MSNBC's Matthews claimed dislike of Hillary Clinton determined '94 elections; Buchanan echoed Limbaugh's smear
SUMMARY: MSNBC host Chris Matthews claimed that voters gave control of the House of Representatives to Republicans in the 1994 elections because they were "tired of Hillary Clinton's, you know, 'I'm going to run the country' mentality." Moments later, echoing a similar smear by Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan disparaged Clinton's speaking voice.
Host Chris Matthews claimed during the March 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that voters gave control of the House of Representatives to Republicans in the 1994 elections because they were "tired of Hillary Clinton's, you know, 'I'm going to run the country' mentality, with a big health care plan." Moments later, during a discussion with Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and MSNBC political analyst and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Matthews reiterated that "it was Hillary" who determined the outcome of the 1994 congressional elections.
Later, Matthews asked Buchanan why Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, "get[s] to people." Buchanan replied, "You know, I think it's the headband liberalism." When Matthews asked Buchanan to explain his characterization, Buchanan attributed it to "the Wellesley stuff, and every time she gets there, and that voice goes up." Clinton is a graduate of Wellesley College, a women's college in Wellesley, Massachusetts. For years, Clinton kept her hair swept back with a hairband. As Media Matters for America previously noted, radio host Rush Limbaugh also recently disparaged Clinton's voice, stating during the March 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated show that she "sounds like a screeching ex-wife."
From the March 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Those ideologues are sort of out of power right now. Let me ask you about the political here. History tells us that the people vote with their vote. They only get one vote this coming November. It doesn't say "Bush" on it; it says "Democrat" and "Republican." If they didn't like Nixon, they didn't like Nixon/Ford. In '74, they voted straight Democrat -- screw you guys. Same thing in '94. They were tired of Hillary Clinton's, you know, "I'm going to run the country" mentality, with a big health care plan. They voted straight Republican.
[...]
MATTHEWS: I just saw a number here that's staggering: a 14-point generic advantage for the Democrats. In other words, 53-to-39, people are going to vote Democrat. It ain't because the Democrats are showing any shined shoes and a smile right now, it's because the Republicans look in trouble.
SHRUM: Well, and it wasn't the Republicans in '94 because the "Contract on America," which they only issued at the end --
MATTHEWS: No. No, it was Hillary.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Why does she get to people?
BUCHANAN: You know, I think it's the headband liberalism. It's the --
MATTHEWS: Yes, but that was 30, 40 years ago.
BUCHANAN: It's not. But that's all that's in the people's mind in the talk radio. All you've got to do is --
MATTHEWS: Where do you get these phrases, "headband liberalism"?
BUCHANAN: Well, you had your headband on, the Wellesley stuff, and every time she gets there, and that voice goes up --
In lock-step, the trolls, gnomes and other crusty creatures are spewing the same nonsense... "her voice", "shrill", "she gets to people"...
What do you want to bet that other idiots will now be saying "headband liberalism"... none of it based in any sort of fact. How about her stance on, say, ANY issue? That would be too difficult wouldn't it?
Hillary needs to get the message that she should not run.
I am all for fighting these guys tooth and nail, but they defeated Hillary with their smear machine long ago.
To prove that, look at polls where Hillary has over 40% negative, despite the fact that few if any of us know her real positions on the major issues. Most of what we think we know about Hillary has been supplied by the right-wing smear machine.
I agree that Clinton shouldn't run as she would not be able to overcome the perception of her. I also personally don't like her playing the politician and trying to center herself as best she can for a presidential run instead of actually trying to be a bold leader and standing up to the Republicans. Of course as soon as another Democrat steps to the forefront the Republican attack dogs will turn their attentions to him/her as well.
It's based on sexism.
Now, I don't think Hillary should be the nominee. I don't like the notion of imperial families: if she wins, we'll have had a Bush or Clinton in the White over 20 years, and I thought we fought a war with England to escape that.
However....
The smears of her have all been based on sexism, and that makes me crazy.
It means all those bastards WON! It's means their misogeny paid off, and appealing to the baser nature of the American electorate works.
I hate that. I mean, I REALLY hate that.
But I think I would hate another four years of conservative misrule even more.
Sexism?
No way. Hillary earned her unpopularity. It was foisted on her because she is female.
The Republicans keep bringing up Hillary because they will try anything to keep America from realizing how screwed up America has become due to their inept leadership. They are terrified that America is waking up just before the 2006 Elections.
To prove that, look at polls where Hillary has over 40% negative, despite the fact that few if any of us know her real positions on the major issues.
------------------------------------------------
I think you may have nailed it.
I think few if anyone really knows what the Dem position is on just about everything. They are having a problem getting their message out, whatever it is. More people must be watching Fox news than I thought.
...FOX News!
I' ve always thought the presidential candidate that can fake being "folksy" has a good shot at winning. Worked for Bill Clinton (twice) and G.W. Bush (once--911 gave him his second term).
I don't know how good Hillary is at faking it.
None of these guys are regular people. It's just who can fake it the best.
you definitely have it right.
Although I will pass up several quality jokes on Hillary "faking it".
Bill Clinton had a folksy personality, Bush also. Kerry, not so much, Hillary not at all. Hillary comes across as an activist, not a leader and not someone you would want to have a beer with. She is someone you would want to picket Augusta National Golf Course with. If the Dems want to win, they have to run someone with some personality and a moderate --- Not a liberal elitist like Kerry or a leftist whacko who thinks the combustable engine is the worst invention ever. But with Howard Dean in charge, it won't happen, which of course is good for my side.
I think they are running scared. If they say something enough and ridicule anyone who doesn't agree they think it becomes the truth. I don't remember hearing anything about this in 1994. It actually sounds a little like 1984. Big Brother is rewriting history.
Next, Buchanan will sit down next to Edith at the piano and start singing "Those Were the Days."
First, she's married to Bill, so she has to be good at faking something.
Secondly, she lived in Arkansas for a number of years (it's bound to rub off a bit - I can speak from personal experience of residing in Arkansas.)
Thirdly, I just love this. I just love how the Republican puppets waste so much time worrying about Bill, Hillary and Jimmy Carter and blame them for everything that goes wrong. It just takes away valuable time, which can be spent on real important issues, like Natalie Holloway. (hahaheehee and hoho)
Matthews also pressed new GOP Majority Leader John Boehner on the burning question of whether or not Hillary Clinton is a "socialist." Of course, Mr. Matthews could not be bothered to define the term "socialist.". Like the disgraced late Sen. Joe McCarthy, he is in my opinion bringing up the issue just to smear Sen. Clinton (who is, if I recall correctly, a former Goldwater Girl).
I think one problem with Matthews is that he doesn't know any better: he actually believes that stuff he reads in Natonal Review.
If it's considered kosher in semi-respectable pundit-land to refer to liberals as "socialists" then I think it should be every bit as acceptable in the same circles to refer to conservatives as "fascists." I look forward to hearing Matthews press Howard Dean on the question of whether Bill Frist is a fascist.
I look forward to hearing that question too!
These right wing pundits, talk show hosts, and "newspeople" can't seem to come up with new and creative ideas. They just keep recycling the same old crap. Their lips are moving but I hear Karl Rove's voice.
What a bunch of Neanderthals. "The headband liberalism." You gotta laugh until you realize that these are the people that push the MSM's agendas.
What disgusting is the strategic use of keyterms which are supposed to immediately set off alarms in the mind of any red-blooded, red-state-residing, red-meat-eating, humble, hetero American male, e.g.:
Wellesley : elite : Lesbian Woman : PMS : nagging : ex-wife : indecisive Liberal : leftist : subversive : "angry" : scheming
etc. etc.
on his 2-3-06 show matthews was talking about the alabama church burnings, and he made the suggestion, without an ounce of evidence, that "a more liberal person who is gay for example" could be responsible. today three students from a methodist affiliated college were arrested.
America is just starting to realize how much Bush has screwed up everything he touched or even got close to. By November, another Clinton President to fix the mistakes of another Bush President will make a ton of sense to the majority of America.
I think for the sake of the democratic party Hillary should not run. She's an easy target and Bush Clinton Bush Clinton is a bit too dynasty like
makavelibmor
They made Kerry a target and everyone thought he was untouchable at least as far as scandal.
I hope we don't get another weak candidate just because of what the right might do to a strong one. I have heard Hillary give a few speeches lately and she is very good, very passionate. I feel that she will do very well.
But not much. The truth is an orphan while the lie has the multitudes behind it. The truth supports itself.
The 40% are mainly republican anyway.Hillary is a big girl!She knows the republican dirty tricks.
Ya know, If Hillary wins the nomination I'll vote for her. I'm certainly not going to listen to Adolph Buchannan or Tweety or any other right wing goon.
Listening to PAUL HARVEY today, he notes that Hillary Clinton claims to have not been aware of husband Bill Clinton's financial connections to the United Arab Emirates.
Harvey then quotes someone as saying, "THE TRUST HAS GONE OUT OF THIS MARRIAGE."
The TRUST? You mean, as in TRUST FUNDS? The kind of trust Bush has with his daddy, knowing the Carlyle group is entangled with arab business interests, and whatever is good for Dubai is good for DAD, and thus good for Dubya's eventual inheritance?
THAT kind of "trust"?
Bill Clinton operates as ex-president, giving speeches and consulting world wide (he is loved and respected by other nations). Is he supposed to SHARE all this information with Hillary, who, as a Senator, must make policy based on the issues, rather than on her husband's dealings? In the Dubai deal, Hillary opposed it, and this would seem COUNTER to her husband's possible "interests", but Bill believes it's completely proper for Hillary to make her own calls, independent of whatever potential "conflicts of interest" his speech giving might imply. THIS IS CALLED ETHICS.
Contrast this with the blatant conflicts of interest within the White House and the Republican party. Cheney and Halliburton. Bush Sr. and Carlyle. Carlyle and Arms manufacturers. Bush Jr. holding hands with arabs. Every Republican with his hand out to Abramoff. Cunningham and his Rolls. And ALWAYS, the Administration officially FAVORS deals that will make MONEY for family and friends.
So, Hillary OPPOSES a deal that would seem to run counter to her husband's interests, and this is ATTACKED? As being "the TRUST going out of their marriage?"
Sorry, Paul. We didn't realize that TRUST in relationships is dependent on using public office to feather then nests of all family and friends, to the detriment of the NATION.
Only by a blindly rightwing media could a politician be ATTACKED ... PERSONALLY ... for being ethical. Boggles the mind.
Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan disparaging Hillary's speaking voice is hypocrisy to the umpteenth power as they have voices pitched just shy of that possessed by Maria Callas. Obviously the 'boy sopranos' are jealous of Hillary's dulcet tones. BTW, what's with Pat's cross-dressing from time to time and then showing up on CNN pretending to be an imaginary sister named ( believe it or not) BAY Buchanan! It's a catchy name though,... you gotta give Patrick some credit. Roy Murtishaw Pine Bluff, AR