Matthews says Zimmerman’s claims are obvious!

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2012

The dog that finally howled: We never thought we’d get the chance to criticize a cable talker for this.

But last night, Chris Matthews showed his all-around skill at bungling in all kinds of ways. As he started his 7 P.M. hour, he launched an absurd account of the killing of Trayvon Martin—an absurd account in which he simply assumed the validity of the claims which are being advanced by George Zimmerman.

Here’s the transcript of what he said. The videotape sounds much worse than the transcript reads. To watch this segment, click here:

MATTHEWS (4/11/12): It seems to me, if this case, this matter occurred as so many people believe it did, an incident involving a neighborhood watch person, in this case the defendant now, George Zimmerman, and this victim, of course, Trayvon Martin, he suspected, perhaps, this man of burglary or something or it’s, whatever he was doing, he said he was up to no good in the tapes.

Then the question is, How did the incident develop, how did the provocation lead to a fight of some kind physically, some kind of back and forth that led to this guy pulling his gun and shooting him?

Where does the issue of “reckless disregard” get in here? Isn’t it clear, based upon the defense, that he shot him in self-defense? Where is— Why does that involve “disregard” when he is obviously shooting to stop a person from hurting him badly? Where does the reckless disregard factor come in here?

This was quite a surprise! For one brief murky ridiculous moment, we actually had a major broadcaster pimping Zimmerman’s account of the case as if it was “obvious” and “clear,” beyond dispute, basically proven.

Isn’t it “clear,” Matthews asked, that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense? He went on to say that Zimmerman “obviously” shot Martin to avoid getting hurt badly.

Did Matthews mean to say these things? Did he mean to assert that the claim of self-defense is obvious? We don’t know, and he quickly dropped this posture.

But there you see the sort of bungled work which has been absent in the past month. One broadcaster after another has offered tortured narrations asserting the obvious truth of anti-Zimmerman claims and narrations. Here, for just one brief absurd moment, you saw Matthews bungling, as he so typically does—but bungling in the other direction.

Briefly, it was obvious, it was clear, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense!

That’s the dog that hasn’t howled over the course of the past month. Matthews was wrong when he howled this way, of course. Many others have been massively wrong when they’ve howled in the other direction.