I'm going to have to disagree.  Now I'm not going to defend Dana on anything other than these videos because I don't know much about her, but she made many attempts to get Chris Matthews and the Princeton scholar to talk about the substance of the tea party (spending, deficits, national debt, etc), but they refused and kept moving towards the usual racist, lawlessness, secessionist accusations.  Chris Matthews would point out the Hitler mustaches on Obama as offensive and Loesch would rightly come back with those Chris would advocate (ie: the left) putting Hitler mustaches on Bush.  I hope she wasn't implicity supporting Bush, but she makes a good point.  Matthews continued to put words in Loesch's mouth and he (and the scholar) tried to paint the entire movement as being defined by the fringe element.

The Princeton scholars tactic was that she was trying to sound like she was a genius, "the tea partiers are asking us to draw a parrallel between their movement and the american revolution, but nowadays we have elected representatives while England gave the colonies no representation." This misconstures the, at least original, intent of the Tea parties which explicity stated constantly that they were protesting the massive amount of spending.  Not to mention that the Boston Tea party was 3 years before the declaration of independence was signed and was a legitimate act of protest (just like the current tea parties are), the fact that it is rooted in colonial america around revolutionary times just draws on imagery everyone in the US would know.

The only thing I think Loesch messed up on was that she, and maybe didn't mean to, implied that the tea partiers recieved taxation without representation.  Now, one could make the argument that the representatives aren't representing their (the Tea partier's) interest and are really just doing whatever they want (which isn't a hard argument to make given the overall rejection of the health care bill that was passed anyway), but she never clarified what she meant.

So really, Matthews and the Princeton scholar didn't say anything, the entire beginning of the whole segment was based on the idea that the Tea partiers are directly related to Obama's race or diversity in Washington in general.  I mean, that is just a stupid argument (and Loesch makes a point on this issue too).  They spent the rest of the segment trying to define the tea parties as anything but what they obviously are (and Obama even agreed that this is what they are): big government, big spending, big deficit protests.