Much like kids, liberal media members say the darnedest things.
Consider MSNBC’s Ed Schultz who actually said Wednesday, “Chris Christie’s win in Jersey is a good sign for Hillary Clinton” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Before a commercial break, Schultz teased, “Up next, what women want: how Chris Christie’s win in Jersey is a good sign for Hillary Clinton.”
Yes, Schultz really said a landslide victory for a male Republican governor against a Democrat woman in a purple state was a “good sign for Hillary Clinton.”
But the fun doesn’t end there, for after the break, Schultz read some questions from viewers. Here’s the second one:
ED SCHULTZ: Our next question is from Jimmy B. Should America, he asks, “Should America be getting ready for a Christie versus Clinton race in 2016?” Uh, not so fast. Let me point out that this public servant has been around a lot longer than this public servant, okay, at a lot of different capacities. So if I were on this guy's team, I’d probably be worried about experience.
Hmmm. So Clinton given her experience should be a shoo-in against someone with less experience?
How’d that work out for her in 2008 when she had almost eight years experience in the Senate with some actual legislative accomplishments compared to Barack Obama’s less than four years of undistinguished service?
I guess Schultz conveniently forgot about that, and that by 2016, Christie is likely to have seven years successful experience as governor of a major east coast state after serving another six as United States Attorney. That will make him far more qualified for the job than Obama was in 2008.
But Schultz wasn't done making a fool of himself, for here’s how he began the next segment:
SCHULTZ: There's no doubt about it: women were a big factor in last night's gubernatorial elections. Case in point, the race in Virginia. Terry McAuliffe narrowly beat Cuccinelli, 48-45. It was the support among women that made the difference, you could easily make the case. McAuliffe had a nine-point lead over Cuccinelli with female voters. That margin gets wider when you take a look at McAuliffe’s support among unmarried female voters where McAuliffe beat Cuccinelli by a whopping 42 percentage points.
In New Jersey, certainly a different story. Christie won re-election by a landslide. Christie even beat his female opponent, Barbara Buono, by 17 points among women. So what does this mean? Republicans obviously desperate to bridge the gender gap, so they're all wondering what Christie’s numbers could mean for a potential 2016 presidential bid against you know who. Hold on, Fox News, not so fast. The same exit polls found that if the 2016 presidential election was a race between Christie and Hillary Clinton, Christie would even, not even carry his own state. Hillary Clinton would beat Christie in New Jersey 48-44%. For what it's worth.
For what it's worth? It's worth nothing like much of what comes out of this guy's mouth.
Let's be clear: Christie - a Republican man! - won the overwhelming majority of female votes in a purple state against a Democrat woman.
That's NOT a good sign for Clinton.
As for her beating him in a current head-to-head, most pollsters would call that within the margin of error saying that the state at this point is a toss up.
As such, for Christie to at the stage be virtually neck and neck with Clinton in a purple state is astonishingly positive for him.
Also consider the number of people in New Jersey that feel strongly enough about him that they want him to finish out his term and not run in 2016.
Unfortunately, that's above Schultz's pay grade as are most simple concepts.