Sanders will need 60 votes to pass anything. But Clinton will only need 60.

[FourScore]

Sanders will need 60 votes to pass anything. But Clinton will only need 60.
By Bob Johnson
Friday Feb 26, 2016 · 4:54 PM EST

Chris Matthews seemed to be stuck in Marco Rubio-style robotic warp mode last night during his interview with Bernie Sanders. Matthews kept repeating:

“You need 60! You need 60! But how are you going to get to 60?”

I think Matthews’ point was that Hillary Clinton will only need 60 votes to get any legislation passed in the Senate.

Unlike Sanders who will need 60 votes.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1491943/-Sanders-will-need-60-votes-to-pass-anything-But-Clinton-will-only-need-60

[TM99]

1. I am trying to think of a time

when Tweety wasn't a complete asshat, but I just can't think of any.

[Trajan]

2. I seem to recall - he was quite the cheerleader for war in 2003 ...

It was sickening to see ...

[TM99]

3. I remember the tingle

he got down his leg every time GW had a sock in his flight suit!

[UglyGreed]

7. Yeah some fun he

was having in back then huh

[frazzled]

4. Actually, he was just the opposite

He was rabidly anti-neocon, and rabidly opposed to the invasion. You can say a lot of things about Chris Matthews, including that he's kinda rude and nutty, but what you've said about his support for the Iraq invasion is entirely incorrect. I remember it well.

[Trajan]

5. Not what I am finding ...

In fact, there is a wealth of information available online that speaks to Matthews dishonesty on the subject ...

Careful ...

[frazzled]

6. I heard him speak in person

at Harvard, back at the time. He was foaming at the mouth about neocons. So I don't need Internet gossip to tell me what I know.

Careful ...

[TM99]

8. Careful right back at you.

Chris Matthews’ steely opposition to the Iraq War is a subject that comes up periodically, and is shot down periodically, as well. Matthews’ critics concede that he opposed the invasion and the war in print, but that in his much more influential television forum, it was a different story. That’s not exactly true, there are plenty of examples of Matthews expressing opposition to Iraq policy on TV, but they are greatly outweighed by his consistent bashing of the war’s critics, and tingly amazement at the Iraq War’s huge “successes.”

For example, he called then-President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech an “amazing display of leadership,” declaring that Bush had “won the war,” and “was an effective commander,” before going on this turgid riff about Bush’s flight costume with guest Pat Caddell:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-was-against-the-iraq-war-while-he-was-tingling-over-it/

However, Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances during the past three years in which Matthews lauded President Bush's handling of the war, advanced false and misleading claims about the war, and attacked Democratic critics of the war. Matthews has also repeatedly expressed support in recent months for two potential 2008 Republican presidential candidates, Sen. John R. McCain (AZ) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, each of whom has been supportive of the war and Bush. In fact, as recently as September 19, Matthews wondered "whether there is a strong, serious alternative to the president's philosophy, which is this sort of neoconservative, we're going to go around the world and democratize other countries with force. I don't know whether there's a strong counter to that at a time of terrorism, and I'm waiting to see if there is one, a strong alternative which says, 'We can create peace, create less enemies, and we can have less terrorism if we do a different thing than he's doing.' "

http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/09/21/matthews-claimed-he-has-opposed-iraq-war-from-t/136694

And for viewers that night who didn't get a strong enough sense of just how obediently in-step the press corps was with the White House, there was the televised post-press conference analysis. On MSNBC, for instance, "Hardball's" Chris Matthews hosted a full hour of discussion. In order to get a wide array of opinion, he invited a pro-war Republican senator (Saxby Chambliss, from Georgia), a pro-war former Secretary of State (Lawrence Eagleburger), a pro-war retired Army general (Montgomery Meigs), pro-war retired Air Force general (Buster Glosson), a pro-war Republican pollster (Frank Luntz), as well as, for the sake of balance, somebody who, twenty-five years earlier, once worked in Jimmy Carter's White House (Pat Caddell).

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/chris-matthews-revises-history-during-his-

Tweety supports Clinton and apparently like Clinton, he lies, flip flops, and rewrites his own history.

Sorry you got duped. Some of us weren't.

[Trajan]

9. I saw him disdain antiwar speakers and praise dim son to the high heavens ...

I don't believe his revisions one bit ...

Sorry fellow DUer ... Embracing Chris Matthews has no upside ... Might was well kiss the devil ....

[TM99]

10. We agree.

I think you meant to reply to frazzled.