Rush says crap like that all the time, actually much worse in my opinion, but he still remains on the air.

And there is typically hell to pay.

While one may disagree with his point, or with its significance, what he was trying to say seems perfectly obvious to me when I watch the video with that sentence in the context of what he was saying.

I don't know if you saw the context or just the eight word link on Drudge (I know you prefer to react and then let us provide he context) but what he was saying is that to him (Matthews) it is remarkable how after the history surrounding race in this country that the fact that Obama is black is essentially irrelevant to the conversation is amazing.

"For an hour I forgot he was black" = "The fact that he's black was completing unimportant to the tone, content, and nature of his speech tonight, and after all the tension over race who would have thought that was possible so quickly."

I imagine he's going to be forced to grovel but it strikes me as unwarranted. And if a conservative commentator said the same thing, I also wouldn't have a problem with it. But by same thing I mean same meaning, not same words, those same six words could obviously be used and have a very different meaning. "Since he gave such a long speech without once slipping into jive talk, for an hour I forgot he was black tonight" for example.

Actually, I hadn't read it on Drudge, I heard a whole clip of it on the radio this morning on the way into work.

Here's the entire section of what he said.....

I just wonder why he still thinks of him in terms of race. I didn't think we were supposed to do that, and frankly, I don't. I see him for his politics, not his race. I don't think of him as a black President, I think of him as a liberal President.

And that is exactly what Matthews was saying: Isn't it amazing, considering the history of this country, that his race is irrelevant to all of this. It isn't a comment on Obama so much as a pat on the back for the progress we've all made.

It is a handy rhetorical tool though to turn "isn't it amazing how irrelevant race is" into "all you're seeing is race, how racist."

I would prefer that Matthews slobber less when blowing Obama, but this specific comment doesn't bother me at all, and the response strikes me as another example of manufactured outrage.

But WOW! Maybe I should go to Drudge more often , and thanks for inspiring me to this morning. Such fun stuff -

Reid and Napolitano yawning and sleeping during the speech.
Calling his comments on Supreme Court decisions Intimidation.
Scientists involved in the stolen email scandal hid climate data.
UK telegraph givin g Obama an F for world leadership.
Ford, who didn't take stimulus money, turned a huge profit.
Obama Treasury Secretay Geithner getting slammed for his involvement in some way with AIG.
Consipiracy of Hillary not at the SOTU.

Good stuff and so much fun! I've got a lot of articles to read now.

I'll take you at your word that you don't KNOWINGLY read Drudge, but it is no coincidence that 80% of the time you raise an "interesting" political issue it is a story that he posted within the last few hours.

But by all means read the articles. Obviously I do. What would be nice is seeing some form of healthy skepticism rather than relying on us to provide the easy counter arguments.

For example, the Hilary missing SOTU link is a complete misrepresentaion trying to make it sound more significant than there is any reason to.

I didn't say I accepted your counter argument as to what Matthews meant. I didn't view it on a comment on Obama at all, nor a comment on how the rest of us view Obama, but that to Matthews, except for an hour tonight, he views Obama as a black President. It tells me that race is a primary defining factor to Matthews, if not the primary defining factor.

That's funny. I would never consider him a liberal. On many things, I think he's to the right of me. And I consider myself a moderate.