Matthews complimented panelist for writing that Gore is "one slice short of a loaf"
On the May 21 Chris Matthews Show, Matthews, Time columnist Joe Klein, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, and BBC Washington correspondent Katty Kay discussed former Vice President Al Gore's possible presidential aspirations, with Matthews commending Parker for her description of Gore in a February column, in which she said that Gore is "one slice short of a loaf," and Klein saying that Gore "looked like a madman" delivering a speech in 2002.
On the May 21 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews, Time columnist Joe Klein, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, and BBC Washington correspondent Katty Kay discussed the possibility that former Vice President Al Gore will run for president in 2008. During the discussion, Matthews cited a recent column by Parker in which she criticized Gore's questions about U.S. policy toward Arabs, stating: "I like this phraseology. You said that Al Gore is one slice short of a loaf. ... Is he a little nutty, you're saying?" Parker responded that "there are those who say he has lost it," but added that "I'm not going to go quite that far." Klein declared that, although Gore gave a "brilliant" speech prior to the Iraq war, "[i]f you saw Al Gore delivering it, he looked like a madman." Later in the discussion, Kay said that one of the obstacles Gore would need to overcome in a White House bid is "he has to come across as somebody who doesn't fly off the handle."
In fact, while Parker told Matthews that she wouldn't "go quite that far" in saying Gore "has lost it," in her February 15 column, Parker did characterize Gore as a "bitter politician, who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days" and who engages in "insulting/silly/opportunistic/sycophantic speech."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the May 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Matthews said that Gore developed "a psychological problem" after his defeat in the 2000 presidential election and "went off and grew that beard and got weird." Media Matters has also documented other media figures' questioning of Gore's mental state.
From the May 21 edition of The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Kathleen, you wrote a column recently. I like this phraseology. You said that Al Gore is one slice short of a loaf. I mean, that's like they say up in Massachusetts, they say things like, "He's got a few shingles missing from the roof." What's your point? Is he a little nutty, you're saying?
PARKER: Well, I think he's got -- there are those who say he has lost it. I'm not going to go quite that far. I think he's actually feeling very liberated from himself. I think he's having a great time. He's now the alpha wonk. And suddenly he has all of these admirers, and Hollywood loves him with his movie. He's got the lefty blogs.
MATTHEWS: Money, he's rich.
PARKER: He can probably raise more money than [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)], that's the latest, because he's got all this access to the Internet and the blogosphere.
KAY: He can come in late because he has the money and because he has the name recognition. He can get into this game pretty late in the whole process.
KLEIN: A lot of people can come in late at this point.
KAY: And that allows him to run himself as somebody who's an outsider.
MATTHEWS: But everybody knows who he is.
KLEIN: He's still living down the 2000 campaign, when he was run by his consultants. He didn't talk about global warming. Now he's being the Al Gore who he always wanted to be, and don't forget --
MATTHEWS: You know, I got this idea from your book. You don't have to sell it again, Joe, except for the people watching.
KLEIN: Yes, of course.
MATTHEWS: But I really do buy the argument. There was a lot of people who felt that he was overmanaged, overcontrolled. We never even saw the real Al Gore, which was this passionate guy.
PARKER: You know he's not going to hire someone to tell him what to wear this time.
KAY: But the question is, can he carry on being this passionate guy in a presidential campaign? I mean, the demands of a presidential campaign --
KLEIN: There's a big question here. If you read Al Gore's speech just before the war in Iraq where he came out against it, it's a brilliant speech. If you saw Al Gore delivering it, he looked like a madman.
[...]
KAY: If he's going to run, he has to lose some of that bitterness. He has to be able to come across both as somebody who's authentic, and maybe he's found that passion coalescing around the global-warming issue. And he has to come across as somebody who doesn't fly off the handle and isn't running just because he opposes Hillary Clinton. That's not enough.
In comparison, not only has Bush flown off the handle, but he's flown the coop, fallen far from the tree and basically every metaphor you can think of for goin' insane or reacting poorly.
BushieCo is almost pathologically strange and Orwellian yet it is Al that is "crazy." The press is plain scare of scowlin' Dick, side talking Rum-Rum and everybody's favorite chuckle head GWB.
Either Gore is a boring, monotone old fuddy-duddy...
Or he's a raving lunatic madman who gives overly impassioned speaches.
Can't have it both ways, 'Pubs.
That is why they marginalize him by focusing on style over substance.
I saw Gore’s speech right before the war. I didn’t think he looked like a madman. I agree with JoHNWI11IAMS. Make something up so you can attack his style and ignore the substance of his message.
And what is his substance?
Gore won the 2000 election, only to have Republican lapdog Karthryn Harris and the right-leaning Supreme Court hand it to Bush.
Characterizing Gore as crazy seems to be one of the new Republican talking points. These are not the first righties I've seen touting this point, as if commanded to do so from on high.
"right leaning Supreme Court"??? Wow, didn't think I'd ever hear that one about the SC, especially from that time period. Ahhh, but I guess if someone is ultra liberal, then everything else is "right leaning". You must consider Ginsberg to be the only leftist on the SC. Or is she the only one more left than you?
Gore lost the last election, even after the liberals tried stealing it. Face the facts...he lost it once, he'll lose it again. That's why he seems a like he has one tool missing from the shed.
"right leaning Supreme Court"??? Wow, didn't think I'd ever hear that one about the SC, especially from that time period. --ll-time
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually right leaning is the appropriate description of the court and most of its decisions during that time. That court had 3 very conservative justices (Renquist, Scalia and Thomas), 2 moderately conservative justices (Kennedy and O'Connor). What has been described as the liberal bloc of 4 justices are moderate liberals. Justices Stevens and Souter were even appointed by Republican presidents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Face the facts...he lost it once, he'll lose it again." --ll-time
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay. The first thing you mentioned could be interpreted as a fact. Officially Gore lost. But the second thing you mention is not a fact at all. It is purely speculative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's why he seems a like he has one tool missing from the shed. --lltime
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your conclusion is not supported by your argument at all.
I think Al Gore has winable positions on just about every issue. The biggest thing he will have to overcome is the press, who have never been fair to him. It should be interesting to see how much opposition they give him this time.
Gore can win if he goes after this type of slander effectively and quickly.
Shows like Matthew's are absolutely worthless. Everybody on them has an agenda. The agenda for the day seems to be to undermine Al Gore before he can even get a start. I sincerely hope Americans aren't that stupid. I am tired of being disappointed in that re
Say what you will about Gore... the guy is smart. He ain't crazy or dimwitted. Would run circles around Mathews or any of those weak 'pundits'. Mathews continues to reach news depths.
The hardest thing to combat is the perception that you are crazy. Matthews knows this and I think that is why he is doing this. Gore has been too right, too much of the time to be attacked on his political stance.
Who say that Kathleen Parker is a whore. I would not go quite that far.
There are those who say Chris Matthews never had it, so he could never lose it. I would not go quite that far.
You know the vague citation to defame people is actually quite fun, once you get over the moral issues. But, I would not go quite that far.
in the same way Matthews is a journalist. Klein and Parker are creditable commentators. I am giving Kay a pass as "appearing bitter" could hurt a campaign, but being pissed off because you got elected and were denied office and then were correct about the issues and the idiot you ran against could work. It could work if you adopt a "I was right before, I am right now, and I can fix this moron's mistakes attitude."
"you got elected and were denied office "
I repeat, Gore LOST the 2000 election. Presidents are not chosen by popular vote! Get over it!
Presidents aren't elected by the Supreme Court either - or shouldn't be. Gore got more votes. More people wanted him to be president. Get over it!
for the iraq war. breathless predictions of what danger we would be in if we didn't invade. scoffing denunciations of anyone who dared to say we were rushing in blindly. hey, kathleen, you were wrong. you and all the other right wing shills. so what makes you so damned qualified to judge others. maybe you're the one who needs to shut up and listen to the people who were right. and matthews is just angry at anyone who dares criticize his man bush. c'mon and gush some more about what a hot stud he is, chris.
still a shill. Always was, always will. She should take a chill pill. Because frankly, of her I've had my fill. It would be a thrill handing her a bill for all that frill she wears as she talks swill. I have no will to drill into her will to look for a cue!
BTW, we can agree on some things.
What the hell is up with Tweetie? Even though he's just recently come around to concluding that maybe... just maybe... Iraq was a mistake, he continues to smear those who opposed the war. Sounds pretty schizophrenic to me.
Now, contrast that to the dewy-eyed tongue massaging he continues to give to Dubya, McCain, & Rudy G, & it's clear that he has become one twisted little head case. we need to get this guy on meds before he becomes a danger to himself & others. Maybe Rush can spare some of his stash.
And Klein? Does anyone need any further evidence that he has left whatever libralism that he once felt far behind him. He is now a confirmed neocon, smoothly suggesting that Gore's passion is indicative of some sort of unchecked lunacy. Jesus, man... we should all be that crazy.
Gore, even if you were to accept that he lost the electoral vote - of which I'm not convinced - he won the popular vote in 2000. He has well thought out, coherent, and defensible opinions, and IF he allows himself to be himself - he could win. Let's not forget, Bush has used nothing but fear, religion, and emotion to win. The good news? Logic, reason, and facts ALWAYS eventually win. Global warming or climate change, whichever term you prefer, has those who don't want this "inconvenient truth" to affect the way they do business doing everything they can to make us non-believers. But whether or not you believe in it won't matter when Florida is 6 feet under water. Facts win - period.
"Logic, reason, and facts ALWAYS eventually win."
I wish that were true, but I haven't seen very much reason or logic from this administration or the voting public for the last 6 years. I know you tempered your statement with "eventually" but when will that event come? Will another hurricane or a terrorist attack will sober the American public to logic and reason? I am sick of this administration and their apologists in the media.
Sorry for being cynical.
...to the extent that the statement "naw, that's not a big rock headin' straight for us, it's just a mirage" will inevitably end up with getting hit by a big rock.
Though if someone makes a desperate leap and pushes the speaker out of the way, saving his life, it lleaves open the possibility of him saying "See? Just a mirage."
As in: "The New Deal prolonged the Depression."
As in: "We could have won in Viet Nam if we weren't held back."
As in: "Reagan's Tax Cut proved that deficits don't matter!"
Still, you can't tell people the economy is wonderful when they're out of work and in peril of losing their job;
You can't tell people that isn't a force 5 hurricane out there:
And you can't tell people it's chocolate ice cream, even if you get someone to eat it on camera and smile.
when you constantly ascribe to others unfavorable qualities you possess - something the right wing smear machine has gotten rather adept at - i.e., Gore is "a madman," and "one slice short of a loaf;" Hillary Clinton is "angry," etc. . .
Gore probably has reason to be disturbed, knowing that he won the popular vote in a U.S. presidential election yet had the office stolen by the Supreme Court in collusion with some Florida politicians aligned with Bush . . . but hey, its not much "crazier" than starting a preemptive war against a nation that did not attack you, or possibly starting a nuclear war against a second nation that hasn't attacked you either . . .
The GOP has perfected the "STYLE" of attack which requires no backup ... only 'opinions' on appearances.
Every human being alive can be found to have demonstrated these characteristics, or committed these "sins": Lying (saying on occasion something that is not true), flip-flopping (changing one's position on an issue), behaving "wildly" (enthusiasm).
The idea is to either find, exaggerate, distort, or INVENT examples, and then use these as the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of your opponent. The GOP do this religiously.
It's also an easy claim to say somebody has "no ideas". Or, if pinned down, no NEW ideas. The proof? You yourself don't know what those ideas might be.
Of course, the old standby is the charge of LIBERALISM.
Other, even CONTRADICTORY charges can be added, in order to portray the GOP's opponent as "unelectable". Thus, Gore was both STIFF, and a CRAZY MAN. Kerry both had no ideas, and was the MOST Liberal Senator.
Absent from ANY of these superficial and subjective-to-the-speaker charges is any meaningful discussion of real issues. It's all about how someone "acts", or what they "look like". It is gutless gossip mongering, and it fills literally thousands of hours of rightwing talking head airtime.
This is the WORST sort of "politics", and I'm happy to see that ONE, it's no longer working -- damn near everyone knows Republicans are utter FAILURES -- and TWO, it's all the GOP knows how to do.
The tactics that you describe are ones that you'd expect from smart-ass middle school 'cool kids.'
The question is does this reflect Pug mentality, or simply how they perceive the mentality of the voting public.
Both, I suspect.
Face it liberal faithfull, Gore has gone nuts. I will admit it, i voted for the nutcase in '00, but since then he has really been influenced by the crazies of the left wing party.
Insane is a pretty far stretch compared to any of the people who are in charge in this country today. We have a Messianic president, a tough talking, draft dodging, looney for a vice president, a Senate Majority leader with the uncanny ability of diagnosing traumatic brain injury by viewing an old video tape and a former house majority leader/bug killer who blames everyone but himself for his current situation. I'll take Gore any day , sane or insane, over these crazies.
Face it liberal faithfull [sic], Gore has gone nuts.
And your many years of psychological training give sufficient weight to your opinion, yes?
I will admit it, i [sic] voted for the nutcase in '00,
Sounds like you're the one that used to be sane.
but since then he has really been influenced by the crazies of the left wing party.
Really? Most of the armchair commentators have been saying the opposite, that Gore's behavior has been due to his independence from others. But since you're setting yourself up as an expert here, perhaps you'll kindly provide the names of these "crazies" that are influencing him.
But I won't hold my breath.
I don't think it's at all helpful to overreact to everything that the right says. In this case, Matthews's initial comment could very easily be interpreted as a fondness to the phrase "one slice short of a loaf". In fact, that exactly what he said--"I like this phraseology." He follows that up by saying, "What's your point?" Nowhere does he say that he agrees with the assessment.
If you read the transcript extracts provided here, all he says about Gore is that he's rich and that he's "this passionate guy" who was "overmanaged, overcontrolled" in the election. I think it's hard to disagree with either of those points.
There's plenty of real misinformation out there, why bother with this sort of thing?
I didn't realize the segment was about Matthew's favorite phrases... Why would he dedicating a segment of his show (with guests) to discuss this topic in the first place?
Does it really matter if Matthew comes right out and says "I think Gore is crazy?" when he has a panel of "journalists" making the accusations for him?
Plus the alleged journalists managed to fit in their beloved catch all smear phrase "some people say" or "there are those that say" . Anyone caught uttering those words should be ban from all public discourse.
Gore has more brains, more character, and more compassion than Bush times ten.
All Tweety cares about is the game, who can smear who under the radar, whose poli-ops can ruin the other guy.
How it all affects our Nation? whatever........
And let's not forget his literary predilictions: Matthews called Ann Coulter a "great author" more than once.
For those interested, The Daily Howler has a pretty good dissection of this segment.
[link to www.dailyhowler.com]
Thanks!
I hope the press is ready for some "uncivil" emails when they try that crap in 2008.
That is typical of Chris Mathews. He has very little respect for or sense of obligation to his viewing audience. It is all inside the game, cynical, "I know how this is played" bombast. Who cares? The stories are not about Mathews but he is so arrogant that he can't get that through his head. Egomania personified.
Gore won the 2000 election. We know that. He is by far one of two or three best we have now for a Presidential candidate. So your favorite wacky rightist media propagandists are trying to smear ahead, of course.
What else have they got - Bush's record!? I believe the public has wised up to it now, and it shows in Darth Bush's ratings. I say it no longer matters that these propagandists smear Dems. Most voters have wised up. Thanks for your forum George
Even if you accept the fact that a lousy 500 votes in the Florida vote count was enough to call for a victory celebration (which I don't). I am so tired of hearing people say that Bush "WON" the election. Every time I go by the local Wal-Mart, I see more cars in the parking lot than the number of votes that supposedly threw the election to Bush in 2000. I was working in Jacksonville at the time of this election, and got totally disgusted with the nonsense phrase "they counted once, twice, three times, and he still won"..... Give me a break! The whole thing was a joke. I don't think people will easily forget that election. It will live on as an example of what can be done to our system of free and fair elections by a group of "win at any cost" fanatics.