I suppose it would be better now than in October. However, It would have been better in January (before the nominee was set), which makes the timing pretty questionable.

Do you really think Chris Matthews is visibly giddy about anything Obama?
On Monday, he flashed a picture of Osama bin Laden when talking about Obama, then gave some half-assed apology and blamed it on someone else after a ton of people complained.
On Tuesday, when covering the primary in Wisconsin, Matthews raised his voice and interrupted someone he was interviewing in Texas who was supporting Obama. Matthews started going after this man so aggressively that his co-hosts had to calm him down. He then shouted "why do you think they call this Hardball?"...only to have his co-hosts remind him that it wasn't in fact Hardball, it was just election coverage. They then switched to something else...when they came back to the coverage, all of the other co-hosts were still there but Matthews was off the set.
Neither of those cases, both within the past few days, really sound like being giddy over Obama.

He didn't show the picture of Osama. You can give credit to Chris for a lot, but he doesn't run the graphics for his show. The articles on the matter clearly claim that someone in that department was reprimanded.

Yes, I've seen Matthews several times talk about Obama very spiritedly, including the infamous "chill up my leg" or whatever that comment was. To his credit, I do think he has hammered some supporters about naming Barack's accomplishments. However, his personal preferences are no secret, and it often bleeds into his on air persona.

^^^ Right, I know he doesn't run the graphics for his show. I just think that if he was such a gung-ho Obama fan, he would have been more apologetic. Maybe he was just trying to save face and just brush off the issue?
Full disclosure: I'm not at all a fan of Chris Matthews, and I'm pretty critical of his behavior this week.

McCain didn't do anything improper.

Okay, I believe him. :rolleyes:

Theta, I don't know if he's pulling for Obama or not, it just really looks that way to me. I do know where his loyalties lie, however, so unless Clinton pulls it out, I expect that is the candidate he will pull for.

As for McCain, there is absolutely nothing to indicate he did anything improper in that NYT article. It is a piece of fluff that has been out there for almost three months. The NYT is pretty blatant in this one.

In politics, things can stay alive for a very long time. After all, some who dislike Hilary say that it's because of how she handled her husband's infidelity, which was a very long time ago now. And Edward Kennedy and Chappaquidick... that cost him a Presidential nomination. Other things seem to go away quickly and easily.

Huckabee on SNL
 

Oh good lawd, now Huck's on SNL still trying to prove what a hilarious, "normal", everyday guy he is.



ETA: LOL at Tina Fey's spot on Weekend Update -- "So get on board, Ohio and Texas, bitch is the new black!"

Can we really compare anything to Chappaquidick?

Personally, I've always been amazed he had a career at all after that, rather than serving time on criminal charges, and I also don't think Teddy fundamentally had the character to be a presidential nominee, do you?

I kind of doubt that any of the Kennedy family could survive the kind of media scrutiny we hit people with today, and I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. I go back and forth.

I can see what you mean about how some issue are always out there, but at some point, isn't most of the damage related to the story at least predictable or controllable?

There's some novelty to the story for new voters maybe, but is it really going to swing anyone who knew about it before.

It seems to me that once you've made a fundamental evaluation about whether a candidate's character is acceptable, recycled bad press isn't going to influence you that much. But maybe I'm wrong.

Link to Tina Fey on SNL last night
 

Here's a link to watch Tina Fey's Weekend Update bit on SNL last night. I missed the monologue, so I was happy that was on this page too -- http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/tin...ve_blast_obama

Did anyone just see the bit about the youth vote ("youthquake") on The Daily Show?

The "TDS Street Team '08" killed me.

To those who complain about Obama's lack of experience
 

pulled from another page...something to consider:

When January 2009 comes around, if Barack Obama is elected to the White House, he will have had four years in the US Senate, (he started serving in 2005) prior to that he's had 7 years in the Illinois State Senate. That's 11 years total, 4 Federal, let's see how other Presidents have stacked up to that:

John Adams-4 years as Vice President, no prior elected office.

Zachary Taylor-0 years elected office, although he was a General in the Army.

Abraham Lincoln-4 years as a US Congressman and unless you count his postmaster general in Illinois stint, NO other experience.

U.S. Grant-0 years elected office, but again spent 2 years as head of the US Army during the last days of the Civil War.

James Garfield-3 years as an Ohio State Senator, 16 years as a US Congressman.

Chester A. Aurthur-7 years as the APPOINTED Tarriff Collector for the port of NYC, LESS THAN ONE YEAR as Vice President of the US.

Grover Cleveland-One Year as mayor of Buffalo and Two years as Governor of New York--3 years elected office, not including his gig as Buffalo's Sheriff.

Woodrow Wilson-Two years as Governor of New Jersey.

Warren Harding-4 years in the Ohio State Senate, 2 years as Ohio's Lt. Governor and 6 years as a US Senator.

Herbert Hoover-Two Years APPOINTED to run food relief for Europe after WW I and eight years APPOINTED as secretary of commerce.

Dwight Eisenhower-0 years elected experience, although he was the supreme allied commander during WW II.

John F Kennedy-4 years as a US Congressman, Seven as a US Senator.

Ronald Reagan-8 years as Governor of California

George W. Bush-6 years as Governor of Texas.

Also, Bush, Wilson, Ike, Kennedy and Lincoln were "war" Presidents, although Kennedy's Vietnam was just beginning and Ike's Korean war was winding down.

DaemonSeid, it's more than just his lack of experience...it bugs the crap out of me that people are supporting Obama and know nothing about him. (Didn't we go through this with Bush? People voting for Bush because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry?).

There was a news interview within the last two weeks (I can't remember which show featured this clip) with a panel of 10-15 people at a debate who supported Obama. The reporter went down the line and asked all the people to tell him one thing they knew about Obama (his experience, accomplishments, record, suggested policies...anything). The only things the people knew were that he is a Senator from Illinois and that he's a black man running for president. It's just shameful. :(

***

On an unrelated note, here's a funny video that Jack Nicholson put together (with the help of Rob Reiner) supporting Hillary:
"Jack and Hill"

I agree that's why I am making sure that I encourage any and all who can vote to know who they are voting for because it's embarrassing...and I saw that lame commercial yesterday.

I think my folks (conservatives) need to give up the inexperience thing and the muslim-ties thing. There are plenty of other things we can go after Obama on.