Matthews on Clinton: "How many times is she going to be confused by men?"
On the February 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews, during a discussion with National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon about whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) will say her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq was a mistake, asked: "How come she still pretends that she didn't know [President Bush] was going to war? It's like she didn't know anything about Bill [Clinton] and his behavior. How many times is she going to be confused by men?"
During a discussion of the same issue on the February 14 edition of Hardball, Matthews said to Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and Republican attorney Benjamin L. Ginsberg that if Clinton says her vote was a mistake, "[s]he will be pilloried, not just as a candidate, but as a female candidate, for changing her mind." Matthews added, "The Republicans will kill her, saying, a woman's right is to change her mind, but presidential candidates can't."
Matthews' recent comments are part of a pattern of his pointing to Clinton's gender as a basis for criticism. On July 11, 2005, he claimed that criticizing the Bush administration's homeland security spending priorities a day after a terrorist attack in London made Clinton look "more witchy." And he suggested on March 15, 2006, 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." Additionally, during live coverage of the November 7, 2006, midterm elections, Matthews told Republican pollster Frank Luntz that Clinton gave a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it -- fingernails on a blackboard."
Matthews has also made denigrating comments about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) targeting her gender. On the November 13, 2006, edition of Hardball, he asked political commentator Mike Barnicle if Pelosi, then the presumptive speaker-elect, was "going to castrate [Rep.] Steny Hoyer [D-MD]" if Hoyer were elected House majority leader in the 110th Congress.
From the February 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: We're back with Kate O'Beirne of the National Review and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon.
Steve, let's talk about Hillary Clinton for a moment. Is she going to ever answer the question: Did you make a mistake when you voted for the war resolution? Is she going to stick to that until Election Day?
McMAHON: Well, I don't think she's ever going to say yes or no. I mean, I think she believes what she's said.
MATTHEWS: What?
McMAHON: That --
O'BEIRNE: It's complicated.
McMAHON: If she knew today -- if she knew then what she knows today --
MATTHEWS: OK. We know that there are if, ands, or buts, woulda-coulda-shoulda. You know, we can do all of that --
McMAHON: Listen.
MATTHEWS: -- but did she make the wrong vote?
McMAHON: Do I think she did? Yes. And do I think she should say so? Yes. Will she say so? I have no idea. But she seems determined not to.
MATTHEWS: She seems to imply that she didn't know this guy would take us to war. She said, he could -- I gave him the right to do it, but I thought he'd go through sanctions and inspections and all of this.
Everybody in America knew we were going to war with Bush. He made it pretty clear from day one we were going to war. How come she still pretends that she didn't know he was going to war?
It's like she didn't know anything about Bill and his behavior? How many times is she going to be confused by men?
From the February 14 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
SHRUM: I think Hillary Clinton's problem -- and I don't really understand this -- is that she can't simply bring herself to say that the vote for the war was a mistake. I think if she did that, she would be past a lot of this difficulty.
I don't believe, as I have said on this show before, that anybody can be nominated for president in the Democratic Party in 2008 unless they're in favor of setting a definite date for withdrawal from Iraq.
MATTHEWS: OK. You know the answer, Bob. You know the answer to your own question.
The current phrase used by the partisans on the right is: She will be guilty of Kerry-oke -- I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it. I voted for the war before I voted against it.
She will be pilloried, not just as a candidate, but as a female candidate, for changing her mind. The Republicans will kill her, saying, a woman's right is to change her mind, but presidential candidates can't. Am I not right about that, Ben? Won't your side kill her, if she does?
GINSBERG: I think the Democrats will kill her before we ever get a chance to really engage.
MATTHEWS: No, but if she switches to making -- I wish I hadn't -- a mea culpa position, what will you guys do to her?
GINSBERG: We'll point out the vast inconsistencies. Kerry-oke is a nice phrase. I'd never heard that before, but it's pretty accurate.
MATTHEWS: Boy, I'd hate to be here watching it.
GINSBERG: But she'll -- but I think her fellow Democrats will come after, too, as -- as a recent convert.
Now if this is not biased , that I have no idea what is.
As soon as Matthews said this I turned to my wife and said: "Well this will be a thread on MMFA tomorrow."
Not that I think it deserves to be.
Matthews made a good point. A bit sarcastic, but still right on.
Chris, you little tart! As many men as you juggle simultaneously, maytbe you could teach her a thing or two about chins and jibs.
No offense, Jeter... But, it's a sexist comment. Matthews bases this assertion on nothing other than the fact that H Clinton is a woman... Oh yeah, and the fact that she was 'fooled' by Bill. Matthews is none too bright I think.
No offence taken Greek :-)
I don't see it as sexist.
I suppose Matthews could have worded it differently...
How about: How many times is she going to be confused by Presidents? ;-)
Of course Matthews was being sarcastic, or snarky--take your pick. Bush fooled her, Bill fooled her, it's fair game to give her a knock.
Well I'm heading home...
Hey Jeter,
Did you see Chris interviewing the Cohen's last night (Love in Black and White) and he kind of told Mrs. Cohen to shut up. Actually he told her to hurry up because he didn't have all night. It was so rude. The Cohens just kind of looked at each other and laughed. Wow, that Chris Matthews is a character.
Hey Lynn,
I saw the interview and it wasn't Matthews at his best. BTW before I go further, Janet Langhart [Mrs Cohen] got her start in Boston on the local news [maybe you already knew that?] back in the 70's.
I enjoy Hardball & I like Matthews. The guy isn't perfect--but hey none of us are. I think he does a great job 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time he's making inane comments, gushing over certain politicians, and interrupting his guests.
But Matthews also conducts tough fair interviews, has been diligent in covering the Libby Trial and holding Bush/Cheney's feet to the fire when it comes to their lies concerning Iraq.
On the whole I 'd give him a thumbs up.
I suspect a great many posters here have never watched Hardball or have only seen it here & there. They only know the bad 25% that MMFA reports. I honestly think if everyone would make a point of watching this guy for 5 straight nights they might have LESS of a negative opinion about the guy. In fact they might even like him.
I know you find his talking over guests annoying...I agree. BUT it's that other Matthews I see 75% of the time that keeps me tuning in.
Jeter2: Either you got unconscionably lucky in terms of what was going on on Hardball, or the universe is still out to get me, in terms of what *I* got! Hardball is one of those I dare not watch in excess of two-minute clips from the internet, for I wind up wrought up and wanting to smash someone. Real problem, since there is no other person in the room, so I stay AWAY!
MMFA does tend to highlight the bad, rather than the good, perhaps reinforceing my own (pre?)conception that Chrissie is a tool of the Repugnants, moderating even the inescapable criticisms of them to sound almost as bad as Hillary somehow being associated with Bill. Still, it is valid to observe that his contrasting treatment of Dem candidates and Repugnant candidates inheres always to the advantage of the Repugnants.
Honestly, I'm not a big Hillary fan. And, she deserves her fair share of the nonsense by these pundits. But, Chris's comments wouldn't fly with any other candidate. What if he said about Obama, "Looks like he has a history of being confused by the white man"... Extreme example... and he would be raked over the coals for such a comment. But, I think either is a senseless dig at an attribute (sex, skin tone) which, in reality, have no bearing on anything. Has Hillary ever shown herself to be a dizzy woman confused and disoriented by the men around her? I think just the opposite. She's tough as nails.
Matthews is again reducing the discussion to 'jibs' and 'chins' and 'womanly' attributes. The guy's hack IMO.
Hey Greek,
What worries me here is that I'm afraid any criticism of Hillary will be interpreted by some as sexist. That she's being picked on unfairly and it's solely because she's a woman.
Not saying it won't be true...sometimes.
In this case it could be borderline. She's a woman. Bush & Bill are men. Yes Matthews could have simply said 'she got fooled by Bush & Bill, what does this say about her ability to make good judgments' and he didn't need to do the woman/man thing at all.
But I still don't think that in this case it was a big deal. Sorry.
How about: How many times is she going to be confused by Presidents? ;-)
How about "How many Presidents are going to lie to her?"
I'm still upset with her vote (as well as all others -- not just Democrats) to take this country to war in Iraq. Regardless, Matthews was indeed sexist with this comment. And it lets the real perpetrator, Bush, off the hook for lying.
So now it's NOT Bush's fault for lying us into war, but it's Congress' fault for believing him?
So now it's NOT Bush's fault for lying us into war, but it's Congress' fault for believing him? ...by bittermarv
I don't think anyone, including Matthews is inferring that
Bush lied, I think only a few nutjobs out there believe otherwise...BUT I'm not letting Hillary or any other member of Congress off the hook.
I believe some voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq because they were scared that to do otherwise would make them appear unpatriotic. And maybe less electable.
But some stood on their principles and voted NO.
Those that voted yes are NOT as culpable as Bush/Cheney, but they must bear some of the burden/blame.
Just so Jeter, I couldnt agree more. Those who voted for the war dont get a free ride from me either.
Hey J2, you and Tommy and the other cons keep these boards honest for the next week and a half I will be incognito down in the deep south for a little R&R, might run into Rusty ShacKleford you never know. Anyway, I'll catch you later. Harbortown awaits. Hope nothing major happens between now and then like Matthews critcizing "the Maverick" or something ;-0.
you're implying there is no honesty here and others have to keep it?
Not "no honesty", but the honesty level increases with both sides debating. When nobody challenges the argument, certain things conveniently get left out that might cast some doubt on the conclusion, as we have seen with our government under GWB.
Brucie--hey you're supposed to be on vacation. STAY AWAY FROM COMPUTERS!
We'll keep things honest while you're relaxin :-)
Aw come on mefirst, Bruce is only joshing. He's been around long enough that you should know by now he's one of the most fair & reasonable posters here. And besides there's only a handful of the oppostion on this forum...we have to take up the cause and keep the debates honest when one of our comrades is away on vacation ;-)
Don't worry Bruce--We'll hold the fort down securely and keep this place from turning into a Liberal love-in ;-)
Have a great vacation!
it's just not that black and white, there is some gray area, everybody was dupped into thinking that invading Iraq was the only way to keep america safe. It turns out that really wasn't the case.
She should say that it wasn't a mistake voting for the war with the information that was given. the real mistake was trusting George Bush.
I agree that criticizing Hillary on her accountability of the war vote is fair, though I think Matthews' snark on this was unnecessary.
At the same time, it's a little hollow coming from the news media, which spent the better part of a year "pretend[ing they] didn't know he was going to war."
The question is this:
Would Matthews have been this aggressive and snarky in holding McCain or Giuliani to account on their war views and statements?
Or would he have said, "Wow, John McCain here is a real straight shooter, and I love the red, white and blue shirt you have on tonight."
Exactly right.
"The Republicans will kill her, saying, a woman's right is to change her mind, but presidential candidates can't."
The clear implication is that John McCain must be a woman, since he's changed his mind so many times that the zipper is broken. Personally, I find the thought of McCain as a woman deeply disturbing, but Chris probably has wet dreams about it.
Sounds like a breaking scandal to me. :)
A better question is... Who picked out Chis's shirt?
But, seriously... the comment about being 'fooled by men' is uncalled for and, frankly, sexist. Uh, she wasn't the only one who voted for the resolution. Were they all (men and women) fooled by this one man (Bush)? Of course!
For Mathews to reduce Clinton to a woman who just doesn't understand those bad men... is childish and cuts into her legitimacy as a candidate. Now, if he were to question real points about her legitimacy...so bit it. But, that's not Chris's style.
You nailed it Greek...
Sometimes you just have to marvel at how this hideous boob (matthews) dishonors our nation and our media.
I have a rhetorical question: If in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, NYC police had received an emergency call that claimed that a number of Iraqis were threatening NYC with yet another attack, this time by way of something called a "WMD"...
...and the NYC police took the call seriously, and rushed to a confrontation with the Iraqis over the threat of WMDs...
...and then found out it was a lie... that there was no such threat and no WMDs...
My question is: Would they, the NYC police, be guilty of anything, other than believing a reported threat of Iraqis with WMDs?
Guilty of anything, other than being rather keyed up and alert on the matter, in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001?
Enough already with the Senator from NY, and her vote on the Iraq Resolution, and finding out she'd (we'd) been lied to, and then regretting that vote and working toward repairing the damage, to the Nation's Military, to the United States's credibilty, and to the Trust that formally existed between the U.S. Senate and the Bush administration...
The American People are dealing with this well enough... with having been lied to, for so much greed, and resulting in so much death and expense...
The American People now overwhelmingly disapprove of the Iraq invasion, and the Bush administration whose lies and greed compelled that invasion (now that they know the truth)...
Give the U.S. Senator from NY, and all the other Senators who were likewise believing of the lies told by the Bush administration, and likewise taken advantage of in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001...
...give them all a break... give us all a break.
How can anyone still persist in this matter, and still prefer lies over truth...
...greed over service...
...and death over life.
As usual, Dem, you cut succinctly to the quick (is that like a jib?). Anyway, I saw the 'U.S. vs. John Lennon' the other night (I will post the review on my blog today here) and the parallels between Nixon and Bush were eerie. Even Gore Vidal made a point in the proceedings by saying "Lennon represents life, and Nixon and George W. Bush represent death."
interesting analogy except Hillary's husband had access to all the intel and said Saddam had WMDs.
Did he tell outright lies like Bush? Was that BEFORE the inspectors went back into Iraq and new intelligence was coming out? Yes it was. Did he make up IAEA reports saying things that didnt exist? Did he make up lies about the aluminum tubes? No, he didnt. Yes he was wrong, Bush is a liar.
We have a couple more of these self-described "Democratic strategists" transcribed here... I guess that's how they describe themselves... I guess that's how MSNBC makes out the checks they give these guys, for being on TV and serving no purpose other than to make political discourse on TV as stupid and worthless as it is.
One says: "Well, I don't think she's ever going to say yes or no. ...Do I think she did ["make the wrong vote" on Iraq]? Yes. And do I think she should say so? Yes. Will she say so? I have no idea."
That's what these "Democratic strategists" are ultimately paid to say: "I have no idea"
The other one says: "I think [the NY Senator's] problem -- and I don't really understand this -- is that she can't simply bring herself to say that the vote for the war was a mistake."
That's what that "Democratic strategist" was paid to say right there: "I don't really understand this"
I want Bartlett's Quotations to get it right, for future generations, what it is that the "Democratic strategists" on TV these days are quoted as saying... I want it recorded what their "strategies" are, so future generations will be able to judge accordingly.
"I have no idea" and "I don't really understand this"
--Democratic strategists (TV variety) in 2007.
And, let's not forget that she may have an attack of PMS and BLOW UP THE WORLD!
Well, of course, there's that to consider. Chris is on it!
HAHAHAHAHHA....I HAD THE SAME QUESTION THE OTHER DAY ON ONE OF THE OTHER POSTS.
MATTHEWS MUST READ MMFA.
I'd just like to know how many times Matthews will be mistaken as a man?
what has Matthews said that isn't true??????????
as a proud liberal...mediamatters.org as well as many democratica organizations do a tremendous disservice to the moral truth by backing Hillary's political games.
is this like prove a negative?
Chris Matthews is a chauvanist, and is nothing, if not consistant. The only woman that he gives credence to on his show, is Kate O'Bierne, whose husband ran the "oversight", ie money loss operation in Iraq . Chris won't go there to raise any question of the conservative woman who hates as well as any man. Chris can be charming, but he's calculating. Lately his better angel has shown up to criticize Bush and company, but that bad angel shows up with a broadside for no reason against "that woman" Hillary. It seems to make him feel balanced, and "fair". Does he have mommy issues?
Mrs. Senator Clinton's problem if she has one is not that she is a woman. It is that she not too choosy where she gets her money even if is from general lie-facilitator Ruppert Murdoch, she parses Choice, she wants to "win" the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Iraq, four years, a trillion dollars and one million dead Iranians after she is elected we will have to suffer through her non-apology for starting a stupid war in Iran, she thinks free trade, which some of us like to call "free labor" just maybe needs some tweaking. It is her positions stupid. How did this former Walmart board member become Democratic the front-runner? Based on what? Her unparalleled legislative skill? Her stunning new initiatives to improve society? Her awe-inspiring political courage? No. She stayed with her husband after he repeatedly cheated on her. That makes her perhaps a profile in marital commitment but as she knows better than most, marital skill and presidential ability are two very different things. Who does she represent? The Democratic base? A country angrily demanding real change? No. Mrs. Clinton is a smart and extremely well connected person who can raise a lot of money. So what? You trip over such people New York City, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. If we have learned nothing from the last 6 catastrophic years it is that a last name does not make a President. For whatever reason the candidates are determined to have a two year long primary. Great. I just bet if you look there are one, maybe two, heck maybe even three women in all of the US with the stature, skill and record to step up and get the job done.
"a last name does not make a president". no, especially when it is bush and you were nothing but a partying lush untill the age of 40. that is not true of hillary. and as for her sticking with bill, i do not care. i do not want to have a beer with bush and i do not want to observe what the clintons do in their bedroom. if she can run the country, that is what i care about. that is the issue. is ted kennedy where he is because of a last name? sure. but it is pretty much conceded that kennedy and clinton are hard working and intelligent. neither of those apply to bush.
CONSEQUENCES:
What makes the Democrat's "VOTE TO GO TO WAR" so controversial is that there has been no CONSEQUENCE for the Bush Administration's LYING.
See, the Congress has little choice but to trust the Executive brance when it comes to WHAT "intelligence" they are shown, WHEN, and how it has been "analyzed". The President is assumed to be trustworthy, is assumed to be operating in the best interests of this nation, and is in CONTROL of all military and intelligence information. It is the PRESIDENT who has direct phone talks (if he wishes to) with other world leaders. It is the PRESIDENT who authorizes covert operations, and sees all classified info.
So, Congress MUST take the President at his word, when making their decisions.
The problem arises when it is shown the President is NOT trustworthy. THEN, the Congress ... in the best interests of the nation ... must take ACTION to assure that America is not operating the people's business on the basis of fraudulent information. Starting wars is the most serious business imaginable, and has the most monumental consequences. A President who manipulates the information he is privy to in order to arrive at preordained conclusions is a President who should be impeached.
Congress are OUR Representatives. When the President lies to Congress, he is lying to US. WE employ the President, we are his BOSS. When the boss discovers that he is being lied to by one of his key employees, that employee would be AT LEAST immediately terminated.
WAR is too important for the neocons to be playing games, and rigging intelligence, in order to falsely justify what they believe is the best policy. They have not been honest, and now they must be held accountable.
Once accountability is established, there is no longer an issue as to WHY certain Democrats voted to authorize Bush's plans. Once it has been established that Bush broke his oath and his trust with the American People, and is made to pay the price for his treachery, then there will be no ambiguity as to why ANYONE would have "supported" Bush: They were lied to and deceived into that vote.
The question is NOT why some Dems voted authorization to this president. The question is WHY this president cooked the intel to get a vote, and is not being held accountable for that total breach of his responsibility.
Hallelujah!
Amen!
"See, the Congress has little choice but to trust the Executive brance when it comes to WHAT "intelligence" they are shown, WHEN, and how it has been "analyzed". The President is assumed to be trustworthy, is assumed to be operating in the best interests of this nation, and is in CONTROL of all military and intelligence information."
Yeah, right. And the people we elect to Congress are supposed to be intelligent, thinking, reasoning human beings...not robots. I'm not a very "political" person and *I* knew from the get-go that Bush would abuse the authorization in that resolution. I KNEW IT. And I didn't even see the so-called "intelligence" that Congress was given. My beef is, and always has been, if *I* as a fairly un-political animal KNEW he would abuse that power, then why didn't the so-called "intelligent" political animals in Congress know it?
And sorry, but no subesquent apologies after the fact cut any ice with me. It's too late for apologies for not doing their jobs PROPERLY.
I want to point out one more lie that Matthews made in the clip that I think that MMFA should have also highlighted in bold:
"Everybody in America knew we were going to war with Bush. He made it pretty clear from day one we were going to war." - Chris Matthews
WOW. Here is Chris Matthews confessing that HE KNEW in October 2002 that Bush was lying and was dead set on going to war in Iraq for sure.
Here's a few sentences from Bush's speech on 10/07/2002 three days before the big vote:
"I hope this will not require military action, but it may."
"Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Apparently Hillary Clinton believed him. Here is what she said when they voted on it.
Hillary Clinton:
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
right you are. and i think that kerry said the only reason that he would vote for it was to get the u.n. inspectors back into iraq. that was bush's stated purpose, to disarm saddam. the inspectors were there and doing their jobs, finding nothing at the sites we told them to go to. rummy's quote: "we know he has wmd because we know where they are." it was bush that forced the inspectors out by saying that if saddam didn't leave in 48 hours military action would begin.
Sane people can criticize Hillary for all kinds of reasons. Matthews is a walking mental case, that's what's different.
McCain, who has never seemed terribly conservative on abortion, now thinks that Roe should be overturned. Triangulating, cowardly politician, or the subject of a Matthews man-crush as someone who has "earned" the nomination? No, he's the straight-talker. If he "earned" the presidency by his sacrifice in Vietnam, there's a jibbering alcoholic down on the street corner who should be president, too.
Bob Somerby has skewered Matthews on this perfectly. On some subjects, for instance, Iraq, Matthews has been sane. On Hillary, he's nothin' but nuts.