And Matthews seems awfully intent on motivating any sort of latent anti-Chris Matthews vote in future primary states as well. Get a load of what he said (hat tip, Greg Sargent) about Hillary Clinton this morning on MSNBC:
The Hillary appeal has always been about her mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let’s not forget — and I’ll be brutal —the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win on her merits. She won because everybody felt, my god, this woman stood up under humiliation, right? That’s how it happened. In 1998 she went to New York and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously, but it was about the humiliation of Bill Clinton.
I don't understand why some affluent progressives are so hostile to Hillary. They criticize her on cosmetic grounds, as though we're all still in high school--"she's too stiff, she too boring, she too ambitious, blah, blah, blah." But she has devoted her entire political life to the cause of people who need help. She bridges the gap between the powerful and those who are struggling. The real proof of this is in who actually votes for her. The republicans hate her so much precisely because she threatens them with real, affirmative, assertive change. Obama gets the support of the trendy and the affluent. I think of him as the iPhone of politics--a marketing phenomenon, looks good, but doesn't really work so well at what it is supposed to do.
Hillary continues to get the support of people who are actually struggling by wide margins. In the early 1990s, she was devoting herself to getting universal health care for the uninsured. It wasn't a big issue then. She was younger then than Obama is now, and she is one of the reasons that universal health care may become a reality. That may not matter too much to you if you're affluent, have a good job with health insurance, and someone else cleans your apartment. But for people who are struggling, Hillary is the real deal.
Posted by chiron
on Fri 11 Jan 2008 at 09:30 AM
The quote of Chris Mathews at the end of this story leads to one brutally honest conclusion: At least when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Chris Mathews is a blithering blind idiot who demonstrates he does not deserve the position that his employer provides to him.
The assertion is not only deeply insulting to Clinton and the thousands of voting New Yorkers, but fundamentally ridiculous and without any basis whatsoever. What in the world was he thinking.
If you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was just a complete verbal burp on his part, then why has he not apologized to Hillary Clinton and his audience and admitted the total stupidity of his assertion.
It has no basis in fact. Hillary Clinton is Sentor of New York because hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers voted for in an election she won by a landslide. Chris Mathew's hypothesis has not basis in fact. There is no evidence that anyone voted for her for the reason he claimed let alone thousands and if anything this personal embarrasment harmed her ability to win if anything else.
Chris Mathews should apologize and his employer should rethink whether someone who is so blinded by personal hatred should represent them on their program.
Posted by Catch22
on Fri 11 Jan 2008 at 11:27 AM
Chris Matthews is undeserving of even critical review of his foolish brand of political commentary. I wouldn't even use the word analysis for fear of misleading others concerning the nature of his work. He plays the bufoon for an audience that seems to enjoy the absurdity of his behavior. His faux emotional reactions, his absurd pontification of his ideas, which are yet more absurd, plays to the inclination of too many viewers who apparently are titillated by Mr. Mathews antics. The only rational aspect of his entire career is that he's payed to play the image of the fool, which he does so well.
Posted by Jack
on Sat 12 Jan 2008 at 01:51 PM
Matthews is not the only one. Joe Scarborough is as bad, if not worse. He's glib and snarky and represents nothing close to the art of dispassionate commentary. Besides he has a questionable past which in myt mind disqualifies him from having any position in which he can sway public opinion. MSNBC has a great prospect, in David Schuster, and continually fails to take full advantage of it. He is decidedly deserving of a lead spot, but for some obscure reason gets overlooked. Check into Scarborough yourself and tell me why he has his spot.
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/congressman_joe_scarborough.htm
Posted by johnie2xs
on Sun 13 Jan 2008 at 11:12 AM
I don't like Clinton for president because she's vague and uninformative about her plans for office. While she gives lip service to some issues, she offers nothing substantial as to how she intends to accomplish those goals.
She has an awful record on media censorship.
She's entirely too beholden to corporations and special interests.
Posted by AhmNee
on Tue 15 Jan 2008 at 02:56 PM