I know we’ve been posting a lot about Matthews, but if we want a better press corp—this needs to be done. Chris Matthews needs to be drummed off of any election coverage from here on in. He was an embarrassment last night that included a lashing he got from Tom Brokaw on several occasions and by the end of the night he appeared to calm down. Well, early this morning with The Scar he had this to say:
Download | Play Download | Play
Matthews: Well, I don’t know if they read the NY Post. I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about her mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.
That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation, right? That’s what happened! That’s how it happened.
I mean root for her or not, but this is beyond the pale and our media relishes in it. Have you no decency? MSNBC should suspend this jackass. It’s not possible in his warped mind that she could have won her seat in NY because she happened to be first lady and campaigned well for the spot.
Markos, who is not a Hillary supporter makes some very good points.
But the more assholish her detractors behave, the more you help her. The way she was treated the past few days in New Hampshire was a disgrace, and likely a large reason for her surprise victory. So keep attacking her for bullshit reasons, and you’ll be generating more and more sympathy votes for her.
What is wrong with Chris Matthews? With all of these media people? I mean that, in all honesty, what in the hell is wrong with them? Their personal loathing of Hillary Clinton shone through in every sniggering, overwrought report this wee.
Filed Under: Hardball/Chris Matthews
Tags: Chris Matthews, Hillary Clinton, Media Criticism
No Trackbacks To “Chris Matthews says the only reason Hillary became a Senator is because Bill “messed around”“
If he keeps running his mouth, she will be in the White House a year from now. I think he wants her to win, so she can pinch his cheek and hug him again.
It wasn’t Hillary’s tears — it was Obama’s shrug
No one, male or female, young or old, Left or Right, has trouble recognizing, and applauding, the historic, inspirational aspects of Barack Obama’s campaign.
But this campaign season has shown that men, including the leading male Democratic candidates and their mostly male campaign advisors, may be having difficulty fully recognizing, and effectively acknowledging, how historic and inspirational Hillary Clinton’s campaign is for women.
That failure to grasp what the first serious female Presidential candidacy means for women, including those who are not committed Clinton supporters, or fully decided on any candidate, had consequences in New Hampshire.
For instance, if the Obama camp had been able to put themselves in the shoes of women, to see the campaign through their eyes for a moment, Obama might not have missed the opportunity handed to him in the New Hampshire debate, when Clinton was questioned about her “likeability” — a question that, for women, resonated with all the age-old dismissals of public women and their attractiveness. He would have known that he needed to strongly and immediately denounce the cringe-making, sexist nature of the inquiry. He would have understood that it wasn’t Hillary’s likeability that needed defending — with a shrug and a diffident, “You’re likable enough” — but a woman candidate’s right to be taken seriously, and engaged with, seriously. He would have known that it wasn’t about standing up for Hillary, a strong and able competitor, but about demonstrating that he would stand with the women whose votes he seeks and needs.
Today’s women, especially those of Clinton’s generation, have spent most of their lives bushwhacking into new territory, without guides or guideposts. They understand that competing against a woman is mostly new, and therefore tricky, territory for male politicians. They’re willing to forgive a few mistakes, but not too many. Both Obama and Edwards made rooky mistakes in, at times, appearing to take cues on how they should compete against a woman from the mostly clueless, still male dominated, media. They also allowed themselves to be lulled into over-estimating how much the orgy of over-the-top negative coverage of Clinton could benefit them. Now they’ve been given a chance to get a clue from women voters themselves.
If they know how to listen, here is what they’ll hear; they have to take every opportunity possible to disassociate themselves from the boy’s club discomfort with a woman in the tree house that characterizes too much of the coverage of Clinton’s candidacy — and run like men who fully understand the respect women have earned.
Male candidates can be reassured that women won’t vote for a woman just because she is a woman. But it’s past time for them to wake up to the full implications of this; increasingly, women don’t have to vote for men simply because they have no other choice.
The admiration for her toughness came after 8 years of unrelenting Republican persecution. Sexist Matthews can’t get it through his tiny brain.
Tweety turns into a snarling cornered beast in 3 . . 2 . . 1 . .
the 21st century is no environment for old-style “Guys”/Dudes, and though gratifying to see them publicly selected against at last, it’s still kind of a sad thing to watch. Like seeing your old man cry… first
I love our librul MSM.
I’m no Clinton fan, but that really is bad. I think Matthews is a misogynist with a big machismo fetish.
He’s what people used to call a real “man’s man”, if you know what I mean.
I think Hillary ran to get the “experience” to make a run for the White House. I think she won because she was the best choice for New York.
www.pafundi.com
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4361
Mathews is a mental midget. Is anyone surprised?
What I wanna know is the reason Matthews still on the air? and please be brutal
is assholish a word?
The media and the Republican Party made Hillary Clinton. She would have had no chance in hell of winning anything, anywhere by herself without their help. Just as, if she was not Bill Clinton’s wife, she would have been out of this race long ago. Anybody that thinks different is only fooling themselves.
Barbara Boxer, Mary Cantrell, Elizabeth Edwards, my fourth grade teacher, ANYone but Hillary!
I wonder if KO has the balls to put someone from his own network in the running for today’s Worst Person in the World award?
esmense, you’ve hit the nail on the head–couldn’t have said it better (hey, I couldn’t have said it) myself.
ConcernedCanuck @ 12:
Oh and I still say that Matthews and Hillary either had an affair, or are in an affair. It’s WAY too obvious.
The fact that she is hated by so many assholes is becoming a more and more compelling reason to vote for her with each passing day.
“What is wrong with Chris Matthews?”
Well to begin with he reads the New York Post, and even goes on to advise others to read it.
Btw, glad I’m not the only that noticed Matthews said this.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....ent-413170
ConcernedCanuck @ 16:
Nah, I think Hillary turned him down, told Matthews that Bill was more man that Matthews would ever be! ;-)
Unbelievable… absolutely astonishing.
Why does this man continue to hold a position? They fired Jimmy the Greek for far less.
I don’t care for Hillary but Matthews is grasping at straws trying to justify himself
I’m disgusted with Dan Abrams. He lets this chubby chaser go on night after night with Scaifetard talking points while Shuster doesn’t have a show and Alison Stewart is relegated to a backup QB role
Hillary became Senator because the GOP couldn’t find any one to run a serious campaign against her. Rudy had his shot but backed out, cowered some say. Am I the only one to remember that?
jr @ 23:
I suspect they let Matthews go to such extremes in attempt to “balance” KO.
Tweety’s other neocon hero Rudy Giuliani Scores 9.11% In Three NH Towns.
Swashbuckler @ 20:
LOL! Not sure about that. Many years ago my brother had a girlfriend that ended up getting caught in the sack with one of his friends that she just totally “despised” to the point of sounding obsessive, just like Matthews does. Food for thought.
This tool is definitely gonna be one of the first against the wall when the Revolution comes. 1776 2.0.
So, in his book
“The Audacity of Hope” . Please I’m tired of MSNBC Chris Mathews telling me what kind of person Obama is. Here, I’ll give some of my own analysis and try to tell the truth as I see it, in the way Obama presents himself.
Right off, Obama is a good writer in reference to this book, but like all married couples Obama credits his wife, Michelle, with shaping a lot of what is in his book. If Americans have the sense to carry this ideal to Bush, or Hillary, lets be sure a lot what they all do and think is shaped by each other. So, what you think is being said here? If Michelle shapes some of the way Obama thinks, it perfectly normal to think Hillary would have shaped some of what Bill Clinton thought.
What’s my point? That argument Obama makes that Hillary didn’t shape any of the government during Bill Clinton’s administration is now “Hard to Believe in”.
I use that phrase because of the simple rant Obama uses but is very misleading. “Change we can believe in”. So, honestly Bill Clinton needs to be on the campaign trail just as Michelle needs to be. The whole thing the Mainstream Media paints as helping or not is a moot point. A married couple helps each other to shape ideals for the best acceptable way. Let me place emphasis on acceptable because what I accept is not what you accept. Probably what Chris Mathews wouldn’t consider.
I think the reason why Chris Matthews is like this is because he has a crowbar stuck up his ass. I mean, really, it’s gotta hurt having that thing lodge in there day after day! Spit.
If someone asks me why I detest george w. bush, I can sit down with them and give them an endless list of his actions and his lack of actions, and make a case for detesting george w. bush that would hold up in any court of law.
Ask people why they detest Hillary Clinton and you often get a response like, “I just can’t stand her!” But they never examine the carefully crafted agenda of the GOP in concert with the media that has been shaping that opinion for a long, long time. Chris Matthews is but one glaring example, and he only stands out because of the rabidness of his attitude.
Doesn’t matter to me whether the media glorifies somebody or crucifies somebody. I’m just looking for the best person to do the job of president of the United States. Personally, I don’t like John Edwards. I can’t explain it, it’s just my persistent gut reaction to him. Maybe he reminds me of somebody. I don’t know. But I support him for president because I think he’ll do the best job, and it doesn’t matter whether I like him or not. I didn’t like John Kerry, either, but I supported him and voted for him because I thought he was better than george w. bush.
joze46 @ 28:
Chances are Obama and Edward’s spouses are there to support them. Chances are Bill Clinton is there looking for cigar holders.
Matthews’ hatred for the Clintons has been obvious for years, but he especially has a hard-on for Hillary. He loses all objectivity when discussing her and allows his emotions to cloud his judgment. I’m really surprised that he made the announcement that declared Hillary the winner. I figured he’d have his head in the toilet by then.
Can I like CM again? Please…
“Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal,”
Let’s not forget that you lie every time you open you evil mouth, Chris.
I’ll be brutal and point out that you cozen mass-murderers and have the morality of a (bubonic plague carrying) flea.
Here in Canada, we follow your presidential race with a mixture of hope and despair. Hope because of the greatness of your country and the quality of some of the people you may elect who will bring an end to the era of GWBWTF. But despair at the quality and stupidity of some in the media, like Chris Matthews, who seem too often to control the message and the perceptions. It is a tragedy if your political process can be subverted by these intellectual pigmys and their narcissistic views of the world. I hope the vox populi continues to prove Matthews and his ilk wrong and incompetent. Please press your elected reps to break up the stranglehold a few media companies hold on your great country.
One of the reasons it seems like so many pundits are down on Clinton?
She didn’t give them the spectacle they wanted back in the 1990s.
I mean, everyone remembers (or should) how they were salivating over the BJs in the Oval Office (like no president had ever gotten his rocks off with someone other than the First Lady on the premises). The only thing that would have really made a memorable scandal? A divorce, separation, some kind of public display of angst that would have been television fodder for months.
Instead, they got nothing. No juicy gossip (other than that in the tabloids, 95% of which is crap and everyone knows it), no divorce. The marriage stayed together.
I don’t think they’ve ever forgiven her that missed moment of moral pontificating. Especially since so many of them have had their own marital issues and the marriages didn’t hold.
ConcernedCanuck @ 31:
Ah, another entry in the competition to be the most vicious.
Has it occured to you that either or both Clintons could easily be dead by the end of the year? We are dealing with GIGANTIC enemies over her, Canuck. I lived through the sixties, and I remember what is going on. How come you’re so slick?
Hillary is in not my pick…at all..and it has nothing to do with being a woman; I want a progressive in office and Hillary is no progressive. That said, Matthews just insulted the intelligence of the state of New York, as if the only way liberal NY would vote for a woman is out of sympathy. Do they not remember her batshit crazy Repub opponent with the husband chin deep in scandal? Oh, nevermind. But you know, he’s not the only chauvinistic douchebag on the air.
Tonight on his show that cheese-head Ed Schultz said that the women in New Hampshire voted for Hillary because she cried and they felt sorry for her. Yeah, that’s it Ed….all the women in New Hampshire base their freaking vote on who they freaking feel sorry for - they just aren’t smart enough to look deeper than that. Hillary only won by 3000 or so votes. Are there only 3000 women in New Hampshire? God, these idiots in the media, including some on the left to be frank, are ginormous dolts..every single one of them.
yeah that’s it.. i’m voting for Hillary because Bill cheats on her..uh huh..
Jerry @ 35:
90% of the electorate have never heard of him.
i vote for Hillary because Bill cheats on her??
Holy crap i can’t believe he actually said that *on the air*! He’s clearly losing his “mind”.
Can somebody PLEASE post any response from Rachel Maddow on this statement. Too bad she wasn’t on when he said it.
wow
Obviously Matthews is wrong to treat sympathy as the sole reason for her electoral success, but certainly any adequate explanation of that event must take that sort of socio-psychological data as a voter motive into account. That seems a poor reason to vote for a candidate, but it may have been one and helped provide her a platform for her to cast a new myth about why she’s presidential material.
At best this sort of coverage and blogosphere chatter about it proves that the Onion is one of the best sources for information on contemporary American life. B.S. does appear to be the most important election issue.
But as a more practical matter - do we really want four more years of braindead polemics about Hillary’s femininity and Bill’s love of courtesans?
Paul in LA @ 37:
What would they die of? THEY are part of those “enemies” you claim you are dealing with. Here in my country the last 4 years or so, the media has been just completely baffled why the polls, all the polls (and our elections at the fed level have completely reflected the polls as well) that there is not one leader, from any of our national parties, that Canadians will give a majority election to. Know why? Because we have became a nation of intelligent cynics. We know, they are all buddies, they all eat together, they all go to parties together, they all play golf together, etc, etc,….We know it’s an act! Why do you think Reagan was so damn good at it? It’s an act.
he’s right.
I’m sorry, do all actually doubt that?