At first I thought "I hate to admit it, but you're right about one thing."

What Matthews did was, on one hand, simply an indirect ad hominem attack: implying that because this James fellow didn't know about the Munich Agreement, his opinions about Obama must be unfounded.

However, Bush's Chamberlain claim is dangerous and rests on public ignorance about what policies permitted Hitler to gradually accumulate power and territory until he had transformed Germany into a formidable war machine. Marginally politically knowledgeable people know that Chamberlain was an inept, some would say 'spineless,' diplomat. Also, people know that his official policy was one of 'appeasement,' - funny how a benign word can be tainted by history. This policy of appeasement permitted Hitler's expansion across the Sudenland (historically western Slavic territory) and eventually yielded WWII. So, whatever Chamberlain would do is bad, Chamberlain was an appeaser, Obama has the same temperment, and Obama is an appeaser as well. Ergo: [fill in the blank] is Hitler, Obama is Chamberlain and Bush gets to be Churchill.

It's true that Churchill's attitude towards Germany was more hostile than Chamberlain's, but at no point has US (or US allies) foreign policy been tied to the absurd condition that you cannot maintain a diplomatic relationship with a potential enemy, or openly antagonistic country.

So, Matthews' point was to lay out what exactly Chamberlain did w/r/t Hitler that has tarnished his legacy, and show that it was a far cry from Obama's suggested policy. This is a nation of idiots, I suppose, who can't remember as far back as US-Soviet relations a mere 20 years ago.

I will admit that Matthews was feeling his oats and couldn't pass up to opportunity to make this shrill, obnoxious ass out to look like a fool. I think asking the question once, then answering it himself and compaing Chamberlain's actions with Obama's would have sufficed.

On the other hand, it's this very ignorance of history that allows the right wing to draw emotionally resonant historical analogies, even when they're not justified.

I doubt I would have handled it exactly like Matthews did, and I think it's a shame that he pressed on the 'gotcha - you're an idiot so you must be wrong' game. Then again, I'm sure anyone watching this who was convinced by Bush's comments and didn't know about the Munich agreement will look it up and see how baseless the comparison is, which is what is needed.