This Obama campaign video may be too explicit for you to watch

We have to warn you in advance, this video is really extremely painful to watch.

First, some background: Every presidential campaign knows that the most valuable resource it has, even including all the money it takes to get into the Oval Office, is their candidate's time. There are only so many days before each election and only 1,440 minutes in each day. And the poor candidate needs to sleep some too.

So every campaign builds a list of surrogates, supporters who are briefed on the current campaign message, and booked onto TV and radio shows to spread the word in an enthusiastic, informed and intelligent way. These surrogates range from the candidate's spouse and children to U.S. senators and governors to state legislators.

Even Chuck Norris has been able to talk on TV. Mike Huckabee' s veteran communications consultant, Kirsten Fedewa, has helped spread the campaign's modest budget farther by booking him and his surrogates on shows worth more than $100 million of free air time, for example.

Cable TV shows with all that time to fill are the hungriest spots for....

free talking heads to make their pitches. And they can be intimidating experiences for newcomers to the pressures of live national TV. (Have you ever had that dream about showing up for class and learning it's actually the final exam?)

After Tuesday night's election Barack Obama's campaign booked Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson on the MSNBC "Hardball" show with Chris Matthews. Opposite Streeter was Hillary Clinton surrogate Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio.

She made the standard case for her candidate. Matthews turned to Watson and asked him to name some legislative accomplishments of the Illinois senator. Dead silence. As they're taught to do when cornered, surrogate Watson tried to turn the conversation in another direction.

But Matthews, smelling blood, would have none of that. He interrupted and pressed the senator over and over again to name one thing Obama had accomplished in the Senate. More silence. You could almost hear Clinton campaign workers smiling while Obama's groaned.

Today, Watson posted a good-natured message on his website saying, "So...that really happened." And explaining that he had anticipated talking about Obama's big Wisconsin win or the March 4 Texas primary and when thrown a curved hardball on national television, "my mind went blank."

Clinton, for her part, couldn't resist twisting the knife, delightedly talking about the incident during a speech in New York City Wednesday as proof that her opponent is all eloquent talk and no substance, while her campaign helpfully e-mailed the video clip to reporters across the country as "must-see TV."

If you insist on viewing the painful interview, here it is.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Ronald Loui]

Well, this is actually good. I've taken this line before when it comes to smears, and I'll take it again. When there is TIME for the people to have a look, and someone raises the issue, well, then let's all have a look at the facts.

I claim Hillary Clinton's "experience" in the Senate is mediocre, characterized by a failure to get any major legislation passed that she authored, using the committees to berate people like General Petraeus, and passing legislation mainly to do things like rename post offices (for good people, to be sure, but hardly controversial, difficult bipartisan legislation). So you can't just look at her percentages, you have to read the synpsis of the bill.

The Clinton people respond that Obama's supporters don't know his major legislative accomplishments when put on the spot. OK, that may be true, but clearly that's only true of some supporters, and not reflective of Obama's actual Senate record.

Here is where you find factual resolution of this dispute: thomas.loc.gov, search for "Clinton bill" and "Obama bill", and read the first 50 results. Or go to www.senate.gov and do a similar search. Remember that proposing a bill is NOT the same as getting a bill passed as law.

Now, anyone out there care to post the results? Go ahead, let's hear what you find!

[Gavin]

PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE EXAMPLE OF THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND THE OVERATED OBAMA campaign...

Trust me, Chris Matthews has done his fair share of slamming on Hillary - so this was completely fair, and surely the state senator's reaction demonstrated the lack of evidence to support Barack's talking points.

I support Hillary Rodham Clinton, not only for her legistlative accomplishments--which she DOES possess, but also become of her skill, resiliency, and prepardness to lead the country out of the doldrums we are in.

[Chris]

THANK YOU SO MUCH for writing this article!!! I think the American press has NOT vetted Obama or his campaign. I think it is very important he is vetted, if he wishes to hold the highest office in the land. So many people have jumped on the "Obama HOPE" wagon, and yet- When you ask an Obama supporter what "Change" they are trying to accomplish, they just start sounding like Obama...Ummmm..hope...ummm...yes we can...YES we can WHAT?!

[Kay Long]

I watched and didn't find Watson's responses so painful as I found Matthews arrogant and bullying. He decided that Obama supporters MUST be supporting him because of his list of accomplishments. I support Barack because he inspires me to remember the America that the world used to admire, and gives me hope that together we can get there again; and because he offers fresh approaches to old challenges. His background in political action is impressive, and he stands for what I want America to be. Only I — not Chris Matthews — will decide why I'm voting for Barack Obama. Matthews is a jerk who needed to be put in his place, which I thought KO did nicely.

(Interesting point. Missing "KO"?)

[Shawn]

Since Hillary lacks a distinguished legislative record, all she can do is mock an Obama surrogate for flubbing an interview. That's rich. Unlike Hillary, Obama has an impressive legislative record, passing major ethics reform and a nuclear non-proliferation bill that experts say has greatly improved our national security, to name just two.

[KWinn]

LA Times who wants so bad for Billary to win they actually think that this will slow down the momentum of Barack Obama; haha you are sadly mistaken. Painful..one person..not the whole campaign and I couldn't care less what Matthews thinks..my mind is made up for Obama and no amount of trickery by LA Times, Matthews or those that are resorting to negative campaigning will change it!!

[LS]

Why was Senator Clinton represented as having done something wrong in this article? this is about Obama and his campaign, Hillary didn't twist the knife, this was fair game. Obama and his team have been going after Hillary full throttle; and Hillary "twisted the knife"; What she can't play politics, only Obama can, even when there is a huge error on the Obama camp, someone makes it about Senator Clinton.

[Jordan Davies]

Sincer Obama has a very good legislative record, easily found, Mr Watson obviously didn't do his homework to prepare for such a question from Mr Matthews. However, this does not in any way taint Senator Obama's record nor his ability.

[Delman]

Most people voting for him don't care what his list of accomplishments are. George W. Bush probably had a list 2 pages long. What a fine president he turned out to be.

[Ben]

NO, PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CLINTON THAT IS SO GOOD AT RHETORIC THAT SHE CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT SHE ISN'T A RHETORICIAN.

Hilary Clinton is someone who will say anything to get a vote. She is in so many pockets in Washington that even IF she were to get elected, accepting the fact that she REALLY CAN make up her mind on what she believes, which I have not seen any evidence on, she would be obligated to SO many people that she couldn't effectively do her job.

Her line against Obama about his inexperience is simply that. A line. Rhetoric. At least Obama's rhetoric is different than other rhetoric in the past, and by the way. . . what exactly is Hilary experienced at?

1.Not getting a health care bill passed when she had 4 years to work on it.

2. Passing legislation to chastise a military General? (ok this is just pointless if not laughable.)

3. Living in the White House while her husband ran the country.

4. Renaming post offices. . .

4. Moving to a state where she knew she could be elected, just so she could be elected to do the very thing that she is doing right now, TRYING TO GET BACK IN HER FAVORITE HOUSE.

[mary schwabe]

Kay Long's comments are right on. I watch Chris
Matthews on a regular basis and this incident was about as arrogant and nasty as he has ever been.
It was NOT Hardball as Chris mistakenly thought. He can ask any question he wants; but when Watson said he was not prepared to answer it why did Chris go after him like a pitbull? That was more about Chris being arrogant and meanspirited; not content with exposing Watson's unpreparedness/ignorance, but needing to angrily rub his face in the dirt over and over.
It was a victory interview after an exhausting election day; not a Hardball visit where the
guest knows to be prepared for anything.
I've noticed Chris' behavior changing recently in that he is cutting his guests off mid-sentence more and more so that he can say what he wants to say. I am interested in hearing his guests as well. I enjoy a thoughtful exchange of ideas between respectful, informed individuals, not a bloodsport.

[Kenneth Cardenas]

NOT TRUE:
Obama has an impressive legislative record, passing major ethics reform and a nuclear non-proliferation bill that experts say has greatly improved our national security, to name just two.

NOBAMA NOBAMA NOBAMA

[Dennis]

I think most of us watching this just feel sorry for an inexperienced local politician (probably just a guy who owns a small business and got elected). This was likely his first time on national television and his fist time to be treated this way.

Chris Matthews looks like a bully and a jerk. This will earn sympathy for that small town politician.

This won't hurt Barack Obama. People know that it isn't the candidate and Senator Obama can (and does) outline his successes.

I know that the Clinton people need something, anything to feel better about their race. Their candidate has now lost eleven races in a row (including Democrats Abroad decided today) and reports came out today that she ended January with 7.5 million in debt even after her personal loan of 5 million. Her campaign is over. The race has, for all purposes, been decided.

This clip won't hurt Obama. It does hurt Chris Matthews, badly. And if it gives a little cheer to Hillary's despairing supporters for a day, well, then, so be it.

[Dorothy Greenlin]

Thank you for publishing this article. Obama talks change but all I hear is a lot of fluff and no substance. What change??? Spare change??? What about Oprah's rediculous swooning on Obama, as well.

Hillary on the other hand speaks of accomplishments and solid plans. She puts in the due diligence and takes a position. It takes research, passion, and knowledge to stand for issues. She is not a hothead. Let's take our time and make the right choice.

[Jon]

Hah!

[Ron PArker]

The way is see it,

Americans are out looking for a knight in shining armor to rescue them from the dark days of the Bush Administration and lead them to the glorious days of Camelot. It looks like they are going to choose the dashing young, charismatic, Freshman Senator, Barak Obama, as the one to take them there. That's too bad because while those days of Camelot are not beyond Obama’s vision they are far beyond his grasp. Having served as the Freshman Senator from Illinois for seven years gives him the equivalent education in politics of a kindergarten student. This is not the time to put a politician in training at the helm of the ship of state that President G. W. Bush policies have torpedoed and left sinking in a sea of debt and up to it’s eyeballs in almost insurmountable international problems. It will take more than Obama has to offer to undo the horrific damage left in Bush’s wake.

Washington is a jungle and the beasts that live there in will eat Obama alive leaving nothing but an empty suit of dented armor and an even bleaker future for American’s. Barak is a fine young man. He’s intelligent, sophisticated, appealing and, perhaps, eloquent. But, the sad fact is he is just too inexperienced to do the job of President of The United States of America at this point in history.

It’s no wonder Obama is doing so well in the race for the Democratic leadership and candidate for the Presidency. The Bush Administration has created an atmosphere of confusion, drowned the American’s trust in their leaders, and all but destroyed America democracy. Young America is frothing at the mouth for change and Obama offers “change you can believe in”. Black American’s are so excited about the prospect of having a black President they will vote for Obama with their hearts.

Young American’s, of any color, are starry eyed at the opportunity to make real change and faced with two choices, either, of which will be an historical decision they, too, will vote with their heads in the clouds and their feet planted solidly in thin air.

They can elect a woman. That would be a major change. Or, they can go all out and vote for a black man. Wow, now that would really be change. So needing to show how much change they really want, how much change they desperately need, they will likely opt for the more radical of the two choices they have. American’s will choose Barak Obama. Because they are so desperate for change that they will vote to show how much change they really want instead of change that is smart.

What will they get? They’ll get a fine young man who really has the best interests of his country at heart, but a man who can’t deliver what the country needs. They will get a knight in shining armor he can’t quite fill, riding a pony, carrying a toothpick for a lance.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Ron Parker

[Ron PArker]

The way is see it,

Americans are out looking for a knight in shining armor to rescue them from the dark days of the Bush Administration and lead them to the glorious days of Camelot. It looks like they are going to choose the dashing young, charismatic, Freshman Senator, Barak Obama, as the one to take them there. That's too bad because while those days of Camelot are not beyond Obama’s vision they are far beyond his grasp. Having served as the Freshman Senator from Illinois for seven years gives him the equivalent education in politics of a kindergarten student. This is not the time to put a politician in training at the helm of the ship of state that President G. W. Bush policies have torpedoed and left sinking in a sea of debt and up to it’s eyeballs in almost insurmountable international problems. It will take more than Obama has to offer to undo the horrific damage left in Bush’s wake.

Washington is a jungle and the beasts that live there in will eat Obama alive leaving nothing but an empty suit of dented armor and an even bleaker future for American’s. Barak is a fine young man. He’s intelligent, sophisticated, appealing and, perhaps, eloquent. But, the sad fact is he is just too inexperienced to do the job of President of The United States of America at this point in history.

It’s no wonder Obama is doing so well in the race for the Democratic leadership and candidate for the Presidency. The Bush Administration has created an atmosphere of confusion, drowned the American’s trust in their leaders, and all but destroyed America democracy. Young America is frothing at the mouth for change and Obama offers “change you can believe in”. Black American’s are so excited about the prospect of having a black President they will vote for Obama with their hearts.

Young American’s, of any color, are starry eyed at the opportunity to make real change and faced with two choices, either, of which will be an historical decision they, too, will vote with their heads in the clouds and their feet planted solidly in thin air.

They can elect a woman. That would be a major change. Or, they can go all out and vote for a black man. Wow, now that would really be change. So needing to show how much change they really want, how much change they desperately need, they will likely opt for the more radical of the two choices they have. American’s will choose Barak Obama. Because they are so desperate for change that they will vote to show how much change they really want instead of change that is smart.

What will they get? They’ll get a fine young man who really has the best interests of his country at heart, but a man who can’t deliver what the country needs. They will get a knight in shining armor he can’t quite fill, riding a pony, carrying a toothpick for a lance.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Ron Parker

[sam]

You know, during the aftermath of 9/11, I could honestly say that watching "all" Americans unite in comforting one another, exercising good will through tragedy, made me proud to be an American for the first time. I was 41 years old at the time.

[Clintonista]

Okay, say we make the argument that "experience" is all that matters. Hillary has 35 years, supposedly, so she is the nominee for the Democrats.

But McCain is a good hundred years older than Clinton. And has served in the Senate for at least 25 years. And before that, he was in the military for another 20 years.

45+ YEARS PWNS HILLARY!

Not to mention being a POW means you have TRULY been tested and vetted.

Surely Clinton is shooting herself in the foot with this experience argument. I just sit back and laugh. I wonder if anyone can find a clip of Clinton trying to get the Woodstock Museum legislation passed. YES WE CAN!

*choke*

[Patsy Caraway]

Sen. Obama has no legislative background in the US Senate and hence his platform of hope and change takes the place of that. He even claimed to have done something in the IL senate that he didn't do: he claimed to have provided all IL citizens w/health care coverage and he did not. DON'T BELIEVE HIS LIES. IT'S ALL CAMPAIGN REHETORIC AND HYPERBOLE, NOT EXPERIENCE. If an IL citizen doesn't have private insurance, anyone over 25 and under 65 cannot get state Medicaid in IL, I know for I have tried...I lost my job and COBRA was $322 a month to continue my insurance coverage...this was too expensive to carry and still pay my bills. So, contrary to what Sen. Obama claims HE DID NOT HELP PASS LEGISLATION TO EXTEND FULL HEALTH INSURANCE TO IL CITIZENS! SO, after 48 years of working and paying state and federal taxes I cannot get health coverage from either my state or federal governments, even though any illegal alien can get health care in the state of IL, and he does not even address that issue.

[First of all]

What a joke this argument is. Chris Matthews spewing his authority for the sake of this discussion is as contrived as most of America's interpretations of Clinton or Obama. Experience vs. Change. There, its been said, choose one, get over it, move on. Don't give the campaign advertising agencies too much credit on the candidates behalf and start spewing their language all over the place like an unintelligible media bastard Matthews. The democratic candidates are still "moderate" despite their perceived progressiveness.

[avant Strangel]

I find it interesting that the person representing Hillary wasn't posed the question. She was just as vague as he was.

Personally I think everyone should verify the info themselves at the thomas jerfferson library of congress website
http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807?detail=f

[Mark C. Eades]

Last time I checked, Kirk Watson wasn't running for president. I'm sure Clinton and Obama both have lots of supporters who might not be able to answer each and every question Chris Matthews throws at them on Hardball. I doubt I could, either. To take this as a reflection on the candidate him/herself is silly, and anyone who thinks this will stick to Obama is sadly mistaken: The story, if indeed there ever was a story, will be gone tomorrow.

[Nathan]

Kwinn-
I'm not sure how you deduce that the LA Times wants Hillary to win when they endorsed Obama.

I am an Obama supporter but I don't think there is anything unfair about this coverage. The guy choked.

[Jack]

Gee KWinn (2/21 at 4:45 a.m.), do you know who the LA Times endorsed as the Democratic candidate for President? Sen. Obama. I don't think posting this blog (just as they post many others of differing views) really constitutes a desire for Sen. Clinton to be president or any trickery.