How over-the-top was Chris Matthews in his vituperation against Sarah Palin and McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer this evening? So much so that:

• Matthews twice berated an Obama representative for being insufficiently aggressive in going after Palin;
• Brian Williams, in the subsequent segment, chided Matthews on his emotionalism.

The Hardball host was infuriated by Palin's description, in answer to a question from a third-grader, of the role of the vice-president. He also harped on the RNC's spending on Palin's wardrobe.

View video here.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews spent the first 15 minutes of the October 22 "Hardball" haranguing McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer over vice presidential contender Gov. Sarah Palin's view of the role of the Vice President as President of the U.S. Senate. Matthews scoffed that Palin's answers contradict the Constitution, including her telling a 3rd grader today that the Vice President "runs the Senate" and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes."

But while Matthews was correct to argue that the majority leader is the real conductor of the legislative train in the upper chamber of the Congress, he was incorrect in insisting it is the Constitution which leaves the Vice President with no say in the daily affairs of the U.S. Senate other than casting tie-breaking votes.

As the U.S. Senate Web site makes clear, while the Constitution restricts the Vice President's votes to tie-breakers, in the earliest days of the Republic, Senate rules of order afforded the Vice President a greater role in the workings of the chamber as presiding officer than they do now. Indeed, at the time of its ratification, some critics worried the executive branch had too forceful a hand in the Senate's workings (emphases mine):

Good thing Nancy Pfotenhauer wasn't in the same studio with Harry Smith this morning. The Early Show anchor might have broken out his hickory stick.  Like a hectoring school marm, Smith scolded McCain adviser Pfotenhauer for what he deemed her insufficient citation of a New York Times article tracing Barack Obama's affiliation with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers.

Wagging a stern finger at Pfotenhauer across the airwaves, Smith repeatedly interrupted her, demanding "what was the conclusion, what was the conclusion?"

H/t reader MB.  Fineman the Magnificent? Here's how Howard Fineman begins his MSNBC column today [emphasis added]:

No, Barack Obama was not making fun of Sarah Palin when he talked about some Republican putting “lipstick on a pig.”

He was trying to be colloquial, and John McCain’s campaign knew as much – even as it was going theatrically ballistic.

To which I have a simple question: how does Howard know?

During the 1 p.m. hour of the July 30 edition of MSNBC’s “News Live,” host Andrea Mitchell once again defended Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), this time in regards to Sen. John McCain’s newest TV ad tagging Obama as a celebrity that isn’t ready to lead America. During an interview with the Arizona Republican’s senior policy advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer, Mitchell asked: “Tell me about the ad and the reasoning behind [the ad]. Why Paris Hilton? Why Britney Spears? It does seem that you're trying to demean Barack Obama.”

Later, when Pfotenhauer asserted that McCain has proven he’s a leader and has put his country’s interests first on more than one occasion whereas Obama has just given speeches, Mitchell questioned Pfotenhauer’s statement about the presumptive Democratic nominee and claimed that comparing Obama to Paris Hilton raises questions: