Matthews on Burnett comments: "I was just kidding around"
The New York Post reported that Chris Matthews said "he was only fooling around with [CNBC anchor Erin] Burnett because the camera lens had already made her appear closer than usual." The article then quoted Matthews saying, "It was this weird fishbowl look . . . I was just kidding around."
A "Page Six" article in the August 14 edition of the New York Post said "[i]t sure looked" as if MSNBC host Chris Matthews was "perving on CNBC hottie Erin Burnett on live TV the other night" and reported that Matthews said "he was only fooling around with Burnett because the camera lens had already made her appear closer than usual." The article then quoted Matthews saying, "It was this weird fishbowl look . . . I was just kidding around."
As Media Matters for America noted, while discussing financial news with Burnett on the August 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews instructed her to "come in closer" to the camera. Matthews also said, "[Y]ou're beautiful" and "[y]ou're a knockout" before closing the interview by saying, "It's all right getting bad news from you."
The Post article quoted Burnett saying, "I wasn't upset or offended."
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
I'd give Matthews the benefit of the doubt, here. Maybe he could have handled it better, but given his fascination for the physical appearance of Presidential Candidates, maybe he just couldn't help himself.
Yeah, but...they're all BOYS. I didn't know he swung. THAT'S a shocker.
Oh, my God! I guy flirted with an attractive woman and payed her a compliment. What's gonna happen next?
This could be a good sign or a bad sign. If this rates a mention by MMFA, then it means that either the repubican'ts are behaving themselves better lately, or just getting better at hiding their crimes.
While the argument could be made that TV tends to promote the attractive for ratings, wouldn't it perhaps have been more professional of Matthews to, you know, not focus on his colleague's appearance and instead focus on what she does for a living? Matthews' behavior wouldn't be brushed aside at most company's I've worked for.
And his business, to do it publicly in front of dozens and dozens of people every night makes it even worse.
Bittermarv......Oh my gosh I don't know if you intended this little jab at Matthews, but I love this part....a good laugh to end the day.
"And his business, to do it publicly in front of dozens and dozens of people every night makes it even worse."
Did he "focus" on her looks, or did he make a very brief comment/compliment at the very end of a long piece on housing. Does he do it "every night" as you state? It would appear that progressives can distort just as much as the right does.
Hahaha.. Tomorrow we can expect MMFA to announce KO made Matthews Worst Person Honorable mention. ;-)
You have a better chance of hell freezing over.
AA, I think if these arrogant types that Olbermann tend to go after (unless their on MSNBC) would find themselves not on the Worst persons list as often if they would apologize when they’ve said something boorish, bigoted, or just plain mean. I suspect that Chris’ wife probably said something to him about this. Sometimes people say things or do things that aren’t intended to be hurtful in anyway. Now you can argue from here to sundown that making a comment about good looking women shouldn’t be offensive, but you have to consider that women have worked very hard in their various professions and want to be taken seriously and treated with the same deference as their male colleagues. So presenting a report to your boss/colleague about anything should not induce a comment about how you look. This was in a professional setting and Chris shouldn’t have done that – he could have had light hearted banter with her about something else. I hope this is an indication that Chris will stop treating female colleagues and politicians differently. There is no need to comment on what they are wearing or how they have their hair fixed in any professional context, and as Bobby Womack would say “That’s The Way I feel About It” Now I am sure there are many here now going who the hell is Bobby Womack.
Now I am sure there are many here now going who the hell is Bobby Womack. Lynn
Not me :-)
I love that old school soul music!
Tomorrow we can expect MMFA to announce KO made Matthews Worst Person Honorable mention.
Not bloody likely AA! Remember Keith-Boy never calls out his fellow employees at MSNBC...which of course makes his awards just worthless crap. Like him. And this silly thread.
Watch out Jeter you are not conforming to the party line.
Says one of the band of Gidgets.
Stick to your poems Julia, your other sayings are beneath you.
I guess you would know what's beneath me since you are.
I just had a dirty thought.
But I'll refrain from posting it ;-)
J2, C'mon now dude. We all know you have the hots for lady liberals :)
:: Blushing::
Tis true :-)
Do I have to hose you two down?
Probably :-)
I do love you and your wit.
Kidding? Uh, hello - that is not allowed in any discussion involving A) Democrats, or B) Spoken by commentators MMFA doesn't like.
Exactly, kidding is not allowed unless your Olbermann or Jon Stewart .
You nailed it Tommy.
So much for my planned mini-vacation--eh?
;-)
J,
Your "mini-vacation" has just been revoked. Next time you plan a sabattical, you will need prior approval.
Yeah Tommy, it's just too hard to get some [much needed] R & R when MMFA posts silly stuff like this. I tried not to respond...I really really did ;-)
Can you two get a room?
Yeah Snoop...
Couple of Cons yuk it up with some sterling posts.
Unlike yours & Snoops "sterling posts"?
hehehe
Hey Snoop no offence. You're a cyber-buddy :-)
If you don't quit flirting with Tommy, I may get jealous :)
this dog ain't got no bone from ol' mother hubbard lately. Jeter, I catch rats and am always "on patrol". Need a guard dog?
Tommy.
Who can step up to the front for the Republicans with wit, cute anecdotes, or some semblance of humor that comes across being somewhat clever? Dennis Miller is a weak and pathetic candidate for their side and fails miserably.
Oh it hurts so bad........ You know, being called a "beautiful person".
I do not see the issue here.
Personally, I was more interested in what he meant when he said "we don't mind getting bad news from you". In that regard, you can take the subliminal message to be you can say whatever you want as long as you are good looking.
Neither does she I guess
Maybe she can give Chris a lap dance next time she's on the show. It's all in good fun.
You gotta love the cowardice of these conservatives. They get caught with their foot up their butts again, and they run and hide under the table, and screech, "Mommy, it's only a joke."
And of course you have proof that Matthews is a Conservative?
If not, then you've got nothing.
This is NOT a case of Conservative MIS-information or the pushing of a Conservative agenda. Or Conservative anything.
It's just bunk.
I don't know about Tweety's affiliation, but he WAS MMFA's Mis-Informer of the Year.
He did vote for Bush at least once. Take that for what you will.
STOP Chris, You are furthering the conservative agenda with this sexist remark, or is it the apology? Oh, it is all so confusing.........
Aw, Tommy. Was your first attempt at snark so bad that you needed to try again? I'm still thinking this one is week. Maybe you need a third try. Take your time, we'll still be here.
When something that incites this much material is posted, it's hard to hold back. So keep reading, and thank you.
Funny because the "why is this here" crowd and Matthews apologists are the ones with the most posts in this thread.
Maybe you should follow your own advice, and just ignore it, and then it will go away. I mean, I've seen you write that a bunch of times in the past, and recently as well. How come you don't follow your own advice?
Because it's just too much fun watching liberals trying to defend threads like this with a straight face......that's why.
This is the great irony that the "Why is this here?" peanut gallery still doesn't seem to detect. They whine and complain about every "fluff" post, but those are the threads where they are the most active. Take a look at the more substantial stories and Tommy is nowhere to be found. He LOVES the fluff stories. "Why is this here?" is simply his way of saying, "MMFA, you're my reason for getting out of bed in the morning."
How about this BLR...
Why Is This Here today?
Why was it here yesterday?
Matthews silly flirting can in no way be defined as Conservative MIS-information nor does it further any Right-Wing agenda, & it has diddley to do with what this site claims to be about.
As usual Jeter2 is completely wrong
This has everything to do with the putrid state of journalism in America. It is a totally relevent and excellent post by Media Matters. It has everything to do with what a stinking, remorseless hack Chris Matthews is.
This Bag-O-Filth (Matthews) will tomorrow try to make America believe he is a journalist, worthy of us spending our time listening to what he has to say. Media Matters shows us what this "journalist" is really made of.
Only fools and wingnuts try to pretend otherwise.
Bunk,
Maybe you better go read MMFA's mission statement.
You are so wrong on this, it's funny.
Jeter2, you are a hoot...
I guess now you're the Mission Statement Policeman. And you can let us know if Media Matters is passing the Jeter2 Mission Statement Test.
I guess now you're the Mission Statement Policeman.
Bunk,
Just when I think you can't post anything dumber...you do.
This has nada to do with passing my approval.
But can explain to us all why MMFA bothers to include a mission statement here if they don't plan to adhere to it?
Now be a good doobie & go read it.
Then come back & please point out exactly where & how Matthews remarks fit into this statement.
I'll be back later for your answer.
Jeter your a great poster. Usually logical and willing to listen. So let me throw you this theory out and see what you think. Its sort of why I think posts like this are included. (I'm breaking it down to the simplest language for some of our more "special" posters)
When being charged with murder and standing in court, information other than the events of the actual murder can be included. Like if the person made a threat against the person beforehand, the events leading up to the murder (like a guy catching the murder vicitim sleeping with his spouse).
Well in building a case against a media personality, what is better to use than their own words and actions against them? This clip may rank a 1 out of 20 (or whatever), but for some one making a case that Matthews is a joke or whatever all these collected threads add up.
Some threads MMFA posts are clear "WTF is the media doing" moments. Like 90% of fox news broadcasts :) Others do not seem to be huge events. But like I said, if you're an organization, individual or business that is interested in the history of Matthews, even the minor items, why not post them? His collected works allow others to see who he is.
What do you think Jeter?
So to Tommy and others, if you don't feel a thread is important enough to be on MMFA some advice. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to post your constant objections to the thread, so either email MMFA about your concerns or just skip to the next thread. It just annoys people and makes you a bad citizen of the MMFA community.
If there is a gun being held to your head, type HELP! (also location would help too)
McCain,
Ok. Let's say you are the lawyer defending this alleged murderer.
Using your analogy, if I as the prosecutor wanted to put into evidence a speeding ticket your client received as proof of your clients guilt of murder you'd be up on your feet objecting, saying it has nothing to do with whether your client is a murderer.
My point is that this silly flirtation by Matthews while totally unprofessional, does not prove any sort of Conservative MIS-information, or the furthering of any kind of Conservative agenda.
That's what Matthews is apparently being charged with here by MMFA. Read their mission statement. Matthews boorish behavior does not fall under any category stated there.
Now to Part 2 of your post:
As for asking "Why is this here" on certain threads, when I feel there's a valid reason to do so I will. Like this thread. I certainly don't do it to be "annoying". But let's be honest here McCain, some posters here get "annoyed" at anyone that doesn't agree with the Liberal argument on any topic.
I can't please everyone...and I won't bother trying to.
Are you back now
Jeter2 is the Mission Statement Police Woman. Go Jeter!
Bunk,
I asked you a direct question that called for a direct answer:
"Then come back & please point out exactly where & how Matthews remarks fit into this statement."
You obviously can't make your case, so I'll take that as a concession that you don't have one.
Your lack of an argument only strengthens my point:
This item does not fall under any category defined in MMFA's mission statement.
Now run along kid, this forum is for adults.
My god, this insane obsession with MMFA's mission statement is bordering on the pathological. Just pretend they don't have a mission statement if that gets you off this pointless treadmill. Seriously, take a deep breath and imagine that MMFA doesn't have a mission statement. Imagine that they are like Thinkprogress.org or some other progressive website who's mission is clear, but isn't spelled out in a statement. Does that help you to see how ridiculous you are?
You're reading THEIR OWN mission statement and pretending that it was handed down to you by Moses so that you can scold and persecute them when they've strayed from your own personal interpretation of it. The authoritarianism at work here is mind-boggling. The concept of Rule of Law runs so deep with you guys that you latched onto this statement as if there were jail time facing any who defied it. It's THEIR statement, it's THEIR website. They can write about whatever they want to. It's as simple as that.
And p.s. This should be obvious, but I'll say it just in case. If your entire point is "This item does not fall under any category defined in MMFA's mission statement," then you have NO POINT. The only reasonable response to your meta-argument is, "So what?" You are not expressing an opinion or a point of view with these "Why is this here" arguments. You are simply making noise.
Clams,
That is the most hysterically funny post you've ever left here.
Yes folks, Clams Casino who has obsessed over one poster here [Tommy] to the point of embarrassment has the audacity to lecture anyone about being obsessed. That's rich...
Here's the difference old boy.
MMFA has gone to the trouble of explaining their mission under their About Us page.
They are quite explicit about what that mission is.
Yet you have your panties in a twist because I happen to point this out.
Clams, stop making a fool of yourself.
P.S.
Spin it anyway you'd like.
Bottom line: This thread has nothing to do with what this site explains as their mission.
Simply put, there is NO Conservative MIS-information or agenda in what Matthews said or did.
Now seriously Clams, stop making a fool of yourself.
I'm even embarrassed for you.
"Bottom line: This thread has nothing to do with what this site explains as their mission."
And I'll say it again: So what? Seriously. So what? Get over it.
Ok Clams I'll remember this next time YOU or any Liberal here tells me, or Tommy or whomever to go read MMFA's mission statement [that gets posted here a great deal by Liberals in response to why is this here]
And I'll be sure to respond to them by writing "It doesn't matter, it's meaningless ...Clams said so"
On the sister thread to this one, it was explained to you why this was here, and that explanation made perfect sense.
It's totally false to say that there is no basis for this posting by MMfA.
If you didn't do your homework, and already read why the sister post was here, go back and do it now. We'll keep the light on for you.
If you already read it, then you shouldn't be talking now about how this doesn't fit their mission statement. It does, and it did the other day too when this was first touched upon.
On the sister thread to this one, it was explained to you why this was here, and that explanation made perfect sense.
It wasn't explained to me NoMoSue. I didn't participate on the other thread. But I've now gone back to read it. That's nice if it made perfect sense to you. It doesn't to me.
It's totally false to say that there is no basis for this posting by MMfA.
Says who? You? Listen Sue, as you used to always say Everyone Is Entitled To Their Own Opinions, Not their Own Facts.
I got facts on my side. The MMFA mission statement.
We'll keep the light on for you.
Don't bother. It's you that needs the light to do her own homework.
So now I speak for all liberals here? Sorry, but I don't, and you can't attack others for something I said. I don't care about the mission statement. The only reason you do is because you want to hang MMFA with it. And you do this because you're unable to engage or debate on any other level. At least on this topic. I refuse to debate, "Why is this here?" My response to that in the past has been, "Why are you here?" And then we're treated to a self-righteous round of nonsense about how I'm unable to tolerate "opposing opinions" (To quote Tommy, who I'm apparently obsessed with).
Again, "Why is this here?" is not an opposing opinion. It's a pointless distraction.
"I don't care about the mission statement. The only reason you do is because you want to hang MMFA with it."
If you're going to live by a mission statement (and by providing one, MMFA intends to), then you will die by that mission statement too. If you're not going to care about the mission statement, then why are you here? The only reason people are so attracted to this site is because of their mission statement, because of their liberal views, and because liberals want to jump on the bandwagon and trash covservative personalities together. Posters and visitors come to this site knowing they can come here to find "conservative mis-information", and they know this because of the mission statement. There would be no MMFA if there wasn't a mission statement. This is the atmosphere MMFA has created for themselves on this site. If you're going to blame anyone, blame MMFA for posting links to topics not consistant with their mission. It's really very simple, and if you're as smart as you think you are, then you would see this.
Jeter, you said "This thread has nothing to do with what this site explains as their mission. . . Simply put, there is NO Conservative MIS-information or agenda in what Matthews said or did."
I beg to disagree - because I do think part of the creeping conservative takeover in news (in TV news especially) is, in part, a trivializing of the news, and using both trivialities and sensationalism to divert attention away from real news, especially Bush failures (like Fox's obsession with missing blondes while ignoring missing WMDs).
Also, that kind of sexism that treats women as nothing more than pretty heads is also a conservative trait (not that all conservatives are that way). Of course, given Chris's ridiculous tendency to obsess on everyone's looks, he may not really have been being condescending to women here, but I do think bringing up pointless remarks on looks (and saying it makes bad news better) certainly fits the trivializing bill.
Did that make any kind of sense?
MsOtter,
One, Matthews is not a Conservative. Two, what he said does not in any way represent Conservative MIS-information, or further the Conservative agenda.
He was unprofessional to speak the way he did to Miss Burnett.
Whether it was silly flirting or sexist is up for debate.
But either way neither are exclusive behaviors of either Conservative or Liberal men.
For that very reason, if you read MMFA's mission statement you'd realize this thread does not belong here.
Mr. Yankees Fan,
Notwithstanding the whole sexist thing, I do think, as I said before, that trivializing the news and ignoring the big stories forwards a conservative agenda - which is what I think Matthews did with this and which is right in MMFA's mission statement! QED :)
News media, in general, is left leaning. That is not hard to tell. It is well known that the main stream media is liberal. So, if any big stories are being ignored, it is because the story shows favor to conservatives. Also, is Matthews aloud to make a comment that will not be heard or viewed as biased? Can you ever imagine that he might make conversation, or make other comments that do not have politics in the subject? Is that so hard for you to believe, or do you assume everything that comes out of reporters mouths are politically motivated? He has been successful enough, whether you like him or not, to be given a platform to share his views and report the news. You will get biased information from him, you will get honest information, and you will get personal message that have nothing to do with politics. Why is this very comment being construed into some political statement?
Yes I agree, where do you draw the line? People must be bored these days.
I steadfastly questioned MMFA's motivation on the original item, but I think they do owe it to Matthews to post his subsequent comments on the matter.
By the way, this wasn't an apology.
Bill O'Reilly will now proclaim that he was only kidding also...these guys are such jokers and thus should they be treated.
Like NERZOG I'll give the benifit of doubt. Thank you Chris.
I'll go out on a limb here. First of all, I'm no big Chris Matthews fan, but his explanation here is credible. I went back and watched the clip, and Burnett is prone to leaning in toward the camera during her report, and you occasionally get that "spoon" effect. Now, maybe, among broadcasters, this is considered an amateurish thing to do, and Chris may have been poking fun at her. Then, when she acted embarrassed, he may have decided to back off. In an effort to put her back at ease, he said something that could be interpreted as sexist or demeaning.
That's just my opinion, and it's worth what it cost you.
Does he want to put her "back at ease," or
put her on her back?
Did Erin Burnett make a formal complaint?
What a spineless coward chris matthews is, reaching for that "weird fishbowl look" excuse...
All the spineless coward had to do, was stand his ground: There is absolutlely nothing wrong with complimenting a woman on her appearance, or flirting with her even...
Unless someone objects, like a spouse or even the woman who's being complimented or flirted with; and then all there is to say is "sorry, I didn't mean to upset or offend anyone: I intended just the opposite, actually"...
...instead of making a spineless excuse about a "weird fishbowl look".
I agree with what you have wrote. However, many people on this forum and alike have a hard time accepting it.
Dem, You are correct. It's the silly PC police who want to stick their noses in everyone else's business by telling them how they should feel, and that they better be offended.......ridiculous.
....and what about those nosy Conservatives that want to tell everyone how they should feel and that they shouldn’t feel offended when they are offended and these same nosy Conservatives think they have the right to deem what's offensive and what's not. Ah never mind, but this works both ways.
I would call this just another Chris Matthews boob tube...oops U-tube moment...
To the many posters here - all, apparently, male - who think this was no big deal and everyone ought to "lighten up" a little:
Try to answer honestly - how would you feel about this if, instead of Burnett, the woman at the other end of this was your wife? Or your daughter?
No big deal? Really?
Oh come on.
Matthews didn't say 'hey lean forward so I can see your cleavage'
He told her she was pretty. Perhaps an inappropriate time & place to do it [on TV] but the guy was being playful
Yeah I'm sure I can count on one hand how many woman would cringe at being told they are pretty...the other billion or two would love it.
First, it's nice to hear someone admit that he wasn't making a joke about the lens or some other such lame excuse.
Second, if you think professional women like being told they're pretty while they are trying to convey project credibility - especially in public - I wish you luck in the real world.
Third, I notice you didn't answer my question. If that was my wife, or my unmarried sister, and he pulled that crap, I'd want to deck him. Not just because he's being a pig - he is publicly making a play at her as a sexual object while she is trying to be credible. He is deliberately undermining her as a person who should be heard and judged on the merits of her words. No one deserves that.
But it is, and has been, part of the social conservative movement in this country to keep uppity women in their place. Weak-minded people, the base of the GOP, don't want traditional sexual roles challenged, so they demean women with trite nonsense like this. MMFA is spot on in highlighting this.
Ellington,
I didn't see this as necessarily sexist, just inappropriate for TV.
If Matthews or any guy told my wife she was pretty I'd need to weigh a few factors before I condemned the guy.
First is he flirting with her with a little something else in mind? If so, I'd deck the guy. And she'd probably tell him to knock it off.
Second, was he just being playfully flirty & paying her a compliment? If so, I'd let it go. And more importantly, I believe my wife would. In fact I think most women would.
It wasn't terribly professional on Matthews part to do this on the air, but I don't think his remark fits in here with what MMFA claims to be doing...which is exposing Conservative Mis-information, or zeroing on the media attempting to further a Conservative agenda.
I've read MMFA's mission statement over & over, and I'm just not seeing where Matthews behavior fits.
To claim only Conservative males behave like this is, IMO, disingenuous.
And unless you have proof that Matthews is a Conservative & only Conservative males behave like this, then MMFA highlighting this here is ridiculous.
Trying to prove Matthews is "conservative" is as futile as trying to prove he is "liberal." But, as I have said before in these forums, pointing this stuff out is exactly within MMFA's mission. The right clings to the notion that we have "liberal media bias" in this country. Could anyone claim that after seeing example after example of garbage like this? A liberal media would NEVER allow this on the air.
As to your "playfully flirty" take on this - again, it's not that he's playing around with her, or calling her pretty, or whatever. He is objectifying her while she is trying to do her job. That's not about playfulness, or paying a compliment, or whatever - it's about putting women in their place.
If someone is "playfully flirty" with my wife, we'll, have words (although I'm secure enough in our relationship to let it go - probably).
But if someone tried to objectify my wife - stand back. Not only from me, but from her. She, and plenty of others, are sick and tired of this idiocy, and they are REALLY tired of lame excuses for it.
BTW, If I were Bob Wright, I'd be reaming Matthews a new one right now for taking the credibility of the NBC brand and mocking it. I'd be steaming that he thought it OK to turn someone who is supposed to be delivering the news - and, thus, the NBC brand - into a sex object. The fact that Matthews gets away with this speaks volumes about NBC Universal and GE.
As to the notion of "telling him to knock it off" - this is where so many of us men just don't get it. Just engaging him in that way puts her in a subordinate power position based solely on her gender.
No one should have to buy into a humiliator's game - NO ONE. It's not acceptable for a boss to offer a ham sandwich to a Jewish subordinate as a "joke." It's not acceptable for a black employee to have to smile when her employer compliments her rhythm. And it's not acceptable for a woman to have her thoughts about the economy - which SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT ON NATIONAL TV - interrupted by a crude sexual pass.
This garbage is all about keeping uppity women - or blacks, or gays, or Hispanics, or poor people, or whomever - in their place. It is a power game played by the powerful, and it is the sign of weak minds.
I don't cliam that "conservative" men are the only ones who do this - at least, not in the way "conservative" is used today.
I do, however, assert that men who want to maintain the status quo do exactly this.
Well said, Ellington.
I find it oddly telling that when Chris Matthews discusses US military casualties in Iraq, he uses the same phrase..."our young men, it's mostly men, and some women, are dying..." For a man who allegedly knows more than a few hundred words, why doesn't he use the simpler, more efficient and encompassing "soldiers" - why does he make a point to convolute around gender.
Thanks Ellington.
It's too bad that Tommy and Jeter and AA are too stubborn or too dedicated to their own mission to acknowledge that their WITH argument doesn't hold water.
I'd be upset. My wife is supposed to be home cookin' and birthin' and gittin me some beer. ;-)
The pertininent point is that this thread has nothing to do with anything right wing. It only shows us again that a left winger is a twit.
Are you referring to Chris Matthews as the left winger? He may have been once, but he's changed. He is no longer.
"It only shows us again that a left winger is a twit"
Snoop, this is cryptic. Non-commital Fence-sitting or just incoherent? A specific left-winger is a twit, or they are equal (as in " a dog is a mammal" or "life is but a dream"?), meaning all left-wingers are twits?
I like Deputy Fife when he gets a bit abstract. A mind is a terrible thing to lose, but it makes for good entertainment for the rest of us.
Gee, what wit...
The idea of Matthews, drooling over Giuliani and Thompson, cringing at "calculating" Hillary Clinton, reciting crap about how Al Gore "would lick the bathroom floor to be president," as a left-winger, is ridiculous on its face.
But this is about the right-wing, which loves to keep women in their place by objectifying them at every turn - especially by inviting attractive women onto media outlets where "serious" news is broadcast and then having lechers like Matthews drool all over them.
Ell, your posts are terrific.
At some point I would like to see MMFA or someone else take up a related question: Why do women have to be attractive and preferably young to appear as TV journalists (with few exceptions), but older and less attractive men (such as Tweety) are plentiful?
At that point it would be personal.
Considering his later mancrush on Romney today. I've availible as a chaperon for any date he might have. What do you think would be best to take along, metal gauntlets or a baseball bat.
gauntlets, a bat, just take some reading material.
Yeah, I've linked it twice, but if I have to Google Image "gay romance Novel", and have it in my search history, I'm getting some mileage out of it.
HBL think I'm going to have to check at least two of your links at home. I don't want to be responsible for embarrasing my work computer.
If your feelng up to it FIREDOGLAKE's thread on being manly has a link in coments labeled "I feel pretty, oh so pretty" use with caution.
Two things:
1) Mathews is frequently condescending to his female guests, often "complimenting" them on their looks. It doesn't qualify as harrassment per se, but it sure is creepy. That said, I do buy his explanation. I thought she looked akward before the infamous quote.
2) Olbermann does call his colleagues out. How qickly we forget Don Imus and his role in his firing.
Actually what made the Matthews comments especially creepy was they came at the end of an interview with Erin Burnett where she had just said that Chinese-made products containing lead paint and poison where good for America and Wal-Mart because these inferior products keep prices low.
Chris Matthews allowed this useful idiot of Corporate America and her absolutely absurd assertion to stand unchallenged I guess because he was too busy drooling over her.
I watched the exchange between Matthews and Burnett last Friday evening. I was completely sickened by both of them!