"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Two birds, one stone
For much of the past week, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson have been in high dudgeon over former Sen. Bob Kerrey's recent reference to Barack Obama's middle name.
Kerrey said during an event announcing his endorsement of Hillary Clinton that "I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal." Kerrey added that Obama has "a whale of a lot more intellectual talent than I've got as well."
Kerrey's comments were interpreted by many -- with Matthews and Carlson leading the charge -- as a subtle and sneaky way of planting doubt about Obama among voters. (Maybe it was, or maybe it was completely innocent. Either way, I'm not sure it matters: Like Jeff Greenfield's "joke" about Obama dressing like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kerrey's comments were ill-considered no matter what his intent. Indeed, Kerrey subsequently apologized to Obama.)
The day after Kerrey's comments, Chris Matthews asked, "What the hell is Bob Kerrey doing?" Then, after reading Kerrey's comments, he suggested that Kerrey might have been "simply poisoning the well" against Obama. Matthews referenced Kerrey's remarks again later in the show.
The next day, Carlson referred to Kerrey's "apparent attack on Obama," which he described as "unbelievably sleazy" and "divisive and nasty and frankly kind of repulsive." The day after that, Carlson said that if it were not for the fact that Kerrey is "liked by reporters ... [h]e would have been drummed out of America" for what he said about Obama.
It's fascinating to see Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson so angry about Kerrey's comments, because as far as I can tell, Chris Matthews was the very first person to introduce Barack Obama's middle name into the national political discussion -- and Tucker Carlson was right behind him.
Almost exactly a year ago, as Barack Obama's middle name was being thrown around regularly in the media -- by NBC's Mike Viqueira and by Fox News' Carl Cameron, among many others. The popular theory was that the use of the name originated with Republican strategist Ed Rogers. Matthews himself attributed it to Rogers during a December 13, 2006, interview with Rogers, saying that Rogers had "made some news" by using the name and pressing Rogers about it: "Why did you invoke the middle name of Barack Obama out of nowhere? What are you up to, sir? ... Well, Hussein is his middle name. Do you believe that invoking that name, that it will hurt him?"
But, as I explained at the time, Matthews was blaming Rogers for something Matthews himself had started:
The first mention of the name as a political matter that we can find in the Nexis database comes from MSNBC's Chris Matthews. On the November 7 [2006] edition of Hardball -- three full weeks before Rogers' comment -- Matthews said: "You know, it's interesting that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won't it?" Media Matters noted Matthews' comments the next day.
Did Matthews come up with that on his own, or did he hear it on one of the right-wing radio shows he favors? Or did he read it on a far-right website, or have it whispered in his ear by a Republican operative? We don't know. But we do know that attributing the suggestion that Obama's middle name may have negative political consequences to Rogers lets Matthews off the hook for his role in popularizing the notion. Maybe that's why Matthews himself does it.
A few weeks after Matthews' reference to Obama's middle name -- and a day before Rogers first used it -- Tucker Carlson used his MSNBC television program to call guest Bill Press "a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club."
Notice anything about the way Matthews and Carlson used Obama's middle name? It was completely gratuitous. Bob Kerrey (ostensibly, at least) used Obama's middle name in suggesting that his background might be an asset; Matthews and Carlson were doing nothing of the kind. They were just throwing it out there.
And now, they are livid -- absolutely livid -- when Bob Kerrey uses it.
But that isn't all they're angry about. Matthews and Carlson (along with countless other journalists) keep yelling about Clinton strategist Mark Penn using the word "cocaine" on Hardball last week. They claim that Penn was trying to subtly bring up Obama's long-ago drug use. Well, again: Maybe he was, but the facts are that during the interview in question, Matthews himself repeatedly brought it up; the entire segment was about the topic before Penn even spoke; and Penn's first response to the first question Matthews asked him ("It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable.") seemed to be an obvious attempt to end a discussion that was not playing out in his candidate's favor.
But to hear Matthews and Carlson and others tell it, Penn initiated the conversation and was doing everything he could to prolong it. That simply isn't what happened.
Still: Tucker Carlson is angry.
On the December 17, he claimed the Clinton campaign was portraying Obama as "a crack dealer," which he called "the politics of personal destruction." (I could find no reference anywhere to anyone with any connection to Clinton ever using the words "crack" and "Obama" in the same sentence.) On December 14, Carlson said it was "sleazy" of Penn to use the word "cocaine" in talking about Obama, adding that he was "outraged about it." Carlson used the word "cocaine" seven times during that broadcast, even as he said it was "sleazy" for Penn to use the word "in the same sentence" as Obama. On December 12, Carlson said "Billy Shaheen, the husband of the governor of New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, who is running for Senate in this next season, just told reporters that he's very concerned that if Barack Obama gets the nomination, his admitted drug use, his use of cocaine and marijuana, will be fodder for the Republican dirty tricks machine. Basically going after Obama for admitting he got high when he was a kid."
Shaheen's comments came in an interview with The Washington Post -- but the Post didn't actually quote him using the word "cocaine." And Penn hadn't yet used the word, either. Once he did, Carlson, Matthews, and others assigned great significance to the use of that specific word. But it seems that Tucker Carlson himself used it before a Clinton official did, on the December 12 edition of his television show.
In fact, Carlson used it a year ago. On the December 11, 2006, edition of Tucker, he said to guest A.B. Stoddard: "Well, we know that he has done cocaine, because he said so, A.B., in his book. We know he smokes cigarettes. We know his middle name is Hussein. What else is there to know about Barack Obama that is going to be shocking?" And again on January 3: "Speaking of what the American public wants, I'm sure you all have read Barack Obama's first book, in which he admits smoking a lot of pot, doing a fair amount of cocaine, is that, you know -- someone who has the finger on the pulse of America, is this a problem going into the presidential election? Have we reached a point where voters no longer care, or do they care?"
What's happening here isn't really very subtle at all. Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews have, going back more than a year, gone out of their way to bring up Obama's middle name and his long-ago drug use. After they (and their colleagues) played a key role in bringing these matters into the national dialogue, they brutally attacked Clinton when people connected with her campaign made reference to the very things Carlson and Matthews have been talking about all along.
For Carlson (a staunch conservative who regularly bashes Democrats) and Matthews (who says John McCain "deserves" to be president), it's a pretty neat trick: They spend a year doing something that they themselves describe as a sleazy effort to plant doubts about Obama -- then they pretend it all came from Clinton and trash her for being vicious. And, in doing so, they use the very words they say are inappropriate to use in describing Obama dozens of times.
Matthews himself offered a perfect description of what he and Carlson are doing on last night's Hardball -- though, of course, he thought he was describing Clinton:
MATTHEWS: Let me go to the question of tactics here. She is using things like having AFSCME, the union, the state and county employees, put out a letter that looked like it came from John Edwards, apparently, attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it.
That's exactly what has been happening on Hardball and Tucker for the past year. Matthews and Carlson have been making both Clinton and Obama look bad, while largely avoiding responsibility for their own actions.
Matthews and Carlson first invoked Obama's middle name -- and now they yell nightly about a Clinton supporter doing it.
Carlson brought up Obama's long-ago drug use more than a year ago; Matthews did everything he could to force Mark Penn to discuss it last week -- and now they yell nightly about how "sleazy" it is for people connected to Clinton to discuss the topic.
And it isn't merely that Matthews and Carlson are blasting Clinton for things they did first; they're blasting Clinton for things they continue to do every night. Mark Penn used the word "cocaine" twice, a week ago -- in response to Matthews' prodding. Tucker Carlson has used it on his show nine times since then; Matthews has used it 12 times on Hardball. And the two have used the name "Hussein" in connection with Obama 11 times this week.
Tonight, Matthews and Carlson will most likely again yell about how vicious and sleazy the Clinton campaign is for bringing up Obama's middle name, or his past drug use. They'll tell us that the only possible reason to make mention of either thing is to undermine him. And in doing so, they may well mention these things far more often in two hours than the Clinton campaign has in a year.
It's a hell of a scam Matthews and Carlson have going -- undermining both candidates, while getting their campaigns and their supporters angry at one another.
***
During the December 20 edition of Hardball, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough explained that "the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama is man enough to stand up in a debate and say 'Hillary, you are not being consistent.' "
***
Last week, I noted that in October, Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut telegraphed the coming media assault on Clinton during an appearance on Tucker. Here's what she said at the time:
KORNBLUT: I have to say we in the media are spoiling for a fight. Usually we are biased in favor of a good tussle at about this point. ... I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere between now and January 3, now that we know that's when the Iowa caucuses are going to be, to see some kind of reverse, some kind of Obama surge or an Edwards surge. Something that is going to knock Hillary down a few pegs. Whether it's a media creation, or something that actually happens on the ground. I would be shocked if there were nothing like that.
This week, Kornblut participated in an online discussion with Post readers, during which she was asked about that quote. Here's how she responded:
KORNBLUT: I wish we were that powerful! Bottom line is, we're not. I can assure you -- what is happening on the ground in Iowa, where I've spent a lot of time the last few months, is happening at the level of average voters here, who pay extraordinary attention and make up their own minds (albeit with the help of paid advertising). All I meant then, and still believe, is that Democratic voters do not like easy coronations and never would have just decided Clinton is the nominee without casting a single ballot. Most races tighten at the end, as this one is. And pretty soon, we'll know how it turns out.
That is pretty clearly not what Kornblut said in October.
i can think of two very obvious "media creations" this week. wednesday's mmfa article on dana milbank in the washington post writing about hillary talking about what she did "when the lights were off", trying to turn it into something sleazy. but the fact is he chopped the sentence in half, without indicating he did so, and the part he failed to include made it crystal clear she was talking about when the cameras weren't around.
the other offense was patrick healy of the new york times, article on tuesday's mmfa, in which he clearly implied that bill clinton was "agitated" on the charlie rose show and that clinton's aides were trying to get rose to stop the interview because of that. but the fact was that clinton had a schedule to keep and rose noted that very clearly. these are two of the leading newspapers of the country engaging in fox-news tactics. and no one should believe that obama or edwards would get less of this treatment. whoever is the democrat is going to be a target of this stuff.
and think the republicans won't cheat? this is a story that gets almost no play in the press, and if it involved a democrat the coverage would have been endless. it's the 2002 phone jamming scandal in the new hampshire senate race, where the republicans paid a company to jam the democratic ride to the polls lines. it involved officials high in the republican party, and they have paid millions in legal bills of those indicted. which is why i do not trust electronic voting, period. if it takes a pencil and paper and a week to count the ballots, so be it.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23444.html
Or Chickens, or Horses, or...
You can add "a media creation" to the list of synonyms for what comes out of the south end of northbound bulls.
Based on what Tweety did on today's episode of "It's Pillory Hillary Time", everything said by anyone even remotely related to Hillary or associated with her campaign in any way will be subject to derision by this sorry-ass spittle-slinger.
Tucker will be allowed to repeat the fabrication(s) the next day.
My Thoughts and Blessings
This is a great article that exemplifies all the many little subtle nuances that these pundits and journalists implement and use on their audience on a daily basis.
I think that what TV pundits like Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson, and even “independent journalists” on network news haven’t realized yet is that more and more voters are getting up out of their easy chairs and questioning in their minds “What did he just say?” or “Did he say what I think he said?”, then walking to their computers and logging onto websites such as Media Matters (and I could think of at least a dozen more) to get the “analysis of their analysis” - and the real truths behind their spin.
It is no longer so easy to be just another talking head expecting a passive audience to soak up their “news and analysis” like a sponge. Fact checking is just a few keystrokes and mouse clicks away – and many of their less blatant or subliminal attacks that the viewer might have “missed” are now under the scrutiny of thousands of other eyes and brains and being propagated through the blogosphere and to email boxes of voters across the country at internet speeds.
I don’t think we could ever do without them, but it has to be discouraging for many of them to come to the reality that their audience reaches far beyond the numbers of the latest Neilsen ratings and that this audience is not necessarily their “fans”. Rants from the likes of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and the like regarding the ”evils” of the internet are direct evidence of the impending powers that be. They aren’t the only ones in the media threatened by our existence, only the first ones to express their terror. A blogosphere of free, unfiltered, uncensored, intelligent discussion of ideas is scary to anyone afraid of changing the status quo – and this is most obviously expressed by the conservative right wing media.
We are living in an exciting time and I am thoroughly enjoying the thought of being part of the internet revolution that has become such a big part of shaping the political and social world of the 1st decade of this new century. If I end with “Power to the People!” am I dating myself? Well, anyhow it still fits - maybe now more than ever!
Peace, Happiness, and Love to All - Happy Holidays!
This is proof positive that these guys never even listen to themselves talking,
Nor should we-- at least not pay much attention to them. On to better things this week, and Happy Holidays!
I really do not know why MSNBC has this two guys. Anyone one can figure it out that their programs are bias. Is this what the media is suppose to be. I thought that the purpose of the media was to keep the public well inform about how the government is acting. Chris Mathews and Tucker leave a lot to be desire. Let us hope that the people that vote on election day vote on the qualification and past performance of the candidates rather than what they hear from Mathews and Tucker.
I,like many, watched Hardball with a skeptical eye. I used to watch in amusement how Matthews would spittle all over himself with his Man-Crush on Bush, Saint Rudy of 911and of course, " Kill-em all" McCain. But as of recently his spittle induced BROMANCE with Obama has finally gotten me to switch him off. I've had it with his so called neutrality. And as for that whiny turd"Tucker Carlson". Hah! what a joke. The scary part is that so many sheep in this country will not or can't see whats being pulled over their eyes. God help us!
Media Matters is right on! My husband and I have been watching hardball for sometime, and we have Matthews (and Tucker) figured out. When Matthews went on his book tour, I watched him on C-span, down in Miami. He flat out told his audience that Hillary will be the next president. He was very complimentary. That was on a weekend, but on the Monday Hardball show, he really trashed Hillary. He said really bad things about her. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. But, I take comfort in the fact that Bill Gates says within 5 years television as we know it will be obsolete. I guess that's one way to get rid of some of these people that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
I JUST LOVE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT-WINGERS DEFENDING OBAMA BUT MARK MY WORD WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE ELECTION FOR THE WHITE HOUSE THEY WILL BE ALL OVER HIM LIKE THEY ARE NOW ON CLINTON.
If we are to ever come to grips with the ugliness and prejudice that still eats away at the heart of this country like a cancer, the petty small minded prejudices and racism, the incessant human reliance upon scapegoats, that the Republican Party of today has elevated to the level of an art form in order to maintain their support, it must be Obama.
Yes America, we needs to see ourselves in all our glorious shame and perverted morality, it is the only path to redemption, there is no avoiding it. Sooner or later we will have to face ourselves in the mirror, and Barack Obama is the perfect reflection of who we are, who we will be, and what many of us, especially those of the older conservative generation, most fear. That is to look at ourselves and be unable to draw clearly discernible lines between Black and White, Muslim and Christian, wealthy and poor, high and low born. What better person to make us face these things then a leader of mixed racial, ethnic and religious heritage.
What we see in these little episodes with Carlson and Matthews is just a taste of what is coming, should Obama get Democratic nomination. We'll have the opportunity to find out what this country is really made of, for his candidacy will put us all to the test. And through it we may yet learn once and for all if this country is capable of living out the true meaning of its creed, or whether they are nothing more than words on a page, which in the end will amount to little more than a piece of the historical record of yet another civilization that rose and fell, ultimately failing to reach that higher plane which those who created this nation once reached for. No better time than the present to find out whether this Democratic Republic has got what it takes to survive, whether we are worthy of survival.
"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out, yes, let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out" (I Claudius ep.13).
The right man, perhaps, but the wrong time...
Very well said, but I just can't see the bias in this country melting fast enough to elect Obama in 2008. He'd have a much better chance in Canada, France, maybe even Great Britain - but not here.
Should Barack get the nod by some miracle, the slime-slingers that prevented Harold Ford from becoming a Senator will be out in spades (no pun intnended, really).
Getting a woman elected will be an unbeliveably significant step (ain't that sad?) in the progress of this country in its way-too-late effort to join a huge part of the rest of the world.
Personally, I'm sad that this is so, but it is.
(Maybe it was, or maybe it was completely innocent. Either way, I'm not sure it matters...
First, Bob Kerrey knew exactly what he was doing. He's been in politics a long time and there is simply no way he would say things like that without intent. Besides, this kind of thing is exactly his MO.
Except for that I agree with the article-- the telejournalists are revolting people who badly want to be the center of attention.
Consider this-- Matthews makes both Hillary and Obama unacceptable and increases the independent turnout for McCain.
If Hillary wins, they continue the mantra and attempt to reduce the african american and youth vote by dividing the party.
If Obama wins, they continue the mantra about cocaine, Hussein, etc. and continuously ask the question--Will this hurt Obama in the "heartlland" with the regular folks? They continue to blame Hillary for raising it and claim its fair game because even Democrats had these concerns which of course is BS.
I'm very glad that MMFA stays on the antics of matthews and carlson. The two of them a first rate hacks who should be labeled republican operatives. I personally gave up on matthews long ago and never did like carlson. IMHO msnbc should try some new voices these two a pretty stale.
Am I understanding this "big controversy" correctly, that former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey said of current Senator Obama (while speaking in endorsement of Sen. Clinton for the presidency)...
"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal"
...and those words are now generating all this "big controversy"? Those words spoken by Mr. Kerrey are now responsible for thousands and thousands of words in some kind of "big controversy" response?
There's a kind of neurosis that results from watching too much television (true). Some people call it ADD or ADHD (usually in kids), but a more common name for it is "A Scatter-Brained Chattering Obsession With Trivial Things" (ASBCOWTT).
It usually relieves itself when the sufferer eventually runs out of energy (and runs out of the key symptom chatter), and then winds down and moves on... usually to the next Chattering Obsession, oftentimes with a click to the next television channel.
Prescription drugs can provide short-term relief, but rarely for more than 6 to 9 months, before the symptoms of the neurosis inevitably return.
Matthews and Carlson have to be reminded of what they've done and what they are doing. What should be done is one of the members of Clinton's team must go on Hardball and take Matthews apart. They need to have dates and quotes and remind Matthews in no uncertain terms that he's been found out and to stop it. Anyone have Wolfson's email? I've already contacted both shows with the appropriate material. Maybe if they get bombarded they'll at least be more careful. They are trying to influence this election. And, we all know that if HC doesn't get the nomination they'll take it it Obama hammer and tong.
Let's see. Bob Kerrey...Medal of Honor winner and ex SEAL.
Chris Matthews. Fat, wussy political pundit and Obama "leg humper".
Tucker Carlson. Bowtie wearing little coward, and GOP "Leg Humper".
I'll take Kerrey any day of the week, and so will the rest of America.
And so, absolutely I take the issue seriously. But I want to make sure that we're effective in what we do, and secondly, do not wreck our economy in whatever we do. See, it is hard to develop the technologies necessary to be able to make sure our standard of living remains strong and deal with greenhouse gases if you're broke. If you don't have any money, it is really hard to develop new technologies. And so we need to be prosperous for a lot of reasons, primarily so our citizens can have a good life; but also so that we're wealthy enough to make the investments necessary to deal with greenhouse gases. George W. Bush - Fall 2007
Where are our REAL journalists? Instead of Chris Matthews' horserace, combative framework -- when will REAL journalists begin to address the real issues we face and (finally) must deal with? Our President stated clearly America is BROKE. Our banks and Wall St. were just bailed out by foreigners. Journalism is Constitutionally protected. PLEASE DO YOUR JOBS and remove the pundits from our airwaves. The top 1% have had their Reagan/Bush era party. Think of America and don't believe your foreign investments will save you. It is the lower 99% of Americans who have carried the Economy for the last 30 years -- overleveraged and defunded of our pensions, etc.