Did Matt Lauer really say this?

Today on Today;
LAUER: No front-runner on the Republican side; no front-runner on the Democratic side. And yet when you listen to the press coverage of this, you hear them say "the up-for-grabs race on the Republican side signals a party in disarray. The up-for-grabs race on the Democratic side signals a party with an embarrassment of riches." Why is that? Is it the media?

RUSSERT: We have to be careful. I remember in 1992 it was the Democrats who were the party in disarray [remember the "Seven Dwarfs"?] and Bill Clinton finally emerged and beat George Herbert Walker Bush. But what the Democrats point to, Matt, is money -- Democrats outraising them dramatically. Last night in Michigan, half the Republicans said they're angry or dissatisfied with the Bush administration. We found the same thing in Iowa, and the same thing in New Hampshire. And there are still five viable candidates on the Republican side; only two, two-and-a-half, three on the Democratic side.

LAUER: Mr. Edwards would be really happy that you called him half a candidate.

RUSSERT: I said three at the end, didn't I? It was a long flight!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No one spoke to Blago, except Rahmbo multiple times...

Obama at 45% in Rasmussen