Matthews on Sen. Clinton: "Is she Dukakis in a dress?"
On the January 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews compared Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to former Massachusetts governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis when he asked former White House adviser and frequent Hardball contributor Ron Christie: "Is she Dukakis in a dress?" Matthews, who has made this comparison before, has a history of leveling baseless smears against Clinton, as Media Matters for America has noted.
From the January 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
CHRISTIE: That's exactly right. But if you look at [former Vice President] Al Gore, if you look at [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA], they did not do very well in the interior of the country. They played very well to the coasts. The question will be: "Will Senator Clinton be able to overcome some very difficult --
MATTHEWS: Is she Dukakis in a dress?
CHRISTIE: I'm not going to go there. She will be difficult to win a general election because I think there are a lot of people who have had Clinton fatigue. You and I have talked about this before.
MATTHEWS: I know. I know. I think we've gone around this block.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
whereby he seems soooooo intent and driven on a serious topic then just runs over the cliff with his ridiculous statements...
depends, Tweety . . . are you Coulter in a suit?
Not exactly one of Chris's gems... not really even funny at that.
Regarding the the topic though, of the Democratic Party nationally, and of whether they're serious about fielding a candidate for the presidency that would appeal to the electorate nationally...
...truly nationally.
The guy transcribed turns the old red state and blue state thing into something else:
"...they did not do very well in the interior of the country. They played very well to the coasts."
The Gulf coast? (Five states border the Gulf of Mexico)
The coasts of Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina and Virginia?
The coast of Alaska? (That's one heck of a coast!)
It's true what most of these guys say about the Democratic Party nationally (I think so, maybe you don't)...
...that it (the DNC is a fair enough name for it) suffers from a "corrupted thought process" (my words) when it comes to forming it's National Policy agenda for the only national election there is: The presidency, and vice-presidency.
Hundreds of good words can be typed out, describing this "corrupted thought process"... describing a party obsessed with fund-raising, and corrupted by it... funds raised with Policy strings attached, corrupting the Democratic Party nationally into something like the Intellectual Liberal Socially Progressive Democratic Party (my words here, but used too much by those same Democrats there)...
...instead of what it should be, in order to include as many of the American People as possible, something like the People's Democratic Party (my word, and my party too, the People's Party... it can be your's too, the word and the party).
But never mind that... instead, what about this phenomena we have in presidential candidacies (especially this early in the cycle)... the phenomena of:
"We love the guy! He embodies all our Hopes, and our Dreams, and our Vision... why, the guy practically is our Vision, the candidate in question is. We love him!"
"...no, we don't know a lot about him, that's true. We don't know what he thinks about everything regards National Policy... or even most things... or even more than a couple of things... or anything at all really, of what he thinks about National Policy...
...but we love him just the same! He looks right, and he talks right, and he smiles and he's warm and he reminds me of my dad, or my football coach, or my favorite professor. He's my Hope, my Dream, my Vision!"
He was once called Howard Dean... I think his name is Obama now, though.
And the Republicans aren't always much better when it comes to this crap of fielding candidates that are all expectation and public relations and sound-bites and photo-ops...
...they've got the Maverick, "Straight Talkin" McCain!
Another guy that most people don't know much about, except that he's their Vision and their Dream and above all else, their
HOPE.
When Tucker Carlson was proven wrong about the sales of Hillary's book, she didn't make him eat a shoe as he promised - she made him eat a cake made in the shape of one of his Wingtips.
I'm betting that Tweety has said privately that if she becomes POTUS, he'll kiss her ass.
I'm thinking his cake will resemble two hemispheres.
And she led Willie Horton to JonBenet Ramsey!!!
I really hope she doesn't get elected. Can you imagine if this country goes back to how it was under Clinton?
Targeted strikes against terrorist bases, soaring economy, reduced crime rates, decreasing the gap between the richest and the poorest, budget surplus... god no.... not again...
millions of tons of burnt coal particulates (easy to hide from a gullible electorate with the usual "Ah'm green" rhetoric), slight-of-hand budget surplus BS (more gullibility--unbeleivably gullible electorate)------hilarious, though, and everybody needs a laugh! Keep kidding yourself, Folderol!
"Orchestrated death of nuclear power"? Please explain.
Wacko lefties orchestrated the Three Mile Island accident.
Those dirty bastards! I knew they were in on it!
Bill caused the Three Mile Island leak right before he killed that guy.
Gee, what to put first of the bad things that happened under Clinton:
Doubling Israeli settlers in occupied territories Loss of 40 year majority in the House of Representatives Loss of the Senate Loss of Governorships Loss of state legislatures Scandal a week for 8 years
Plus, Hillary would probably pardon Scooter Libby first thing in she got in. Who wants to see that?
What is the objection? Comparing Dukakis to Hillary or vise versa?
Nothing vicious here. No smear . Dukakis was a strong primary candidate who proved to be weak in the general election. Some [ both Democrats & Republicans] have suggested Hillary could suffer the same fate.
Sorry folks, but THIS comparison is hardly an eyebrow raiser. IF Matthews connecting Dukakis & Hills together in an amusing & harmless fashion [that also holds some plausibility] gets you agitated then I'd suggest you grow a thicker skin & get a sense of humor.
There are real examples of mis-information & bias out there. BUT this is just nitpicky stuff.
I don't see the issue either. To me it's just a way of saying 'is the only difference between Clinton and Dukakis gender?' Which is not in itself offensive.
However, MediaMatters doesnt call this a smear, if you read the top carefully. It could just be for the sake of record, but I see no need for that.
The article does mention that Matthews "has a history of leveling baseless smears against Clinton" which sort of suggests that they MIGHT consider this Dukakis/Hillary comparison to fit into that same category, BUT you're correct the title does NOT use the term "smear".
This could be understood as meaning 'this is a smear, and part of a history of smears' :
''Matthews, who has made this comparison before, has a history of leveling baseless smears against Clinton, as Media Matters for America has noted.''
I guess its semantics, but either way I would maintain this 'dress' comment is not a smear.
To be honest, Mediamatters used to have FEWER posts, and the posts themselves were more startling for their potency. I think this sort of detail is unnecessary, but that's just me. For example, Coulter's column runs every week with offensive misinformation and smears, but hasnt been addressed for a wee while now....
Dunno... First I'd have to see her wearing a combat helmet, sticking her head out of the hatch of a tank.
Mr. Matthews is a very brave MAN. He hides behind his show to lob "bombs" and insults at Sen. Clinton. Now, I am not a Clinton fan, but in the interest of honesty, integrity and fair handedness, Sen. Clinton should be able to provide a response to the sleaze and spew Matthews dishes out. So, given his courageous attacks, I would like to see him display some MANLY Courage, invite Sen. Clinton onto his show, and say the very same to her face, as he been doing for quite a while. Only a coward will hide behind the "skirts" of his position.
I find it interesting that this is the best you can do MM. Comapring Clinton to Dukakis is considered a smear ? Even when the guy doing it is a former speach writter for Jimmy Carter. lol
I run your Rss feed next to the Newsbuster Rss feed, what a stark contrast in material.
Cheers
Why didn't you share the top stories on NewBusters this morning with the rest of US?
Cold-blooded: Hillary Threatens Funding for Personal Security of Iraqi Leaders. The entire story is about her "likeability".
NBC Hails 'No Man Required' Mothers, Complete with Soundtrack. You have to read it even to believe it...
Chis Matthews has a pattern of making comments about H.C. and has made numerous attempts to frame her in a negative manner. Many people do not have a favorable impression of M.D. and that is his reason for the comparison. MMFA is just adding to his already extensive list.
As far as HC fatigue - I don't know maybe the constant negative comments about her might have something to do with that fatigue. The woman cannot do anything without some review about her "likeability" by the media.
I popped over to newsbusters and here is what some conservatives have to say about Mathews on a current thread:
- His head reminds me of a swollen boil that needs to be lanced.
- You know, Chrissy Sissy, your grasp of military strategy is amazing
- This guy looks and sounds like he is about to have an on air meltdown
- Chris Matthews should be exposed on Hannity as an Enemy of the State.
It looks like Mathews is an equal opportunity spinner...disliked by liberals and conservatives.
Another thread about Hillary being plundered by the media...with little defense of her...just outrage at the plunderer.
It just leaves me wondering about her viability as a candidate when a liberal site consistently fails to rally to her side.
Yes, I know, this thread is about mmfa's perceived misinfo by Mathews...but it puzzles me why Hillary only draws lukewarm support from a self-described liberal site.
This is more interesting to me than the 'Dukakis' comment.
I long for the days when I felt so fatigued... Like we've enjoyed 6 glorious, fun-filled years with Bush? At this point, I would take back ol' Bill in a heartbeat. No fatigue... open arms. If anything, Hillary can and should ride the 'fatigue' from Bill's presidencies.
Yeah, you just keep thinking that, republicans. You're going to get a big surprise. How can this county tolerate another Clinton in the White House? Eight years of peace and prosperity, again? What an outrage!!
she's Dukakis in a tank... seriously, the "wimpiness" factor of Dukakis (one more prevalent with his opponent, Bush Sr.) is not an issue with Hillary... you just know she's a strong, take-charge woman... that's actually what's scaring consternatives in this country...
Right on the money, there, Pete...
Matthews show is nothing but trash! He is so arrogant that he is tough to watch. When he has actors acting as experts on the CIA, he shows how stupid he and his show is. Why doesn't he ask democrats tough quetions? Why does he not interrupt democrats when they answer questions? Who gave him the degree that he thinks he is an expert in politics? Who gave him a degree on how to conduct a war? He is a loud mouth like keith olbermann, maybe that is why their ratings suck!