"And on the war, I think my numbers would be a lot higher if I were out there beating the drum for this war. In fact, I don't think it, I know it. But I can't be for the war"

In this quote, Chris Matthews is assessing the influence of public posture in politics, especially in relation to public support for war. Through his statement, Matthews highlights the typically intricate relationship in between political position, personal belief, and public perception.

To start with, Matthews acknowledges the prospective political benefit of supporting the war, implying that aligning with a pro-war stance may cause increased appeal and approval ratings. This suggests that he knows a section of the general public or political sphere that might value strong assistance for military actions, potentially driven by nationalist beliefs, or the understanding of strength and decisiveness usually connected with wartime leadership.

Nevertheless, Matthews distinguishes between what may be politically expedient and his individual convictions with the statement, "But I can't be for the war". Here, he stresses a morally or fairly grounded opposition to the war, suggesting a personal dedication to principles that outweighs the attraction of political gain. This exposes an internal conflict in between the pressures of public expectation and personal stability, a typical battle for public figures, particularly in problems as polarizing as war.

The quote also subtly critiques the political environment where enhancing one's public standing can in some cases need compromising individual beliefs. It recommends a dissatisfaction or frustration with the concept that taking a popular position may easily inflate one's popularity, irrespective of the ethical implications or personal convictions.

Eventually, Matthews is pointing to the repeating issue in politics: the stress in between aligning with popular belief for tactical factors versus sticking to individual beliefs that might not align with the bulk. The quote shows the wider style of authenticity in management and the cost of maintaining stability in the face of potential political benefit.