MSNBC Chris Matthews is a blowhard. He works to push his opinion as fact and downplay the importance of facts on his show as he berates those who dare disagree with him and pathetically fawns-over those who parrot liberal talking points.
Nothing illustrates Matthews’ journalistic irrelevancy as his now-infamous assertion that hearing Barack Obama speak gives him a “thrill” up his leg.
Speaking about Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election, Matthews discussed the supposed oratory greatness of the teleprompter-reliant candidate and claimed that when he listens to Obama speak, he gets a “thrill” up his leg, an odd phrase that has led to some nicknaming Matthews “Tingles.”
On Tuesday, Matthews spoke with the conservative Media Research Center’s Dan Joseph just prior to the Republican debate and Joseph asked Matthews about his leg.
When Matthews finally figured out what was going on, he became incensed.
“I’m with the Media Research Center, we just want to know; how is your leg?” asked Joseph.
Confused, Matthews replied, “What leg?”
“The leg. Is the ‘thrill’ still there?” Joseph questioned.
Mathews, finally understanding that he was being mocked, replied,
“You can go to hell. Just go to hell, will you? Just leave me alone!”
“Just leave me alone,” he added. “You got a psychological problem.”
As Matthews muttered angrily, Joseph continued to ask about his leg, wondering if the thrill went away on its own or if he needed surgery. Finally, Joseph ventured off without ever receiving a clear answer from the MSNBC hack.
Matthews is often abrasive and downright abusive to those who dare to question liberal dogma. It is both satisfying and hilarious to see him enraged over a simple question.
Joseph’s question may have been more trolling than journalism, but it invites a serious question: how can those who once mindlessly parroted the calls for “hope and change” defend the left’s political messiah today? The man who railed against government secrecy has become far more secretive than any of his predecessors. The senator that ranted against war in the Middle East has repeatedly (though half-heartedly and meekly) engaged militarily in the Middle East and the senator that promised increased economic transparency has led this nation’s economy from bad to worse.
So, though the question was meant to mock, it is a derivative of a fair question: on what grounds can liberals defend their enthusiasm for Barack Obama?