Numerous media outlets have recently reported that MSNBC's Chris Matthews has "met" with party officials in Pennsylvania to discuss a potential run for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter. In a December 4 article, Politico reported Matthews "is dead serious about running for the Senate in Pennsylvania -- and is shopping for a house in the state and privately discussing quitting MSNBC as proof of his intense interest, according to NBC colleagues, political operatives and friends." Blogger and Democratic strategist Phil Singer asserted in a December 1 blog post, "If Chris Matthews is seriously considering a run ... he shouldn't be on the air right now." Singer, who was communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2006 and deputy communications director for Sen. Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign, went on to ask: "How could he do an interview with [Democratic Pennsylvania Gov.] Ed Rendell?" Noting the interview question raised by Singer, Huffington Post political reporter Jason Linkins wrote the same day that "Singer should take a peek at some of Matthews' interviews with Rendell from over the past year! They are highlighted by a lot of gooey ass-kissing."

Indeed, examples over the past year of Matthews' gushing over Rendell during interviews with the governor or when talking about him are numerous, and include the following:

• During the 6 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's November 4 presidential election coverage, during an interview with Rendell in which Rendell said, "We're doing especially well in the Philadelphia suburbs, which you know have always been a swing area," Matthews replied: "Well, that's the Rendell strength you've just described. That's where you've always done incredibly well: the suburbs of Philly, the city itself, of course, where you were mayor." Matthews later said, "Well, you're the best political analyst in Pennsylvania, Governor."
• During the 8 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's November 4 presidential election coverage, after MSNBC called Pennsylvania for President-elect Barack Obama, Matthews said, "I think it's a big victory for the young people who ran the Pennsylvania campaign -- Craig Schirmer, Sean Smith, Leslie -- no, I feel like the Academy Award giving out the awards here. Of course, the Philadelphia organization led by Bob Brady and Michael Nutter, of course, the mayor. And, of course, the big winner here, besides the candidate: Ed Rendell, who delivered. This was not his favorite candidate, Barack Obama."
• During the 9 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's November 4 presidential election coverage, Matthews said, "You know, you're going to see, perhaps, the emergence of Cabinet material already tonight. Of course, [New Mexico Gov.] Bill Richardson could fill almost any role in the new government, and [Gov. Ted] Strickland of Ohio and, of course, Rendell of Pennsylvania. These are big governors, big wins, essential wins, but big wins. They're going to play a part in this next administration."
• During an interview with Rendell on the October 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews prefaced a question by saying, "I want to run this by you because you're the best pol in the state."
• During the April 2 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory, Matthews said of the Pennsylvania governor: "I think Eddie Rendell is the smartest politician in this state, as we know."
• During an interview with Rendell on the March 31 edition of Hardball, Matthews asked Rendell: "Would you be available ... to be a running mate with [then-Democratic primary rivals Sens.] Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?" Matthews later went on to say, "I think you'd be a great running -- I understand the situation at home and your responsibilities to the commonwealth. Anyway, I'm here to build you up because I do think you're the best pol around." He added: "[Y]ou're running a hell of a campaign for Hillary Clinton."
• During the opening of the February 13 edition of Hardball, during which he teased an upcoming interview with Rendell, Matthews said: "We'll ask one of the smartest people in politics, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who's on Senator Clinton's side in this fight."
• During the 8 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 8 presidential primary election coverage and during an interview with Rendell in which Rendell and Matthews discussed potential vice-presidential choices for the Democratic ticket, Rendell said: "[T]here are a wealth of good candidates. I mean, if Barack Obama was our candidate for president, I think Joe Biden with his foreign policy and terrorism experience would be perfect. I mean, we've got a whole host of good candidates." Matthews replied: "No, you'd be actually better, because you're very good at slicing up the opposition." He went on to say, "You'd be a great VP running mate."

Media coverage of Matthews' potential Senate run dates back at least to April of 2008. On the April 14 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert said, "There's a lot of talk that you might be running for Arlen Specter's seat." Matthews responded, in part, "I want to be a senator." Around that time, other reported rumors of Matthews' possible run for U.S. Senate emerged. In the May 2 edition of the Politically Uncorrected Column, titled, "Chris Matthews: Ready to Play Hardball in PA," Dr. G. Terry Madonna, professor of public affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Dr. Michael Young, managing partner of Michael Young Strategic Research wrote:

Now no longer the center ring for the traveling Democratic presidential nomination circus, Pennsylvania's inventive political community has discovered a new favorite political parlor game to while away the brisk springtime evenings: will Chris Matthews, the irrepressible host of MSNBC's Hardball, step down from his pundits perch to run for the US Senate against Arlen Specter in 2010? To a remarkable degree, speculation abounds over this possibility in the Keystone State.

In a May 6 post to the Pennsylvania Avenue blog titled "The Chris Matthews rumor gets legs," Josh Drobnyk reported that "two of the state's [Pennsylvania's] top political scientists, G. Terry Madonna and Mike Young, have now weighed in. They think the 'Hardball' host is likely to do it." The post continued:

A Matthews candidacy has been the stuff of rumors so far -- and it is likely to stay that way for the next several months -- but the 62-year-old Pennsylvania native fueled talk when he told Stephen Colbert last month that he wants "to be a senator."

"The indications that Matthews will run are abundant," Madonna and Young wrote. "His MSNBC contract runs out next summer, and both he and the network show signs they might be ready for a break from each other. In addition, journalists are reporting that Matthews has been seeking advice privately from key Democrats across the state about his chances against Specter. Reportedly these contacts have included discussion with Governor Rendell concerning campaign resources."

Then, in a May 9 post to the Chicago Tribune's blog The Swamp, Drobnyk reported that Matthews' brother, "Republican Jim Matthews, a Montgomery County Commissioner," said of Chris Matthews' potential run for Senate: "It is kind of neat to see a guy at the top of his game contemplating a complete change in direction." Drobnyk wrote:

"His intrigue with the idea is certainly on his mind," Jim Matthews said of a Senate run. "That is real."

But Jim said his older brother isn't yet taking any formal steps towards a run.

"Of course he has had dialogue with friends," he said. "He has friends he has dialogue with about the Phillies too. ... You talk with friends and it comes up now and then."

In an April 13 article, Mark Leibovich suggested in The New York Times Magazine that Matthews has been talking with Rendell about a possible Senate run. From the article:

The more intriguing notion is that Matthews could challenge Senator Arlen Specter, who is up for re-election in Pennsylvania in 2010. This has been rumored before, but Matthews has been particularly obsessed with Pennsylvania of late, devoting hours on and off the air to the state's upcoming Democratic primary, staying in close contact with the state's party apparatus. "I talked to Eddie Rendell today," Matthew [sic] told me on the phone a few weeks ago, urging me again to call the Pennsylvania governor.

[...]

I asked him about the Senate rumors. He thinks Specter has hung on way too long, he said, but running would require Matthews to give up a career he loves. Still, "I get a great feeling when I go home," he told me. "Is Thomas Wolfe right? Can you go home again?

"Really, you should talk to Eddie Rendell."

Additionally, a July 27 Patriot-News article quoted Matthews' wife as saying, " 'I think the idea of being a U.S. senator is one of the most romantic things he can think about, so he's got to make a tough decision.' " Moreover, the article quoted Rendell saying that he had given "advice" to Matthews about his potential bid. From the article:

"I told Chris that I think it's going to be tough," said Gov. Ed Rendell, a Matthews favorite on "Hardball."

"I said that if Arlen Specter is the candidate -- and I have every reason to believe he will be -- it's going to be a tough battle for anybody," Rendell said. He said that the only advice he has given Matthews is: "Go into it with your eyes wide open. This isn't going to be a slam dunk."

Matthews has previously denied that he intends to run. In an April 22 Philadelphia Inquirer piece (accessed via Nexis) by columnist Jonathan Storm, titled "10 questions to Chris Matthews, and the uninterrupted answers," Matthews was asked if he was "really going to run for the Senate against Arlen Specter in 2010?" He responded, "I am still honoring the commitment I made in 1987 to cover politics, not engage in it."

Media outlets, including Politico and Roll Call, have reported that several other Democrats are considering running in the primary. According to a November 29 report on The Patriot-News' website, "If Matthews decides to run, he could face a fight for the Democratic nomination." The Patriot-News added: "Three other Democrats are believed to be interested in the Senate seat: two-term U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak of Delaware County, state Rep. Josh Shapiro of Montgomery County, and three-term U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, who represents parts of Montgomery County and Philadelphia."

In his December 1 blog post, Singer wrote that "when one of the network's most visible anchors is reported to be exploring a run for elected office, the network has an obligation to remove that person from its airwaves." Singer continued, providing "a few reasons why":

If Matthews is going to run as a Democrat in what will likely be a contested primary, will he be willing to play hardball when his fellow Democrats are in the news? How could he do an interview with Ed Rendell? How could he be trusted to cover the Obama transition and other political issues without fear or favor? More to the point, will viewers think he is covering politics without fear or favor? [emphasis in original]

From the November 4 edition of MSNBC's presidential election coverage:

MATTHEWS: You know, you're going to see, perhaps, the emergence of cabinet material already tonight. Of course, [New Mexico Gov.] Bill Richardson could fill almost any role in the new government, and [Gov. Ted] Strickland of Ohio and, of course, Rendell of Pennsylvania. These are big governors, big wins, essential wins, but big wins. They're gonna play a part in this next administration.

From the November 4 edition of MSNBC's presidential election coverage:

DAVID GREGORY (NBC chief White House correspondent): And so, here we are. This is a look at the national vote. You see it's Obama with the lead, 103 electoral votes, McCain now with 34. He needs 270 to win. Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Chris Matthews.

MATTHEWS: I thought it might happen tonight. And I have to say right now that the McCain campaign strategy for victory has crashed. Their plan to win was to go through Pennsylvania, to get to the White House through that state. The second battle of Gettysburg has gone the same as the first one, a failure for the Republicans.

I think it's a big victory for the young people who ran the Pennsylvania campaign -- Craig Schirmer, Sean Smith, Leslie -- I feel like the Academy Award giving out the awards here. Of course, the Philadelphia organization led by Bob Brady and Michael Nutter, of course, the mayor. And, of course, the big winner here, besides the candidate: Ed Rendell, who delivered. This was not his favorite candidate, Barack Obama.

GREGORY: Right.

From the November 4 edition of MSNBC's presidential election coverage:

MATTHEWS: Let's go to the action now. Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania joins us now. Governor Rendell, you've playing -- you've been playing defense in those blue states. The number one target, it seems to me, of the Republicans has been to take Pennsylvania away from the Democrats. How does it look tonight?

RENDELL: Well, Senator McCain and Governor Palin spent so much time here the last five weeks, Chris, I was thinking of charging them state income tax. But -- but they really made a terrific effort here, and I congratulate them for trying to convert retail campaigning into a victory. They did a good job, and I think they energized their base. But I think we're gonna win.

The turnouts are exceptional statewide. I think we're gonna break the record that -- for modern-day voting that we had in the Kennedy-Nixon election. We're doing especially well in the Philadelphia suburbs, which you know have always been a swing area. I think Barack Obama may come out of the Philadelphia suburbs 200,000 votes up, out of the city at least 400,000 votes up, out of the Lehigh Valley 25,000 votes up. And if he puts together that string, and he's 625 to 650 up, he can't be caught in any other part of the state, regardless of what happens.

MATTHEWS: Well, that's the Rendell strength you've just described. That's where you've always done incredibly well: the suburbs of Philly, the city itself, of course, where you were mayor. How does it look out west? I know that has been a troubling area, Westmoreland County. It's culturally conservative, Jack Murtha's area. What's it look like out there?

RENDELL: Well, my guess is it's gonna be a lot closer out there, and we'll know pretty fast. I'm gonna try to get some divisions reported to me in the first 10 or 15 minutes. Take Beaver County, 51-49 for Kerry. That's right north of Pittsburgh. It's white working class predominantly. If Barack Obama can stay close to the Kerry total -- 50, 51, 49 percent -- he's going to win the state and win it handily. If he gets down into the 40s -- 43, 44, 42 -- then there could be -- it could be a long night here in Pennsylvania. That's Beaver and Washington, Westmoreland, as you said, those counties.

It's gonna be interesting to watch. I think Barack's gonna do better in central Pennsylvania than a lot of people give him credit for. The northeast, he's helped mightily by Joe Biden. So it's a tough road to hoe for the McCain forces. But again, give them credit, the retail campaign, they did it well. They fired up the base. There was so much red meat going around, it was unbelievable.

MATTHEWS: How was Hillary -- Senator Clinton was up there a lot with you. You're very close to her and, of course, the former President Bill Clinton. He has been campaigning, I saw the other day, for Murtha and for [Rep. Paul] Kanjorski [D-PA]. How powerful were they in delivering their vote today?

RENDELL: I think you'll get -- of the women supporters for Hillary Clinton, I think close to 95 percent will vote for Barack Obama. Hillary did an extraordinary job with her presence throughout the state. She was in Pittsburgh yesterday. Bill Clinton was in Wilkes-Barre, Johnstown, and Erie yesterday. So, I think the Clinton feminist voters are all for Barack.

The working-class, blue-collar white voters who Hillary did so well with and, really, became the champion of, they're gonna split. I think Barack's gonna maintain a significant hunk of them, a good enough hunk to win. Obviously not going to do as well as Hillary did among that group, but I think he's gonna surprise some people.

MATTHEWS: Well, you're the best political analyst in Pennsylvania, Governor. Thank you. You really split it there. I think you're -- that was very interesting, what he just said. The fact that the women who care about women's issues -- of choice, of minimum wage, the concerns women want for equal employment, equal pay -- Hillary delivered the vote. It is very hard to deliver some of the vote, however, it's very culturally conservative, that liked Hillary because she was a traditional Democrat, and to bring them all over was a hard job for her.

From the October 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball (accessed via Nexis):

RENDELL: Well, I think their theory is that most of the undecided votes will break for them and that there are some people who are not answering the question when pollsters ask them, "Who are you voting for?" Some people refuse to answer, and they're finding solace in that.

But as you know, Chris, the polls have been almost exclusively double digits. Susquehanna had a poll beginning of the week that said it was 8 points, but the polls have -- other polls have consistently held it at double digits.

But look, I'm nervous, and I'm nervous for no other reason than they're making a great effort here. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are here a lot. Governor Palin back again today, Senator McCain in three spots yesterday. So they're pulling out all the stops here, and we've got to be ready to defend. And you know, we're doing a good job defending. The issues speak for themselves. And most Pennsylvanians are targeted on the economy and health care, and those issues break strongly for the Obama campaign.

MATTHEWS: I know you've been very supportive of Governor -- of Senator McCain, and you were very supportive, extremely supportive of Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton before that. I'm trying to figure out what's missing in this campaign that would bring it home for the Democrats in Pennsylvania. And I just wonder if there's something that hasn't been said by either candidate, including by Barack. I want to run this by you because you're the best pol in the state, and ask this question.

When you talk to the average guy out there, especially the guy -- and let's be blunt, the white guy because he's in play right now -- he takes pride in being a provider. My dad -- you know, my dad was like that. You take pride in bringing the food home, getting the kids something for Christmas, maybe a week vacation somewhere at the shore. You take pride in being able to take care of your family, and that's the crisis everybody faces right now, taking care of your family.

Do you think Barack Obama has done a good enough job of talking to that average guy out there about how he will be of some modest help and will not get in the guy's way by raising taxes on him?

RENDELL: Yes. I think in the last six, seven weeks, since the economy became in a crisis mode, I think he's done a terrific job speaking to what the average person is worried about -- their own pocketbook, their own budget. I think he's been enormously effective. He's driven home the fact that for working families that make less than $250,000, he's going to give them a tax cut bigger than McCain. He's not going to raise taxes. I think he's driven that home.

From the April 2 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory:

MATTHEWS: That said, I think Eddie Rendell is the smartest politician in this state, as we know, and he said the lead is shrinking. I think Eddie would like us to think going into this that it's going to be about three points for Hillary Clinton, his candidate. It ends up being about eight. The confetti comes down, they say they beat the spread. I would say that's the game they're playing right now.

From the March 31 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Would you be available, Governor, to be a running mate with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

RENDELL: No. No. I said, Chris, I'm going to finish my term here. And who in their right mind would want someone like me to be their running mate? You know, if they came up and said, "What do you think of the presidential candidates' environmental policy that he released today?"

MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, I'll tell you -

RENDELL: I'd say, "Fair, you know, fair." You know, I have this problem of telling the truth all the time and --

MATTHEWS: Well, I think you'd carry Pennsylvania and save it for the Democrats 'cause it is a little bit precarious with John McCain running. And I think you'd bring back in -- you'd bring Ohio in. And I think you'd make Hillary competitive -- or Barack competitive in Florida. I think you'd be a great running -- I understand the situation at home and your responsibilities to the commonwealth. Anyway, I'm here to build you up because I do think you're the best pol around. Hey, thank you, Governor --

RENDELL: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: -- you're running a hell of a campaign for Hillary Clinton.

RENDELL: And we're gonna --

MATTHEWS: If she doesn't win by 10 points, it's not your fault.

RENDELL: There you go.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, sir.

RENDELL: See you.

MATTHEWS: Thank you, Governor Ed Rendell of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

From the February 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

MATTHEWS: So how will the Clinton campaign stop Obama? Put another way, can the Clinton campaign stop Obama? We'll ask one of the smartest people in politics, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who's on Senator Clinton's side in this fight.

From MSNBC's January 8 primary election coverage:

MATTHEWS: You know, everybody would have said, maybe even a couple weeks ago, the idea of the first woman president and the first African-American vice-president serving together was unbelievable, incredible. But you know, when you look at the excitement for Barack Obama, as I and the other reporters have seen up there in New Hampshire, and you look at the results out of Iowa and the unclear results tonight, but yet the fact that the national polls now show Hillary and Obama very close, you begin to think maybe this could be a ticket. Why not? Why do we think so traditionally and say one has to win and one has to go home?

RENDELL: Well, you're absolutely right, Chris. Remember, when Bill Clinton picked Al Gore, that was political heresy. You don't pick two guys from neighboring states. Never done before. And yet it turned out to be a pretty dynamic ticket that energized Democrats and independents throughout the country. So, I'm not saying that's impractical, but my hope is -- and I've been listening to you guys for a couple days now -- my hope is if this is close tonight and if it has a long length, this primary battle, that it doesn't turn nasty. Because if it turns nasty, that would be hard to construct a ticket based on Obama and Clinton.

OLBERMANN: Governor--

RENDELL: You know, there's a -- there are a wealth of good candidates. I mean, if Barack Obama was our candidate for president, I think Joe Biden with his foreign policy and terrorism experience would be perfect. I mean, we've got a whole host of good candidates.

MATTHEWS: No, you'd be actually better, because you're very good at slicing up the opposition. You know, the Democrats have not been well-served by their last two vice-presidential nominees. Neither Al Gore -- or, rather, neither Joe Lieberman, certainly, who seemed to be wanting to join the club that Dick Cheney was the boss of, or John Edwards, who was running for his own campaign four years hence -- neither wanted to play that role of the VP nominee, which you know is to take apart the nominee for the presidency of the other party. And if you don't do that job, you really don't deserve to get the big one, do you?

RENDELL: Well, I think that's right, Chris. Politics is obviously a contact sport. But you've got to take them apart fairly and on substance. I think if you look at the poll, the Romney poll from tonight, that 30 percent of -- of the people who voted in the Republican primary were turned off by those ads. The ads have got to be substantial, they've got to point out real problems. I mean, you've got to be able to say, "Hey, guys, do we want to go back to the days when a woman who wanted an abortion was forced to have it in the back alley with a, you know, a hanger?" You don't want to do that. Do you want to have health care for all Americans and contain health care costs? Those are the type of things you've got to point out. And there are weaknesses in what I believe the approach has been of the Bush administration, and I haven't heard any difference among any of the candidates about a different approach. Tell me, has anybody said --

MATTHEWS: You're making my point, Governor. You're making my point. You'd be a great VP running mate.

RENDELL: There you go. There you go.

OLBERMANN: All right, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. Great thanks. We're going to cut away and go up to Romney headquarters, where the man who is going to finish second tonight in New Hampshire is about to address his supporters.

On the new Tech Night Owl LIVE podcast, host/pundit Gene “the Night Owl” Steinberg welcomes  TidBITS editor/publisher Adam Engst returns to talk about whether Mac users need to install virus protection software, his new unibody MacBook and the controversy surrounding Apple’s new Mini DisplayPort video connection.

Rasmussen Reports:
Election 2010: Pennsylvania Senate Election  —  Pennsylvania Senate: Specter 46% Matthews 43%  —  Republican Senator Arlen Specter is potentially vulnerable in his 2010 bid for re-election.  A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters finds Specter leading MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews …

At Bahama Pundit , Larry Smith outlines the labyrinthine twists and turns in a "landmark" case of medical accountability currently before the Bahamas Medical Council — "more than six years after the 42-year-old man who started it all died."

Responding to reporting, followed by confirmation, that President-elect Barack Obama intends to nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, many in the media, including contributors to Politico and people appearing on CNN and MSNBC, have raised the specter of personal and political "drama" -- which they claim accompanies Hillary and Bill Clinton wherever they go -- negatively affecting the Obama administration. The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page acknowledged that the media are hoping for "drama" resulting from a Clinton appointment; Page responded to the question of how Obama is "going to keep the drama at bay" by saying: "Well, do we want that? We're journalists."

John Isaacs, the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, summarized the "torrent of media coverage" focused on Obama and Clinton's relationship in a December 1 piece comparing the two Democrats' foreign policy positions:

President-elect Barack Obama announced today that he will nominate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to be Secretary of State. Selecting a former rival for the most prestigious of cabinet positions has unleashed a torrent of media coverage, most of which has focused on grossly exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.

This reporting misses the point. As Lt. General Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, wrote recently, "It's not Hillary, it's the policy stupid!" Reporters tend to exaggerate conflict because it makes for more interesting copy. The fact is, however, that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree. [bold in original]

Media Matters for America previously noted that several media figures speculated that Clinton would pursue her own agenda and not Obama's as secretary of state, with at least one pundit speculating that she would attempt to set up a "parallel government" while others speculated that Obama was considering the nomination because if Clinton remains in the Senate, she poses a threat of challenging him for the presidential nomination in 2012 and can "mak[e] trouble" for him in the Senate.

Politico references to purported Clinton "drama"

• In a December 2 Politico column, chief political columnist Roger Simon described Obama's nomination of Clinton as one that "took some struggle and considerable drama" and asserted: "Drama and Hillary seem to go hand in hand, though this is not always her fault. Her husband seems the source of much of it."
• In a December 1 article, chief political writer Mike Allen and executive editor Jim VandeHei stated that Obama's nominations for his national security team "offer some important evidence on the best-kept secret of the past two years: how will a President Obama actually govern in these troubled times?" Allen and VandeHei later asserted that Clinton at the State Department could "be a disaster if the Clinton family's penchant for personal and political dramas distract the Obama presidency."
• In a November 18 article, senior political writer Ben Smith claimed that unnamed members of the Obama campaign view "Clinton as a relic of a drama-filled Democratic past." Smith wrote: "So the transition from viewing Hillary Clinton as a relic of a drama-filled Democratic past to the top choice to run the foreign policy of an Obama administration has been difficult for some campaign veterans, to say the least."

CNN references to purported Clinton "drama"

• On the December 1 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown aired a segment by CNN senior correspondent Joe Johns on Clinton's nomination in which Johns referred to the Clintons as "America's reigning king and queen of political drama." Johns' segment aired again later that night during Anderson Cooper 360. Host Anderson Cooper introduced the segment by saying, "Food fight or partnership? Animal House or Casablanca? Either way, plenty of drama ahead, on top of plenty of drama just to get here. We wanted to know what deals were actually made to get the Clintons on board."
• During the November 23 edition of Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz said to New Republic senior editor Michelle Cottle, "[T]he mood swings here are almost comical. The New York Times on Friday quoting an unnamed Hillary friend as saying, 'She decided, well, she's not going to do it.' Then she decided maybe. So, is the Clinton style, or are reporters ginning this up by talking to everybody they can?" Cottle responded: "Well, you know, every time the Clintons are involved there must be high drama. This is kind of the defining characteristic of the Clintons. So, I'm sure on some level it's, you know, fun for Bill and Hillary to be out there, and they're the ones who are kind of like, well, playing hard to get or, you know, along these lines."
• On the November 21 edition ofCampbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, a panel discussed Peggy Noonan's November 21 Wall Street Journal column, in which Noonan wrote that the "downside" to Obama's selection of Clinton is that "[t]o invite in the Clintons -- and it's always the Clintons, never a Clinton -- is to invite in, to summon, drama that will never end. Ever." Stephen Hayes, senior writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, called Clinton's nomination "a logistical disaster for the Obama administration." CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin later said in response: "I think it's a journalistic obsession more than a public obsession. I really don't think there are a lot of people out there who care what day she accepts this nomination. She's either gonna be a good secretary of state or not."

New York Daily News columnist Errol Louis then stated: "[I]t is curious. I mean, even something simple like opening an office in New York for Bill Clinton -- remember that? There was, the back and the forth, and it couldn't be this place and it couldn't be that place. And then he goes to Harlem. You know, I mean, 'drama' is the right word. I think, though, that you're right, that the drama may not mean that much. But you're always gonna get the drama." Toobin replied, "You are -- we love drama."

• While discussing Noonan's column during the November 21 edition of The Situation Room, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank asserted, "[O]f course there's going to be drama. They could book out the Kennedy Center and sell tickets." Later, Hayes claimed, "Peggy Noonan is exactly right," adding: "And this is, I think, why it's going to be a problem going forward."
• During the November 20 edition of Larry King Live, CNN contributor Amy Holmes said, "I think Republicans would love the get their hands on her [Clinton] in a nomination hearing and start asking all those tough, sticky questions about her husband's financing." She continued: "You know, Barack Obama, he campaigned and he said, 'No drama.' Well, this last week, the Clinton drama has been back. And I think he might have some second thoughts about whether or not he wants that in his Cabinet."
• On the November 17 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, Brown said that "it appears Bill Clinton isn't exactly helping her [Hillary Clinton's] case." Brown later asked if Bill Clinton is "a hindrance" to Hillary Clinton. In response, Louis said:

Well, he's been a -- look, they're a package deal, and I think we always -- we've always known that. And -- but I'll tell you, as far as the vetting, I don't think that this rules Hillary Clinton out by any means. Just as they say "no drama Obama," the Clintons, you get really pretty much the opposite. They're deliberate. They're early boomers. They're the center of attention. They agonize in public.

MSNBC references to purported Clinton "drama"

• During the December 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Page asserted: "The only thing about having Hillary Clinton there is we know her and her husband to be drama people, and we've got 'no drama Obama' as the chief executive." Host Chris Matthews responded: "Well, how is he going to keep the drama at bay?" Page answered: "Well, do we want that? We're journalists."
• On the November 20 edition of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted that "there is a difference between actually working for former President Clinton and -- and the former first lady and actually having Mrs. Clinton in a Cabinet position, particularly as the secretary of state, because her husband brings so much baggage." Bernard continued: "It is -- it's the Clinton era of drama all over again. And really, you know, we should be sort of basking in the election results of November 4th, and already we're back in the middle of Clinton drama." Host David Gregory responded: "Right."
• Appearing on the November 19 edition of Hardball, Bernard claimed "[t]here is always drama" surrounding the Clintons. Earlier, Bernard stated that Obama is "now the president-elect, and once again, all of the headlines in the news are about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton." Bernard added: "And again, I have to say to myself, 'Who is the president-elect?' Is it Senator Obama -- former Senator Obama -- or is it Hillary Clinton? When does it end?" She continued:

She is a leader. She is not a follower. If she's going to be a good diplomat for the United States government, she has to be able to follow Obama's lead. And let's face it. Senator Clinton probably still is looking to 2012 and 2016. You can't do that and be an effective diplomat and also be an effective follower of the president-elect of the United States.

• On the November 17 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "The Clintons are drama." Matthews stated:

When I first heard that the president-elect could pick Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, my impulse was, "trouble." The Clintons are drama. They have ambition, and they also have a story to tell, and to be just by themselves. Why, I asked, does Obama, who has the nickname "No drama Obama," want to marry himself to drama?

• On the November 14 edition of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Gregory asked NBC News political director Chuck Todd: "[B]ut if you were Obama, and you were concerned about the drama factor with Hillary Clinton being on your team when you were considering her or not considering her for vice president, what happens if you bring her into the fold in such a big way and it doesn't work out now?"

From the December 1 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

COOPER: Food fight or partnership? Animal House or Casablanca? Either way, plenty of drama ahead, on top of plenty of drama just to get here.

We wanted to know what deals were actually made to get the Clintons on board. [CNN senior correspondent] Joe Johns has the inside story and the "Raw Politics."

[...]

JOHNS [video clip]: And so what did Barack Obama have to give up to get Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? Well, he had to agree to share the domestic and international spotlight with America's reigning queen and king of political drama.

From the December 1 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: Joe Johns is here with more on the give and take that put Obama's former rival into the top spot at the State Department. What happened?

JOHNS: Well, Campbell, if you're a political junkie like I am, and you love to hear about old-fashioned wheeling and dealing, this story has it all -- the story of how former rivals and a former president brokered an agreement to put Hillary Clinton on the world stage.

[...]

JOHNS [video clip]: And so what did Barack Obama have to give up to get Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? Well, he had to agree to share the domestic and international spotlight with America's reigning queen and king of political drama.

From the November 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Your -- your phone keeps ringing.

Michelle Cottle, the mood swings here are almost comical. The New York Times on Friday quoting an unnamed Hillary friend as saying, "She decided, well, she's not going to do it." Then she decided maybe. So, is this the Clinton style, or are reporters ginning this up by talking to everybody they can?

COTTLE: Well, you know, every time the Clintons are involved there must be high drama. This is kind of the defining characteristic of the Clintons. So, I'm sure on some level it's, you know, fun for Bill and Hillary to be out there, and they're the ones who are kind of like, well, playing hard to get or, you know, along these lines.

From the November 21 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: Well, Steve, the big hurry may be to -- to try to tamp down some of this drama, which we know that the Obama camp hates. I mean, Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal today "to invite the Clintons is to invite in, to summon drama that will never end. Ever."

I mean, are we seeing that play out right now? And if she does go to work for Obama, is he gonna be able to keep her on message? Will he be the boss?

HAYES: No, seriously, I mean, this is hilarious. We are now on, like, day nine of this drama. This is a simple transaction, in theory. Will you accept the job? Yes, I will accept the job. No, I won't accept the job. I mean, it should be as simple as that. Or maybe I need to take a day or two to think about it, I'll get back to you. Instead, really, just what we've seen, Campbell, you point out, in the last 24 hours, you've seen, yes, she's going take it. Well, no, she's not, that's premature. It's on track. Maybe it's not on track.

This is exactly, I think, the problem with picking Hillary Clinton. As much as I am sort of relieved as a conservative that she's a good choice for people who believe what I believe in terms of foreign policy -- she's better than a lot of other options -- this is, I think, a logistical disaster for the Obama administration.

BROWN: So -- so, Jeff, what -- what are these quote, unquote "discussions" about? What do you think they're still negotiating? What are the sticking points?

TOOBIN: Well, they are discussing, certainly, Bill's finances. But to call this a disaster is such a total overstatement. It matters not at all whether she accepts this job on Jan -- on November 21st or December 1st. That is of zero significance. Barack Obama isn't even going to be president for two months yet. This is a total fake noncontroversy of no consequence to anyone.

HAYES: No, I'm sorry. It is not -- it is not a fake noncontroversy. It's -- it's not as much what it's -- what's happening today -- yeah, fine, she could've accepted it a week ago, it doesn't change it. It's what it says about what's likely to come. And I think to deny that is frankly just naive. If you think that this is not a preview for what we're likely to see of a Hillary Clinton secretary of state in the Obama administration, I think it's just naive.

TOOBIN: There are a bunch of conservative journalists who hate the Clintons with such a passion that everything that they do they find offense at some level.

BROWN: But -- but, Jeff --

TOOBIN: And taking a few days to decide is not a big deal.

HAYES: Come on.

BROWN: It's not just -- in fairness, it's not just conservative journalists. I mean, look at the way the media in general -- I mean, we're all guilty of this -- covers the Clintons. I mean, every little up and down is a story, like it or not. And that comes with choosing her, inevitably. So -- so, don't you think that --

TOOBIN: But -- but I -- I think it is -- it is much more --

BROWN: -- it's a story just by virtue she's -- of the fact she's there.

TOOBIN: I think it's a journalistic obsession more than a public obsession. I really don't think there are a lot of people out there who care what day she accepts this nomination. She's either gonna be a good secretary of state or not.

LOUIS: Jeffrey, it is -- it is curious. I mean, even something simple like opening an office in New York for Bill Clinton -- remember that? There was, the back and the forth, and it couldn't be this place and it couldn't be that place. And then he goes to Harlem. You know, I mean, "drama" is the right word. I think, though, that you're right, that the drama may not mean that much. But you're always gonna get the drama.

TOOBIN: You are -- we love drama.

BROWN: OK, right.

From the November 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER (host): Yeah. Listen to what Peggy Noonan wrote in The Wall Street Journal. She's a former speechwriter for President Reagan. "To invite in the Clintons -- and it's always the Clintons, never a Clinton -- is to invite in and to summon drama that will never end. Ever. This would seem to be at odds with the atmospherics of Obamaland."

What do you think about that?

GLORIA BORGER (CNN senior political analyst): Well, I think it tells you a lot about Obama, because you think he doesn't know that? Of course he knows that. He'd have to be living under a rock not to know that.

But I think he's self-confident enough. I think he really wants Hillary Clinton in that job because of the face she's going to present to the rest of the world. And I think he -- he can tell her, if things aren't working out well, things -- things have gotta change. So, I think it shows a very self-confident president-elect.

BLITZER: A lot of people are saying that, Dana. Don't you agree?

MILBANK: Yeah, I think Gloria is absolutely right. I mean, of course there's gonna be drama. They could book out the Kennedy Center and sell tickets. We know that. And it's -- it's going to be very --

BORGER: You'd be in the front row.

MILBANK: It's going to be very exciting for us. But it is a sign of confidence. And he said her assets, which are this huge personality who carries a lot of weight around the world, outweighs whatever little drama we're gonna have over at the Kennedy Center.

BLITZER: Yeah, and I think it's clear -- at least this is the impression I'm getting -- that this relationship that is emerging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is -- they're getting closer and closer on a daily basis. But, you know, I'm not on the inside.

HAYES: Well --

BLITZER: That's just the impression I'm getting.

HAYES: I -- I would say I get a different impression. I mean, you look at just what's happened over the past 48 hours. She was going to take it. No, she wasn't. She's thinking seriously about it. Maybe not. Was it offered, was it not?

I mean, we have honestly had six different turns in this story in 48 hours. This -- this is unprecedented drama.

MILBANK: That was just the first act.

HAYES: And -- and it's a preview -- it's a preview of what is to come.

BLITZER: Yeah, but, you know, a lot of those leaks are coming from aides -- whether Obama aides or Clinton aides -- who may or may not be reflecting their own personal feelings, as opposed to the principals' feelings.

HAYES: There's no doubt. You're right about that. But those aides are going to go with her to the State Department, in all likelihood.

BORGER: Maybe.

HAYES: I mean this is -- this is exactly the kind of drama that he was known for avoiding. Peggy Noonan is exactly right. And this is, I think, why it's going to be a problem going forward.

From the November 20 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:

LARRY KING (host): And, of course, Senator Hillary Clinton. What do you think -- how would Republicans feel about her as secretary of state?

HOLMES: That's an interesting question. I think Republicans would love the get their hands on her in a nomination hearing and start asking all those tough, sticky questions about her husband's financing. You know, Barack Obama, he campaigned and he said, "No drama." Well, this last week, the Clinton drama has been back. And I think he might have some second thoughts about whether or not he wants that in his Cabinet.

From the November 17 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: I mean, once again, it appears Bill Clinton isn't exactly helping her case. And at the time that the VP debate was happening, we heard, frankly, that that was a reason among the Obama team that she wasn't really considered. I mean, is he a hindrance here, truly?

LOUIS: Well, he's been a -- look, they're a package deal, and I think we always -- we've always known that. And -- but I'll tell you, as far as the vetting, I don't think that this rules Hillary Clinton out by any means. Just as they say "no drama Obama," the Clintons, you get really pretty much the opposite. They're deliberate. They're early boomers. They're the center of attention. They agonize in public.

From the December 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Now, let me start with this one -- Clarence, you first. He makes Hillary Clinton, his chief rival, who won 18 million votes, the secretary of state. But then he takes Susan Rice, who he really trusts on foreign policy, makes her ambassador to the U.N., and says she doesn't have to report to Hillary Clinton. She's going to report to me directly. Two Cabinet secretaries sitting next to each other at the Cabinet desk. Explain. It seems to me that that is how you deal with rivals -- you keep them separated.

PAGE: Well, this is a case, to torture what is becoming a cliché, keeping your friend, Susan Rice, close, and your former enemy, Hillary Clinton, closer. As secretary of state, she gets the higher position --

MATTHEWS: And not close to each other.

PAGE: -- not close to each other, but reporting directly to him, which is not that unusual. In the past, you know, national security adviser has always been kind of a rival to the secretary of state, as well. So it is going to be interesting. The only thing about having Hillary Clinton there is we know her and her husband to be drama people, and we've got "no drama Obama" as the chief executive.

MATTHEWS: Well, how is he going to keep the drama at bay?

PAGE: Well, do we want that? We're journalists.

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: OK. Do we want a good story? Chris Cillizza [washingtonpost.com writer], your thoughts. I want to take these one at a time.

From the November 20 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

GREGORY: Well, Michelle, this is the line that they've been threading all week -- and last week, too -- as they have named these Clinton veterans to positions of prominence. And, of course, if Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, it doesn't get anymore prominent than that. The Clinton era is back.

BERNARD: Absolutely. This is, I believe, could be a potentially very significant problem for the brand new Obama administration. I mean, think about it, we just had the election on November 4th. Most of us are talking not so much about the president-elect, but about former President Bill Clinton and about Hillary Clinton.

[...]

BERNARD: But there is a difference between actually working for former President Clinton and -- and the former first lady and actually having Mrs. Clinton in a Cabinet position, particularly as the secretary of state, because her husband brings so much baggage. It is -- it's the Clinton era of drama all over again. And really, you know, we should be sort of basking in the election results of November 4th, and already we're back in the middle of Clinton drama.

GREGORY: Right.

From the November 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

BERNARD: When do you ever see in the history of the United States government, people who are up for Cabinet positions negotiating before the American public? I do ask: How does this end up in The Washington Post? We call him "No drama Obama." You know, he ran such a disciplined campaign. He's now the president-elect, and once again, all of the headlines in the news are about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

And again, I have to say to myself, "Who is the president-elect?" Is it Senator Obama -- former Senator Obama -- or is it Hillary Clinton? When does it end? She is a leader. She is not a follower. If she's going to be a good diplomat for the United States government, she has to be able --

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

JOAN WALSH (Salon.com senior editor-in-chief): Well --

BERNARD: -- to follow Obama's lead. And let's face it. Senator Clinton probably still is looking to 2012 and 2016. You can't do that and be an effective diplomat and also be an effective follower of the president-elect of the United States.

WALSH: Then he won't pick her. You know what, Michelle? Then he won't pick her.

But this is what I have to say. I think this is fascinating. While the world was swept by Obamamania last year -- I confess, I was a late swooner, OK? I had some questions about him, but he won me over. And now I'm sitting here on the sidelines, admittedly, saying, "I trust Obama to make the right decision." If he picks her, it will be because he believes she will carry out his foreign policy. And if he doesn't pick her, there might be many reasons for that, but it'll be the right choice.

So, you know, I think this whole idea -- first of all, the Clintons are being blamed for leaking when it's not clear to me who's leaking what and who's talking about the negotiations. That might be Obama people who want to scuttle this thing. But, as always, the default in any situation is to blame the Clintons. They're the ones at fault.

[...]

BERNARD: See, I don't think this is a question of whether or not people trust Barack Obama's judgment to pick her --

WALSH: Well, I do.

BERNARD: -- or not pick her as secretary of state. But there are a lot of questions about the Clintons. There is always drama.

From the November 17 edition of Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball, tonight from Los Angeles. Leading off tonight: When I first heard that the president-elect could pick Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, my impulse was, "trouble." The Clintons are drama. They have ambition, and they also have a story to tell, and to be just by themselves. Why, I asked, does Obama, who has the nickname "No drama Obama," want to marry himself to drama?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, isn't that something. Barack -- you're from out in the Midwest, you know Barack's reputation: "No drama Obama." He doesn't like anybody on his staff being interesting. He doesn't want even any interesting personalities on his staff like George Stephanopoulos. He doesn't want anybody interesting. He doesn't like any sideshows, period. The Clintons are always an interesting(...)

Remember how “bad” those Microsoft commercials were?  If you thought those were odd and slightly off-putting, you obviously haven’t seen the most recent ads from Ask.com, which are now making the rounds with commentarians asking the same questions they asked about Jerry Seinfeld: “Why?”

“Why is their marketing so random?” asks Harry McCracken.

“Why is their marketing so creepy?” asks SAI’s Dan Frommer.

“Why is the music so sad? Why is she obese? More important: why is she BRITISH?” asks VideoGum.

Harry did accurately observe that the base message being conveyed in the most recent Ask.com commercial is more or less the same as what they started with back in 1996 with AskJeeves, the original moniker for the site.

While I think that the Jerry Seinfeld Microsoft ads could be arguably groundbreaking, in that they were more like sponsored entertainment content rather than traditional advertisement, I have a hard time defending these Ask.com ads. The ads seem to have most pundits and Twitter reactionaries asking questions rather than wanting to try out the service.

Here are the two most recent ads:

On the other hand, those who live “outside the bubble,” so to speak, all seem to have the uniform reaction that the ads are just downright hilarious.

Are we over-analyzing, or are these ads just duds?