Chris Matthews is lying about Barack Obama
July 29, 2009 5:36 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Chris Matthews just said on Hardball that Barack Obama's initial comments about the Gates arrest was a case of "profiling":
CHRIS MATTHEWS: "He was profiling in a sense. The president. He was looking at it as a classic case, he thought. ... I mean, he was profiling the situation. He was saying 'This is a situation I'm familiar with, therefore I know what happened.' He doesn't know what happened."
Except that isn't what happened. Not at all. What actually happened is that Barack Obama said, very clearly, that he did not know what happened in this situation, or whether race played a role. Here, take a look at Obama's exact words:
BARACK OBAMA: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."
How is Matthews able to get away with such a gross distortion? Easy: When he plays video of Obama's Gates comments, he leaves that part on the cutting-room floor.
That's spectacularly dishonest.
You are trying to make Chris Matthews look like a retch.
His use of the word "Profiling" was no meant to be Derogatory.
Lets keep our focus on Glen Beck. he is the Chump is this Category.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Matthews ripped into Obama for protecting his friend, Skip Gates, and has torn into Obama since then.
But Matthews and the MSM are completely missing this one.
Obama NEVER said this was a case of racial profiling.
AND he even explicitly said he didn't know if race had anything to do with the case.
Matthews deserves to be taken to task on this. He is DEAD WRONG.
Go back and listen. MMFA is spot on.
He still occasionally get's it right like calling out the after-birters for their nonsense so there is still hope of saving him from the dark side.
Media Matters is not some kind of popularity contest. It's not "us and them" and the "good and bad". If a top anchor like Mathews sometimes correctly reports news of interest in a factual manner, it may be reported here. Even right wingers like BO get featured if they surprise us all and show some small mental competency. It's news.
One of the great things about the liberal mind-set is that we have hopes that anyone can improve (note MMFA founder David Brock, for instance). We don't put all the "bad guys" in a box and only quote them when they say something egregious.
I can't help but wonder just how appropriate your little graphic is.
What you seem to be advocating is binary thinking. Once someone is "bad", then nobody should ever say anything that contradicts that judgment. Does it then follow that if you're a fan of Olbermann or Maddow that they're "good" and 10% of "bad" should never be mentioned by anyone? Not that I'm equating Coulter to either of those two, of course, but I just wonder where that mindset takes you.
I'm not a fan of the Daily Howler, honestly. I'm not sure how that would change the principle I'm talking about even if I was.
I think that Olbermann and Maddow are bad most of them time. They mostly focus on trivia instead of substance (how many times in the past year have they talked about healthcare or what caused the financial crises or Goldman Sachs takeover of the administration, how many times about Michael Jackson or troubled young starlets or sex scandals?), insult their critics and opponents in crude ways (calling people "tea baggers" har har!), can't conduct hostile interviews (Maddow got taken apart by the odious Pat Buchanan recently) and are dishonest (Maddow distorted what Buchanan said about race the day after she had him on her show). As Somerby says, these people do not serve your progressive interests, they harm them.
Olbermann and Maddow were only a hypothetical for the purpose of examining the converse of your statements. I really don't care what you actually think about them.
A single instance doesn't determine overall perception of anyone. Do you think that if you note when someone says something right that the message is that they're suddenly supposed to be viewed as a wonderful and trustworthy person or something?
If there's a discussion about the buildup to Iraq, should it be ever noted that Matthews was skeptical, or would that be "praise" that he shouldn't get because he's a "lost cause"?
I really don't know what your philosophy is based on here, and you're really not doing a good job of explaining it. It seems to be nothing more than an emotional reaction regarding your dislike for someone.
Obama is taking his message to the people and no poll can measure the impact of his outreach.
The 24 hour news cycle should take a month off. When the market was at 6000 everyone blamed the knew President. He pushed for a higher stimulis package and he never gets credit for saving Americans 401k's. Networks only tell you that the stimilus is not working. Maybe Obama was right that the stimulis should have been higher. Obama was right about Iraq. He is right about healthcare.
Please let the new administration alone for a few weeks.
Bush left a mess that you guys failed to report. You all have blood on your hands.
Can you please give the President a chance to fix things without playing Monday morning quarterbacks and misrepresenting what he is trying to do.
Judge Andrew Napolitano on faux news Monday night saying that the police broke the law when they arrested Gates in his home. The judge explained that the 'law' only allows you to arrest someone for disorderly conduct in public and that if Gates was arrested in his home for yelling at the police or, on his porch or even on his lawn it's false arrest. He also said that the police violated Gates' Fourth Amendment Rights the minute they entered his home without his permission. Remember that by the time the police arrived, Gates was already in his home. Now, you've got a Boston police officer who was fired today for sending out a racist email. This stain on the Boston Police department won't be going away anytime soon. Why hasn't Matthews reported this information. Why doesn't he or his research staff know this? MATTHEWS IS AN IDIOT!
Thank you. One of my first thoughts on hearing the reports is that disorderly conduct would not apply in one's own home.
So although Obama did say that he did not know what role race played in this case, he used discussion of the case as a launching pad to more broadly talk about racial profiling, and therefore, perhaps inadvertently, made a connection between this case and profiling. It would be like me saying, "I know the Duke lacrosse players were acquitted of raping a black escort, but there is a long history of privileged white people abusing black people in America." What impression of the Duke lacrosse players is left by making such a statement?
It is the same in this case. After hearing Obama's statement, many people instantly, and incorrectly, labeled Crowley a racist. I have connections to this case and the issue in several ways and will not elaborate further, but I think what happened to Crowley's reputation here is unwarranted and extremely unfair. I know firsthand he is a very good cop and a good man, and I have seen my share of bad ones.
What impression would be left on people if Obama had just said that there was a history of disproportionate arrests of minorities, without talking about racial profiling? Wouldn't that make it seem like he might be saying that cops tend to be racist?