It was a terrible day, the Ides of March 2020, when the Donald realized three things.

First, the pandemic is real and history changing. 

Second, the United States could lead the world with its resources in solving the challenge.

Third, it would probably mean the Nobel Prize from Donald if he could pull it off.

Fourth, Donald realized he didn’t have what it took to manage the challenge.

It would have been a game changer.  Rats!

MSNBC declared Secretary Clinton the Presumptive Democratic Nominee.  When they took the position they called it "part of the process".

I reject that idea. 

The Fourth Estate is part of the equation.  And the Fourth estate can have an effect on events.  But it is not their job to have any effect on events.  They report events.

They had no appropriate reason to declare a candidate successful because they, the fourth estate, interviewed voters (super delegates) and determined how they would probably vote in the future, as if they could tell the future.  They may have a right to predict the future, but a nominee is successful when and only when the votes are counted.  That will be at the convention.

And Rachel is not "Arguably the smartest person on TV" no matter what Vanity Fair says.

Added 6-10-2016 - Hillary is now the presumptive nominee. Wonderful and good for her.  I wonder what the early declaration by MSNBC had on the California primary numbers.  There was no question that Hillary would be the nominee, but the California actual numbers were much more in favor of Hillary than the polls had suggested.

Also a correction:  Removed "Cosmopolitan" which was originally mentioned as a possible source of the "Arguably the smartest..." quote.   That crack was over the top.

Chris Matthews - Hard Ball

One thing leads to another.  Donald Trump trashes Megyn Kelly and it makes me look harder at Megyn Kelly.  I like her.  Who knew?

MSNBC suggests Rachel Maddow (I'm a fan) might be the smartest person on television, and I look harder at Ellen DeGeneres, the TV show host, actor, writer, producer, philanthropist and activist.  I think Rachel should aspire to the the Ellen DeGeneres of political pundits.

But the biggest surprise to me is the way Chris Matthews interviews a person with such a badgering manner.  Hardball I guess.  In his interview with Donald Trump, Matthew's signature method of asking a question, and as soon as the answer starts, he pounces with quick one liners amplifying the question or even changing the subject.  He makes a listeners try harder to understand the person being bullied.  I've never before tried to understand Donald Trump.  (Still don't.)  

​In defense of Chris Matthews, he treats everyone same, even his colleagues.  I've come to like them better, too.