It was train-wreck television — but it didn’t have to be
By now, I suspect most have either seen or heard about Texas State Senator Kirk Watson (D), who appeared on “Hardball” the other night as a Barack Obama surrogate, and who had a very rough time. The long and the short of it is straightforward: Chris Matthews pressed Watson to name some of Obama’s legislative accomplishments, and Watson froze up on the air. It wasn’t pretty.
But, in all likelihood, it wasn’t supposed to be. Matthews almost certainly asked the question hoping for a blank stare. That Watson, sadly, embarrassed himself on national television was unfortunate, but it was the intended result.
Now, as this quickly went viral yesterday, it seemed a little excessive to me. Some even went so far as to suggest that if some state lawmaker we haven’t heard of drew a blank on MSNBC, then Obama must really not have any accomplishments, which is quite silly.
But my friend hilzoy put together a fairly lengthy list of Obama’s accomplishments and used the list to raise a very good point: isn’t that Chris Matthews’ job?
I did this because I had heard one too many people like Chris Matthews talking about Obama’s alleged lack of substance, and I thought: I know that’s not true, since I have read about Obama’s work on non-proliferation, avian flu, and a few other issues. And if people are saying he lacks substance, then surely I, as a citizen, should try to find out whether I just hallucinated all this interesting legislation, or whether this talking point was, in fact, completely wrong. So I sat down with Google and Thomas and tried to find out.
But I’m just an amateur. I have a full-time job doing something else. Chris Matthews, by contrast, is paid large sums of money to provide political commentary and insight. I assume he has research assistants at his disposal. He could have done this work a lot more easily than I did. But he didn’t. He was more interested in gotcha moments than in actually enlightening the American people.
So here’s a challenge for Chris Matthews, or anyone else in the media who wants to take it up. Go over Clinton and Obama’s actual legislative records. Find the genuine legislative accomplishments that each has to his or her name. Report to the American people on what you find. Until you do, don’t accept statements from either side about who has substance and who does not, or who traffics in “speeches” and who offers “solutions”. That’s lazy, unprofessional, and a disservice to your audience.
Or, put another way, it’s par for the course for television news.
It gets back to a point I touch on from time to time — what’s the point of these public affairs shows? Why do they exist? If the goal is to inform a national television audience about a leading presidential candidate’s accomplishments, Matthews and the vast resources of the NBC News team would be putting together a list like hilzoy’s. Sure, Matthews wouldn’t read it every day on the air, but he’d feel some responsibility to let his audience know this useful information. After all, that was ostensibly the point of Matthews’ question to Watson, right?
Except, of course, it wasn’t. Matthews wanted a train-wreck because train-wrecks make for great entertainment. Indeed, everyone, everywhere, was talking yesterday: “Did you see that Watson meltdown on ‘Hardball’?”
Did anyone learn anything valuable from the interview? Of course not. “Gotcha” interviews aren’t about informing anyone.
Post Script: For what it’s worth, I find it hard to be too critical of Watson for his poor showing; I know from personal experience that it’s surprisingly easy to draw a blank, even on subjects one knows well, under that kind of pressure.
For his part, Watson wrote a very charming blog post about his experience, which is well worth reading.
just guessing
says:What did Watson expect from this jerk? It’s no different than O’Really’s band of little helpers hijacking some victim in a parking lot – and this is supposed to be “news”?
On the other hand it should be a warning to politicians, if you don’t know what you are talking about, don’t go on national TV. Spare us the embarrassment too.
Wally
says:I did the same research as hilzoy in about a half hour when I didn’t feel like working. Here’s what I found: In the current legislative session, Senator Obama has sponsored 113 pieces of legislation. Of these, 7 were ceremonial, such as resolutions to honor certain people or to create a new stamp. 30 were amendments which Senator Obama offered and that have not yet been offered for consideration.
The rest are a laundry list of progressive causes. Energy independence, banking reform (especially predatory credit card practices), the repeal of oil and gas industry incentives, greater monitoring of contracting, etc.
What has happened to most of those pieces of legislation?
By my count, 18 were approved by the senate, either through a roll call vote or unanimous consent. One has been placed on the legislative calendar. One has been withdrawn. The rest (86) have been referred to one of the legislative committees.
By comparison, Hillary Clinton has sponsored 150 pieces of legislation in the current session. A similar proportion were ceremonial, and a similar proportion had met the various fates of being withdrawn, scheduled for a vote, approved by the senate, or referred to a committee.
Obama was sworn in on January 4, 2005, while Clinton was sworn in in 2001.
It’s true, Chris Matthews should have done this research and then talked to Watson about whether Obama’s experience is enough. By not doing so, and getting the blank stare, the implication is that Obama has no experience, when that really isn’t true. Way to inform the public.
Also, I think Matthews felt the need to prove he’s tough on Obama as well as Clinton, after last week’s Pimpgate. So really, the decision to handle this segment the way it was handled seems to have been made based on everything but a desire to provide actual news.
NonyNony
says:what’s the point of these public affairs shows?
To sell razor blades, beer, new cars and correspondence courses.
Or, more accurately, to sell the eyeballs of people who might want to purchase such things to the people who want to sell such things.
Occasionally you can get lucky and find actual informative content on shows like this. But it’s like running across informative content on “American Idol” or “The Girls Next Door” – it probably got there by accident and if a producer had been paying attention they would have put something else there instead.
I wish stuff like this didn’t have such an impact on our political discourse. Even the formerly respectable news shows like Face the Nation are starting to sound more and more like Hardball and O’Reilly these days.
Tom Cleaver
says:Ch4ris Mastthews’ job is being an Asshole. He does it very well, been doing it well since the first time he yelled after the doctor slapped his bottom when he popped out of his mama.
Tom
says:About a week ago Matthews had on the governor of Wisconsin who is a supporter of Obama. He asked him the same question. It seemed like a reasonable and legitimate question to ask someone who should be knowledgable about the subject. It wasn’t a “gotcha” question – or at least it shouldn’t be for someone in that position. The governor couldn’t think of anything to say. His bad. I think anyone who is going to speak on a candidate’s behalf should be prepared to answer this basic and fair question. If he can’t, then he’s not a very credible spokesperson.
Ohioan
says:It wasn’t even on Hardball, people – and KO laid into CM on that point…
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/20/draft-olbermann-to-matthews-but-this-isnt-hardball-were-doing-election-results/
Danp
says:Wally (2) “I did the same research”
Brilliant. Thank you. How did you do this in a half hour?
bubba
says:CB, agree with your criticism of television news, public affairs shows, etc. And as you know, my view of Matthews is about as low as such things can go. However, Watson has only himself to blame and is first and foremost responsible for this. It’s not like claims of Obama’s alleged lack of legislative accomplishments are hidden in the weeds. It may be one of the top, if not the top, criticisms raised against Obama. Watson should have been prepared for such a question. If his memory sucks, he should have kept a list to read from: “I’m glad you asked that, Chris. Just today I spent 5 minutes and pulled together a list of such accomplishments. Let me read them to you.” Will this hurt Obama? Doubt it highly. But Watson is the one to blame here.
yot
says:The question is not whether Obama has done anything but whether a state senator who happens to be his supporter can name any. His answer seems to be “blind faith” which, I suspect, also applies to most, if not all of his supporters.
bubba
says:“To sell razor blades, beer, new cars and correspondence courses.”
You forgot E.D. solutions….
slappy magoo
says:I’ll take it one step further: If Matthews does his stupid job and researches the people he’s talking about, AND the people he’s talking TO, he’ll be in a great position to squelch spin and counteract lies if/when someone tries to lie to him or spin him…
Unless, of course…he WANTS to be lied to and spun…
Hmmmm…..
Tom Cleaver
says:Geez…. I reaaallllly need that second cuppa, eh? 🙂
Jim
says:As has been said many many times through the years that good legislation goes to the senate to die. Accomplishments in the senate are few and far between unless 60 senators believe in them. If you ever watch C-SPAN 2 you know that good legislation never sees the light of day. This is the main reason that not many senators have ever been elected president. Their voting record is almost always an issue. Hardly do you ever see anyone vote their convictions for fear of the next election. Good people that stand for something end up voting against good legislating to save their jobs. That goes for Obama, Clinton and McCain. Otherwise the Social Security and Medicare crisis would have been solved. No guts from any of them. The democrats voted for a flawed prescription drug bill for fear of reelection and republicans voted for it to protect their a**es.
terraformer
says:Alas, this kind of thing is what TV ‘news’ has become.
Much like how our citizens often vote for the President based on such non-substantive qualifications (e.g., ‘he’s the kind of guy I can have a beer with” instead of “he’s the kind of guy with the required intellect and command of the issues”), blowhards such as Matthews and O’Reilly exist to entertain, and not present substantive, informative dialog.
Jim
says:Hey if it wasn’t for the Chris Matthews and NBC networks this wouldn’t even be a issue because Hillary would already be the nominee case closed. Its the media that has taken Obama where he is today otherwise he would have been an also ran.
I know Obama fans don’t like to hear this but its true. Such a big deal was made of him winning in Iowa by bringing college students out to caucas was the whole news story. Even though some didn’t even live in Iowa. They have some of the dumbest voting laws in the country.
doubtful
says:I agree the onus is on Matthews to have the facts prior to the interview, but it sure would be nice if Watson was a little more prepared on the matter. I think most of the readers here could have answered that better. How can an Obama supporter go on these shows without being prepared to answer the experience/accomplishment question?
RonChusid
says:It should be a simple matter for the campaign to prepare briefing material to supporters who are going to be interviewed. Hopefully this problem will be corrected quickly. We could blame Matthews, but it would be best to simply try to make sure this does not happen again, especially in the general election campaign.
MW
says:I dislike Matthews intensely, but this really is all the Texas politician’s fault. If he cannot list the accomplishments of his chosen candidate and can only support his candidate by attacking the opponent, then he has to expect to be made to look like a fool on national TV. I think it reflects badly on this guy far more than on Obama. It is another example of why it is unfair to hold a candidate responsible for every misstep of a surrogate.
Grumpy
says:what’s the point of these public affairs shows?
NonyNony is on the right track. More specifically, the point of the shows is to fill time in between the commercials, which sell razor blades, beer, new cars, etc.
If they could get away with showing topless jump-ropers between commercials, they would.
entheo
says:thanks CB for this post — i was hoping you would pick up on it.
i caught it live, and must say mathews absolutely ambushed the guy. and then he wouldn’t let up, even after watson admitted he couldn’t name any. it was like a pit bull that wouldn’t let go. actually keith olbermann deftly whacked mathews when he said it was primaries coverage, NOT hardball.
mathews is more and more coming across like a schoolyard bully. i’m waiting for someone with some guts to come on his show and provide him with a good smack-down. petty tyrants like mathews and dobbs are track wrecks themselves waiting to happen.
Racer X
says:Since Man-Crush Matthews has pretty much said that he would be willing to have a sex change if he could have McCain’s baby, I think we can safely say that he’s going to try this again and again, and that Obama people need to be better prepared for it.
I feel sorry for Chris Matthews, really. His unrequited love has got to be just chewing him up inside. He gets to see the maverick in person, smell his english leather, gush about his studly character with all manner of guests, but he never gets to ride that maverick.
Cheer up, Tweety. McCain’s cheated on his wife before, so maybe if you play your cards right you’ll get him to throw you a bone on the side.
Danp
says:Jim (15):
If the media is really pro-Obama, here are a few things they might have done:
1) Report delegates won based on elected delegates, not including supers who are not obligated, and have proven to be rather protean.
2) Announce early primaries in terms of convention delegates, rather than state delegates. That way people would have seen that Obama won Nevada and tied NH.
3) Announce crowd sizes. Not just Obama’s, but Clinton’s, McCain’s, etc.
4) When you show Obama at a rally, don’t turn the mics down when the crowd roars.
5) Stop saying Obama can’t win whites, or women, when that wasn’t a problem in Iowa or NH.
6) Enough with the beer-wine or latte-dunkin’ donuts paradigm. What polls measure is income and education, but the wine/latte meme suggests snobbery.
I would certainly agree that the MSM favors Reps over Dems, but Obama over Clinton? Nonsense!
Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08
says:Don’t get fooled again! If the Dems lose the presidency in 08, blaming it on the media should not be an option. Given the turnout for the preliminaries, foot soldiers for the cause should abound. We may have to go door to door, stand in malls or street corners, presenting officially sanctioned and net verifiable information about our candidate, who ever it is, and the shortcomings of the MSM.
That is not to say that the MSMs feet should not be held to the fire, however, since they are a cancerous growth masquerading as the salubrious organ they once at least attempted to be and they wear asbestos socks, that will have little impact.
bubba
says:Racer, I actually think that the REAL unrequited love in Matthews’ life is the Clenis. Thompson, McCain, Giuliani are merely living blow-up doll substitutes.
grandpajohn
says:The fact that is being overlooked here by many is that this was NOT an appearance on hardball where some one being interviewed who is not a repub might expect to be “hardballed”. This was on an election night report the results show where anyone appearing on the show would expect to be asked about poll results or things related to the days events and not to be blindsided with completely off topic questions that are completely irrelevent to the main topic of the show, an action that Keith was correct in blasting Matthews about.But then Matthews has never been about being relevent ,fair or correct but only about promoting his ego.
Ed Stephan
says:I’m very glad you linked to Watson’s brief statement. Everyone in politics, certainly everyone in journalism, should have to read it. TeeVee sucks. Tweety sucks big time.
Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08
says:Grandpa,
Here is an amusing true anecdote from academia that seems relevant. When I was senior majoring in aquatic biology, I had to endure my first one on one oral exam. Needless to say we were all stuffed with details pertinent to our specialty for the ordeal. I was stunned when the prof asked a VERY basic question for which I couldnt remember the answer. After we had all had our orals we learned that most of us got a D on it for the same reason. We couldn’t remember the equation for photosynthesis. 6CO2 + 6H2O = C6H12O6 + 6O2 with light and chloroplasts, of course. I bet none of us have ever forgotten that experience. You have to the know the basics.
George Colombo
says:Chris Matthews is a bully. Watching this interview reminded me of when pitcher Kenny Rogers went after a photographer a few years ago. There’s something in the psyche of guys like that — bullies — that gets of on gratuitously demeaning others.
John S.
says:I would certainly agree that the MSM favors Reps over Dems, but Obama over Clinton? Nonsense!
Heh, don’t waste your time on Jim. His allegiance to Hillary is so strong that he is impervious to annoying things like facts and logic – unless they can be spun to make Hillary look good, of course.
crat3
says:The excuses, excuses, and griping by the cult of Obama. No notable legislative accomplishments by Obama – so the blank from Watson and the Wisconsin governor. McCain says Obama is an empty call for change and platitudes. What’s the other slew of stuff the Republican attack machine is going to swift boat and demolish Obama on? His Chicago ties – that’s what should be “researched.” Obama cultists should get real – Hillary Clinton is most qualified to be the commander-in-chief and stand up to McCain and defeat him in Nov.
grandpajohn
says:Michael
And I sure that Watson will not forget it again either, but that still does not excuse Matthews arrogant exercise in “gotcha” behavior by launching an irrelevent to the show topic blindside on someone. I will be curious to see how long it will be before he does the same to one of Saint Mccains backers.
If this had happened on tweeties show then your example would be analogous, but in the setting of the type of show this was, Matthews had no justification for his disgusting behavor,but then he seldom does.
Mr Furious
says:Interesting that he didn’t ask the Clinton surrogate anything similar…
This was not a HARDBALL interview this was one step away from man-on-the-street. He blindsided a guy who expected to be asked about the primary results that night and what’s coming in Texas.
The Congressman actually came out with a pretty good, and humble, explanation:
just bill
says:the cult of obama? oh, puleeze!
Mr Furious
says:I read a fantastic diary at Kos on the respective legislative records of Obama and Clinton. Much like Hilzoy’s but more accessible to read…worth checking out for supporters of BOTH candidates depending on how you rank the importance of the various issues addressed.
This author went in skeptical of Obama’s accomplishments, but not necessarily a Hillary fan. She came away with a much better impression of HRC than she anticipated…
and some frustration too…
Mr Furious
says:Messed up my tags…
Then she got to Obama…
I don’t expect this will swing HRC supporters, but to imply that Obama is “all talk, no action” is crap, and this proves it.
Wally
says:danp, I found that information at http://thomas.loc.gov/. It’s the Library of Congress’ system (called Thomas) to make legislative information freely available to the public.
There’s a drop-down menu in the middle of the page that allows you to browse bills by sponsor. And it actually took me two minutes; the rest of the time was formatting the page so I could read it and counting the different kinds of legislation, outcomes, etc.
Mr Furious
says:The diary I referenced also used the Thomas site as a source.
TR
says:The diary I referenced also used the Thomas site as a source.
Someone really should tell Chris Matthews about this. Think of all the money he’d save when he doesn’t have to call up state senators in Texas to ask about Obama’s accomplishments!
vwcat
says:This points to the fatal flaw of the media in pre writing a ‘storyline’ for the candidates.
Hillary, older and a first lady is the experienced one.
Obama, newer on the scene and younger is an rookie.
So, this question is being asked of Obama supporters yet they never ask about what Hillary has done of note in the Senate.
Reality is that HRC did not do alot of legislation. Rather thin record.
Obama has produced alot more legislation than HRC but, alot is not big name issues stuff. But, solid stuff.
-jayinge-
says:Has anyone compared the Clinton and Obama legislative records with that of McCain? That’s where the battle should be fought on the MSM.
Doctor Biobrain
says:As someone who voted for Watson at least once (he was my mayor, though I don’t remember how often I voted for him or for what other offices), I really found the whole thing to be a little sad. Watson was an up and coming politico when he became mayor, and would have been on to bigger and better things had the political tides not shifted in Texas when they did. And while I wasn’t his biggest fan, he was still a decent guy and really would have handled that better than he did had he known it was coming.
I found it a bit much that he couldn’t think of anything Obama did, but the idea that this somehow proves that Obama didn’t do anything or that Watson is basing his support on faith is entirely absurd. Hell, if anything, he’s basing his support on the fact that lots of people like Obama and Watson wants to ride Obama’s coattails. And that has less to do with faith than in predictive skills. Being able to side with the winning team is always a good idea and Watson always was more about doing things in a new way. But for anyone to suggest that this means anything more than that Watson was caught off-guard just isn’t being honest.
This could have happened to anyone, and I’ve had worse answers during job interviews where I was only talking about my own accomplishments. The idea that freezing up on television when asked about someone else’s accomplishments is a bit much.
JKap
says:Obama clearly has a strong legislative record. Let’s review.
Yes we can!
Timpanist
says:Ouch!
toowearyforoutrage
says:Crib notes in case some knucklehead accuses you of being a lemming under Obama’s spell:
Obama-Lugar – Non-proliferation Act
Obama-Coburn – Government Transparency Act
Obama alone – Illinois state law to require videotaping of police interrogations.
There’s lot more, but when they ask for ONE hit em with three. If they want 4, they can look it up on CBR for their lazy self.
He’s had a lot less time than Mickey too and all I think of with him is Keating 5 and McCain Feingold. An Act he isn’t even allowed to admit was good!
SmilingDixie
says:Tweety’s job is to be a dipsh.. & promote controversy. The Corporate News Media, as a whole, appear to care little about truth. (Yes Virginia, there is ‘truth’)
Conflict attracts viewers & sells advertising.
Fred C Dobbs
says:I find it amazing that Chris Matthews is attacked for asking a straight forward question.
The viewer understood what was happening. Kirk Watson was supporting Obama based on something other than an accomplishment. Many Obama supporters do not have a basis for their support other than he speaks well. It will be a shame to have someone run for the office of president who is not qualified. However, it will not be the first time nor the last time. On experience, leadership, etc. Obama is not qualified. People just like him or hate Hillary Clinton, more of the latter I am afraid.
So don’t pound on Matthews, he was doing his job by asking the question. And don’t get all put out on Watson, he is just a fool of a politician who got the embarassment that he deserved! Nobody died from this interview. I fear many will die who shouldn’t have if Obama is elected president and that will be a disgrace to all who support him.
Dug
says:There is a big difference between (1) a supporter of Obama who does so while not being able to recall legislative accomplishments, and (2) Obama not being accomplished enough. I would bet there are a ton of both Obama and Clinton supporters who cannot name significant legislative accomplishments off the top of their heads. That hardly means that they are unaccomplished.
Other distinctions that seem relevant: (1) authoring or co-sponsoring legislation, versus (2) voting record. To me, both are very much relevant; voting for or against bills is part of the legislative record by which you’d evaluate candidates.
One might add a third distinction: (1) legislative accomplishments as a qualification for the presidency, and (2) all other qualifications for the presidency. Certainly the evidence for “leadership” qualities in a presidential candidate go well beyond authoring and sponsoring bills.
Doctor Biobrain
says:I find it amazing that Chris Matthews is attacked for asking a straight forward question.
Of course you do, and I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact that you hate Obama. The nature of Matthews “gotcha” question was exposed once Watson admitted he couldn’t think of anything off the top of his head, yet Matthews still kept grilling him on it. That wasn’t a fair question, that was a sham. He asked an unexpected question and got the result he wanted. And the only reason you think it’s fair is because it was the answer you wanted too. You don’t want to hear about Obama’s accomplishments and will ignore anyone who tells them to you.
Instead, you just want to scare everyone into rejecting Obama because there is no logical reason to do so. Just like the Bushies, you use fear to make us act like mindless sheep to obey your commands. I’m not sure who you think you’re convincing with your scare tactics, but I can assure you it’s not working. We might be easily impressionable, but we’re not stupid. You can keep your ghost stories to yourself.