Help please? Did Chris Matthews deliver a "special comment"/rant last night?

[patrice]

Usually I watch debates at home, but I was with friends lastnight, friends who had wine . . . 'nuff said.

After the debate, during the commentary, some of us went out to sit on the patio for a while. When I came back inside, it seemed that Chris Matthews was in the middle of delivering an impassioned rant on the issues. But, someone distracted me with conversation and I missed what seemed to be an unusually poignant rant from Matthews.

Help me out here if you watched Matthews after the debate lastnight, did I "hallucinate" a Matthews rant/special comment that placed him a little further to the "Left" than usual? Chris Matthews the Populist? I haven't found anything like this on YouTube today; does MSNBC keep complete archive video?

[ailsagirl]

1. God, I don't even remember... someone will

[givemebackmycountry]

2. Well, he called McCain a "troll"

He asked some folks on his panel if McCain came off as "Troll Like".

I almost lost it right there!

:woohoo:

[HughMoran]

3. He went on and on about how McCain was hunched over and grumpy - a troll!!

He actually called McCain a TROLL!!

It was so fucking funny - I still get giddy when I think about it.

[melbel8301]

4. yes

He ranted quite awhile that Obama missed the opportunity to keep coming back to populist issues, like healthcare, high gas prices, etc. He didn't seem to realize that this debate was supposed to be about foreign policy. He claimed Obama let McCain keep going back to issues he was better at like taxes and earmarks.

[melbel8301]

5. yes

delete, dupe

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

6. I believe it's up on YouTube

I'm not sure because I don't have a sound card in my old computer. But this seems to be the clip about Matthews saying: "do we really want to listen to a troll for the next 4-8 years?".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dqA41cfCQ

[renate]

7. There was one comment--well, not a rant, because it wasn't angry exactly

More impassioned than angry. He was talking about how no soldier ever dies in vain because their job is to obey the orders of their Commander in Chief. Whether the mission succeeds or not is irrelevant to whether their death was in vain--they still died in service to the country. And he said that just because the U.S. isn't winning a war is no reason to keep fighting it simply to make previous deaths not in vain--if that were the case, no war we failed to win would ever end and we'd still be in Korea and (I assume he added--can't remember) Vietnam.

He said it very eloquently--sorry I can't reproduce it well. It was a very good point he was making, and it was not in McCain's favor.

[CitizenLeft]

8. THAT was it... I was trying to remember what it was about...

He was very passionate about that, and chided McCain pretty good.

[patrice]

9. THAT's what I remember catching my attention to begin with. Thanks!

I think there was more to it; now that I know I did in fact hear this, I can keep looking for it.

[RichGirl]

10. I heard it...

He used very harsh language toward McCain for suggesting that unless we "win the war" the deaths will be in vain. Someone needs to find that clip so we can email Matthews with praise. He really needs to address this again. He was very passionate about it.

I wonder why McCain considers himself a war hero when we didn't win the war in Viet Nam. No one has ever taken anything from his heroism by implying that it didn't count.

[patrice]

11. Yes, Matthews should be rewarded for saying that. To my knowledge, NO ONE ELSE HAS!

And it's a very common and SADLY mistaken assumption "More Death justifys previous Deaths, regardless of whether 'this' is DO-ABLE or not, regardless of wheather 'this' is good for most People or not, regardless of whether 'this' harms other objectives or not, regardless of anything and everything, winning is enduring past Deaths and being willing to endure more Death for the unlimited Future and that is what makes Death and Killing worthwhile."

It's as though Death were a justification unto itself.