"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
(Double) standard operating procedure: why "America's Mayor" isn't "America's ex-husband"
Two weeks ago, we noted that ABC News' Charlie Gibson asked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she would be in a position to be a "credible" candidate for president were it not for her husband. We wrote at the time:
The justification for Gibson's question of Clinton is presumably that she would not have the national profile that enables her to run for president if not for her husband. Given Sen. Clinton's own accomplishments, that's a debatable premise.
This week, McClatchy Newspapers chief political correspondent Steven Thomma responded:
That's ridiculous.
Does anyone honestly believe that New York Democrats would have cleared the primary field for their open Senate seat in 2000 for a woman from Arkansas -- even an accomplished lawyer with a record of working on children's issues -- if she weren't first lady?
"[R]idiculous"? It's ridiculous to suggest that maybe -- maybe, not definitely -- Hillary Clinton might have been a credible presidential candidate if she'd never met Bill Clinton?
(And, by the way, Thomma is cheating by changing the question. Gibson didn't ask, "If you weren't married to Bill Clinton, were an accomplished lawyer with a record of working on children's issues, would New York Democrats have cleared the field for you in 2000, allowing you to become a credible presidential candidate today?" Gibson asked, "[W]ould you be in this position were it not for your husband?" Who knows what would have happened if Hillary had not married Bill? Maybe she would have been a senator from Illinois 20 years ago, or a judge. Maybe she would have been elected president in 1992. Maybe she would be a small-town lawyer nobody had ever heard of.)
Thomma is, of course, entitled to his opinion that there is no way a woman like Hillary Clinton could possibly have accomplished enough to be a credible presidential candidate without marrying well. We disagree, but he's entitled to that opinion. What we find more troublesome is that Thomma completely ignored the next paragraph, in which we wrote:
But if you accept the premise, then shouldn't Gibson also ask if McCain would ever have been elected to the House of Representatives if he hadn't left his first wife for the wealthy and connected Cindy Lou Hensley?
The problem we identified with Gibson's question two weeks ago wasn't only that he asked an impossible hypothetical; it was that the very same question could easily be asked of Sen. John McCain -- and yet it hasn't been, and we'll be shocked if Gibson ever asks it. There's a clear double standard at play here.
But this isn't simply about Gibson.
Thomma thinks it is "ridiculous" to even suggest that Hillary Clinton might be a credible presidential candidate even if she'd never married Bill Clinton.
So we look forward to Thomma's upcoming column in which he either explains how "ridiculous" it would be to suggest that John McCain would be a credible presidential candidate had he not married into wealth and political connections -- or explains why it is ridiculous to make that suggestion about Clinton, but not McCain.
Of course, this isn't the only way Clinton is held to a standard her (male) Republican counterparts don't face. MSNBC's Chris Matthews appears downright obsessed with Hillary Clinton's marriage, and her husband's faithfulness. Twice in the last three weeks, Matthews has grilled a senior Clinton adviser about whether Bill Clinton will "behave" during the campaign to avoid being a "distraction."
As Bob Somerby has noted, Matthews hosted Clinton adviser Ann Lewis on the February 2 edition of Hardball, during which he badgered Lewis, repeatedly asking her if Bill Clinton would "behave himself" and warning that "he better watch it." (Transcript below.)
In all, Matthews asked six questions about whether Bill Clinton will "behave" and twice suggested that he better "watch it." And, as Somerby noted, Matthews took it upon himself to "warn" the Clintons. From Somerby's February 5 post on The Daily Howler:
Second, note how Matthews construes the New York Times story in which Patrick Healy told us how often the Clintons spend the night together. To Matthews, this wasn't a news report. This was the New York Times saying, on its front page, that Bill Clinton "better watch it." It seemed to be a news report. But Matthews says it was a warning.
Third: Note how Matthews explains his own session with Lewis. He isn't trying to gain information or get her opinion. Instead, he's trying to get Lewis to "spread the word that [Clinton] better watch it." Chris isn't gathering information. Playing the role of public nanny, he's sending his betters a message.
Finally, note the talker's plea at the end. Why does Matthews want Clinton to "behave himself?" So that he, Chris Matthews, won't get distracted! Lewis suggests that Matthews should just shut up and stop distracting himself -- should simply talk about things that matter. But it's no use! Stop him before I get distracted again! this talker sadly implores.
But Matthews was just getting started. On February 8, he hosted Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, picking up where he had left off with Lewis. Matthews demanded to know if Bill Clinton would "distract our attention from his wife by misbehavior" and whether he would be a "good boy." (Transcript below.)
Matthews appears plain obsessed with whether Bill Clinton -- the candidate's spouse -- will "behave" and whether he will be a "good boy" and avoid embarrassing "distractions."
If potential infidelity by the candidate's spouse -- not the candidate -- gets Matthews this worked up, this afraid of being "distracted," he must really be concerned about John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
After all, in their case, the candidates themselves have a history of infidelity. McCain, of course, left his first wife then married into a wealthy and politically connected family shortly before running for Congress. And Giuliani? While serving as mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani actually moved out of the mayor's mansion and lived with a gay couple while cheating on his wife. At one point, Giuliani's wife sought a restraining order to prevent his mistress from entering the mansion.
On the "distraction" scale, that would have to rate pretty darn high.
Surely, then, Matthews is beside himself, wondering nightly if Rudy will be a "good boy" and "behave" so as not to be a "distraction"?
No.
Instead, Matthews touts Giuliani as the "perfect candidate" to replace Bush, declares that Giuliani "looks like president to me," compares Giuliani to JFK, and gushes over Giuliani's "street cred." Rather than questioning whether Giuliani's personal indiscretions will be distracting, Matthews simply questions how Giuliani got "that pee smell out of the subway."
As we wrote last May:
[I]f the media are going to put candidates' personal lives on the table, it's time they do so for all candidates. If common decency and the shame that should accompany behaving like voyeuristic 10th-graders aren't enough to convince the David Broders and Chris Matthewses and Tim Russerts of the world that the Clintons marriage is none of their damn business -- or ours -- then basic fairness dictates that they treat Republican candidates the same way. Because the only thing worse than a bunch of reporters peering into bedroom windows of candidates is a bunch of reporters peering into the bedroom windows of only one party's candidates.
[...]
You constantly hear about the Clintons' personal lives on television; you read about it in the newspaper. John McCain doesn't get the same treatment; nor does George Bush or Rudy Giuliani. Intrusive, irrelevant tabloid-style coverage of candidates is wrong. Intrusive, irrelevant tabloid-style coverage of some candidates, while others are afforded an appropriate zone of privacy is even worse.
In Matthews' case, the double standard is even more stark: He is obsessing over the infidelities of Hillary Clinton's spouse, while ignoring Rudy Giuliani's own infidelities.
We've focused in recent weeks on double standards in the media's coverage of Hillary Clinton only because there have been such glaring examples lately -- Chris Matthews alone provides new fodder nearly every night.
But, of course, this isn't unique to Sen. Clinton, as we explained last June. It's a regular feature of media coverage of progressives and conservatives.
Journalists and pundits can't stop speculating about whether Americans will vote for a woman for president (Hillary Clinton), or a black man (Barack Obama).
So, where is the speculation that the nation may not be ready for a candidate who has been married three times so far, whose first marriage was to his second cousin, whose second wife sought a court order to keep his mistress away from their (taxpayer-funded) home, and whose own staff wrote that his "personal life raises questions about a 'weirdness factor' "? A new USA Today/Gallup poll suggests that may be a more valid question -- 94 percent of respondents said they would vote for a black presidential candidate, 88 percent said they'd vote for a woman -- but only 67 percent said they'd vote for someone who had been married three times.
Whenever some thuggish bigot like Bill Donohue (Actual quote: "What's wrong with a gook joke?") criticizes a Democratic candidate, the media fall all over themselves obligingly retyping his words ... and when religious leaders attack a Democratic candidate for his policy views, a media firestorm erupts, complete with suggestions that the candidate is a "bad Catholic."
Yet when religious leaders get arrested for holding a peaceful protest against the policies of conservative politicians, they are all but ignored by the national news media. And it should go without saying that there haven't been many news reports suggesting that politicians who support budget cuts for programs that help the poor are "bad Christians."
The game, as we wrote last week, is simply rigged: right-wing partisan Bill Donohue needs only issue a press release critical of a progressive to garner major media attention. Yet religious leaders can organize peaceful protests against Republican policies, at which more than 100 participants are arrested -- and they are ignored.
Why do progressive candidates struggle to win support from religious voters? Some suggest it is because Democratic candidates have been in the "closet as believers." That's nonsense; the overwhelming majority of Democratic office-seekers, at all levels, are people of faith, and openly so. That's simply the truth, no matter what Tim Russert tells you.
So maybe progressives struggle to win support from religious voters in part because the news media badly skew their coverage of religion and politics. Because Tim Russert falsely tells viewers that Democrats don't talk about their faith. Because whenever Bill Donohue issues a press release attacking a Democrat, the media reprint it -- but when religious leaders organize a peaceful protest criticizing Republican policies, the media ignore it. Might that glaring double standard have a little something to do with conservatives having an advantage with religious voters?
Likewise, the media routinely portray progressives as "elitists" -- even seizing on John Kerry's choice of leisure activity (windsurfing) as evidence. Yet multimillionaire George W. Bush can ride his $13,000 worth of bicycles around his estate, and the media portray him as a regular guy.
$13,000 worth of bicycles!
Imagine -- just imagine -- the field day the press would have had with that if it was John Kerry or Al Gore.
Then again, imagine what the media would have done if Al Gore had lied about the cheese he eats.
***
From the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Is Bill Clinton going to be a problem in this campaign?
LEWIS: Absolutely not.
MATTHEWS: Is he going to behave himself?
LEWIS: Bill Clinton has been around -- in the first place, he's been around the world saving lives. You know that.
MATTHEWS: Is he going to behave himself?
LEWIS: He is going to do what he does best.
MATTHEWS: Is he going to behave himself --
LEWIS: Yes, he is.
MATTHEWS: -- not cause a publicity that gets her embarrassed?
LEWIS: Well, he goes out -- you go ask Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel how often they ask Bill Clinton to go out there and campaign for Democratic candidates.
MATTHEWS: I know he does a lot.
LEWIS: He did it --
MATTHEWS: He's a multitasker.
LEWIS: He did it 'cause people want to see him.
MATTHEWS: -- 'cause he's a multitasker. He's going to behave himself, right? No bad publicity. Did you see that story in the big -- in The New York Times, though, a couple months back about Bill Clinton better watch it, front page, top of the fold -- he better watch it?
LEWIS: You couldn't miss it. And I was interested to see that that was the most important news that The New York Times could have, was to try to write a story about people's private lives.
But you know what? At the end of the day, you read the story, it said there's no there there. Guess what? That's the story, folks. There's no there there.
MATTHEWS: So, do you think The New York Times is going to stop writing about this?
LEWIS: No. I think Bill Clinton's going to continue doing his work, going around the world, saving lives.
MATTHEWS: So, he's going to behave himself.
LEWIS: He's going to be out on the campaign trail -- and we're -- you'll be --
MATTHEWS: And he's going to behave himself so that Hillary can be the first woman president.
LEWIS: You're all going to be applauding --
MATTHEWS: I think it'd be great for the country if this --
LEWIS: [inaudible]
MATTHEWS: -- if we were not once again distracted --
LEWIS: So do I.
MATTHEWS: -- by what you call private life. And I think the way to avoid getting distracted is to have nothing there to distract us.
LEWIS: Well, I agree with that. But we just spent how many minutes of this segment, three minutes, talking about there should be nothing to distract us? Why don't we stop talking about it and talk about the issues?
MATTHEWS: Well, because I want to have some assurances from people that I trust and like to spread the word that --
LEWIS: Why don't you watch what he's been doing?
MATTHEWS: -- he better watch it.
LEWIS: Why don't you see what he's done for the last seven years?
MATTHEWS: I'm watching, unfortunately. Anyway, thank you, Ann Lewis.
From the February 8 edition of Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Is your friend Bill going to be part of this campaign? He's going to be busy with the campaign, not get any distractions going with other things?
McAULIFFE: He's going to be very busy.
MATTHEWS: No distractions?
McAULIFFE: He's writing a book. He's got a distraction right now. He's writing a book for the next two months.
MATTHEWS: No, will he distract our attention from his wife by misbehavior?
McAULIFFE: No, sir.
MATTHEWS: He won't? He's going to be a good boy?
McAULIFFE: His wife is running for president. He's going to do everything --
MATTHEWS: He's going to have -- good. That's good news.
McAULIFFE: Chris, I know this kills you, but he's the most popular man in the world today.
MATTHEWS: No, it doesn't kill me. No, it doesn't kill me if he doesn't distract from this campaign. If we get back tonight --
McAULIFFE: He's the most popular man in the world.
MATTHEWS: You do not want to go back to 1998. Some people do.
McAULIFFE: I think 1998 in the congressional elections we actually picked up seats, beat the six-year itch. Is that what you're referring to?
MATTHEWS: If that's how you keep score. I keep score: he got impeached.
MMFA: I'm sure you can find enough misinformation out there that you don't have to post arguments to support Hillary.
you're so lame.
another of my favorite liars just couldn't help herself again this week. in her column, kathleen parker repeated the old kerry flip flop garbage by quoting the "i voted for it before i voted against it" line. but then, so did every senator. there were two different versions of a bill to provide funding for troops in iraq. one had a tax increase to pay for it, the other did not. kerry was making a quip before an audience and then went on to explain. but the republicans claimed he flip flopped and the media was more than happy to run that ten second clip as proof. and parker is more than happy to keep repeating the propaganda.
For your own partisan reasons, you want to stifle the support of accuracy in the media, which is exactly what Media Matters is doing here, contrary to your false claim that they are "supporting Hillary".
Why not stop your partisan hate and come to the conclusion we all have? The media will do anything to stop Hillary.
The statement Matthews was making had to do w/ Hillary claiming that (1) She didn't know about her husband's cheating; and (2) Bush tricked her.
So if she wants to go around the world and deal with others...how are we to be certain that other leaders won't trick her too.
This has nothing to do with Rudy. You just want Hillary to win. period.
The statement Matthews was making had to do w/ Hillary claiming that (1) She didn't know about her husband's cheating; and (2) Bush tricked her.- (ldoren1626)
Which statement is that? I think you,ve gotten confused and wandered onto this item with your talking points from another.
And Bush looking into Putin's eys and saw that he had a good soul...LOL Talk about getting fooled.
"MATTHEWS: You do not want to go back to 1998. Some people do."
"Some people" you say?
Well I wonder who?
And if Rudy did run against Hillary, he could actually pick up California, New York, Michigan, and Illinois.
It would be Hillary-ous.
ldoren1626,
You said
"And if Rudy did run against Hillary, he could actually pick up California, New York, Michigan, and Illinois.
It would be Hillary-ous."
Rudy couldn't win California, Michigan, or Illinois if you gave him a 250,000 vote lead! Which ES&S no doubt will provide!
New York? Considering 9/11 happened there, its hard to say, but I'm sure the great people of New York will see that Rudy did what any mayor would have done under the circumstances and that he is no one special.
Not because of any good or bad he has done or that Hillary or even Barack are the better choices.......
No, you could put ANY Republican in the 08' race and it won't matter! Even if I ran for president as a Democrat.....
This last November proved that this country is sick and tired of the direction that the Republican party has taken!
73% are against the 'occupation' of Iraq and somewhere around 80% are against playing games with Iran.
I predict that regardless of who gets the Democratic nod..... he/she will win, probably by a landslide. Perhaps then the Dems will go after the real perps of 9/11 -- SAUDI ARABIA
There is nothing that people like you or to go bigger here (the slanted to the right CORPORATE OWNED media) can do about it!
You might not be smart enough to look into the real facts of what is going on in the world, but it seems that the majority of our fellow countrymen are!
Do I believe Hillary is the right person for the job? Not really, but since the Republican party has decided to put all its baskets in with the Bush regime, they deserve to be in the minority of our government!
As for Chris Matthews.... he better get over Bill Clintons past or we all might think he's jealous of Hillary being married to him? Hmmm
You just better hope Rudy doesn't make it out of the primaries.
He is a shoe in if he does.
The only way he can get the nomination is if the influence of the religious right wanes considerably. McCain doesn't seem to think that's the case, if his actions indicate anything. But if the Falwells and Dobsons disappear and they stop holding the party hostage, that's fine with me. A reasonable Republican party would be wonderful to see.
Rudy's a "shoe-in"? Would those be Rudy's high-heel shoes, to match the dress he wore? And which of his three wives did Rudy borrow the dress from?
The Republicans will never vote for someone who lived with a gay couple and supports gay rights, they hate gay people.
Only on the sad and delusionary world known as Planet Wingnut
Why don't Democratic guests point out the METHODS being used on them while they are being interviewed.
I swear Christ Matthews could ask a Democrat: why don't you support the troops
and they would answer: Oh I dooo Christ...I support the troops...what we want (insert politically correct "hope" message here).
instead of saying "don't use little childish mind fallacies on me Chris, if you honestly think I don't support the troops...let me know....I'll throw this water in your face and leave this program. You want to rephrase that question? What else does the GOP want you to ask?
I would like to see a little backbone in someone.
I agree entirely. Yet I think they're afraid they'll never be asked back oto the program.
worse yet, if they do repond that way, they're certainly be portrayed as "flying off the handle"
Great point Temp...
You went right to the heart of it.
Both McAuliffe and Lewis were not nearly aggressive enough. What was on their minds?..........Were they unprepared for the filth that is Chris Matthews? Did they not know what they were walking into? Were they unprepared?
What caused their weak responses? Were they afraid of not being invited back again?
Why was the backbone so weak? Were they afraid of being shut out of the corporate gravy train media circuit?
They were both very weak.
Simply more evidence of the need for MORA* - and perhaps, that MORA* is far too mild! We may need to do even more to cripple the Corporate Media Oligopoly than limit the reach of ownership, to promote wider access; we may need to take on another of my favorite suggestions - legislate lifespan for Corporations, and substitute every officer and board member to supply the requisite time in prison for criminal offenses.
*Media Ownership Reform Act, submitted each year for at least four, by Rep. Hinchley (not yet resubmitted 2007)
Hey thanks for that info... I'm going to find out more about it, but just from the lead you gave, it sounds interesting and powerful and corrective (or at least a legislative attempt at the correction) of something that stinks awful, and threatens our Democratic process:
The private use of our Public Airwaves for the purposes of advancing a private political agenda: The politics of the ownership of the broadcaster.
Here's a link to Rep. Hinchey's House page from where to get to know more about the proposed Act...
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml
...it includes a fact sheet I haven't yet looked at, but will.
Also on these MMFA webpages, and in the thread of this weekly item, was previously made mention of the "Fairness Doctrine", which I likewise was unaware of, but found very interesting.
For those (like me) who didn't already know, the Fairness Doctrine is the name for a philosophy of broadcast policy (drafted in 1949) that considers broadcaster's public licenses to make them "public trustees" of a sort... perhaps you're aware of the idea of "equal time"?
"Equal time" is a part of the Fairness Doctrine. Ever wonder what happened to "Equal Time"?
It went out the window when the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, in 1987.
And in through that same opened window crawled the maliciously biased cable and broadcast "media" that so threatens our Democratic process...
...one of those snakes born of the Fairness Doctrine's repeal, even cleverly took the subtitle of "Fair and Balanced", sort of as a defense against any concern that anything had been lost as a result of the Fairness Doctrine's repeal.
Anyway, find out a little about it here...
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
...and like the Act you mentioned, a reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine would do a lot to correct this wicked beast that this privately owned "media" has become...
...a beast that threatens our Democratic process, and can only be tamed by the absolute power of the Law.
I love the Law, and the Internet Wire, and the Union of them.
Dem: I didn't rant in behalf of the Fairness Doctrine (which is, by the way, included in MORA) simply because it was so often criticized by the Repugnants as "subjective". Well, to some extent, it is; and it is also cumbersome to monitor and enforce appropriately. I suppose I may still retain some "free-market" bias from my several years as an uncommitted/leans Republican voter*, and therefore tend to emphasize the aspects of the Oligopoly which violate even good market sense - the constrictive effects of existing concentration of Media ownership upon access, upon diversity, upon market-based "fairness" in content and presentation. So long as the only message available in the Media remains the Corporate message, there is essentially NO free press, one of the foundations of our liberties.
In the absence of such obscene constriction as now exists, I would hope that such regulation might well be rendered superfluous; and, if not, only because we have allowed the Corporations themselves to maintain their status as super-citizens, virtually "above the law".
*note that those years ended somewhere between Nixon and the advent of Ronnie Ray-Gun.
HEY MMFA YOU MISSED ONE!!!
on FN, Cavuto was reporting on congress' passage of the nonbinding resolution against the war and right after Cavuto asked ,"so are the terrorists now celebrating" (i dont remember exact quote) and then he had on someone who made the case for his accusation.
right, mr. character in a japanese video game, "he made the case" in your mind
what are you babbling on about, im trying to point one out that mmfa needs to make a posting about
What are you a colonel of? Stupidity?
Please, a little respect! My God the man ( character) has earned it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Campbell_%28Metal_Gear%29#Roy_Campbell
like that took an original thought. real mature when i was simply highlighting cavuto's bias. you truely are the king of the morons.
Thanks Roy...
It's time for your Meds.
Chris Matthews has a love/hate relationship in his almost "stalking "pursuit of anything negative about either Clinton. Is he jealous? This column is on target . Matthew's conflict with tacit approval in silence about the questionable lifestyles of "his men" McCain and Guiuliani is two-faced. He should get a grip.
Ah, but to be a guest on Chrissie's piece of Corporate Media, one must sign the pledge to never mention any of those life-style choices of the Repugnant candidates. And one must deposit one's first-born as security on that pledge.
MATTHEWS: Is he going to behave himself?(repeat 10-20 X)
inside Matthews head: (Oh God, I hope not! Be naughty, Bill!)
Chris is really going down that bad girl road, the one whose gutters are filled with worn-out hoors.
Of course Bill Clinton will be a distraction to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Because any and every time he's seen or heard, people like Chris Matthews are going to scream "Look! A distraction!"
Why does MMFA point out Rudy moved in with a "gay couple"?
Seems kind of extraneous. I wouldn't have expected MMFA to be so blatantly anti-gay.
It's not extraneous. You don't think a lot of conservatives would react negatively to it? The party of family values? Come on.
Rudy was married when he moved-in with the gay couple. It's about infidelity. Try re-reading it, if in fact you read it at all.
Is it really a big deal that he cheated on his wife? Is not the bigger issue that he is just not qualified to be President?
When a misrepresentation is consistently applied in one direction, by the Media, it BECOMES a crucial aspect of the discussion; to determine the outcome of nominations or elections based upon this false appeal to potential "values" deficiencies of one, while hiding the same or greater realized deficiencies in the other, is simply impermissible.
That is well said Conley....
Thank You!.... I think you just stated the reason for the existence of Media Matters.
"Is not the bigger issue that he is just not qualified to be President?"
Tell it to Charlie Gibson. He is the one who seems to want to make Hillary's husband an issue, rather than Hillary's qualifications.
EVILREPUBLICANSNOW:
You are correct. It is not now merely the issue that BUSH is unqualified to be President. The issue has become the CONSEQUENCES of that fact, the 3000 dead on 9/11 due to his incompetence and inaction, the thousands tortured due to his ignoring of international agreements as to prisoner treatment, the 3000+ American soldiers dead in Iraq for no good reason, the tens of thousands of brave American soldiers now maimed and dismembered on Bush's orders, their sacrifice made with a Commander in Chief who has no conscience, no honesty, no plan, and no clue. Not to mention the tens of thousands of Innocent Iraqis "Liberated to death" on Bush's orders.
You are right. Unqualified to be President is the LEAST of the charges we should be concerned with.
Let's see, two out of three of your top stories and the top clip are about defending Hillary Clinton. If someone didn't know better, they might think that this is just a site to promote Clinton's candidacy.
Pishaw.
This site monitors media. If media obsesses over Clinton, she is the front runner after all, then media matters covers any relevant misinformation.
Besides, last week Obama had the spotlight, for last week HE was the target of the "Talking Points" brigade.
"If someone didn't know better, they might think that this is just a site to promote Clinton's candidacy. "
You're correct. Someone doesn't know better.
Someone that knew better would be aware that Media Matters promotes accuracy in the media, not candidates. They've highlighted items that happened to concern Obama, Richardson, and Clinton. But we forgive you, because you just didn't know any better.
I have been coming to this site for years. This has become a site primarily to promote Hillary Clinton, debunk anti-Clinton rhetoric (for which I don't doubt there is plenty), and put other candidates under the same scrutiny as Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not progressive by any definition I can surmise. They went on and on about how Hillary hadn't made any announcement when everyone has known for 4 years that she would be running in '08. They never call Hillary on her Iraq War vote stab in the back in '02, or her statement about a year ago that we should "send more troops to Iraq." In other words, they address the conservative talking points against Hillary, but ignore the fact that millions on the left don't consider her liberal or progressive.
*sigh* one more time.
Media Matters monitors the media. The media obsesses over Hillary. Therefore Media Matters has a lot of material to respond to about Hillary.
If the media instead happened to obsess over some North Dakota state legislator, then media matters would have a lot of items about that legislator.
and Edwards (note the references to Donohue's unfair attacks).
And someone might just think...
You're a troll.
I seem to recall reading in some mainstream magazine piece that John McCain started dating his second wife, Cindy, while still married to his first wife, Carol!!
While McCain was a POW in Vietnam, Carol raised their kids. She was also badly hurt in an auto accident. McCain came home to a heroic, faithful wife who had been glamorous until she was hurt in the car accident. It wasn't what he had imagined sitting in his cell in Hanoi.
So he dumped her for a young, wealthy heiress in her 20s.
And I'm betting he's cheated on wife #2 as well. They hardly spend any time together. She lives in Arizona and raised the second McCain family, while dealing with her own drug addictions, etc.
Hey man, we're all human. But if the Clinton marriage is going to go under the microscope, so should St. John McCain's.
A few thoughts...
1. HILLARY CLINTON: Turn the question in another direction. Would George W. Bush have been a viable candidate for Governor of Texas, one strong enough to beat Ann Richards, were in not for the fact that his father had been President of the United States? Who would have known the name Bush had his father and grandfather not been prominent Americans? Instant name recognition doesn't hurt, to say the least. To suggest that Bush's family name did not, at least in some way, help him become President is, in my opinion, denying the obvious.
Likewise, in my opinion, to suggest that Hillary Rodham's marriage to President Bill Clinton did not, at least in some way, help launch her successful political career denies the obvious. I am not suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be President. (Although, by contrast I have always believed George W. Bush was unqualified.) In fact, at times during Bill Clinton's administration I suspected that she was the more intelligent one of the couple... and I think Bill Clinton is an intelligent man. Who knows what would have become of Hillary Rodham had she not married Bill Clinton... she might today be a Federal Judge or she might have chosen to stay at home and raise a large family. Who knows? That's all conjecture. But to deny that the built-in name recognition in politics she has, and which she has wisely taken advantage of in advancing her own political career, wasn't a result of being First Lady is a stretch,
2. RUDY GIULIANI: Put aside for a moment whether you believe Rudy Giuliani would be a good President or not. It is my understanding that some polls show Giuliani could possibly beat practically any Democratic candidate in head to head competition. As Chris Matthews has frequently pointed out, if the Presidential election was an open primary, Giuliani would probably be the next President. Regardless whether you or I believe Giuliani would be a good President, apparently some polls indicate that enough Americans believe he would. The reason Giuliani could be President is because he apparently is considered to have significant cross-over appeal. A combination of Democrats and Republicans alike would vote for him. In my opinion, much of Chris Matthews admiration for Giuliani stems from this fact... that, according to polling, there are considerably enough Americans willing to make Giuliani the next President.
But we all know Giuliani isn't going to be President because without the support of the religious right he will not even get the Republican nomination. Had Rudy Giuliani been very, very clever he would have become a Democrat after 9/11 rather than going full steam ahead in support of Bush's 2004 re-election simply to curry favor inside the Republican Party in anticipation of his own 2008 bid. But Giuliani's support of Bush in 2004 was a fool's errand... he's never had a chance to be the 2008 nominee because he's too"liberal" for the Republican base. Now, Giuliani is making a fool of himself trying to reposition himself and the religious right isn't buying a word of it. On the other hand, Giuliani's progressive positions on abortion and gay rights, combined with his "tough prosecutor' image that could have easily been transformed into an image of a no-nonsense "terrorist fighter", would have made Giuliani a very strong Democratic contender with cross-over appeal. Sometimes I wish Chris Matthews would open his eyes and explain that Rudy Giuliani is nothing more than a "could have been".
ROOT PRINCIPLES.
Think about what it would mean were the Republicans to nominate Rudy for President.
It would mean they have abandoned their stated and deeply-held (so they say) principles in a variety of areas. Specifically, it would mean the rightwing has forfeited its ability to criticize their opponents WITH ANY CREDIBILITY on the subjects of:
Family Values
Gay Rights
"Character" as informed by lifestyle
Liberal Social Programs
By endorsing Rudy, the Rightwing would become abject and blatant hypocrites, were they to take issue with, say, Bill Clinton having an affair.
Ooops. Forgot. The Republicans ARE and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN such hypocrites, they just behave as if nobody should notice. Newt Gingrich, for one, was bopping an aide while married to another woman, even as he helped spearhead the impeachment.
So, if Rudy were to become President, what segment of the Republican spectrum would be happy? The fiscal conservatives? The fundamentalist religionists? The "smaller government" crowd? The anti-government-social program coalition? Hee hee. Fact is, Rudy would govern COUNTER to what all the Rightwing pundits and all the polls of the Republican "base" claim to favor. Rudy would be a Liberal President, and the rightwing would DESPISE him.
Ergo, he will not be nominated.
This is an example of why Chris Matthews is the least qualified political talk show host in the business. I know that there are others who are more overtly partisan and more prone to spewing misinformation, but that is part of their job and no matter how much that upsets me it does not mean they are not capable of performing the duties of a talk show host. Really the qualifications for a political talk show host begin with being able to allow guests to finish a sentence without finishing it for them. Matthews is completely incapable of this. If he were auditioning for a talk show host on an American Idol style format, his audition would have been featured in the blooper real like William Hong. The next qualification is to provide some sort of relevant commentary. I know that others like say O’Reilly spew misinformation in their commentary and I hate that, but that is their job and they were hired specifically to do that. Matthews, on the other hand, has the habit of just describing the candidates in great irrelevant detail before, after or in place of an interview. A great example was during the Lieberman/Lamont primary where he babbled about the candidate’s demeanors, appearance and elocution when he could have spent the time interviewing one or the other. Then when he finally gets around to interviewing Lamont, and Lamont finds time to get in a few words edgewise through the constant interruptions, Matthews ends the segment with I agreed with you on several of these issues, but I cannot support you. So I guess that Matthews was stating that in his vaunted opinion no matter what Lamont’s positions were Matthews had already made up his mind and was dismissing his candidacy based on irrelevant crap Matthews had just spit out. As bad as O’Reilly is and as infuriating as his, “I am an independent” shtick is at least O’Reilly will do his audience the service of making something up to support his slanted opinion. Matthews just blubbers on about irrelevant crap like weather the guy owns a ranch, the person’s physical appearance, or something slightly more relevant like whether their second toe is longer than their first.
You're right Layman...
Matthews is a hideous piece of filth, but...
McAuliffe and Lewis were weak. Are they partially responsible for the creation of people like Chris Matthews?
It is sad that only Jon Stewart on Crossfire, ever put the smackdown on how stupid and demeaning to political discourse these talk shows are.
What irony, these talking head programs are a joke and Stewart, a comediane, is the only who understands they are not funny.
Tex stole my thunder about what the GOP loses by electing Giuliani. Eloquently spoken as usual, Tex. Some details you left out were that Giuliani's first wife was his second cousin. He cheated on both of his first two wifes. If elected, the first lady would be an ex-adulterer. Also, if Newt jumps in, and then gets nominated (a very good chance, since the right wing loves him), that also means that their choice for first lady (his current and third wife) would also be an ex-adulterer (as would be the Prez, Gingrich). Gingrich's first wife was his high school math teacher, who he married when he was 18 and she was 26.
But what most people do not ever mention, but was mentioned in the MMFA article is the Sugar Mama status of Cindy McCain, who is everything to John McCain that Teresa Heinz Kerry supposedly is/was to John Kerry in 2004. If it was fair game to call Kerry a gold digger, then the same should be repeated ad nauseam about McCain. But...it never is. As pointed out here, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD in the media in which Dems' personal lives are fair game but Repubs' are NOT. Newt has a gay daughter. So where is Newt on gay rights? I have never seen him asked that question. Will he take the Cheney road if asked? (I do not care personally, but Dobson/Falwell worshippers sure do.) Lastly, as I ramble here, McCain admitted to cheating multiple times on his first wife before he divorced her while she was recovering from a horrific car crash. Nobody EVERmentions it
Man, I could go on and on. Why does Matthews not throw these items out there with the same fervor as he throws it at the Dems?!!
I wouldn't trust either of them to run a nation. They are not Alphas.
Yes, Matthews is very childish