Despite New Year's resolution to be "open-minded," Matthews suggested Sen. Clinton can't win in Midwest
SUMMARY: Two days before he resolved to
be "completely open-minded, from now to the next general election for
president, about who would be our next best president," Chris Matthews
claimed that if President Bush attacks Iran, Sen. Hillary Clinton would be
"saluting the president," claimed Clinton would have trouble
winning "those Democratic states in the Midwest that
are pretty culturally conservative ... where everybody, you know, wants to have a gun and a boat,"
and asked, "[D]oesn't she look a little bit like a
prohibitionist?"
On the December 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while discussing possible Democratic presidential candidates in 2008, host Chris Matthews continued to baselessly assert that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) would fare poorly with Midwestern voters because she is a "modern woman" who resembles a "prohibitionist" or a "suffragette." He also repeated his prediction that if President Bush attacks Iran, Clinton would be "saluting the president" the next morning, despite her repeated statements that "talk[ing] directly" to the Iranians should be a top priority of U.S. policy.
Matthews claimed that Clinton would not "do so well" in "the center of the country, Ohio, Michigan, those kinds of states where people own guns and boats and have a certain attitude towards modern women." Matthews then asked Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet, "[D]oesn't [Clinton] look a little bit like a prohibitionist?" and claimed that "[h]er problem will be to win those Democratic states in the Midwest that are pretty culturally conservative ... where everybody, you know, wants to have a gun and a boat."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, on the September 19 edition of Hardball, Matthews declared, "[G]o see Deer Hunter if you think [Clinton] can get elected president," adding that "Midwest guys" whose "idea of heaven is out hunting with the beer cans and shooting a pheasant or a bear" are "not up to modern women as president." The Deer Hunter was released in 1978. Matthews has also recently compared Clinton to a "strip teaser," called Clinton "witchy" and "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left," and pushed Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to call Clinton a "socialist," as Media Matters has noted.
Notwithstanding his repeated attacks on Clinton, Matthews announced on the December 31 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show that his New Year's "resolution" is to be "completely open-minded, from now to the next general election for president, about who would be our next best president."
Additionally, on the December 29 Hardball, Matthews suggested that if "right before the 2008 election George W. Bush bombs Iran," then "Hillary Clinton will be waking up that morning saluting" Bush "through the dust. She will be saluting the president." Matthews previously stated during the November 20 edition of Hardball that "[t]he day after the president attacks Iran, Hillary Clinton will be saluting." In fact, regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, Clinton has consistently stated, as she did October 31 during a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, that "[w]e have to keep all options on the table including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself." Clinton continued by emphasizing what she felt was the importance of "pursuing every available peaceful avenue to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power":
Direct talks, if they do nothing else, lets you assess who's making the decisions -- what their stated and unstated goals might be. And willingness to talk sends two very important messages. First, to the Iranian people, that our quarrel is with their leaders, not with them; and second, to the international community, that we are pursuing every available peaceful avenue to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
From the December 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which also included MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, and The Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon:
BUCHANAN: Exactly. He said, "I was here two years." I mean, "I said long before this war, I was against it. You didn't know it as a senator? Why do you belong in the White House?" So he's got a tremendous position, Barack Obama does. And Hillary's got a position, which is, "The war was right. It was mismanaged now." And so -- which is a -- and that's a position that is more credible, I think, than, "Gee, I made a mistake."
MATTHEWS: OK. Bob, what happens if right before the 2008 election, George W. Bush bombs Iran? My worst -- let me tell you, my worst scenario. The day after we do that and engage the world in a holocaust of attack on us forever from the Arab world and the Islamic world and Europe and everybody else, Hillary Clinton will be waking up that morning saluting through the dust. She will be saluting the president. And I -- my fear is there will never be a debate on whether we attack Iran. We'll never have a vote in Congress on a resolution requiring the president to get a vote. They'll just go along with it like they did with the last war.
SHRUM: Well, first of all, he wouldn't get the vote, so he wouldn't ask for the vote.
MATTHEWS: Why don't the Democrats initiate a vote to stop him, then?
SHRUM: Well, you can't stop something you don't know is going to happen.
MATTHEWS: You can't?
SHRUM: No. What are going to do? I mean, there is a way to stop the war in Iraq, and that is to pass a resolution saying that at a certain point, we're going to stop funding the war -- say, the end of this year. But we ought to be fair to Hillary Clinton here. Senator Clinton has said that knowing what she knows today, she wouldn't have voted for the war. And let's be honest --
MATTHEWS: But the next war is the one that matters. The next time she has to make a decision, do you have any confidence at all she won't support an attack on Iran? She supported the attack on Iraq twice now.
[...]
MATTHEWS: I think her weakness is between the two coasts. I think she's very strong in California, very strong in Oregon and Washington state and New England and the mid-Atlantic states, she'll do very well. Pennsylvania could be tricky. But as you move into the center of the country -- Ohio, Michigan, those kinds of states, where people own guns and boats and have a certain attitude towards modern women -- I don't think she'll do so well, Bob. You may disagree.
[...]
MATTHEWS: What about my premise that the hard problem for Hillary is not the South, because she's not going to carry the South --
SIMON: Right.
MATTHEWS: -- her problem will be to win those Democratic states in the Midwest that are pretty culturally conservative, beginning with Pennsylvania, once you get west of Philly. Once you get into Reading and move out through the T, we call it, and then move into Ohio, which is very culturally conservative, and then into Michigan, where everybody, you know, wants to have a gun and a boat -- how does Hillary win out there?
SWEET: Look at how she's been positioning herself. Look at even on the issue of abortion, where she talks about, you know, alternatives, make it less available --
MATTHEWS: Do people believe that?
SWEET: -- reaching out. I don't know for sure if people believe a lot of the stuff that people say, but I know what the position is.
MATTHEWS: Do they believe she's not anti-gun?
SWEET: Well -- but certainly Senator Obama isn't going be portrayed as any friend to the NRA either. So, you don't have -- that would be a wash. And that's why each one kind of brings a little different constituency and plus and minus, and I think the --
MATTHEWS: You know, Hillary doesn't look a little bit like a prohibitionist?
SWEET: No. Come on, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Come on. A suffragette?
SWEET: Oh, Chris. Are you playing to a stereotype or what? Where -- why --
MATTHEWS: I am -- I am trying to get you angry.
From the December 31 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, syndicated by NBC:
MATTHEWS: OK, here's my resolution. It's a journalist resolution. Despite everything I say, seeing the arguments for people like [former New York City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani, because the conventional wisdom opposes that kind of argument, I am going to keep completely open-minded, from now to the next general election for president, about who would be our next best president. This is the hardest thing for me to do, not to show my passions, but I'm going to really keep my mind open because I'm not sure who should be our next president. But I know one thing: It's going to be incredibly important.
Watta theym dang libruls gonna do wiht mah BOTE?
Midwestern speakers tend to have no discernable accent, like most professional newscasters.
I guess Media Matters is still criticizing the moderately liberal Democrat Chris Mathews. I guess he's simply not far enough to the left to please Media Matters. This is the same guy who said that Barack Obama and Al Gore would make an AWESOME ticket. I don't remember Media Matters pointing that out. What Mathews said here is just his perspective on what midwest voters want. There wasn't anything partisan about what he said. It's true that many midwest voters are economic populists but are also culturally conservative. That's why Al Gore and John Kerry lost Ohio in the last 2 presidential elections. These are people who generally agree with Democrats on economic issues, but are with the Republicans on social issues. This is a documented fact. No misinformation here.
and, please...documented facts?? Prove it...
how do you get 'moderately liberal'..? He is a total whore for the Bushies...
...is moderately liberal in TD's eyes.
Anybody to the right of Fidel Castro is moderately conservative in your eyes. I'm an open minded conservative who visits both conservative and liberal websites to get my information. The fact that I'm here posting comments on this website proves that. You get no sense of political balance because you just drink the left wing Kool-Aide from the left wing web sites. Try going to the right wing websites and see what they have to say. You may find that these so called "conservative misinformers" really aren't quite so conservative after all.
Poor analogy... comparing 'liberal' and 'socialist/communists'. Weak at best. Common comparison from conservatives. Holds no water.
Bill O'reilly isnt a conservative so you really have no credibility on thi9s issue.
I said that O'Reilly wasn't a partisan. I never said that he wasn't a conservative. In fact, I think that he's a conservative indpendent. He has predominantly conservative views with a few liberal views mixed in, but he's definitely on the right side of the political spectrum. My point before was simply that he doesn't carry the water for anybody. He doesn't openly endorse or campaign for any particular candidate or party. I've never heard him say that he wanted the Republicans to win elections. He mainly just criticizes the far left, and he very rarely criticizes the Democratic Party as a whole. He keeps it pretty non-partisan, even though most of his views are conservative.
dredge up the hundreds of O'reilly threads to show you wrong but that isnt the way I remember it.
Meant "independent"
"He is a total whore for the Bushies..."
You think that because this site is the only place where you get information. You get no sense of political balance whatsoever. You need to lay off the left wing Kool-Aide. Mathew's is a partisan Democrat. He worked for them back in the 80s. From Wikipedia:
Matthews has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the administration of Jimmy Carter. He served as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill for six years. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before losing to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in a U.S. House of Representatives Democratic primary in 1974.
and in the 40's reagan was a liberal democrat. by 1960 he was a right winger. matthews kisses gop behind regularly.
When are you going to stop trying to sell us on your amzing mind reading powers, here is a clue, they dont exist. Your delusions continue unabated. Because Mattehews worked for dems 30 years ago he is a liberal please. He is a moderate right basically conservative democrat. No where near liberal.
Truth Detector? Chris Matthews never misses an opportunity to criticize Gore and the Clintons and other Democrats. He also never misses a chance to praise George W. Bush, and he absolutely FAWNS over John McCain. In addition, don't forget the love fest Matthews had with Tom DeLay when they thought they were off camera during a deLay appearance on Hardball.
I'm convinced that Hillary Clinton turned down Matthews for a date when they worked on Capitol Hill. Nothing else explains why he's so fixated on her and why he's always so negative about her.
Read the comment I posted above. Matthews has worked for many high profile Democrats in the past. He's a partisan Democrat, but he just happens to be more open minded than far left bomb throwers like Keith Olbermann and Al Franken. That's what Media Matters doesn't like about him. And like I told the other poster, you just take in what Media Matters feeds you. You only get one side of the story. If you ever visited a sight like the Media Research Center, you would see that Matthews criticizes conservatives and conservative policies on a regular basis.
You are correct. Matthews schtick is that he loves to skewer all sides, and gets off by poking provocative and controversial pins at all his guests, regarding all politicians. If you only get Matthews' comments from this website then you miss half of his slings and arrows at the other side - which will not be reported here.
He enjoys pushing people's buttons and getting yelled at from all sides - then he feels like he's doing his viewers a service, I would suppose.
He may be passionate and say off the cuff remarks to get a reaction, but his allegiances are hardly with the GOP.
Happy Holidays to you.
Now, I actually have to agree with Matthews here, the midwest is rather prickly like a cactus when it comes to presidents. They have been historically republican leaning for presidents regardless of who they like representing them locally, so I have to say this isn't really a story worth mention in MMFA.
Back at you - Happy 2007.
And you are exactly right - it would be quite a news story if most of the midwest were to vote for a northeastern liberal Senator for President. Matthew's pointing that out with skepticism is hardly anything new, or guilty of misinforming anybody.
Is Hillary a liberal? As long as Republicans can paint her as one, that is really why it will be difficult for the midwest to vote for her. In truth she isn't really, the only issue one can use to paint her with is universal health care. On most issues though, the answer is no. But that's the prickly thing about the midwest, being untrusting, that is the one part of the country where you will find the masses actually paying attention to the issues! This could very well backfire on the Republicans if they assume they have the midwest wrapped up. Michigan, Ohio and Illinois just love proving people wrong...
"the only issue one can use to paint her with is universal health care"
What about taxes, spending, abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc? Hillary is about as liberal as they come. If you don't think she's a liberal, then you probably don't think any Democratic Senators are liberal.
I've already got her voting record ready to cut and paste, so let's see what ya got, pad'ner!
Here's one site that has her voting record.
[link to ontheissues.org]
I wouldn't put too much stock in the bottom part, however, where it says that she's a "moderate" liberal populist. It says that Rush Limbaugh is a "moderate" conservative as well, and that obviously isn't true.
I guess that's the real question here. Seems to me that most positions are centered. Clue me in...
100% rating from Naral, that's pretty liberal. That means that she supports partial birth abortion and wants no restrictions on abortion. Rated 60% by the ACLU, moderately liberal on those issues. Rated 82% by the NEA, pretty liberal on that as well. Rated 89% by the LCV, very liberal on that. Rated 0% by the Christian coalition, obviously extreme on cultural issues. Rated 17% by CATO, which means that she's against free trade. She's liberal on that issue. Rated 100% by the APHA, very liberal on that. Rated 100% by SANE, very liberal on that. Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, very liberal on that. Rated 100% by the NRA, very liberal on that. Rated 21% by the NTU, which means that she's a tax and spender.
So where were those "moderate" positions again? It seems to me that she's solidly liberal on all of these issues except for maybe a few civil liberties issues. She's only moderately liberal on those issues. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Saying that Hillary's a moderate is kind of like saying that Rush Limbaugh is a moderate. Nobody really buys it.
actions speak louder than words…
Clinton sits on five Senate Committees with nine subcommittee assignments: the Senate Committee on Armed Services with assignments on Airland, on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and on Readiness and Management Support; the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with assignments on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety, on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water and on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment; the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with assignments on Aging and on Children and Families; and the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Librul?
Homeland security is one of her top issues following the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, especially regarding obtaining funding for recovery from the attacks and for improving security capabilities in the New York City area.
Librul?
Clinton worked with Senator Schumer to secure $21.4 billion in funding to assist clean up and recovery, to provide health tracking for first responders and volunteers at Ground Zero, and to create grants for redevelopment. In 2005, Clinton issued two studies that examined the disbursement of federal homeland security funds.
Librul?
Clinton takes a strong position in favor of U.S. military action in Afghanistan with the additional benefit that it greatly improved the lives of women in that country, who had suffered terribly under the rule of the Taliban.
Librul?
In July 2005 she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers.
Librul?
In 2005, Clinton stated that immediate withdrawal would be "a big mistake", leading to Iraq becoming "a failed state", but that the Bush administration's open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq was also misguided, as it gives Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." This centrist stance caused frustration among anti-war activists. On June 13, 2006, Clinton was heckled as she restated her long-standing position against setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S forces from Iraq.
Heckled by Libruls?
Clinton also became a national advocate for retaining and improving health and other benefits for veterans. By the end of 2005, her standing among the military community was much higher than it had been during her days as First Lady.
Pro vets. Librul?
Clinton was a vocal opponent of the Bush Administration's tax cuts.
There’s one.
Clinton has pressed for education, labor, and technology infrastructure programs to assist economic development in upstate New York and similar regions.
Pro business, librul?
In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition proposal regarding incentives and rewards for completely domestic American manufacturing companies. Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities; co-sponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act; included language in the Energy Bill to provide tax exempt bonding authority for environmentally conscious construction projects; and introduced an amendment calling for funding of new job creation to repair, renovate and modernize public schools.
Librul?
In May 2005 Clinton joined forces with Newt Gingrich on a proposal for incremental universal health care. In June, 2005 Clinton united with Senator Frist to push for the modernization of medical records, claiming that thousands of deaths caused by medical mistakes can be prevented by greater reliance on computer technology.
Pro health, Librul?
In July 2005 Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
Librul?
In 2005, during the intense debate over the filibustering of some of Bush's federal judicial nominations, Clinton was not part of the "Gang of 14" that resolved the dispute short of the "nuclear option", but did vote to endorse that resolution and end debate on the nominations, thereby allowing the nominations to come to a vote.
Librul?
Clinton sought to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.
Oversight is Librul?
In 2005, Clinton, together with Lieberman and Bayh introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act. The act is intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games.
Librul?
In 2004 and 2006, Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage.
Oops! There’s one!
In 2006, Clinton voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment, after her attempt to find middle ground by introducing legislation instead against flag burning was voted down.
Gosh, she's real librul, ain't she?
The 2006 Almanac of American Politics rated her, with most liberal = 100, most conservative = 0, according to a three-dimensional spectrum: Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68. Not exactly Paul Wellstone.
I meant that she got a 100% rating from the ARA, not the NRA. Sorry for the confusion.
A liberal is anyone to the left of Attilla the Hun. My problem with Hillary has always been she is too conservative for me. Since you say Matthews HAS to be a liberal since he worked for Dems in the Jurasic Era then the fact Hillary was a Goldwater Girl proves she is actually a conservative.
"My problem with Hillary has always been she is too conservative for me"
That really says a lot about you. That would be like me saying that Newt Gingrich is too liberal for me. That's pretty amazing. Hillary's liberal on practically every single issue. There aren't hardly any issues that she's moderate on, let alone conservative. Are there any Democratic Senators who are actually farther to the left than Hillary Clinton?
She was moderate on the war, she was pushing welfare reform, she is pretty solid on womens issues, race issues and civil liberties. Only the far right considers her a liberal. I am a liberal and talk to lots of liberals and NONE of them consider her to be liberal. Like I said to you anyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is a liberal.
"Only the far right considers her a liberal"
Hmmm, that's funny, because I remember seeing polls that showed at least a plurality if not a majority of the American people consider her to be a liberal. So I guess 45+% of the American people are "far right." Also, if Hillary isn't a liberal, then who is? I can't think of any Democrats in Congress who are farther to the left than she is. Saying that Hillary is a moderate is like saying that Newt Gingrich is a moderate. No one's buying it.
That you cant think of anyone in congress more liberal than Hillary shows how completely delusional you are, Fiengold, Kucinich, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, and FAR to the left of Hillary. Teddy, Barney Frank, Jan Shankowski, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, in fact there are 63 members of the progressive caucus and Hillay isnt one of them.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Just how uninformed do you have to be to say no one in congress is more liberal than Hillary?
"She was moderate on the war"
Big deal. Pat Buchanan was against the Iraq War from the very beginning, so does that make him a moderate or a liberal? Think about it. Also, supporting Welfare Reform isn't a conservative position. You should want to help people get off Welfare, which is basically what Welfare Reform did. Her position on that issue was moderate at best. So she takes a moderate view on two issues and 50 others she's liberal on, and that makes her a moderate? Come on now. Like I said, Pat Buchanan takes a liberal position on war and free trade, but he's not a moderate or a liberal. You have to look at all the issues.
I am a liberal, her and I dont agree on many things. The Nation is a liberal magazine they dont consider her a liberal. conservatives dont get to define anyone they want as liberals. As I pointed out there are 63 members of the Progressive caucus, Hillary isnt one of them. I am not saying she is a conservative just not very liberal. Basically a moderate dem. Too conservative for me. When she starts sounding like Kucinich, Feingold, Sanders, Brown, Frank and the like get back to me.
"When she starts sounding like Kucinich, Feingold, Sanders, Brown, Frank and the like get back to me"
It doesn't matter what she sounds like or who she caucuses with. Her record speaks for itself. She has a lifetime rating of 9% from the American Conservative Union. She received a 95% rating from the ADA in 2005, which is a liberal organization that ranks Senators. Hillary is one of their favorite Senators. She's liberal on about 95% of the issues and moderate on about 5%. She's solidly liberal or maybe even far left on most issues.
The Nation doesnt love her I am willing to admit she is liberal on social issues but the less partisan national review rated her 30 with 1 being most liberal and 10 being most conservative. So that puts her in the basic middle of the left. Your claim was that you couldnt think of a more liberal congressperson, that is simply ludicrous. I am not claiming she is a conservative but rather that she is moderate as dems go. That is too conservative for me. Showing me what conservatives think or this or that liberal organization doesnt cut the mustard. different liberal groups have different agendas. I agree that any SOCIAL liberal groups would love her. Economic, or foriegn policy groups, not so much. Overall the Nation magazine is a good barometer for what liberals think about dems and trust me, while they dont hate her they arent loving her either. They LOVE Feingold, Kucinich, Frank. Hillary doesnt make the cut. She is NOT liberal on 95% of issues that is ludicrous. She is economically middle of the road, foriegn policy more conservative, labor isnt wild about her free trade loving policies, there are reasons I am not a big Hillary supporter.
...I think folks -- namely so-called liberals...whatever that's supposed to mean any more -- give the so-called press too much credit when it comes to this sort of 'mind-meld' of opinion re potential candidates.
Although I do not care for Mathews and disagree that he shovels the crap upon both sides equally (response to another of your posts)... I do not believe that folks in the Midwest (or anywhere) are sitting around waiting for Mathews or any other pundit to tell them what to think. It's deeper than that. The fact that Clinton is a woman is front-and-center in my mind. Among other issues...
For those of you who seem to think that Chris Matthews is overwhelmingly against liberals, check out this posting:
[link to newsbusters.org]
This is so over the top, it is funny.
I do admit, that he does not include GWB, as some do.
" It's a jooooooke!"
It's so over the top, nobody could take it seriously, and in fact BilldO might be flattered.The funniest part is Newsbusters reaction to the other list including Linda Tripp, and referring to her as a whistle blower.
I'd call her a whistle blower only in the sense that I think she was a little jealous that she didn't get invited to blow anything else.
I'm sure to the newsbusters crowd, she was Paul Revere.
Ahhh--But where does the joke end?
Again, MMFA writes scare headlines, countered by a more complete quote.
IMHO, Matthews is a joke. He claims to be tough, playing hardball, but he just seems like a kid with a water cannon.
He admits that his taunts about Hillary were an attempt to get his guests angry. Hmmm, seems like we should not take what he say seriously at MMFA, doesn't it??
That misinformation cant be disseminated through ridicule? Thats a preposterous proposition. Historically satirical ridicule has been a powerful political tool. Ever hear of An Immodest proposal?
However one of my favorite pieces of literature is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", which at least some British officials used in serious consideration of the cannabilization of Irish children. As far as I remember, it includes only correct statements of facts and proper logic, no misinformation (other than its complete insincerity). I assume "An Immodest Proposal" is a spoof or parody of some sort?
What I am saying, in other words, is that Matthews admits he says things just to upset his guests. He admits that he says things he does not really mean. There are genuine sources of conservative bias and misinformation out there. Why does MMFA waste time and effort refuting Matthews (and worshipping Olbermann and stalking O'Reilly)? MMFA should stick to basics, in my humble opinion.
Wow, my typing is getting bad. If I remember right the story involved the selling of poor Irish children to be eaten by the rich in order to earn income and stop the children from being a burden on their families. Now I dont know what FACTS you are referring to but if you thought it was fact based and not ridicule you clearly missed the point.
As an example of being fact based, I mean that his financial calculations are correct.
As ridicule, having the British lawmakers even put its consideration on their agenda shows just how inhumane they were.
As I said before, it is one of my favorite pieces of writing. I do get it.
See my point that ridicule can be a powerful political tool and therefore misinformation as a joke is still to be taken seriously
I watch very little television news. He has some integrity, he will skewer either side, that doesnt make him a liberal, his views are pretty clearly middle right. He is a conserative democrat which isnt really relevant, Even liberals are capable of spreading conservative misinformation in this instance what is being shown is he SAID he would be more open minded then went back to the same, his take on a dem he dislikes making an assetion he cannot possibly back up or even CLAIM to know. That isnt open minded its opining his bias.
Google 'Matthews + remarks against democrats' and 'Matthews + praise for Bush' and see what ya' get...I have listened to Mattews for a while and he is a Bush cheerleader...past jobs notwithstanding, he is what his words and actions say...just like Dick Morris, the clinton advisor who talks as if he hates them both..
I agree with your post 100%. I watch Matthews and he sticks it to Republicans as well as Democrats. BUT of course MMFA only HIGHLIGHTS the stuff he says about Dems, perfectly understandable--this is a Liberal/Progressive/Democratic site--BUT not totally honest.
Matthews's comments regarding Hillary are NOT anything more than an opinion. NO slur here.
Oh and BTW, Matthews "love fest" with Bush is long over. He's been quite critical [for good reason] of the guy.
MMFA isnt saying Matthews is conservative or liberal, what they are saying is he SAID he would be more open minded then stuck it to Hillary again with nothing more than an opinion based on his bias, I mean that would be open minded HOW?
I consider myself rather "open-minded" [I hope you'd agree] and I don't see ANY bias or LACK of being "open-minded" on Matthews part regarding his statement that Hillary can be seen as being weaker in the midwest than on either coast. That's a fair assessment and I happen to AGREE with it.
And saying Hillary would have a harder time in the midwest would be an assertion I wouldnt consider that biased, is that what he said? No I dont think it is, I think he said she COULDNT WIN something he has no possible way of knowing even the first statement is an oversimplification the midwest is far from as monolithic as to make that an actual well reasoned statement. Saying she CANT WIN in the midwest is absolutly a biased statement.
WHERE does Matthews say "Hillary can't win the Midwest"?
You MAY be confusing MMFA's HEADLINE which reads:
Matthews suggested Sen. Clinton can't win in Midwest
In reality Matthews NEVER actually said THAT.
He said:
"But as you move into the center of the country -- Ohio, Michigan, those kinds of states, where people own guns and boats and have a certain attitude towards modern women -- I don't think she'll do so well"
I don't think she'll do so well
That's NOT quite "She Can't Win the Midwest"...is it?
I was wrong he didnt say that. He did say that she would have trouble winning the more democratic midwest states which is a stretch but not as bad as what I said. I was flat out wrong on that. I somehow mistook that as she wouldnt win those states. Its still a bit biased. I dont think Hillary would have much of a problem in Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconson all midwest states, Michigan is a stretch but since he did qualify his statement to the specific states he mentioned it wasnt nearly as biased as my first reading suggested. I appreciate the heads up, I needed the correction.
We all [myself included of course] misread or misinterpret things from time to time.
I know Hillary isn't Matthews favorite person, BUT I do think he was being fair in his assessment of her chances here.
You see him as a bit biased, I think he's making a really good effort not to be.
So let's agree to disagree on THIS one. :-)
Elected Sherrod Brown who is MUCH more liberal than Clinton Senator just two months ago? Well no that doesnt make any sense at all does it? YOUR take doesnt define reality. Matthews SAID he was going to be more open minded then dumped on a dem he personally doeesnt like niether you nor Tweety can back this nonsense up, it may or may NOT be so.
So all you mid-westerners...you all got dissed as misogynists and drunk bird hunters by Chris- how do you respond
Not to appear like such a shill...
Back to Tweety and his ridiculous comments . . . don't know about you all, but I'm REALLY beginning to to get PO'd every time I hear some talking head "suggest" that HRC "can't win" in some region, or is "unelectable" . . .
Why don't these clowns ask one of the 55 percent of NY state residents who voted for her over Rick Lazio in 2000, one of the 81 percent who chose her over Jon Tassini in the '06 primary, or one of the 69 percent who chose her over John Spencer in the '06 general election, if they think she's "unelectable" . . .
The point being that she is or isn't electable in NY state, obviously she very much is - it's the more conservative other parts of the US that are in question. And there is nothing biased about that speculation.
HMM last I looked both Ohio and Minnesota were considered midwest. Since Ohio elected very liberal Sherrod Brown and Minnesota WAS the land of Paul Wellstone and just elected Wellstone protege Amy Klobuchur, methinks you are WISHING it were so.
We're talking about Presidential elections here, not Congressional ones. People tend to vote more conservative and Republican on Presidential elections than they do for Congressional elections or local elections. I don't know why they do, but that's just the way it usually works.
And your evidence of this is WHAT? Oh its those amazing mind reading powers again. I dont believe in them cough up some evidence of this or show yourself out in disgrace.
Just open your eyes and observe what's going on around you. In 2004, Bush dominated every part of the U.S. except the northeast and left coast. In 2006, the Democrats made large gains in every region except for the South. Bush won Ohio by about three percentage points in 2004. In 2006, Dewine lost by about twelve points, and the Republican candidate for governor lost by 25+ points. So yes, people tend to vote more conservative on presidential elections. They vote more liberal on Congressional and local elections. Just consider the fact that the Democrats had a majority in Congress for about 40 years from around 1954-1994, but during that time we still had more Republican Presidents than Democratic Presidents. People just tend to vote more conservative on Presidential elections. I don't know why this is, and I'm not even saying that it's a good thing. I'm simply stating a fact.
First of all you are flat out wrong about many things. You say Bush DOMINATED all areas except the Northeast and West. WRONG. Did he win Minnesota? NO, Wisconson? NO, Illinois? NO, so what part of the country is that? Thats right the MIDWEST. He won New Mexico by a few hundred votes he didnt dominate ANYWEHRE except the South he squeaked by in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and lost several midwestern states. The fact is Americans LIKE to split government, they BELIEVE in balance of power so your historical insight can easily be shown by that. IF people vote more conservatively for President why did Clinton win states which also elected Republicans? By your logic if they were going to vote for a democrat he would have to be more conservative than their votes for congress and Dems would only win the Presidency when DEMS SWEPT CONGRESS ENTIRELY. California virtually always votes Dem for president unless the GOP guy is FROM California. Yet they for many decades had republican AND Democratic Senators. Remember Hayakawa? Your assertion is unsupportable. People vote for candidates, according to many diverse criteria If people vote more conservatively for president how did an outright liberal like Kennedy win? The same way Clinton did he had charisma and people wanted him. The fact the swing was so large in ANY state certainly has a lot to do with the disasterous policies and massive corruption the GOP has inflicted on the country and nothing general can be deduced from it. Your list is evidence of NOTHING. I suggest YOU open YOUR eyes for ONCE.
Kennedy wasn't even close to being a liberal. He supported across the board tax cuts which are the same kind of tax cuts that Bush supports, and you guys rip Bush for that. He ended up appointing Byran White to the Supreme Court. White was a conservative who voted against the Roe v. Wade decision. Kennedy was also strong on foreign policy issues. Kennedy was a moderate Democrat at best. The Democratic Party has moved WAY left since then. I doubt if Kennedy would even be a member of the Democratic Party if he was still alive today. He would be appalled by what has become of his once proud party.
Also, you're in a state of denial if you can't realize that people vote more conservative on Presidential elections than on Congressional and local elections. Just look at all of the states that Bush won that have Democratic Senators, compared to the states that Kerry won that have Republican Senators. There are Democratic Senators in the red states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Loiusianna, Colorado, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, West Virgina, etc. I'm probably missing a few. The only blue states that have Republican Senators are Oregon, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, and that's about it. I might be missing one or two. Just accept the fact that people vote more conservative on Presidential elections. That's just the way it is. I didn't make it that way, but it's just the way it is.
your capacity for self delusion are astonishing. Kennedy wasnt a liberal?????? Apparantly because you liked him? Please visit our planet some day. Liberals ARE strong on National defense. Roosevelt won WW2 Kennedy would obviously be a democrat today you are only doing the propaganda parrot duty running with the current stupidity of rightwing screechmonkeys saying different. Kennedy CALLED himself a liberal defining it. He is a liberal icon you guys just keep trying to coopt liberals that everyone respects like Kennedy and Martin Luther King only the congenitally feebleminded take that seriously. Ohio voted for Bush yet just voted in one of the Houses most liberal senators Sherrod Brown for the Senate. Just accept the fact that as usual you make things up and PRETEND they are reality, when in fact you have no hope of showing this proposition is true. People vote for CANDIDATES. How do we EVER have a President more liberal than their congress if your proposition were true? Cater AND Clinton both had GOP run houses of Congress. You just make statements and then demand that we take them seriously. For the most part they arent worth taking seriously. This one isnt. Sometimes they vote in the way you claim other times they dont. when you give up on your amazing mind reading powers you MAY eventually have some dim understanding of reality, The reality is the American voting public is more complicated that these simplistic adages can possibly encapsulate.
"Liberals ARE strong on National defense."
Wrong. Democrats and liberals used to be strong on national defense, but no longer. They're too concerned about the "rights" of terrorists to be strong on national security. Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Truman were different kind of Democrats. They were true patriots who saw things in black in white. They were strong on national defense and truly loved their country. They never envisioned that the Democratic Party would become so weak on national defense.
On National Defense. The GOP warmongers have become STUPID on National defense. Since you have the basic intellectual capacity of a goldfish you naturally are willing to accept any weak excuse to get as many Americans killed as possible in any war that kills enough other people to engage your bloodlust. War glorious war that you can vicariously claim glory for. Americans dying means nothing to you, if it means something to someone else in your sick and deluded world that makes them weak on National defense. Here is a clue you desperately need. NOTHING in Iraq has to do with our National defense. Getting as many Americans killed as possible in order to satisfy your bloodlust isnt STRONG its STUPID. It is YOU who is wrong as you virtually ALWAYS are.
I wasn't even talking about the Iraq War. I was talking about issues like The Patriot Act, the terrorist interrogation program, military tribunals, the NSA program, etc. These are all thing that most Democrats want to end or at least weaken. I wasn't talking about foreign policy. I was talking about domestic national security.
Who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither. Ben Franklin. That again isnt being weak on National security. Name the great intelligence we have gotten by torturing people. Destroying our countries values because cowards who hide under their bed want to feel better about symbolic measures is NOT in the service of National security. Its in the service of destroying our freedom and shredding the Constitution. Just because Bush believes the Constitution is so much toilet paper and your Bush idolotry makes you agree with him doesnt make those of us that disagree weak on national security. It makes you guys WEAK on civil liberties, freedom and not very bright. I know about the FALSE information we got from a Sheik we tortured about Iraq and chemical weapons that Powell presented to the UN. Good job. YOU only wish your delusional take on what national security is was the reality. Its just fascist nonsense. We dont need to torture people nor eschew oversight and warrants in order to be secure. That is Bush propaganda. If Bush thinks he is too incompetent to do his job within the confines of the law he should resign and allow someone competent to do the job. We dont jetison our values in order to feel safe so YOU dont have to hide under your bed crying. I agree with Ben, you deserve neither security nor liberty