Matthews' post-debate analysis: "Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is"
During MSNBC's analysis of the September 26 Democratic presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, while discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Matthews said to moderator Tim Russert, "Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is. She was asked by you, sir, about whether we're going to get full disclosure of contributors to presidential libraries. And she did not feel that she had the latitude in her husband's absence to give you an answer." Matthews continued, "She said, 'You'll have to ask my husband.' As if you're a guy going door to door trying to sell something and says, 'You'll have to wait for my husband to get home.' " Matthews began to ask, "Do you think she's that much --" but then stopped and asserted, "[N]ever mind, let's just drop this."
In the exchange to which they were referring, Russert asked Clinton, "[D]o you believe the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Library should publish all the donors who give contributions to those two entities?" Clinton responded by noting she had "co-sponsored legislation that would have sitting presidents reveal any donation to their presidential library." Russert then asked, "Until such legislation, would they voluntarily -- the Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation -- make their donors public?" Clinton, who does not control the foundation, asserted, "Well, you'll have to ask them." When Russert asked for a "recommendation," Clinton asserted, "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I'm sure he'd be happy to consider" making donors public.
From the MSNBC post-debate analysis:
RUSSERT: What I want to hear is the conversation tonight between President Clinton and Hillary Clinton about President Clinton's comments last year on Meet the Press that we ought to have an exception that if we know the number three guy in Al Qaeda knows a bomb is going off and where it's going off, it's OK to beat the hell out of him. Have a presidential finding.
MATTHEWS: Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is. She was asked by you, sir, about whether we're going to get full disclosure of contributors to presidential libraries. And she did not feel that she had the latitude in her husband's absence to give you an answer. She said, "You'll have to ask my husband." As if you're a guy going door to door trying to sell something and says, "You'll have to wait for my husband to get home." It was unbelievable that she wouldn't answer that. Do you think she's that much -- never mind, let's just drop this.
RUSSERT: Unlike Kathleen Matthews [Chris Matthews' wife and former Washington, D.C., local news anchor].
MATTHEWS: Thank you. I just thought it was extraordinary that their deal doesn't have that much clarity to it. Anyway, up next, another of the candidates from tonight's debate, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He's coming here. You're watching MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic presidential candidates` debate, live from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire on MSNBC.
From the September 26 debate on MSNBC:
RUSSERT: I want to turn to politics and money. Senator Clinton, as you well know, you had to turn back $850,000 in contributions from Norman Hsu because of his rather checkered past. Again, President Clinton said this: "Now, we don't have to publish all our donors for the Clinton Foundation, but if Hillary became president, I think there would be questions about whether people would try to win favor by giving money to me." In light of that, do you believe that the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Library should publish all the donors who give contributions to those two entities?
CLINTON: Well, Tim, I actually co-sponsored legislation that would have sitting presidents reveal any donation to their presidential library. And I think that's a good policy.
RUSSERT: And the foundation?
CLINTON: Well, it would be the same, because that's where the library comes from.
RUSSERT: Until such legislation, would they voluntarily -- the Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation -- make their donors public?
CLINTON: Well, you'll have to ask them.
RUSSERT: What's your recommendation?
CLINTON: Well, I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I'm sure he'd be happy to consider that.
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
"Do you think she's that much --" but then stopped and asserted, "[N]ever mind, let's just drop this."
Oops, Chris just caught himself about to pull an O'Reilly!
Apparently, Sen. Clinton has no qualifications other than being a spouse of a disgraced former president. Her attempts at diverting any uncomfortable questions yesterday with numerous "ask my husband" remarks were transparent and didn't fool anybody (except loyalist Democrats, I guess).
Numerous? Are you kidding? She was asked questions that dealt with her husbands interests in which she was not involved. Those are the only times she suggested that he is the one who should be asked.
When she was asked about her own actions, opinions and policies she dealt with them forthrightly.
That's one of the most pathetic efforts at a smear I've seen in a long time. Congratulations.
billjmn
Here's a little different take on your forthright answers by Hillary from the AP:
- She refused to say whether she would pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, the end of her first presidential term.
- Clinton ducked the question of whether Israel had the right to bomb Iran if the country posed a nuclear threat.
- She sidestepped a question about whether she would voluntarily disclose the names of contributors to Bill Clinton's presidential library
- She dodged when asked what she would "put on the table" to save Social Security
- Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said she considered Clinton's answer on Social Security to be "too clever by half"
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
ask my husband" remarks were transparent and didn't fool anybody (except loyalist Democrats, I guess). - Genghiz / Thursday September 27, 2007 11:53:02 AM EST
She aswered the question directly, and explained that she was a director on the foundation and that they were doing full disclosure, as well as introducing a law to do so!
You take your own distorted view of a "Clinton" from 15 yrs of Republican character assault, bogus Independant Proscecutors that would have seen both this President & Vice President in a prison long ago had they to deal with the same scrutiny to distort her answer to what you want to hear!!
The Clinton's didn't have a Republican House & Senate rubber stamping all their crimes the way this administration has!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
whatever hillary's "qualifications" are, they are 50 times those of the lazy, arrogant, ignorant mr. bush. it's a disgrace to this country that man sits in the white house. and that has nothing to do with democrat or republican. it's the person.
I especially enjoyed the "Favorite Bible Verse" question. It was almost as relevant as the baseball question which followed.
Next debate will have questions about Britney Spears and what the candidates' favorite cereals are. We're trapped in a quagmire of stupidity.
Genghiz: I think you (and matthews) are either mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what Hillary said. Whenshe was asked whether donors to Presidential libraries should be made public, she was not only unequivolcally in favor of such disclosure, she said that she sponsored legislation to accomplish that goal. It was when she was asked whether the Clinton Foundation would release that information without legislation that she said "you would have to ask them" and that she thought her husband would be happy to consider doing that. What should she have said? "Here is exactly what the Foundation is going to do?" Does she run the foundation? Does Bill even have total control over the Foundation sufficient for her to say what the Foundation would do if the legislation that she sponsored did not pass? She is obviously in favor of making disclosure a law, and she could not say with any certainty what the Clinton Foundation would do if her proposed law was not passed. She did not "divert uncomfortable questions", she answered what she could and passed on what she could not answer.
Uh, Mark, Genghiz isn't too burdened by things like facts and logic. He just knows what he thinks is icky.
This was a blatant twist the commentators were pulling. You ask someone, "When will your husband's organization do something," to which she responds, "You'll have to ask my husband." So the conclusion? She's on a leash. They should be nailed by other pundits for such a cheap and even misogynistic ruse. Of course we know that aint going to happen. Which is why we come here for some sanity.
If she's the nominee, we can expect much more of this. It will be the 90s all over again. After all, they can't let Bush's Iraq blunder dominate the debate.
Obama '08! Hillary as the nominee might win but the right knows she is also their best chance at keeping the White House.
So true. Nominating her will ensure a GOP victory. I would say tht she is a polarizing force for many independents. She'll never carry a southern state. She will undoubtedly energize the GOP base who will come out in droves to keep her out of the White House. I just don't understand why Democrats are willing to throw away a golden chance to get the White House. The reality is that the GOP is much more scared of Edwards than anything.
I didn't say it would ensure a GOP victory. The Republicans are really weak going into this thing. I just think they have more of a chance of turning it against her.
In 04 I knew Edwards was the best chance the Democrats had and argued hard for that. Unfortunately they were too scared to go with their strengths and nominated someone they thought was more like a Republican. As though Rove would go easy on him or show him respect for being a decorated veteran. Some administration insiders have since confirmed my suspicions that they were trying to bait the Democrats into giving Kerry the nomination because they knew they probably couldn't beat Edwards.
But that was in 04. I'm not sure Edwards is the best weapon the Democrats would have this time. I think he would have a better chance than Hillary but I think Obama would be a lock. The right wouldn't be able to rally their base against him as well as with Clinton, everyone who would've voted for her would vote for Obama anyway and he would also bring a lot of people to the polls who wouldn't vote otherwise.
Another thing is that many on the Right would step in the race issue because they can't help it. Because many of them don't actually understand it. They would have to tread more carefully with their usual dirty tricks because the press would be on them for things that smack of racism. Just ask O'Reilly about that.
Stepping on gender issues is nowhere near as costly it seems. Just look at the "leash" comment featured in another article here today. That definitely smacks of misogyny but Matthews won't ever pay a price for it. There will be plenty of sneering and innuendo from the right in this regard if Hillary gets the nod. And they'll get away with it too.
The GOP hasn't really run on their candidate in a while so much as tearing the opposition down and building up a sense of cynicism to keep people away from the polls. They could have hung a flag on a piece of driftwood and had a better candidate than Bush in 04. Their base is corrupt and loyal as hell. You can swiftboat your opposition if your followers have no real values and just want to win. Democrats are foolish to ignore what has been beating them.
Sundog, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. I agree that the Republican Party is in terrible shape right now, probably the worst shape in my lifetime. I can't see a single feasable scenario that they can hold the Whitehouse in 2008.
I disagree that Edwards was the Dems strongest candidate in 2004. I don't recall that he ever seriously threatened to win the nomination and I always thought he was positioning himself for a run at a later date, like 2008. Asfor Kerry, his entire campaign strategy boggled my mind. I don't know which Democratic strategist thought it was a good idea to base a presidential campaign on a military record from thirty years earlier but I thought he should have focused more on his recent accomplishments.
I agree that Obama has a lot of potential but I don't believe anyone will defeat Hillary for the Democratic nomination or the Presidency. She has a very strong lead.
Regarding the "short leash" comment, I think it's a stretch to interpret that comment as Matthews subliminally calling Clinton the "b" word. "Short leash" is a pretty common term for someone who is controlled by someone else, whether you agree with that or not I believe that is the connotation, not some veiled reference to female dogs.
Finally, you mentioned that GOP strategy is to build up cynicism to keep people away from the polls. I know the conventional wisdom is that high voter turnout favors Democrats, but it should be noted that the 2004 election had the highest turnout ever, Bush received the highest number of votes ever so if they were trying to keep people away from the polls it clearly didn't work.
Actually some of Rove's own people have since talked about how they saw Edwards as their biggest threat. Basically there weren't enough 'negatives' on him. They knew as I did that once he had the nomination the 'lightweight' impression wouldn't hold. Swing voters would have liked him.
There was an article in the Wasington (Post?) about two months ago once again quoting one of Rove's lieutenants about their strategy for influencing the Democratic nomination process. It was quite simple really and I saw it as such while they were doing it. It was frustrating enough trying to convince people of this while it was going but it's really nuts still trying to convince people after they've actually come out and described it.
Their decision was to attack Kerry intensely and even unfairly in the couple of weeks before and after Iowa when the thing was up for grabs. They surmised correctly that the old Democratic loyalists would spring to the defense of one of their bedrock senators which of course helped him immensely in a campaign against other Democrats. It's really not that complicated.
One of the things that really tipped me off was when Edwards himself began ripping on Bush really bad during this time. And there was no response from the administration. This diminished him immensely in the eyes of primary voters. Heck, Kerry was already in a fight with Bush, let's get on board!
This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about Democrats. Their own nomination ended up pretty much in the hands of the GOP. Edwards was everything they win with. Young, intelligent, energetic, soft spoken and eloquent. He was something like 6 years older than Kennedy had been when he won. Clinton had won at a young age. But the Democrats were so whupped by all the jingoistic baloney coming from the right that they thought they needed someone with medals on his chest to diffuse it. Weird when the GOP had already embraced their own draft-dodger and elevated him to the level of hero for posing on a disaster site that he had failed to prevent. If they had gone with their strenghts instead of nominating someone they thought Republicans might like ok they definitely would have won in 04.
How about if Democrats just vote for the person that best represents their view in the primaries and then run that candidate against the Republican candidate in the general election. That sounds simple enough.
I laugh when I read so many on here "blaming" the GOP for who the Democratic nominee was. To your credit, you did not do that this time. But others have and my response is always, "yes, the Republicans are trying to win". Does the Democratic party attempt to influence who the Republican nominee is? As far as I know, the Republicans control that. I don't really think they give a damn what Democrats say about their candidates during the primaries. Perhaps Democrats should do a little soul searching and stop being influenced by their opponent so easily. I thought Dem voters were the smart ones?
actually, i think hillary has the best chance of winning the general election.
Really? Convince me please. The Democrats are scaring me again.
first of all, the liberal tag is going to be applied to any of the democratic candidates. but i think that if it's edwards or obama, the gop is going to portray them as too wimpy, not tough enough in this tough world we live in. it's going to be a little difficult to do that with hillary because they have spent the last 15 years convincing everyone that she's ruthless as they come. there is also the fact that she does come off as rather personable and reasonable in debates and interviews. which is going to put a big hole in the republcan view of her as a harpy. just my opinion, but i've thought for several months that she will be the nominee.
I think she'll probably be the nominee too but I feel the same way about it as when I realized the party honchos were backing Kerry.
I guess I just really disagree about how she comes off to most people. I've seen her live (easy when you're an Iowan) and she's a great presence in person but I've never thought her best qualities translate well to TV. Consider the long bit on the Daily Show making fun of her contrived sounding laughs in a series of interviews last week. I like her personally but it even made me squirm to watch it. Neither my wife nor I can find anyone in either of our families who doesn't say they don't trust her on some level. We're talking about something like 25 Bush-haters male and female from across a couple of generations.
I'm not buying that 'experience' line they're selling. That's coming from the Clinton camp and especially the righties. It's how they avoided running against Edwards in 04 and he would have taken Bush out. The Democrats are so disfunctional that they underestimate their own nomination. Once Edwards was actually the nominee the swing voters would have seen him as an Important Person and given him a look. That demographic has a pretty short attention span and you can fall or rise very quickly in that regard.
In terms of experience, consider the one time Obama has taken the podium for the big show. He absolutely blew the doors off everyone else at the convention in 04. Watch that speech again if you can and picture him with four more years of experience including being a senator from a big blue state and pretty much being on the campaign trail in one way or another the whole time. He's just really really talented and has the best instincts to react to any bull that I've seen in an awful long time. He would be their teflon candidate. And he would inspire a lot of people.
Can you tell I'm sold?
we're going to disagree here, but i will agree that kerry was not a good choice in 2004. [gore was a good choice in 2000]. think wes clark would have been the best choice. i think he could have peeled several southern states away from bush, more so than edwards.
I would have taken Clark over Kerry as well. They would have slimed Clark just shamelessly as the did Kerry but without as much ambiguity to work with. It was the fear factor. The Democrats thought they could buy their way past the jingoism with a soldier candidate. They overlooked the fact that for the top GOPers the flag waving and troop supporting is pure unadulterated BS.
You're lucky you're not in my caucus here in Iowa because I would pick on you until you switched to Obama. Iowa is heaven and hell for political junkies. I'll fight for Clinton if she gets the nod but it's going to be such a pain in the ass. My wife puts it real simple, it's much easier to get away with misogyny than racism. When you're running against the modern GOP unfortunately it comes down to stuff like that.
Think of the reaction to O'Reilly this week. Think of the reaction to Hillary being on a leash. What do you put on a leash? What do you call a female dog? These guys are dirtbags and they can do it all with a smile.
Borders is selling Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls and I was looking for a birthday card in the supermarket and there was one that had her picture as president in the oval office. Inside it said, "See there are scarier things than getting older."
The funniest thing is people I know in real life who are upset and shocked to hear harsh criticism of Bush and I know they've heard worse about Hillary Clinton many times and for years.
She starts out writing off more of the country than Kerry did because the Democrats have probably already written off Florida.
this poll shows hillary doing better in florida against republicans than obama or gore.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/06/new_state_polls_ia_fl_ga.html
That's before the campaign. This is just the primary season and those current numbers are mostly a reflection of name recognition. There is no face of a Republican candidate yet, so people think Bush. Which aint good. But they'll expunge that impression to a good degree once they have an actual personality to polish. And then they'll slime Hillary so bad you won't even recognize her. I'm still saying she may win anyway but it will be a squeaker at best.
Once Obama had the high profile of the nomination, his numbers would go through the roof next to any of those Republicans. Hillary's numbers will remain more stagnant. The GOP thrives on cynicism and the sense of fatigue people have for a system that they feel just doesn't work. Obama really would give a sense of something new and more up to date in terms of what people want. He doesn't come off as calculated as Hillary by a long shot and says things in a refreshingly straigthforward manner. Hillary is just strongly associated with the past years of intense partisanship that turns people off and generally helps the GOP.
but there's going to be intense partisanship no matter who is the democratic nominee. it happened with kerry. it's what the republicans do.
What I don't understand is why the GOP hates the Clintons so much. The Clintons aren't flaming liberals or leftists, they're moderates. Even Alan Greenspan said that Clinton was one of the best "Republican Presidents" he ever worked under during his time at the FED. If the Clintons were so ideologically different than conservatives, I might understand why the GOP base hates them so much, however, the Clintons are extremely moderate and bi-partisan. I don't understand where the hate is stemming from with the GOP regarding the Clintons.
They hate them because they blocked the aristocrats from their God given right to rule. And they hate them because they are people who have been following the lead and repeating conventional 'wisdom' fed to them from the likes of Karl Rove via Rush Limbaugh, FOX News and a huge propaganda apparatus. They don't really know why they hate the Clintons so much, but don't doubt for a minute that the hate is real.
Just picture the NRA types screaming about how Clinton was going to take away their guns for 8 years while never seeming to notice that he's an enthusiastic duck hunter. It really is pathetic.
You have to go back to the '92 election and the way the media built up Ross Perot. Perot did not get a single electoral vote. People who voted for Perot were throwing their votes away. Perot threw a monkey wrench into the strategy the Republicans had for that election.
I think the people who were angriest at Clinton were Perot voters who felt they'd been manipulated into throwing their vote away and that it had helped Clinton.
Why is Chris Mathews so negative when it comes to Hillary? The day of the debate, he spent a total of 4hrs. making coments about Hillary. This guy has a passion against the Clintons. Not a day goes by that he does not say something negative about them. I do not think that msnbc is been fair with his bias coments.
Chris Matthews spent the entire time he was on during the post debate trying to manipulate the public's opinion of what transpired during the debate. It was bordering on insanity. His unabashed hatred of all things Clinton has become pathological. It was a bashing of Hillary Clinton feeding frenzy. His regular show during the week is divided between the trashing of Hillary Clinton and the promotion of Rudy Giuliani. His public behavior has become unseemly.
He's a Maverick!
Absolutely right, and his post-debate discussion with Tim Russert, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden(?) was basically the "let's bash Hillary Clinton show." Russert licked up praise from Matthews for "being tough" on Hillary, as if that's what Russert, as a debate moderator, was supposed to do, and Matthews gave his obsession with Hillary a full airing.
Those last few questions- favorite Bible verse (what happened to "no religious test for public office?") and Red Sox or Yankees? had me longing for the days of "Boxers or Briefs?" At least that question came from a dope in the audience, not an alleged journalist.
Amen to Sneaky Pies's comment. Matthews is insecure, uneducated (whatever credentials notwithstanding), and brings new meaning to the word shallow. When he has semi-rational guests (e.g.Fineman, Harwood, et al) on Hardball you can see on their faces their disbelief at the meandering, answer-suggesting questions he asks. His hatred of the Clintons makes him even more laughable than he normally is. Russert is no better..only a little more restrained.
Kind of what we would have expected if the Dems debated on FOX.
What a frickin' idiot. Look, the only reason he behaves this way is because his conservative Catholic wife is a ball buster, and he yearns to get as much as Bill, and he loves characterizing Hillary as... a ball buster! A dutiful wifey! Whatever comes to hand, because Matthews is a mental case.
Actually, it's a double trap. If Hillary says, "Yes, my husband wants to do that," Matthews says, "What a bitch, ordering her husband around!" If she defers, which in this circumstance seems totally proper, they've got her for being "a wifey." What dumb little turds. I think of Cronkite and the whole mob that would have been covering a presidential election in the past, and it's discouraging to see these pygmies.
He hates Hillary, Loves Guiliani. So what. He has a responsibilty as a journalist/commentator to at least try to be objective. This from a j-school alumnus.
Do you think Jr. will ask for Poppy's donor list? Oh, I forgot, it's classified and protected by "executive privilege"
The Media Chip Away
Last night, as many viewers watched the pre-commentary of Chris Matthews, the biggest concern for the night was not how Hillary Clinton answered questions now and in the past. To see Matthews take off the gloves to attack the Democratic candidates signaled a new threat facing the 2008 presidential election.
First off, Matthews could not stop talking about how Clinton should be beaten by the other Democratic candidates. Over and over again, he outlined ways to bring Clinton down. Any armature can revisit the transcripts to point out how Matthews seemed to be overly invested in Clinton's downfall. If the Clinton camp don't use and exploit this fact, they will be fools. It points to a strong bias and one man's personal obsession with the front runner of the Democratic presidential campaign.
At first, it appeared to be "the Matthews wants Hillary defeated" show, and before the actual debate, it was just that. After the debate, Matthews opened up his bag of bias to include mischaracterizations of the three front runners. His over analytical interpretation of how they would end the war was turned into a all day commentary of how the Democrats lied to take over congress. "They said they would end the war; now they won't even make a promised to do so," Matthews said. Matthews earned a bag of Republican money for the last two days.
This right-wing Fox news wanabe journalism has got to stop. The imbalance is unsettling. I am really tired of watching day after day TV personalities distort very important factors involving the core structure and processes of our government. My next stop will be to voice my concerns and outrage for a very important issue facing our nation. Yes, it's time to turn the media in for the wrongs they are putting before the American people.
Joseph
Read more >> Options >>Unlike when he interviews GOP personalities, Russert spent much of the debate time trying to "trap" Dems, particularly Hillary. I think Russert was very unprofessional. It was still a good debate but only because of the quality of the candidates.
Peg Reed