mean". This is so childish and may backfire on Hillary.

On Chris Matthews show he mentioned that the Hillary camp is using right wing tactics by talking about Iran's president and his reported position on the Jews.

Hillary's camp quickly glossed over the fact that Bill Clinton met with Syrian President Assad who called for Israel to be destroyed also.

It's hypocrisy and politicking.

[Tellurian]

43. It would be great if Bush wasn't president too!

But the Truth stings like a bee, doesn't it!

You can read here to get your facts straight regarding Obama's Big Blunder

[ellacott]

45. What truth are you trying to say you are talking about?

stop with the childish sloghans. Come on, talk like you haven't memorized a soundbite. You will find that we may have more in common.

Why in the world would I wast my time going to your link?

This isn't the WWWE and this isn't an argument with a freeper. What is wrong with you?

[Tellurian]

49. Sorry, I didn't know you are handicapped..

can't you speak into the microphone and say: "hit Link, please?"

[ellacott]

52. Are you pleased with yourself?

You think you're so funny but you are coming off as pathetic.

Grow up. What with the handicapped stuff. Did you read what I said. I know the chain of events.

Again, what's wrong with you? Is this the way you want to have Hillary represented, no intelligent conversation, just juvenile bashing. Come on, I know you've got better manners than that. Or, are you part of a the paid shills?

If you want an intelligent conversation leave the high school behavior alone.

I know you can do it.

Again, what do I need to click on that link for? I already know what happened.

Pay attention.

[Tellurian]

56. Stop with the insults and I may consider it...If I'm in the mood!

[ellacott]

58. Oh please!! Who started with the insults, grow up

You start insulting people and then when they smack back you get your feelings hurt.

Grow up and act like you have some sense.

[Tellurian]

64. Smack? Don't flatter yourself..Take a chill pill dearie..you're losing it!

[ellacott]

67. Check yourself little girl

If you don't want people to smack back at you then you need to chill. Projection is a funny thing.

Act like you have some sense.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

36. And unfortunately this is what Clinton is counting on

that the Beltway political hack non journalists will spin this as meeting with the devil. This whole thing is pretty silly as Clinton put it. The style of their responses differed, but Obama's campaign essentially said, Clinton said the same thing as us, to which Clinton responded you're naive and irresponsible. Which is sort of silly when you consider that Clinton has said very similar things in the past. Clinton took the debate answers and tried to make a gulf between them, and to my surprise, she has managed to make her comments come off in an incredibly different light than Obama's.

This was a Clinton mistake that will backfire, Obama needed her to start a fight, which she did.

[Tellurian]

44. No- you're assessment is just more Obama-Lite propaganda..

geared to confuse his supporters. Obama's answer was wrong and I have a chronology of the sequence of events here, IF you're interested in hearing the Truth.

Obama's Big Blunder

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

47. What does Obama-Lite even mean?

He is not the real Obama? Someone quick find the real Obama! As for your "chronology" it asks at one point whether Chris Matthew's source is Obama or drudge and calls Clinton "Our Hillary" so you will forgive me if I don't take it too seriously.

[Tellurian]

48. Ah, I see double talk is your forte..

Quite frankly, I don't have time to talk to people not interested in knowing the Truth..

Buh-Bye! :hi:

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

50. This was a strange conversation, you know the Truth with a capital T???

Whatever, may we agree do disagree and support the democratic nominee whomever that may be. Hey, you've got me rhyming.

[Like It Is]

40. There are other candidates than Shillary and Obama-lite.

But Chris Matthews doesn't know that. He's a real piece of crap.

[Bullet1987]

51. I guess Chris Matthews has taken his side

He's now using the Clinton camp talking point. AND the talking point of the supporter of a war with Iran.

[Bullet1987]

57. No matter what CM says, I don't think anyone sees Obama as a holocaust denier

The Obama campaign needs to put out examples of past Presidents talking with foreign enemies just to make people look like fools for even questioning the idea.

[Like It Is]

59. The American Media Sucks!

And Chris Matthews is a shining example of the media. They are bought and paid for. They give Shillary and Obama-Lite all the exposure in the world, But outstanding candidates like Biden and Dodd get ignored. Wake up America, Demand a fair and honest Media. Olbermann and Blitzer are no better than Matthews.

[PurityOfEssence]

60. Obama didn't deserve that; that's greasy.

Then again, among the traits necessary for a successful president is common sense. Israel is the third-rail of American politics, and if it can be skewed that one doesn't defend that country with no exceptions, one is in deep yogurt.

Obama seems to be spending more and more time having to explain himself, and he can't blame everything on his staffers, especially when the furore comes from his own words on live TV. The Dean parallels are quite something, aren't they?

[polichick]

62. Chris has lost all credibility...

It's completely counterproductive for the US to do Israel's bidding. Our responsibility is to this country, and we should be communicating with every country in the world because that's in our best interest. It's time for Israel to learn to get along with its neighbors.

[Major Hogwash]

63. Those were the exact words of Hillary's campaign person who was on Hardball last night

Check out Thursday night's transcript from Hardball when it becomes available.
Chris is now carrying water for Hillary.

Chris isn't even faking it anymore - he's a conservative.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

66. The Clinton campaign is planning to use this to win over Jewish and Cuban voters

There was an article in the NY Daily News about this.