About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Hardball, Matthews obsessed over Clintons' marriage

May 26, 2006 7:18 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: During the 5 p.m. ET hour of the May 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked at least 16 questions about the state of the marriage between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton.

21 Comments

During the 5 p.m. ET hour of the May 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked at least 16 questions about the state of the marriage between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton. In solo interviews with NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, as well as during a panel discussion with Cook Political Report editor and publisher Charlie Cook and Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman, Matthews repeatedly referenced a May 23 New York Times article and a May 25 column by Washington Post columnist David Broder -- both of which focused on the state of the Clintons' marriage. As Media Matters for America previously noted, the author of the Times story fueled Republican attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during the 2004 presidential campaign, by engaging in similar speculation about Kerry's marriage. As Media Matters also pointed out, prior to his May 25 column, Broder had criticized journalists' focus on the private lives of politicians, lamenting that the American public was "choking on a surfeit of smut."

From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the May 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the big news story coming out of The New York Times. Ticklish, and therefore I'd like to start with that one. Bill and Hillary Clinton, probably the greatest soap opera in the history of America since Martha and George Washington. The New York Times, when they make a judgment to put something right at the top of the fold, right at the banner, about the marriage of the Clintons, what do you make of that judgment -- news judgment? You make judgments like this.

RUSSERT: All the time, but this was a very important judgment by the Times that this is a legitimate story. I do think that the role of Bill Clinton in a Hillary Clinton administration or presidency is a very serious story. Remember when Governor Clinton was first running, he would say, "You buy one and get two. Two for the price of one." And I think a lot of people are going to be asking "Exactly what is Bill Clinton's role in a campaign and in a presidency?" And people also would say if he has a lot of free time on his hands in the White House, does that become an issue?

MATTHEWS: I saw a honey bun for sale at a local convenience store this morning. It said two for a dollar. I bought one for 50 cents. A lot of people would rather cut the two in half, wouldn't they? And just take Hillary this time? It's simpler, isn't it?

RUSSERT: Well, but I think Hillary, part of her campaign strategy will be referring back to the, quote, "good old days," about how the economy was, and there was no deficit and there was a surplus and so forth.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this statement here: Bill Clinton, "Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife." Let me get to the more particular political question. You can answer this one, because this is pure politics. "When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up, for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage." My sense is people worry about the future of the relationship because they think it might have a political effect. They don't know what it's going to do if a news story pops up, somebody pops a story that could upset her train off its wheels. You hear a lot of that, don't you?

RUSSERT: Sure. But I also remember when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate, again, to Rick Lazio. It was on the heels of the impeachment, the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, and you can make a very strong case that the fallout from that scandal did not hurt Hillary Clinton politically.

MATTHEWS: It helped her.

RUSSERT: It helped her.

MATTHEWS: It helped her.

MATTHEWS: David Broder, who is on your program a lot: "The very fact that the Times -- The New York Times has sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of page one was a clear signal, if that was needed, that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president." Do you have a sense that the big news organizations, the big print organizations, the Times, the Post, the L.A. Times, the [Wall Street] Journal, are going to commit resources to this story now that it's popped here? A pure journalistic estimate.

RUSSERT: If, in fact, she runs for president, and I think she will, then everything will be, obviously, scrutinized, and this will become part of the coverage of her campaign.

MATTHEWS: Do you think they know that, the Clintons? They know it's coming.

RUSSERT: Oh sure, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Scrutiny is coming.

RUSSERT: Absolutely. You know, and don't forget, when Governor Clinton first thought about running for president, he sat down with his aides, and they encountered this whole notion --

MATTHEWS: Right. He hired one of his aides and said "Check me out from the other side." Right.

RUSSERT: And a private eye about, quote, "bimbo eruptions." They were very conscious of it. It was part of their strategy, and at one time, not to run for president and in 1992 he decided to go forward.

MATTHEWS: The old rule was sex plus. It had to be something to do with a lobbyist, some conflict of interest with a staff person. Is there a clear line anymore in what is covered? The New York Times made it a very political story. They were very careful to make it not about gossip or sex or who's dating who, but it's about -- they made it about appearances and about the implications about an incipient presidential campaign. Is that still the rule, you have to tie it into politics, you have to tie it to some significant way, or is there a lot of wiggle room there?

RUSSERT: Well, what's the rule? What's the rule for the mainstream media, what's the rule for cable, what's the rule for talk radio, what's the rule for the Internet? There are a lot -- there's a sliding scale, I would offer, and it's going to be quite interesting to see how that plays out. Also, I think a lot of people have done a lot of reflection on the coverage of the impeachment and some of those extenuating circumstances. This is going to be a lot of grist for conversation in news rooms all across this country.

MATTHEWS: A lot of calls to make, too.

RUSSERT: Oh, yes, and within the Democratic Party, this is going to be a big debate.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, I now want to bring up to you a topic that I thought would be something that might come up six months from now or a year from now; it's come up, as you know, yesterday. The New York Times, at the top of the page, of the front page, ran a big story on Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it led with the question of this: "When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up, for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage." Is that a true statement?

DEAN: No. I think that's ridiculous. That's just gossip, and I would expect that to be in the New York Post, not The New York Times.

MATTHEWS: What's the gossip in saying that party leaders are worried about the marriage?

DEAN: I think it's untrue.

MATTHEWS: They're not worried? You don't talk about this?

DEAN: No, I think most people are interested in what kind of a senator Hillary Clinton is and I think they admire --

MATTHEWS: Are you standing here -- sitting here and telling me that when you sit down with the big machers in the party, the guys that have to make decisions about big campaign investments in this campaign of Hillary Clinton, don't whisper back and forth, "Is everything OK? Are we going to get embarrassed next year by something with regard to that marriage?" You're saying this story is essentially not true?

DEAN: First of all, I don't sit down with those people because I don't get involved in presidential primaries either. Should Senator Clinton decide to run for president at some point, which is not a done deal, as much as everybody thinks -- I think she's focused on running for re-election and I think that's a good thing. Secondly, yes, what I'm saying is that is not Topic A on anybody's list that I talk to. That is gossip. I think most people are not going to vote on gossip.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me tell you what I -- my observation is -- I talk to a lot of people in politics, in and out of it, journalists and everyone else, and they talk about it, because they want to know what will be coming next year. People try to figure out what's coming next in American politics.

DEAN: I -- don't you think --

MATTHEWS: And one of the --

DEAN: -- most people are worried, Chris, about gas prices, how we're going to get out of Iraq --

MATTHEWS: No, they're worried about who's going to get elected. Governor, you know the questions: who's going to get elected president and what things along the way are going to affect who gets elected. It's not gossip; it's trying to figure out the lay of the land, politically. Let me read you something from a man I know you respect, David Broder of The Washington Post. Quote -- in today's column: "The very fact that The New York Times has sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of page one was a clear signal, if any was needed, that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president." Is that a fair statement?

DEAN: I think that's also gossip. Listen, I'm going to be tough on this stuff. I think gossip and silliness like that, in the long run, do not overcome the fact that somebody's got to do something about gas prices, that we've sent a ton of jobs to China, that we have a budget that's so far out of balance that our kids are in debt -- those are the issues that matter, not salacious gossip. And I don't care who writes it -- I have a lot of respect for David Broder and The New York Times -- it's still gossip.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much for your clear statement.

DEAN: OK, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which does not engage in gossip.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me get out of Washington politics for a second to something that's much more fascinating. Hillary Clinton is married to Bill Clinton, the former president. Hillary Clinton, everyone believes, is running for president. The question is, according to The New York Times yesterday, a big front-page story, top of the fold. "When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up, for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage." Is that right? Is that a true account?

COOK: Privately, yes. I mean, that is -- any serious conversation about the Democratic presidential nomination, it comes up in about the first 10 minutes.

MATTHEWS: Howard, the question is -- I'll say it indelicately. The question is whether he is going to cause trouble in the news for her. Not what he's going to do, but is he going to cause her trouble in the news by his personal behavior? That is the question.

FINEMAN: That's the question, and that's what that story was designed to take a look at. What's his behavior been as a way of judging what his behavior may be like. Charlie is right. But it's a little larger than that. The question that you hear among Democrats is, yes, we can nominate her. She may even be inevitable as a nominee. But can she really win? And as you go down the list of questions under can she win, Topic A is Bill Clinton. Her own character, her own record, are others, but Topic A under that.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me follow this, we only have a minute here. If he becomes part of the news with his private life, does she have to end the relationship, the marriage, to win the presidency? Does she have to be that brutal, that much of a butcher? Can she simply forgive him again?

COOK: I don't know about that. She'd have to say something pretty good. But we did a poll, Cook Political Report and R.T. Strategies and asked Democrats only: "If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, do you think she would have as good a chance as any other Democrat to win the general election or do you worry that she cannot win a general election?" Forty-seven percent says she has a good as a chance as anybody, 46 percent worried that she cannot win a general election. And that's part of what's sort of baked in that cake: the party's evenly split on "can she win."

MATTHEWS: And the worries come from a combination of factors, being a female, being Bill's wife and having to deal with Bill is the third question, right?

COOK: Yes. She has an 80 percent approval -- favorable rating among the Democrats. It's not that they don't like her. But can she win?

FINEMAN: And the hard part is there's a lot of people who are on that negative side of Charlie's poll are people who otherwise would be with Hillary big time on the issues. It's kind of paradoxical. A lot of people who agree with her on the issues are the ones who are most dubious about whether she can win the general.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by zappatero (May 26, 2006 7:58 pm ET)
         

      Now I know why they call it Hard Ball.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by John the Elder (May 26, 2006 8:18 pm ET)
         

      I am now convinced that in their spare time Russert and Chrissy plow through peoples, garbage in the closed world of inner Washington. Either that or the two, who are essential gossip mongers, take in the neighborhood wash and gab over back fences with others who have no meaning in their lives and spend their time trying to bring every one down to their gutter level. Disgusting beyond words.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by greenbug4189 (May 26, 2006 9:11 pm ET)
         

      Chris Matthews apparently believes the only person in the Democratic party is Hillary and that everyone is just sitting around salavating at juicy bits about her. As Howard Dean said, we are interested in the issues and not in Hillary's marriage. Besides, she is a very busy senator running for re-election. He is very busy with his charities and going all over the planet. How much time does he think people that busy would spend with each other? Does he believe these busy career people would sit down to dinner every night? Please! I can see if this lady does decide to run the media is going to go national enquirer all over again. and of course, the issues will not be what is discussed. Bravo to Howard Dean for laying down what he is going to expect from the media. They won't listen and as usual bite him but, I admire his toughness and ability to stand up and tell these guys what they do need to hear. Bravo.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by scairp (May 26, 2006 10:49 pm ET)
         

      Matthews is a thigh-rubber of the first order, and the rest of them are just pathetic excuses for journalists. This in NOT journalism in any way, shape or form, and I am appalled that they are getting away with this smut peddling. Why does the public continue to tolerate this kind of garbage passed off as serious political discussion? I just don't get it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nightowlcafe (May 26, 2006 11:27 pm ET)
         

      Here we go again, the "values police" putting the Clinton marriage under a microscope. Matthews has been jumping at every opportunity to heap negative press on Hillary. With the speculation of her running for President in '08 he can hardly contain his enjoyment at the prospect of ripping her to shreds. The hunting of Hillary has begun with Chris leading the pack of wild dogs and he is positively frothing at the mouth with every tidbit of gossip.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kdboulder (May 27, 2006 2:26 am ET)
         

      With all the corruption going on in Washington you would think the press would have its hands full, but yet they seem to STILL find time to discuss the Clinton's private life, not only with misleading comments, but speculation and out right lies for the purpose of misleading the American people. If we start with the lies now, maybe by 2008 they will be the truth. Same old stuff, I just hope American's will see it for what it is, vicious gossip and nothing more.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (May 27, 2006 2:28 am ET)
         

      The question has to be asked: what are the states of Tweety's & Russert's marraiges? These media whores are also public figures, so if this is a legitimate question to ask of the Clintons then it's a legitimate question to ask of millionaire pundits. After all, they're claiming the right to pass judgement on the private lives of others.

      Calling Tweety obsessed with the Clinton's marraige is an understatement. He actually had the stones to claim to Howard Dean that this slimey gossip is more important to the American people than the price of gas or the war in Iraq. This is deranged thinking, & positively shocking coming from someone in his position of media power.

      I guess its the only fun left to this neocon weasel. The rest of their agenda is rapidly swirling down the crapper.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by charlesbhoff8864 (May 27, 2006 3:01 am ET)
         

      When I was 8 year old in our village 3 voters where new comer and democrate move into than republician village. One of then decide to run for mayor the local republian partry didnot worry as they never engauge in dirtry trick camg for office. But someone in the country republian was worry than called in a dirtry trick square from national party. They called him than womanize and homosexual but the thing that make all the republian in the village vote for the democrate was they ran than phony new bullin on the country radio station saying that he die of than heart attrack and when his wife hear that she have than real heart attrack that was the last straw for the local partry member that the village chief told the dirtry trick square they better leave the village as they faces than possible lynn mob of partry members angery at them. At the local partry meeting the repubician running for mayor said he will vote for his opperent as he didnot like the national partry getting involse in this local matter the way they and as than oppostest against the partry. The democrate won by than huge % of the vote.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by alpha1906 (May 27, 2006 6:18 am ET)
         

      What did Hillary do to Chris? He really is obsessed. And another thing: what's with his sexist comments? He asked one woman reporter whether women would like Bush better if he looked like Hugh Grant!! I mean, damn! Do you think so little of women that you think they like or vote for politicians for superficial reasons?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmcon007 (May 27, 2006 10:03 am ET)
         

      As many "stories" as I've read about "Bill and Hillary" lately, I fail to actually see a story. Front page of the Grey Lady? Give me a frickin break! Soldiers and Marines dying every day in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, ( a country, by the way, that's being taken back over by the Taliban as we speak) and we find our nation's crack reporters and hacks attempting to give life to a story that doesn't even exist, save in their own tiny, perverted minds. What's a good story without a semen stain, huh? They've all become media pimps and whores.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (May 27, 2006 12:15 pm ET)
         

      Maybe Bill and Hill's marriage IS topic A in every Democrat's conversations. The GOP thanks NSA.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tralfaz (May 27, 2006 4:18 pm ET)
         

      What I can't figure out, is Matthews jealous of Bill......or Monica?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Eloise (May 27, 2006 4:29 pm ET)
         

      While many people think that Hillary Clinton would probably be a good President, the right-wing media's determination to focus on her marriage and Bill's affair with Monica, ultimately dis-qualifies her.

      Chris Matthew's has probably done us a favor by giving us a sneak preview as to what the 2008 campaign will be about, if Hillary is the nominee; utter nonsense.

      The Kennedy family has a saying - "Life is unfair." It may be rotten for Hillary if she can't get elected in the general because of Bill, but worse for the country if she's nominated and loses to a Republican. While Matthews, Russert, et al. may be despicable excuses for journalists, they are perfectly atuned to the right wing media song and dance that will gleefully throw all issues aside in favor of Clinton scandal mongering.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (May 28, 2006 8:06 am ET)
         

      The election is in a couple of years.

      Matthews is telling us his priorities, and Dean made it certain.

      Matthews does not want to talk about gas prices, or the deficit, or Iraq, or corruption, or Halliburton no-bid contracts, or NSA spying illegalities, or how to handle illegal immigrants.

      He wants to talk about Bill Clinton's zipper.

      It's the #1 question on everyone's lips, don't you know? How do we know? Because Matthews TELLS us it's our number one concern, and the NYTimes backs him up, with David Broder.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by peet (May 28, 2006 12:13 pm ET)
           

        I can't believe that any of this tripe is unintentional. These guys have made a surprisingly successful run (over the past 5+ years) of deflecting, obfuscating, deferring the real issues for nonsense the American public seems willing to avidly embrace. This is more of the same. These jokers hope people will continue to consume themselves with 'American Idol' issues while the world burns.

        I say... tough luck. People need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves -- and the country. Brush this nonsense aside and show these corporatist hacks that we (the people) actually give a damn about our country and the damage done by this ridiculous administration. But, it'll take work and diligence. This is where MMFA, Air America, Mother Jones, etc... offer a tremendous service.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (May 28, 2006 9:09 pm ET)
             

          You nailed it. The house's foundation is sinking, termites have been spotted, a new roof is needed, and the central air unit just gave out.

          And the main issue our MEDIA wants to discuss is what color to stain the front door. It's the pressing question on everyone's mind, they tell us.

          I suppose everyone knows a delusional avoider-of-problems, who focuses on irrelevant minutia to avoid facing the truly pressing problems, but we wouldn't put them in charge of anything.

          MAGIC is all about misdirection. Kids who didn't grow up knowing Houdini and other masters of legerdomain do not know that "SMOKE AND MIRRORS" is a phrase that came to mean "a distraction from reality and truth" because those were devices used by magicians. Today's press is performing as "magicians" who hope to distract the people from the disaster that is the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress.

          Sorry, boys. It's not working any more.

          [NOTE to MMFA: How about chronicling for us citizens the number of "TURNING POINTS" Bush has breathlessly announced in Iraq? After about the sixth major "turning point" over three years, the smoke has cleared and the mirror has shattered.]

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 29, 2006 5:07 pm ET)
               

            Once you "turn the corner" four times, you're back where you started.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by mrkite116182 (May 28, 2006 8:28 pm ET)
         

      If it's trivial, if it's trite, matthews is your man. Anything to avoid the reality of his hero's stagnant poll numbers and embarrassingly criminal administration.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by corvus (May 29, 2006 9:21 am ET)
         

      Media personalities like Chris Matthews are dime a dozen. I could walk down the street this afternoon and find 10 people who could do a better job than Chris Matthews. Now that more information is coming out about what Novak and Russert knew about the leak it's becoming crystal clear these journalists are eithert advocates or shameless self promoters.

      Why would I want to buy a book from someone who can't see the truth when it's sitting in front of their face?

      I wouldn't

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (May 29, 2006 2:51 pm ET)
         

      went from journalism to sensationalism. in less than five years. What a way to serve the fourth estate, you pimp !

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (May 29, 2006 7:12 pm ET)
         

      It's more than voyerism behind Matthew's gleamin, slobbering fixation on the Clinton's sex life. This is also an electoral strategy. This is a key neocon tactic for hanging onto power.

      The fact that Rupert Murdock is now serving as a political fundraiser for Hilary Clinton is the tip off that the Right thinks that she is beatable & desires to gain the Democratic nomination for her. They know that their constant drum beat of 'Hilary the bitch' has succeeded in producing a Pavlovian level of drooling & snarling among much of the American electorate. All of her attempts to position herself as a center/right candidate will be of little avail in a national election when faced with the media avalanche of sleaze & innuendo that the Pug media will certaintly send crashing down upon her head.

      After all, what else have they got? All issues of any real importance work overwhelmingly against them. Iraq? Gas prices? Energy policy? Social Security? The deficit? Tax breaks for the wealthy? The environment? Employment? Religion? Abortion? Civil rights? Torture? Foriegn policy? Is there a single area in which their control of all three branches ov government has served to bettr the lives the average American?

      Obviously not. All that IS left to them if gossip. And the nastier the better.

      It is what they do well.

      And this is where the Clinton's are eminently vulnerable. The Pugs know how to portray Hillery as a bitch and/or a lesbian, & Bill as a letch who just can't keep it in his pants. And every moment that they spend defending themselves against what will most certaintly be more & more exagerated & outlandish smears is a moment that the real issues will not be dealt with.

      So, get used to it. This tittering, winking slimefest is just a practice volley for the all-out assault that is to come.

      It IS their only hope.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace