Matthews claimed Hillary Clinton's voter data operation "just like" NSA's warrantless domestic spying
SUMMARY: MSNBC host Chris Matthews claimed that a recently reported data-mining initiative led by Harold Ickes -- an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- is "just like we saw the NSA doing" in conjunction with President Bush's controversial warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. But the initiative run by Ickes, according to news reports, relies on commercially and publicly available information that Republicans have used for years in their data operations. Matthews made no mention of these Republican operations.
On the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that a recently reported data-mining initiative led by Harold Ickes -- an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- is "just like we saw the NSA [National Security Agency] doing" in conjunction with President Bush's controversial warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. But while the data mining conducted by the NSA reportedly includes retrieving data from e-mail messages and transcripts of phone calls to and from Americans -- obtained without warrants, in apparent violation of the law -- the initiative run by Ickes, according to news reports, relies on the same commercially and publicly available information that Republicans have used for years in their data operations. Matthews made no mention of these Republican operations.
Matthews cited a Washington Post article as his source of information on the Ickes data initiative but failed to note its description of the Ickes effort -- a private venture called Data Warehouse -- as an effort to counter Republican voter database operations, which have helped the GOP achieve an advantage in get-out-the-vote efforts. The Post article did not assert any resemblance between the nascent Data Warehouse program and the data mining conducted in conjunction with Bush's NSA program.
Matthews also cited the Ickes venture as evidence that "the people around Hillary know she's not popular with the country" and said the program is "a recognition she [Clinton] won't win big" if she runs for president in 2008. Matthews offered no evidence to back his claim, and numerous public opinion polls show a consistent plurality -- and often a majority -- of Americans holding favorable opinions of Clinton.
During a roundtable discussion of the upcoming 2008 presidential race, Matthews stated:
MATTHEWS: According to The Washington Post, the Democratic insiders with Hillary Clinton -- aide Harold Ickes is at the helm.
[...]
They've put together the information they need to win this election, they're out there with data mining, just like we saw the NSA doing, digging up information, finding out who might like to vote Democrat, who is pro-choice or whatever on whatever issue, anti-war, and put together enough information to find voters and win the election against whoever the Republicans run.
The initiative the Post described is distinctly different from the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program. Ickes's Data Warehouse, apparently a conscious effort on the part of some Democrats to mimic Republican get-out-the-vote success, will reportedly use information from publicly and commercially available sources. By contrast, the Bush administration has engaged in the surveillance of U.S. persons, without warrants, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Data mining is a process in which computers are used to discover patterns and correlations in pre-existing data, to make sense of large quantities of information. In a political context, data mining can be used to identify potential financial donors or to identify individuals who might be receptive to a candidate's message. As The Washington Post reported March 8:
The pressure on Democrats to begin more aggressive "data mining" in the hunt for votes began after the 2002 midterm elections and intensified after the 2004 presidential contest, when the GOP harnessed data technology to powerful effect.
In 2002, for the first time in recent memory, Republicans ran better get-out-the-vote programs than Democrats. When well done, such drives typically raise a candidate's Election Day performance by two to four percentage points. Democrats have become increasingly fearful that the GOP is capitalizing on high-speed computers and the growing volume of data available from government files and consumer marketing firms -- as well as the party's own surveys -- to better target potential supporters.
The Republican database has allowed the party and its candidates to tailor messages to individual voters and households, using information about the kind of magazines they receive, whether they own guns, the churches they attend, their incomes, their charitable contributions and their voting histories.
This makes it possible to specifically address the issues of voters who, in the case of many GOP supporters, may oppose abortion, support gun rights or be angry about government use of eminent domain to take private property. A personalized pitch can be made during door-knocking, through direct mail and e-mail, and via phone banks.
In addition to the Post article Matthews spoke of, two guests on Matthews's Hardball panel also noted that the Democratic data program will emulate the Republican program. New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut stated that "the Republican Party, the RNC, has a machine like this [the Ickes effort] already in existence. It's why they won in 2004." Similarly, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson stated that Clinton, who is advised by Ickes, is "putting together a machine like the Republicans have."
Matthews also asserted:
MATTHEWS: I think the people around Hillary know she's not popular with the country. If she wins, she'll win with like 48 percent, in a squeaker, because the other guy blew it.
They know it's going to come down to a few hundred thousand votes. They're going to identify those key undecided voters. They're going to try to turn it on a very close election. This particular vote by voting [sic] attempt and data mining is a recognition she won't win big, they've got to squeak it.
But numerous polls show that a majority or at least a plurality of Americans view Clinton favorably. In a March 2-5 ABC News/Washington Post poll of adults nationwide, with a +/- 3 percent margin of error, 52 percent of respondents said they had a "favorable" impression of Clinton, compared with 46 percent who said they held an "unfavorable" impression of her. Similarly, in a February 16-19 Diageo/Hotline poll of registered voters, with a +/- 3.5 percent margin of error, 52 percent of respondents said they held a "favorable" opinion of Clinton, compared with 41 percent who said they held an "unfavorable" opinion of her.
From the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which featured radio host and columnist Michael Smerconish, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, Robinson, and Kornblut:
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the Democrats. Hillary Clinton has raised her head here. According to The Washington Post, the Democratic insiders with Hillary Clinton aide Harold Ickes at the helm. They're out there, they don't apparently trust Howard Dean.
They've put together the information they need to win this election, they're out there with data mining, just like we saw the NSA doing, digging up information, finding out who might like to vote Democrat, who is pro-choice or whatever on whatever issue, anti-war, and put together enough information to find voters and win the election against whoever the Republicans run.
Michael, what's Hillary up to?
[...]
HITCHENS: I read the piece this morning and I thought, what's it reminding of? And it suddenly hit me, it's Dick Morris again. There was a time, if you remember, when the Democratic Party, congressionally and elsewhere, thought it was running the party and in fact, Mr. Clinton and his wife, with a small cabal in the White House, arranged by Dick Morris, were doing all the fundraising, all the polling, all the work. For part of the time, Dick Morris was the president during the impeachment.
KORNBLUT: I would say that's the fault of the RNC, though. I mean, the Republican Party, the RNC, has a machine like this, already in existence. It's why they won in 2004.
HITCHENS: Well the Democrats have penis envy for that and have had for a long time.
MATTHEWS: I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. Is Hillary Clinton grabbing the party control?
ROBINSON: Well I think she's trying to. I mean, you know, she's in a position to make the attempt, and I think, you know, she's putting together a machine like the Republicans have. You have to have the data, you have to analyze it and slice it and dice it and understand it.
In the final analysis, you have to make people want to vote for you, and I think the one vulnerability here is the idea that Hillary Clinton will kind of contort herself into any position that kind of maximizes her votes.
MATTHEWS: In other words, they want to find out where people stand so she can stand there.
ROBINSON: Exactly.
SMERCONISH: But everybody already stands on Hillary. In other words, there are no undecided voters relative to Hillary Clinton. You're either for or you're against her.
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: I think the people around Hillary know she's not popular with the country. If she wins, she'll win with like 48 percent, in a squeaker, because the other guy blew it.
They know it's going to come down to a few hundred thousand votes. They're going to identify those key undecided voters. They're going to try to turn it on a very close election. This particular vote by voting [sic] attempt and data mining is a recognition she won't win big, they've got to squeak it.















Wants to talk "contract" with you.
(unfortunarely Chris' contract with NBC runs through June 2009)
... that Matthews is setting himself up for a job at Fox. I wish he'd hurry up so fewer people mistake his flapping gums as fact. At least if he were on Fox, most intelligent viewers know to either not view or listen with ears packed with grains of salt.
Even with all Tim Russert's "warts", I hope that never happens.
I feel ashamed that I've given both Matthews and Russert money. I bought and read Matthews' "American" and Russert's "Big Russ and Me". I even bought a copy of "American" for my conservative, and now wounded Gulf War II vet brother-in-law. That's how independent Matthews used to be. Not any more.
Someone should tell Darrell Hammond on SNL that his flattering portrayal of Matthews as some sort of neutral ringmaster needs to be tweaked to accomadate the new Republican sychophantic Mathhews.
Why doesn't Tweety just wear a baseball cap embroidered with: I Hate Hillary in large, bright red letters?
His marching orders are firmly in place. He answers to no man but the money he receives from Karl Rove. It's so blatant it borders on psychotic.
Please, somebody please call this guy out... publicly. This egregious boot-licking of the neocon agenda is sickening.
The Republicans could elect the chimp's sidekick, and a couple of draft-dodging warmongers; meaning they don't care about anything but their continued power.
So far as I'm concerned; they could put Hulk-Hogan in a skirt snorting like a horse, riding a gay float at the Mardi Gras, and if the HE?SHE were on the Democratic ticket, a real Amercian whom loves their freedoms, and civil liberties knows what they must do.
And it aint got anything to do with a vote for a Republican, even in a skirt.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
scoffed at and scorned everyone who wouldn't buy into his support of the iraq invasion.
We WANT Hillary to run and win the nomination.
Quit trying to screw it up for us.
So smug, so righteous. You wish you knew what direction you can express.
I had a cassette tape of Leatherdeath's greatest hits in high school... (kidding).
These Repugnants put a retarded drunken chimp in the highest office of the nation, filled Congress with a majority of crooks taking dirty dollars from Abramoff, tried to put a woman on the Supreme Court with a resume that wouldn't get her a job at Jacoby & Myers, lied their way into a war they are destined to lose, screwed up the federal response to Katrina, got us trillions in debt, and average a Watergate a week....
Now they publish books calling Duhbya an impostor and act like they're standing up to him (until they flip flop of course). Even Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor finally realizes that they are trying to turn the USA into a right wing dictatorship.
Apparently these leatherneck wingnuts can learn, but its always too late.
Matthew's show call him out on this stuff?
It's frustrating as all hell when they come on his show and act like meek little girls and refuse to call him the jerkoff that he is.
Matthews has been caught going ultra rightwing and making outrageous claims everyday. It's almost like watching Fakenews (when I can stomach more than three minutes of it).
So why won't democrats call him out? All they have to do is say, "Well Chris before I answer that question, let me ask you about this idiotic comment you made about Hillary and data mining, How come you manage to leave out the fact that ReThugs have been doing this for years and years as well yet you seem to always leave out items like that? Please give me an answer?"
You know Chris will immediately go into, "Well Congressman, that's not why I asked you to be on this show."
Then the Congressman should say, "Well I'd like an answer to why you deliberately mislead your viewers with comments like those?"
To which Matthews would say, "Moving along let me introduce ReThuglican congressman, (name here) who is one of the greatest Americans on Earth because he is a ReThug."
But democrats should just call out Matthews every chance they get. Even rightwingers like Matthews know that if democrats stop coming on his show, his ratings will tank badly, so democrats COULD, IF THEY HAD ANY BALLS, call him out everytime and maybe, just maybe they could get Mattews to admit his rightwing bias.
Not that I'm holding my breath on any of that, it's just something I would love to see.
- Americans holding favorable opinions of Clinton. - mmfa
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll finds 51% would definitely not vote for Clinton
Fox News poll finds 44% would never vote for Clinton
MSNBC/Marist poll finds 51% don't think Clinton should run for president.
Yes, I know, I've cherry picked results that are unfavorable to Clinton. I'm only showing that mmfa's position that having some popularity doesn't equate to a successful presidential bid.
Clinton is very polarizing and I'm sure the above polls reflect a strong republican anti-Clinton bias...yet her unfavorable numbers are also a reflection of democratic dissent. Her favorable numbers may get her the nomination but she will not run well in a national race.
Want more proof...read the threads on this site that talk about Clinton and you will always find a number of liberals opposed to her as president. The anit-Clinton sentiment is too strong for her to overcome.
I have a vision of "Other People's Money" and his speech in the movie. You know; the honorable CEO trying to hold on to his company’s legacy against "Larry the Liquidator" as he evokes memory of another day of citizen helping citizen.
Larry, as unsympathetic a character as could possibly be, stands up, all 4 ft of him to tell a hall full of despising stock holders that the reality is why he is there to begin with. That the point is when the time comes for a change in an economy, as does a democracy, it helps nobody to hold on to a failing past.
Vilifying Hillary Clinton; though not my favorite Democrat, is just a pathetic attempt to hold on to miserably failing Republican policies.
Unlike the CEO in the movie, he was making money, the Republicans has spoke out from one side of their face, and instituted policy from the other at which our nation has nearly collapsed but for a stubborn economy that still is running on the good policies of the Clinton Administration.
We need to use Ronald Reagan's famous campaign question. Are you better off now, than you were 4years ago?? Are you better off now you have Republican rule for the past 6 years?
If the answer is yes, then please sober up before you answer the question.
Tell the truth, wouldn’t we all love to let Bush and Cheney have a harem of interns of either sex sevice the White House for the rest of there term, if we could have just one year of the Clinton years.
Heck; we gave him a pass on James Gannon/Jeff Guckert, but I think he was Turd Blossom’s favorite, and he wouldn’t share.
Happy Thoughts,
Dan Grady
- our nation has nearly collapsed - dangrady
C'mon dan, I know that you are passionate but just because your party has lost power doesn't mean that America has nearly collapsed.
- Vilifying Hillary Clinton; though not my favorite Democrat - dangrady
That shows why Clinton cannot win...she won't be able to carry enough of the democratic base.
Rush Limbaugh considers Chris Matthews to be a bonified member of the mainstream press, and since he (Matthews) is not a rightwing ideolog, Rush considers him to be a liberal. I've heard Matthews on his show refer to Rush Limbaugh as his friend. It makes me wonder if Chris Mathews is trying to curry favor with Rush, and trying to get Rush to say something favorable about him on his (Limbaugh's) show.
The only way to tighten Tweety's shorts is to question him one on one on his false claims and Rethugnant talking points. Ask Al Franken to invite him to be a guest on Air America. My guess is that he will not accept, because he is afraid to answer for his fairy tales. People like Tweety are so gutless and spineless that they will not appear on any show that does not fit their bill.
"We WANT Hillary to run and win the nomination. = I, and the rest of my rat-wing friends, fear Hillary Rodham Clinton.