Would you ever in your wildest dreams imagine Chris Matthews flatteringly comparing Sarah Palin to former President Bill Clinton?
During a lengthy opening segment about Palin's political future on the syndicated program bearing his name, Matthews said, "There’s one unlikely Democrat you might compare to Sarah Palin when it comes to being a natural: the generally incomparable Bill Clinton" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Before we break, there’s one unlikely Democrat you might compare to Sarah Palin when it comes to being a natural: the generally incomparable Bill Clinton. One clear similarity: moxie. While some mortals might have gone away after that humiliating pounding that Sarah Palin took in 2008, she's been something of a comeback kid herself. Clinton would never call the media “lame steam,” but he has had some equally unflattering things to say about the insiders who issued those premature accounts of his demise. During this last campaign, it was Bill Clinton who was the Democrats' counter to Sarah Palin. She was using the campaign for her own future of course. So what was Bill Clinton's angle? He wasn't shy about suggesting the Democrats ought to be missing him.
This came at the end of a segment wherein Matthews and his guests unanimously concluded that if Palin were to win the Republican nomination for president in 2012, her problems with independent voters would make it very unlikely she could win the general election.
Just moments before, the host shared with viewers a "Matthews Meter" finding all twelve of his regular contributors believing Obama would get more independent votes than Palin if the pair went head to head roughly two years from now.
With this in mind, was the Clinton-Palin comparison a sincere one, or was Matthews just looking for another opportunity to tell his viewers how wonderful he thinks the 42nd President was?
On the other hand, maybe there's something entirely more nefarious at play?
Consider what Charles Krauthammer said Friday evening about the media's obsession with Palin. Is it possible these folks have concluded as so many of them profess that the White House hopes Palin is the Republican presidential nominee because she in their view would be the easiest to beat?
Are Obama-loving press members trying to orchestrate an outcome by giving an abundance of attention to the person they hope Obama will face in November 2012?
This certainly wouldn't be the first time the media did such a thing.
On the contrary, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) got far more favorable press in 2008 than any of the clearly more conservative Republican presidential candidates including Governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Needless to say this changed once McCain had been nominated and their job was done.
Isn't it therefore likely this very same press will do everything in their power to "nominate" Obama's next contender?
After all, it's got to be one way or the other: media live to build people up and/or knock them down. We've grown so accustomed to the latter with their treatment of Palin that we haven't considered the alternative.
Of course, this could all backfire miserably since the more attention they heap on Palin, the more folks currently with a negative opinion of her might change their minds.
Ironically, the very people working tirelessly on Palin's second assassination could be kicking her right into the White House.
Now THAT would be entertainment.
