About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Chris Matthews on "trick[iness]" for Giuliani of "land[ing] a punch against a woman" in a debate

January 31, 2007 1:02 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

On the January 29 edition of Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci (R), who has endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) for president, how Giuliani could "go into a debate with [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] and land a punch against a woman." Matthews continued: "Isn't that going to be tricky for somebody like Rudy, who knows how to land a punch, to go up ... against a woman?" Matthews later told Cellucci, "I love being in the corner -- as a corner man with you."

Matthews also told Cellucci that Giuliani is "tough. He's a bit of an FSOB. I think we need one as president. He doesn't own a ranch. That's what I like about him. He's not going to be on the ranch when something big hits. When something bad hits, he'll be on the street corner talking to us instead of hiding on the ranch." Matthews has previously gushed about Giuliani, as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, and here). For example, Media Matters noted Matthews' prediction on the July 18, 2006, edition of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno that "the next president of the United States will be Rudy Giuliani." Matthews added: "I think that they [the American people] want -- we want a guy who'll be tougher than the president we have now, quicker to tell us what's going on. He won't have a ranch. I know. I am tired of presidents with ranches."

On Hardball, Matthews also promoted a ticket with Giuliani as presidential candidate and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) as his running mate: "You know, I know who your running mate will be if you get that far [the general election]. Haley Barbour, perfect balance. You need a guy who's pro-life, Deep South, good accent, good old boy. All the things Rudy isn't, but still a great executive like Rudy. What a great ticket that would be. Just think of it ... Giuliani-Barbour." On the November 15, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews predicted that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "running mate will be Haley Barbour."

Later on the January 29 edition of Hardball, Matthews spoke with Miss America Organization chairman Sam Haskell. Matthews served as a judge in the 2007 Miss America competition, which took place on January 29. Matthews claimed that Giuliani has "done something" but "[i]t's hard to argue that Hillary's done something ... except put up with [former President Bill Clinton], which she so wonderfully mentioned this weekend as her great selling point." Matthews was suggesting that Sen. Clinton had referred to former President Clinton when she quipped: "And what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?" As Newsday noted, Sen. Clinton has denied that the statement was about former President Clinton.

Additionally, Matthews told Haskell of Giuliani: "I will build him up, because I think the media underestimates his clout."

As Media Matters noted, Matthews made a New Year's "journalist resolution" on the December 31 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthew Show: "Despite everything I say, seeing the arguments for people like Giuliani, because the conventional wisdom opposes that kind of argument, I am going to keep completely open-minded, from now to the next general election for president, about who would be our next best president."

From the January 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: You know what I like about Rudy Giuliani? He's tough. He's a bit of an FSOB. I think we need one as president. He doesn't own a ranch. That's what I like about him. He's not going to be on the ranch when something big hits. When something bad hits, he'll be on the street corner talking to us instead of hiding on the ranch. Don't you agree, Governor? He won't be on his ranch.

CELLUCCI: I absolutely -- I absolutely agree. That's what we saw on September 11th. He reassured the people of his city. He led them through such a -- some very difficult and challenging days. It's extraordinary leadership, and these times require that kind of leadership.

MATTHEWS: What would he have done if Hurricane Katrina had hit Louisiana, New Orleans especially, on his watch? What would he have done afterwards?

CELLUCCI: Well, I think he would have been there within hours. And I think he would have made sure that all the federal people who had responsibility to deal with that were there as well. I think we can pretty much be assured of that.

MATTHEWS: You mean he wouldn't have been watching on a DVD a week later, catching up with the news he had missed all week while he was on his ranch?

[...]

MATTHEWS: How can he go into a debate with Hillary Clinton and land a punch against a woman? Isn't that going to be tricky for somebody like Rudy, who knows how to land a punch, to go up a woman --

CELLUCCI: Well, you know, I think you --

MATTHEWS: -- up against a woman?

CELLUCCI: I ran against Marjorie Clapprood for lieutenant governor back in 1990. I had several debates with her. I didn't approach her any differently. I don't think people expect that you approach a woman candidate any differently than a man. I think you stick to your guns, you make your points, and you challenge the person that you are in the debate with. I think Rudy will be an effective debater against Hillary Clinton.

MATTHEWS: You know where I think you guys could hit and strike hard? You can carry Pennsylvania against Hillary. You know, a lot of Catholics, a lot of conservative cultural people are going to still going to like Rudy in that part of the country. The gun owners are going to like him even though he's pro-gun control. Ohio, you'll do great. In Michigan, you'll do great. I don't know how you're going to do holding the Bible Belt. That's going to be tricky. Then again, where else are they going to go, right?

CELLUCCI: Well, clearly -- clearly, Rudy is going to do well in the Midwest. You're right, where else are they going to go in the South? And when you look at Florida, Texas, California, you've still got Republican governors in those states. They've got an awful lot of electoral votes.

You know, the challenge for Rudy is to win those primaries so he builds up the delegates so that he can win that nomination. I think he's going to be a very strong general-election candidate. There's no doubt about that.

MATTHEWS: You know, I know who your running mate will be if you get that far. Haley Barbour, perfect balance. You need a guy who's pro-life, Deep South, good accent, good old boy. All the things Rudy isn't, but still a great executive like Rudy. What a great ticket that would be. Just think of it --

CELLUCCI: I love it. Haley Barbour, that's --

MATTHEWS: Giuliani-Barbour. What a ticket.

CELLUCCI: That's a great idea, Chris. I'm going to pass that one on.

MATTHEWS: I love being in the corner -- as a corner man with you, Governor. Thank you.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, I think he's [Giuliani] got two things going for him. Let me run them by. One, he's done something.

HASKELL: Right.

MATTHEWS: It's hard to argue that Hillary's done something. It's hard to find that thing she's done, except put up with Bill, which she so wonderfully mentioned this weekend as her great selling point.

And the other thing he's done is he can give a speech. You know, for a while there, I thought in America white guys not only couldn't jump, they couldn't speak -- that the best speakers in the country were all African-Americans. And now, I think this guy can talk.

HASKELL: He can talk.

MATTHEWS: This president can't talk.

HASKELL: Well, he definitely -- Giuliani can definitely speak. And I think that -- that John F. Kennedy proved that an election can be won on communicative skills. And Giuliani has those same skills, and I think he'll put them to good use.

MATTHEWS: He proved it at your convention. Were you in the hall? Were you up there covering it --

HASKELL: I was not.

MATTHEWS: -- as [former Sen.] Zell Miller [D-GA] remembers well. We were up there --

HASKELL: I was watching in my living room.

MATTHEWS: Well, he gave a stunning speech.

HASKELL: Yes, he did.

MATTHEWS: And he has the ability, Rudy -- and I will -- I will build him up, because I think the media underestimates his clout. He does this thing in public where you can actually stop talking, pause, and have the audience dying to hear your next word.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 1:09 pm ET)
         

      What is so misinformative or suspect about this entire exchange between Matthew's and his guest?  He is a fan of Guiliani's cajones, or something.....so what?  Apparently he feels he would be much better than our current President who, according to Matthews, hides away in his ranch.  This is just inside the beltway bantering between political junkies on a cable news talk show......nothing more.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DorisRussell (January 31, 2007 1:28 pm ET)
           

        Tommy I dont think its misinformation I think its showing Matthews bias and hate toward Senator Clinton. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 1:37 pm ET)
             

          Doris,

          I took it as more of a commentary on the inherent circumstances involved when debating a woman, from the standpoint of how it's received and covered.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by greekfurnace (January 31, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
               

            Received and Covered...

            By Matthews... Guilliani is the next 'maverick' for this guy. This is a totally biased report (once again) by Matthews. Yeah... his 'opinion' but he's still biased.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:43 pm ET)
                 

              All opinions are inherently biased.  Why is Matthews, who is a commentator and not a news reporter, not allowed to voice his?  Of course he is.  You disagree, that is your opinion.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 2:50 pm ET)
                   

                It matters when those "opinions" are either false ("It's hard to argue that Hillary's done something. It's hard to find that thing she's done, except put up with Bill") or sexist ("How can he go into a debate with Hillary Clinton and land a punch against a woman?"). Apparently you think that baseless and offensive opinions are acceptable on a news program.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:51 pm ET)
                     

                  Ahh, but then according to your definition of a bigot on an earlier thread........where it is someone who is intolerant of another's opinion, then that makes you a bigot.  Thank you for clearing that up.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 2:56 pm ET)
                       

                    For the umpteenth time, you can't be intolerant of intolerance. You try to pull this all the time. So Chris Matthews says something completely false and blatantly sexist, and anyone who takes issue with that is an intolerant bigot? That's absolutely ridiculous.

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (January 31, 2007 1:29 pm ET)
           

        Tommy....what I believe needs to be done here at these MMFA posts is to broaden the definition of 'misinformation'...you are correct to say it is two people voicing their opinions, because ANYBODY can do that, but I hereby say that when a commentator who is on NATIONAL tv uses sexist wordage such as 'how can you punch out a lady if you are a man (paraphrased)' and offers to NOT OPEN-MINDEDLY advocate for a particular candidate- 'I will prop this guy up because I like him (paraphrased)', then we shall call this misinformation...oh, and trust me, I will provide more examples and reasons for the broader use of misinformation in the national spotlight...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 2:09 pm ET)
             

          Some people wouldn't recognize sexism if it punched them in the face.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (January 31, 2007 1:30 pm ET)
           

        Your'e right Tommy it's just more of CM's ADD rantings.  But this story is here because MMFA wants it here and it's their site. Just face it Tommy this is out of your control and you have NOOOOOOOO say baby doll.   

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 1:34 pm ET)
             

          Ahh Lynn Sweety,   I never said I wanted it out of here or removed or anything of the sort.  I was merely commenting on it's worthiness, from my perspective.  If you disagree, fine. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
               

            Tommy,

            Why must we keep reminding you that this site can speak to whatever they please?  Why must you constantly attack Media Matters instead of taking a stand on their position?  We have suggested many times that if you don't like MMFA you should start your own web site where you can dictate the rules.  But, in all sincerity, your "where's the misinformation" schitck has been played out.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:48 pm ET)
                 

              Then don't play with me.  Your repetition bores me.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 2:55 pm ET)
                   

                How pretentious, arrogent, and controlling of you.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:58 pm ET)
                     

                  After your post to me above?  Pot, meet kettle.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 3:01 pm ET)
                       

                    Oh c'mon!  I love debating you when you stick to the issues, but to simply come here to attack MMFA--well that's just silly.

                    Pot meet kettle?  Hardly.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:04 pm ET)
                         

                      Look, I am not attacking MMFA - it is my opinion that threads like this are ridiculous and unworthy.  It is only my opinion, I don't expect anyone to agree with it, that's fine.  This site does a good service, I have said that many times.  Don't accuse me of attacking every thread, because there are many that I don't.  I evaluate them as anyone does and state my opinion.  If you don't like that, and wish to attack me for that, then that is your business.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 3:16 pm ET)
                           

                        I'm not attacking you.  I never said that you did this to every post.  My point was that it makes more sense to show why MMFA has wasted their time by arguing a position instead of just saying so.

                        Personally, I don't always agree with everything MMFA reports, and sometimes I think it a waste of time to comment on many of their issues.  But, it is their site, we are guests here, and they decide what is worty of printing.

                        If I thought they were getting too nitpickey (sp?) I would write them an Email.  I would not blast them through their loyal posters.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:18 pm ET)
                             

                          Therick, I stated my opinion at the beginning of this thread - who blasted who?  

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
                               

                            Although you said more, your post boils down to: 

                            'Where's the misinformation'

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by bruce1ace (January 31, 2007 3:41 pm ET)
                                 

                              I agree that MMFA can absolutely post whatever they deem fit.  And they do.  But this should not count as conservative misinformation if it is a namecalling rant by O Reilly or a suckathon by Matthews.  If MMFA is counting all these things and then using this large count as some "proof" of a conservative media bias then I disagree with that.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 3:49 pm ET)
                                   

                                I didn't know they were doing that.  Are they?

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by bruce1ace (January 31, 2007 4:09 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Somebody said on another thread within the past week that a MMFA rep was on one of the cable shows and claimed they had documented XXXX number of cases (I think I remember 1,100) of conservative misinformation.  I can't verify how they got their number.  Certainly a large portion of the threads are legitimate but maybe 20-25% are stupid namecalling, opinion, Olbermann stuff that should not be counted.  (IMHO)  Maybe they aren't, I really don't know.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 4:12 pm ET)
                                       

                                    I think your are correct Bruce

                                    Name calling and insulting by right wing media figures is NOT misinformation, just idiocy. Misinformation is when the media misrepresents an issue to serve a partisan purpose.

                                    Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (January 31, 2007 1:30 pm ET)
           

        Tommy,

        I saw feces dribbling down Matthews' chin.

        that's not a good sign....

        Report Abuse
      • Author by What Happened to Gannon (February 01, 2007 8:09 am ET)
           

        Speaking of Junkies...

         Try keeping your MMFA time under 40 hours per week.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 3:03 pm ET)
         

      It's the dictionary's definition, not mine. You really aren't making any sense at this point. To date you've called me a racist, a liar, and now a bigot, and you've not been able to back up a single one of those claims. It's desperate name-calling. If you'd like to explain how I'm a bigot, then I'm all ears.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
           

        You posted the definiton of bigot as being utterly intolerant of opinion.  I maintain that you are utterly intolerant of my opinion based on your incessant argumentativeness........that is my opinion.  And on that definition, and that example, then you fit that definition.

        Sorry, that's my opinion.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:09 pm ET)
             

          Admittedly, based on my intolerance of late of your opinion due to the reasons I have already stated, then I am a bigot where your opinion is concerned. 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 3:10 pm ET)
             

          So by that logic everyone who argues with you is a bigot? Debate is not a display of intolerance. Challenging lies and intolerance is not bigotry.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (January 31, 2007 3:14 pm ET)
               

            Geez Clams why don't you & Tommy just get a room.

            These daily spats are no longer entertaining.

            I swear I'm gonna tell Mommy if you guys don't knock it off.

            Then wait till Daddy get's home ;-)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:16 pm ET)
                 

              A room?  Perish the thought!!!!  Daddy, I swear I will run away from home and join the "Democrat" party.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (January 31, 2007 3:21 pm ET)
                   

                "Democrat" party...

                Low blow Tommy ;-)

                Actually I guess this love/hate thing you & Clams have going is kinda cute.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:24 pm ET)
                     

                  Cute? Ewwww..........

                  Anyway, I read where you want to sit by Lynn at the upcoming poster banquet given by MMFA, (if there is one)..........so help me, if they serve clams casino and I have to sit by you know who????

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:21 pm ET)
                 

              Jeter, You're right - I would imagine people reading this drivel are as tired of if as I am.  Time to move on.  

              Thanks Daddy!

              Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
                 

              Go back and reread the thread to see the pattern here. I make a reasonable, valid on-topic post without any namecalling or other uncalled for attitude, then instead of addressing my point Tommy calls me a bigot. I try to return to my original point by posing the question differently, and then Tommy simply calls me a bigot again. The exchange later in the thread follows the exact same pattern.

              So don't scold me over this. If someone were calling you a bigot (or a racist or a liar), I'm sure you wouldn't let it go unchallenged either. If Tommy doesn't want to address the substance of any of my posts, then that's his perogative, but I won't tolerate his baseless accusations and childish namecalling. If you find it all too boring, then don't read it.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (January 31, 2007 3:40 pm ET)
                   

                Clams,

                I hope you know I'm not seriously chastising either you or Tommy. I'm attempting to convey a little humor here-- cause I can almost set my watch to these daily spats you guys fill the threads with.

                IF you guys could stay on topic the debates would be interesting...but inevitably one or both of you get personal. That's the pattern I see.

                Whether I read them or not isn't the point-- it would still be a pain to scroll past dozens and sometimes pages of your dueling posts.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 3:54 pm ET)
                     

                  lol Jeter I think your correct

                   I cannot find many threads where the arguing between a conservative poster and a liberal poster is limited to one page... Oh well I guess debates are a thing of the past...

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 3:57 pm ET)
                     

                  I might be able to see the humor if Tommy weren't baselessly accusing me of bigotry (or racism or lying, as has been the case in the past). He can just throw those phony accusations out there and then laugh about it, but I don't find it funny at all. And I'd challenge to you to point out a single instance where the pattern has been flipped, and I'm the one who avoided a reasonable debate by getting personal.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (January 31, 2007 6:21 pm ET)
                       

                    Clams,

                    I doubt anyone here thinks you're a bigot [and in this case I think Tommy was using THAT word because he felt you objected to him having an opposing opinion] I don't think bigot actually even fits here. Quite frankly I have seen you accuse him of lying...and vice versa..

                    Look I'm not gonna go through the archives looking for examples of who started which argument. And who called who a poopiehead first.

                    It's clear to me, and probably everyone, that you & Tommy can't manage to have a civil debate.

                    There used to be a poster here that really pissed me off. After awhile I avoided her posts even when I could have chewed up her points and spit them out . It wasn't worth the dozens of posts I would have wasted trying to debate her in a civil fashion. She didn't know how.

                    The only time I EVER responded was IF she attacked me. Of course she used to attack everyone. She's no longer with us [Banned]

                    From what I've seen Tommy ignores you. YOU on the other hand can't seem to resist  responding to one of his posts. Your prerogative of course. But it inevitably turns into an off topic duel

                    Why not just skip his posts?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 7:19 pm ET)
                         

                      "Quite frankly I have seen you accuse him of lying...and vice versa.."

                      The difference is when I accuse him of lying I back it up with a quote and a link, and when he accuses me of lying he doesn't. Never has...not once. In fact, the last time he called me a liar I'm the one who dug back and provided the link to disprove his baseless accusations.

                      "Look I'm not gonna go through the archives looking for examples of who started which argument. And who called who a poopiehead first."

                      I can completely understand you not wanting to waste your time, but unless you can point to a specific instance, don't accuse me of starting arguments and derailing threads by getting personal. I never make ad hominem attacks. Tommy does so routinely. Accusing me of doing so is as baseless an unfounded as Tommy accusing me of bigotry.

                      "It's clear to me, and probably everyone, that you & Tommy can't manage to have a civil debate."

                      It's clear to me that Tommy can't manage a civil debate with nearly everyone here. Just look at the rest of this thread. Why am I the one who is "obssessed" and "argumentative," when Tommy obviously argues (pointlessly, endlessly and childishly) with almost everyone? And where do you get the balls to accuse me of polluting the discussion when you're clogging up the very same thread with multiple "joke" posts? You're only contributing to the nonsense, and on top of that you're doing it dishonestly by accusing me of getting personal and going off-topic. My original (on-topic) point went completely unaddressed in favor of an absurd ad hominem attack. I've done nothing but defend myself since, and Tommy chose to bow out without refuting or even acknowledging the substance of any of my posts.

                      "From what I've seen Tommy ignores you."

                      That is absolutely absurd, and very plainly false.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jeter2 (January 31, 2007 7:46 pm ET)
                           

                        Clams,

                        Tommy does ignore you...but perhaps I didn't word what I meant clearly enough.

                        Tommy ignores you UNTIL you initiate contact. Then, at least lately, he tells you repeatedly that he doesn't want to discuss the issue with you. BUT you won't let it go...and thus begins the duel.

                        Does Tommy fight with others here? Sure, but not as consistently as with you.

                        As far as me "clogging" up this thread with jokes. I did make a few. Hardly my M.O. on other threads...but this one already the makings of turning into another heated Clams vs Tommy waste of space. It needed some levity.

                        Clams, chill out.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 8:10 pm ET)
                             

                          The purpose of this comment section is to comment and initiate debate, which I do with some frequency. If Tommy actually did ignore me then these threads would never degenerate into this nonsense. But instead of ignoring me he launches baseless personal attacks and/or takes the time to repeatedly write empty and evasive posts full of excuses about why he won't engage in a substantial debate. I will not stop challenging, commenting or attempting to initiate debate with Tommy (or anyone else, for that matter). You will never see me initiating an off-topic argument or attempting to provoke anyone with personal insults and childish taunting. But you will see me defend myself when attacked in this manner. Other posters that I frequently take issue with (Evillib, AnotherAmerican, etc.) almost never respond to me. They mostly choose not to debate, but they also never attack me or respond with diversionary nonsense.

                          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
               

            No, disagreeing with one's opinion while accepting that opinion, i.e. > "agree to disagree", is not the same thing as being intolerant of that opinion.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by lindenbully (January 31, 2007 1:30 pm ET)
         

      It's inside the beltway bantering between two stupid political junkies...

      "I'm tired of Presidents with ranches." Well, I'm at least as tired of pundits who focus on everything else but actual policy. Ranches, Poodle Skirts, blah, blah, blah. Why doesn't he just change the name from "Hardball" to "Lifestyles of the Rich and Partisan?"

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (January 31, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
           

        God Linden do I agree. Chris is the leading offender when it comes to that. He introduces all kinds of irrelevant information and ends up discussing everything except policy. Sometimes his guests look astounded, I’m sure they are amazed at the kind of ridiculous questions he’s asking them.  Yesterday he said that stay at home Moms don't like Hillary Clinton, and only the professional and "militant" women like her. He made this assertion like an all knowing God had just whispered it in his ear. What a character. I wish he would quit and take up beauty contest judging full time.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by leatherhelmet (January 31, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
             

          So you think stay at home moms like Hillary Clinton?

          "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

          Stay at home moms are NOT her base of support. 

           

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 2:49 pm ET)
               

            You show no proof of that by quoting Hillary!  Show us some stats that back up your claim.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (January 31, 2007 2:21 pm ET)
           

        Excellent summing up of the entire political debate as portrayed on the media. Issues be damned! We want to discuss "authenticity"! We want to talk about gender and religious backgrounds and parents and skin colors and sex scandals! Issues? What issues? Just ignore all those bodies over there, hold your nose from the stench of rotting corpses and let's talk about where a candidate sat during a speech!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
             

          Apparently you also feel it's unworthy then when media watchdog websites highlight fluffy, insignificant and harmless political discussions,  or spotlight one adult public figure insulting another adult public figure?   When there are far more egregious and important topics to cover.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
               

            You're stumbling over your own illogic and attempting to point out hypocrisy where there is none. The term "media watchdog" should be self-explanatory. If you see Matthews' sexism as harmless fluff, the that's your opinion--we're still waiting for you to start your own website--but by highlighting his comments MMFA is providing an example of the media's ongoing focus on the trivial. MMFA isn't contributing to the fluff, it's exposing it. Obviously there are far, far bigger stories to cover and that's where the media is failing, not the media watchdogs.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:47 pm ET)
                 

              I was asking Redking his or her opinion, not yours - which is irrelevant to me.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 2:52 pm ET)
                   

                Why is Clams opinion irrelevent?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:54 pm ET)
                     

                  Therick, His opinion is irrelevant to me because his argumentativeness,  where I am concerned,  overshines any possible relevancy or point he makes.  You may consider it relevant, I consider it juvenile.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by therick (January 31, 2007 2:58 pm ET)
                       

                    It looks to me that you have been pegged.  I know it must be hard for you to argue the issues, but we all would have a more civil discussion if you followed that guidline.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 3:00 pm ET)
                       

                    There was absolutely nothing argumentative in my post. I made valid points and you can't/won't address them. That's fine by me, but don't accuse me of being argumentative as a way of excusing your inability to carry on a reasonable debate.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 2:54 pm ET)
                   

                I love your new "I wasn't talking to you" dodge tactic. Unfortunately for you it's a painfully obvious one. My post was entirely relevant. You just can't must an actual response.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 2:57 pm ET)
                     

                  Keep trying to elevate your relevancy where I am concerned, if it's necessary for your ego.  But frankly, your posts are pure entertainment, not anything more than a cartoon.......but nice try.  

                  I don't respect bigots, remember - those utterly intolerant of another's opinion.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 3:52 pm ET)
                       

                    Lol Tommy

                     This place is getting more and more rabid everyday, dont you think? Oh well I love to read about all the drama ocurring in MMFA. I honestly don't see any misinformation either, more like senseless dribbling(which Matthews is a master at).

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 4:37 pm ET)
                         

                      "Don't you think?"

                      Strange that you would be asking Tommy to confirm that question when he's the one who resorted to ugly name-calling. If this thread turned "rabid" it's because of him.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 7:16 pm ET)
                           

                        Clams I wasn't blaming you or anybody for that matter. I was merely stating that LATELY their has been a lot more hostility on this site than when I first checked it out. I apologize for not stating that clearer. It ruins the fun of this site,when all the posters are at each other's necks all the time...

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by clams casino (January 31, 2007 7:29 pm ET)
                             

                          Agreed. Name-calling is much easier than real debate. But I guess it's foolish of us to expect that everyone here actually wants a real debate.

                          Report Abuse
              • Author by redking75687 (January 31, 2007 9:17 pm ET)
                   

                I agree with Clams completely....there's my opinion.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (January 31, 2007 6:06 pm ET)
               

            "Apparently you also feel it's unworthy then when media watchdog websites highlight fluffy, insignificant and harmless political discussions,  or spotlight one adult public figure insulting another adult public figure?"

            -----

            Nice straw man. I don't remember reading any post to that effect. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 31, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
         

      Apparently Matthews has swallowed that whole "Hero of 9-11" crap that the GOP has been shoveling about Rudy.  Everyone who did anything except faint or run away during 9-11 has been labeled a "hero".  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it hardly  says anything unique or remarkable about Rudy.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (January 31, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
         

      On Chris Matthews...

      First and foremeost, Chris Matthews is a political junkie and I think he admires politicians, regardless of political affiliation, who have better than ordinary political skills and are effective in accomplishing what they want. He is sometimes almost amoral (for lack of a better description) in his praise for successful politicians. He obviously likes, Rudy Giuliani... but I honestly believe that a great deal of his admiration stems from his assessment that Giuliani is a good politician. The one good thing I can say about Giuliani (among the many bad things I could say) is that he is not an ideological extremist (which, in fact, may be Giuliani's undoing). I am not trying to defend Chris Matthews' adoration for Giuliani but I think I understand where Matthews is coming from. I like Hardball... but like any other cable news show I don't agree with everything Matthews says and atke some things with a grain of salt.

      What disturbs about this report, however, is the mention of Haley Barbour as a potential Vice-Presidential candidate. Now that is scary! In case you don't remember, Haley Barbour was Chairman of the Republican Party when Newt Gingrich put into play his "take no prisoners" plan to take the 104th Congress in 1994. Barbour worked closely with Gingrich in developing and implementing the plan. In my opinion, both Gingrich and Barbour deserve a special place in hell for the divisiveness the Republican Party unleashed on America and which persists (and has even grown) today. The prosepct of Haley Barbour being a heart beat away from the Prisidency is a scary thought. But I think Matthews political assessment is right on the mark... Barbour would be a formidable addition to the Republican ticket in 2008.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (January 31, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
           

        Well put.  Although I am not so sure about Barbour.  I tend to believe that people vote for Pres, not VP.  But it's an interesting mention.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (January 31, 2007 2:07 pm ET)
             

          Case in point, GHW Bush, and Dan Quayle...

           I think people these days are a little more mindful of the ticket that they're voting for when it comes to President and VP.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 3:49 pm ET)
             

          Guilani is a pretty good politician, and definantly not a partisan idealogue, and I think the media IS underplaying his potential. I would recommend Rudy's VP be Huckabee or Brownback(the social conservatives are fond of them).

          Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (January 31, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
           

        First and foremeost, Chris Matthews is a political junkie and I think he admires politicians, regardless of political affiliation, who have better than ordinary political skills and are effective in accomplishing what they want. He is sometimes almost amoral (for lack of a better description) in his praise for successful politicians....by Irony

        =====

        Exactly! I happen to enjoy watching Hardball and while Matthews sometimes is a bit over the top when discussing certain politicians or issues, it's a fun & informative hour of political discussion.

        And kudos to Matthews who is doing a great job at covering the Libby trial & Iraq.

        It's pretty obvious that he admires Rudy [why is beyond me] and may not be all that fond of Hillary [he seemed obsessed last night about her "joke"], but by and large I think he's fair & balanced in covering Republicans & Democrats.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
             

          Hi Jeter

          I am finally back!! I think you are right, personally I don't have a problem with Matthews, who in my opinion does a good job(along with Russert). I think his comments were just a little off topic but nonetheless not severe enough to be considered "mis-information." I do understand Chris can be very crass(sp?), but it sure beats watching O'Reilly....

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lynn (January 31, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
               

            Of course this is just just my opinion, it's not so much that CM is a misinformer as much as the show is always about CMs preferences and dislikes. (people, things, issues) He throws out at asinine assertions, sometimes in the form of questions like 'Hiliary really is a NE Elitist Liberal, correct" or  "McCaine really deserves the presidency don't you think" and he assumes that everyone (AMERICA)  agrees with him. But I do agree with Jeter's  assessment of the Libby trial coverage. I still have to do frequent black outs of Hardball, because he CM gets on my nerves sometimes. I like the Chris Matthews show much better, maybe because it's only 1/2 hour of CM.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (January 31, 2007 4:06 pm ET)
         

      I like CM too because he doesn't always stick to the party line. (Not that I watch him much.) 

      I am not a fan of Russert because it seems to me that he always phrases his opinions as definitive facts. (i.e., The President MUST have a good speech tonight...)  (I made that up.)  I think you get the idea.

      I don't watch any of them much anymore. But I liked Hannity and Colmes for supposedly both sides of the issue.  I think that show favored Hannity and it seemed to me they had more conservatives on than libs, but at least you could find out each sides 'talking points'.

      I thought I had a year or so before getting sucked into the Presidential Politics.  Sad to say, that is not the case.  The saddest part of all this is the candidates are now all looked at as posturing in order to get votes later.  

      I heard Russ Feingold on CNN yesterday saying it was a relief to him that he could voice his opinion and not be seen as campaigning. Even though I don't agree with Feingold, I like his candidness.   

      Report Abuse
      • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (January 31, 2007 4:16 pm ET)
           

        Hi Another American

        I think your correct on CM, and Hannity and Colmes; their not good shows in my opinion. I prefer News Hour on PBS as I think it does a good job at reporting(even though the show can be VERY boring at times). Not many goods ones out their other than that one I am afraid...

         

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (January 31, 2007 4:34 pm ET)
             

          I agree. That's why I quit watching.

           But now that I'm switching to HD and getting  another  dvr, maybe I'll record some of them. I loved being able to ff through the dull parts and endless commercials to get to what I wanted.

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by rusty shackleford (February 01, 2007 9:49 am ET)
         

      HALEY BARBOUR?  Oh pleeeeeeeze Repubs, PLEASE pick Haley Barbour!  An unlikeable slimeball Washington insider with grits in his mouth.  A walking, talking (sort of) cartoon of southern political buffoonery.  Man, that would be sweeeeet.

      Report Abuse