Matthews asked: Is Hillary Clinton unable to "admit a mistake" on Iraq vote because she would be criticized as a "fickle woman"?
SUMMARY: On two straight days, Chris Matthews cited hypothetical critics in saying that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is reluctant to admit she made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war resolution because she would be denigrated as a woman who is unable to make up her mind.
For the second consecutive day, MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews cited hypothetical critics in saying that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is reluctant to admit she made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war resolution because she would be denigrated as a woman who is unable to make up her mind. On the March 15 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, Matthews suggested that the reason Clinton "doesn't admit" that she regrets her Iraq war vote is that her critics would say, "It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind." On the next day's show, Matthews added that Clinton could be criticized by Republicans as a "fickle woman" if she changed her position on Iraq, and asked: "Is her gender a problem in her ability to change her mind?"
From a discussion between Matthews and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) on the March 16 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: You know, Hillary Clinton, the senator from New York, will not say what you just said. She has a way of skirting the issue. We had her spokesman on, Mr. [Howard] Wolfson, on last night who said there wouldn't have been a vote to allow force if the administration hadn't made the case it made.
But she won't say that she made a mistake. Is she hemmed in by the fact that she's a woman and can't admit a mistake, or else the Republicans will say, "Oh, that's a woman's prerogative to change her mind," or "another fickle woman?" Is her gender a problem in her ability to change her mind?
EDWARDS: Oh, I don't think her gender has anything to do with this. I think this is an individual, personal --
MATTHEWS: I mean, because how it would be used by the other side. How it -- not objectively, obviously --
EDWARDS: Right. Right.
MATTHEWS: -- but how the other side would use it.
EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't -- I don't think she's concerned about that. I don't think any woman leader in this country should be concerned about that. This is a difficult, independent judgment that people have to make.
From a discussion between Matthews and Wolfson on the March 15 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: They said that we would be received as liberators. The vice president said that. And [deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz said the war would be paid for, which now cost us a trillion dollars -- maybe $2 trillion -- before we're out of there. Wolfowitz also said that would be paid for by Iraqi oil. The promises were complete. We bought our way -- we were sold this bill of goods.
Senator Clinton has said, and you know this, she said if she -- the country had known the facts, there would have never even been a vote. Does that explain the fact that she voted for the war to authorize it or is that to say, she would never have even thought of voting for this war?
WOLFSON: Well, look, I think, in life, in politics, you don't get to do do-overs, and we are where we are.
MATTHEWS: Sure we do. We get to dump presidents we don't like. We did over Jimmy Carter, who I worked for, he was bounced. Gerry Ford was bounced.
WOLFSON: You can bounce a president --
MATTHEWS: We bounce presidents all the time. We bounce policies all the time.
WOLFSON: You can -- you can bounce a president, but you can't go back in history and undo what's happened. And I think --
MATTHEWS: Sure you can, you can say, "I'm sorry I voted the wrong way. I was misinformed."
WOLFSON: Well -- But you don't get to turn the clock back and do it over again. You don't get to do a do-over.
MATTHEWS: Would she like to turn the clock back?
WOLFSON: Not that she's told me. It's not something that I've talked about with her.
MATTHEWS: I understand why she doesn't admit you're wrong, because then they'll say, "It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind." I know they'll do all the gender stuff on her. I know why you're not doing it.
When Matthews said "I know they'll do all the gender stuff on her", I thought to myself: "Who needs the 'they' when they've got Chris?"
He'll gladly slam Clinton every chance he gets.
In fact, he's done it every day for as many shows as I can remember.
Nicely put. Matthews is "the they."
"My goal is to cut 'the they' in half and get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." --- Grover Norquist
"Is she hemmed in by the fact that she's a woman and can't admit a mistake, or else the Republicans will say, "Oh, that's a woman's prerogative to change her mind," or "another fickle woman?" Is her gender a problem in her ability to change her mind?"
So Bush should have no problem adimitting his many mistakes since he is a man. Right Chris?
So Bush should have no problem admitting his many mistakes since he is a man. Right, Chris?
Oh, how I wish Edwards or Wolfson had responded with those very words! I hope someone slips that into the notes of the next Democratic guest on Hardball, since Matthews is likely to make the same charge yet again. The shameless Bush apologist won't know how to respond.
Gender, gender, gender.
Gender, gender, gender.
Gender, gender, gender.
Give it up.
Gender has nothing to do with her being a chronic panderer and poll watcher. She learned well from Bill. Go Feingold!!!
I'm not a Hillary supporter -- she sold out long ago (like during Clinton's first administration, it was obvious). That being said, I don't think Feiny is all that much better. You're just willing to be fooled again.
Back to the gender thing -- you need to be quick to point how it's out of line.
Voting for the Decoycrats, with the exception of those three or four like Kucinich, is voting for the same masters. The Decoycrats and Repugs are the left and right pockets of the same pair of pants. They're just competing PR firms trying to land the corporate account.
VOTE THIRD PARTY.
I am a Wisconsin resident and as such I follow Feingold' s career quite closely. The man is a true progressive in the mold of Paul Welstone. If you lived here you would have seen his debates where he never backed off on his liberal credentials. You would be able to go to his town hall meetings which he holds in EVERY county EVERY year. He is a throwback to the time when liberals actually cared about their constituents. He is the least wealthy Senator and yet he is clean as a whistle when it comes to lobbyists.
Feiny voted for Roberts in committee, for Roberts to be confirmed.
He also voted to confirm Ashcroft. He thought that a president had the right to appoint who he likes. He was obviously fooled. And he has made ammends for that. Tell me, what 3rd party candidate votes the way you would every time?
was trusting bush. as bob graham said when he voted against it, "we can't trust this president with a blank check". but of course, what must be remembered also is that this vote was in oct 2002, just before the elections, and the republicans were portraying anyone against it as supporting the enemy. they defeated max cleland by questioning his support for the war against terrorism.
I saw a graphic, that showed how today Public Opinion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq is in such sharp contrast to what it was when that invasion was just getting underway, 3 years ago.
The graphic showed more than 60% of Public Opinion being against the invasion now, as opposed to some 30% still in favor of the invasion and occupation.
And this was contrasted to more than 60% in favor of the invasion of Iraq back in March 2003, as opposed to some 30% against it back then.
This is a 'reversal' of Public Opinion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq; a reversal in three years; based no doubt on the realization of actually seeing the thing happen, as opposed to imagining the thing back then, before it was underway. In addition, some of that reversal of Public Opinion could be based upon a 'reflection' on the stated Objectives and other Causes that led the Administration to propose this invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place; Causes that turned out to be false (and continue to go uninvestigated); Objectives that are ever shifting, even today, from U.S. National Security, to 'liberation', to 'Democracy-building', to what presently seems to be some strange hybrid of those three.
All of this is reason enough for the American People to change their mind on the invasion and occupation of Iraq; let others be proposed and stated by that majority of...
The American People, who so believed in the False Causes put forth by the Administration for an invasion and occupation of Iraq, and are now so tired of the shifting Objectives and rationales that that same Administration continues to spin, in a defense of that invasion and for the continuance of that occupation.
Why cannot those Senate Democrats who voted 'yea' on H.J.Res. 114, take the time to articulate any 'reversal' of Opinion they may now have as to that vote. Don't they know that they would only be in accord with the American People on this matter, were they to stand up and speak on the matter. Don't they know that millions upon millions of American People would be justified in their own 'reversal' on this matter, if they could just hear a U.S. Senator speak their conscience on this matter; and in so doing, speak the conscience of the American People.
There are three difficulties doing this:
One, to find the words to articulate this 'reversal' of Opinion; or finding them, to utter them in as brief a span as is that of the American People's attention. To which I'd say that knowing that it's True that the American People are impatient of words, yet their attention is held, when you speak on matters of their own conscience, which this 'reversal' of Opinion is certainly one (according to the polls).
Two, that some may criticize them for this 'reversal', and use characterizations like "admit a mistake" on Iraq vote, and "fickle woman", and "flip-flopper". But think about it: Are those also the characterizations they'd use to descibe the American People's 'reversal' of Opinion on this matter? Would they talk that way publicly, calling the American People "flip-floppers"? Think about such criticisms as those; care nothing for them, when you know you are buttressed by the American People, and their 'reversal' of Opinion.
And lastly, of difficulties I see in articulating a 'reversal' of Opinion: I see a strategy where the idea is to say and do as little as possible, even nothing at all, in advance of the fall elections; to wait for the Great Compass Needle of American Public Opinion to swing about, and sweep the minority into a majority; to say and do nothing, and become "The Party of Default Choice" this fall...
I'm at a loss to say anything constructive about that, other than that there's nothing constructive about it; because doing nothing at all, and saying nothing also, was never a qualification to leadership anywhere or at anytime that I can think of...
Least of all in America, today.
And if you doubt that, then consider 23 U.S. Senators, who when confronted with a Resolution for a misguided invasion and occupation of iraq, spoke their conscience and did something; they voted 'nay'.
And for that, those 23 U.S. Senators are not in the position of explaining away any 'reversal' of Opinion, as is the Senator mentioned in this item.
We all know what this is: yet ANOTHER in the continuing smear campaign by the right to neutralize Clinton before the '08 elections . . . just as the "preemptive" mentality guided the decision to invade Iraq, expect the cries of "shrill", "fickle woman", and "angry" to increase in the run-up to '08 . . .
But I love how Clinton refuses to say anything about 2008 . . . it would be great if, after all the smears made by the rightwing, Hilary announced well in advance that she would not be a candidate in '08, and then a "stealth" candidate - like Bill Richardson of NM - sweeps the primaries and takes the election . . . all the while Tweety, O'Reilly, and the others are left with their jaws on the floor . . .