They're gone. Andrea, or as our sometime corporate collaborator Rachel says, "our beloved Andrea," is a willing co-conspirator. Chris Matthews, I'm convinced, is clueless about the circles he moves in; the D.C. political class is too intertwined and incestuous to escape the POLITICO groupthink. The Andrea-POLITICO connection is well known. As is the POLITICO Romney-Republican false narrative, willingly promoted by Andrea and perhaps unwittingly by Chris.
Today, in Hardball's opening segment, the theme was a "sweet" Democratic convention versus a "sour" Republican one. Chris hosted a real journalist, the Huff Post's Howard Fineman, and a Romney crapagandist, chief POLITICO RATBASTARD, Jim Vandehei. Immediately, Vandehei began pushing back with Romney trash talk:
- The Repugs had successfully sold the electorate on the need for a change. Oh really? Then why have the polls not moved ONE IOTA for Romney beyond the Repug electoral base?! Even Vandehei had to reluctantly admit the Romney campaign "internals" in Ohio have Obama ahead by 8.
- Then he sought to diminish the FABULOUS Democratic convention, first, by denying the obvious, that Republicans weren't enthused for Romney, trying to build a TOTALLY FALSE case that they were; then he made another excuse, that the Democrats went second; SO WHAT!? That has NOTHING to do with putting on a great, well-managed convention.
- Then Vandehei dismissed the Democratic "bounce" which was significant to Chris in one poll, because it placed Obama for the first time above 50% approval, at 52%, saying he agreed (naturally) with the Romney pollster who characterized it as a "sugar high."
- He began claiming Romney's supposed debate prowess, while diminishing the President's. The aim here is to build false a priori expectations for who has "won" and "lost" the debate. It goes something like this: If the President wins, but Romney more or less holds his own, according to POLITICO's spin, then the debate goes to Romney. If the President creams Romney, then he has won "on points" but Romney connected with some dubious points. If the debate is perceived by the viewing public as more or less even, or a draw, then Romney has "won" because the diminished expectations, suddenly elevated, were so much higher for the President.