If you had any doubt that low-rated MSNBC host Chris Matthews is completely in the tank for Democrat Barack Obama, take a look at this week's New York Observer.
Before giving you the gag-inducing quotes, I must pause to wonder: Why does anyone allow this man to take part in presidential debates? The Hillary Clinton folks who previously said that Fox News Channel was so hopelessly pro-Republican that it wasn't worth debating on their network have clearly dropped the ball with Matthews. He has no interest in keeping things fair for Clinton.
That's true in spades when it comes to the Republicans, though. As much as he loves John McCain's pandering to liberal journalist sensibilities, there's no chance Chris Matthews will abandon someone he believes is the "New Testament" of politics:
“I’ve been following politics since I was about 5,” said Mr. Matthews. “I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising.” [...]
“I really think there’s a Salieri-Mozart thing going on here,” said Mr. Matthews. “Salieri was the court composer who did everything right. He was impressive. Along comes Mozart. And everybody couldn’t get the music out of their heads. Hillary is really good at doing what she is supposed to do. She’s impressive. He’s inspirational. That’s the difference. One’s the court composer. And one is the genius. There’s something he does. I don’t know what. Oprah said it. It’s not that he’s black. It’s that he’s brilliant.”
Ah hype. Gotta love it.
Hat tip: Hot Air
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
*gag*
February 6, 2008 - 13:24 ET by landshark“I’ve been following politics since I was about 5”
Anyone else's Bravo Sierra detector go off the charts after reading that? No 5 year old "follows" politics. In claiming otherwise, Matthews is basically bragging that he's always been dull and friendless.
If it is true, then it seems safe to say that his political opinions have not matured much since then.
LOL
February 6, 2008 - 14:54 ET by seaniepokay, when I was 5
I was in kindergarden I am pretty sure . . . didn't hellary accuse barack of plotting this presidential run since he was in kindergarden? maybe its TRUE! matthews and obama made a deal on the monkey bars all that time ago and THIS IS WHERE HE SLIPPED UP AND ADMITTED TO IT!!!!!!!!
I hope oliver stone makes a movie about this
When the questions come
February 6, 2008 - 13:34 ET by KC MulvilleUntil now, everything about Obama has come in a Democrat wrapper. He's only facing Democrats, and he's only facing questions that Democrats care about. Because he's so liberal, his audience always walks away glowing with praise. When he faces tough questions, the ones that don't take liberal premises for granted, the glow will fade.
I argue that neither Hillary nor Obama have any real substance. Much of Hillary's support withered as soon as she was no longer seen as inevitable. Now we have Obama, who is being portrayed as a politician above the fray, and who can attract Republicans. The moment that Obama explains his positions, and the Republicans see that he's an old fashioned liberal, Republicans will recoil from him. Then, suddenly, Obama will get the same backlash as Hillary's getting now.
Someone posted here the
February 6, 2008 - 17:52 ET by motherbeltSomeone posted here the other day that a journalist asked a roomful of Obama supporters to name one of his accomplishments, and they all sat there speechless. There was also posted here yesterday something from another blog about HRC's supposed "accomplishments" and how every one of them was actually a failure (I would add, unless you count "trying" which Liberals do, as success).
Both are running on perception; one with gender, one with race as the added ingredient. It's time, they say, that we have either a woman or a black as President. That's their qualification.
Ready and Done on Day One
February 6, 2008 - 23:31 ET by KC MulvilleYou bring up an interesting point, MB. If the whole point of the campaign is to elect a woman or minority, then the mission is finished at the moment they take the oath ... so what do we do with the remaining 4 years of the term?
If you run on a platform of overhauling the tax system, for example, you have a rallying cry (and unifying rallying point) for as long as it takes to fulfill the promise. Your "troops" stay together, because their unity is forged by a common purpose. Think of the Reagan Revolution: that was a powerful political force that stuck together. Unless you have a fight to keep fighting, however, your troops will splinter apart and have no reason to keep fighting.
I wonder what Obama and Hillary's troops will do, if they actually get elected. The moment we elect a black man or a woman, what is there left to fight for? If they elect Hillary for the sake of electing a woman, what hold will she have on women after she's elected? Think about Obama's soaring rhetoric about unity. If he gets elected, he will have fulfilled his own prophecy. Then what?
They'll return to being run-of-the-mill, everyday politicians. Who will care about them then?
“I really think
February 6, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Jack BauerReally? Then I suggest Mr Obama gets a food taster fast, because didn't...
Clinton... I mean Salieri, poison Obama... I mean Mozart?
No surpise
February 6, 2008 - 13:56 ET by celatorNo surpise that Matthews, who has made a living spewing shameless shmegegge all his life, would swoon at the poetic flummery and pandering piffle of Obama.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
New Testament
February 6, 2008 - 14:02 ET by cvgbuckeyeThat is a joke. The only thing that Obama OR Hillary resemble in the New Testament is in the book of Revelation as "The Abomination That Causes Desolation".
The Democrats (with help
February 6, 2008 - 14:21 ET by motherbeltThe Democrats (with help from their MSM allies) love to use Biblical analogies to portray themselves as some kind of Savior or Messiah. . Bill Clinton started it in the 90's with his "New Covenant," with the American people, a blatant reference to Christ. And not long ago they were again talking "covenant." Now that is not a common term outside of its religious meaning, so their intent is obvious. And now Matthews with his "New Testament." He'd better not even try to deny the connection he is trying to make.
Their arrogance (and maybe blasphemy) is just breathtaking.
MB - Democrats worship their political leaders
February 6, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Dee BunkIt's something we just don't understand. Maybe it's because so many of them don't have faith, I don't know. Conservative enthusiasm never reaches that idol worship status.