Matthews, obsessed with NY Times article, called Pres. Clinton "Holly Golightly"
SUMMARY: In just the latest example of his fixation on what he has described as former President Bill Clinton's "social life," "personal behavior," "current behavior," and "personal life," Chris Matthews asked whether Clinton is "going to stop trying to play Holly Golightly up in New York," referring to the main character in Truman Capote's novel, Breakfast at Tiffany's. After The New York Times' publication in May 2006 of an article purporting to report on the Clintons' marriage, Matthews has repeatedly referred to the article and to the Clintons' personal life on the air.
On the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen whether former President Bill Clinton is "going to stop trying to play Holly Golightly up in New York," adding: "When he stops that -- if he's doing it -- she'll be better off," referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Holly Golightly was the main character in Truman Capote's 1958 novel, Breakfast at Tiffany's, as well as the 1961 film of the same name. In a February 14, 2006, report (subscription required) on the DVD release of the movie, The New York Times called Golightly a "blithely materialistic semiprostitute." In a June 18, 2006, article, the Times described Holly Golightly as an "Upper East Side call girl."
On February 27, the weblog Think Progress noted Matthews' obsession with "Clinton sex speculation," as well as his reference to "Holly Golightly."
The "Holly Golightly" reference is just the latest example of Matthews' seeming fascination with what he has referred to as Bill Clinton's "social life," "personal behavior," "current behavior," and "personal life." In the past month, Matthews has frequently cited a May 23, 2006, Times article -- noted by Media Matters for America -- which was published, as Matthews has repeatedly pointed out, on the "front page, top of the fold." In the days following the article's publication, Matthews obsessed over the Clintons' marriage on Hardball, asking his guests a combined 16 questions on the subject in the course of a single program, as Media Matters noted.
In its May 23, 2006, article, the Times purported to report on the Clintons' marriage -- which it called "the most dissected relationship in American life." The article, by reporter Patrick Healy, was not explicitly about Bill Clinton's "personal behavior" or his "social life." As Media Matters noted, Healy acknowledged that the amount of time that he concluded the Clintons spent together was "pretty similar" to that of other congressional couples. Healy's only mention of anything relating to the former president's "social life" -- aside from noting a dinner with two former aides -- was a single paragraph rooted in baseless innuendo: "Several prominent New York Democrats, in interviews, volunteered that they became concerned last year over a tabloid photograph showing Mr. Clinton leaving B.L.T. Steak in Midtown Manhattan late one night after dining with a group that included Belinda Stronach, a Canadian politician." The article continued: "The two were among roughly a dozen people at a dinner, but it still was enough to fuel coverage in the gossip pages." Healy also characterized this as "tabloid gossip," even though the Times deemed it worthy of inclusion in the piece.
On the February 26 edition of Hardball, Matthews said that the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton is "not the issue. ... [T]the issue is current behavior raised by The New York Times a couple of months ago."
On the February 23 edition of Hardball, Healy's Times article came up again. This time, Matthews said, "I think the scab's been ripped off so early that Bill's in play now," adding that the "Times put him in play a few months ago."
On the February 22 edition of his MSNBC show, Matthews asked The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut, who worked at the Times when Healy's article was published, if there was "a big reaction from the Clintons when that Patrick Healy piece ran on the top of the front page, raising all kinds of issues about Bill Clinton's social life." Kornblut repeated: "His social life," putting the phrase in air quotes. Matthews, justifying his use of the phrase, explained: "Well, I'm trying to be nice."
Earlier on the same show, Matthews had described Healy's report as "that big front-page piece about Bill Clinton's social life, if you will." Later still, he told Republican strategist Susan Molinari that "[t]here's a buzz" surrounding the Clintons' personal life and asked her whether Sen. Clinton and former New York City Mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani "might agree that their personal lives in both cases are somewhat confusing and we better leave them both out." Matthews later added: "And I don't know whether it's true or not, but there's the buzz, and it's in The New York Times. Let's not get complicated here. Patrick Healy's front-page piece a while back laid the whole thing out. I don't know any more than that."
On the February 21 edition of the show, Matthews reminded Sen. Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, that "Patrick Healy, a couple of months back, [had] put[] a front-page, top-of-the-fold story on about Bill Clinton and his personal life," and asked: "Do you believe you can keep that out of action, out of play -- questions about the former president's personal life?"
On the February 2 edition of Hardball, Matthews repeatedly asked Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, if Bill Clinton was "going to behave himself" throughout Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign. He appeared to attribute this line of questioning to Healy's Times article, which he again characterized as "that story ... in The New York Times ... a couple months back, about Bill Clinton better watch it."
Matthews also mentioned the article on the February 25 edition of his NBC-syndicated television show.
From the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: I love the way you smile. I'm just thinking: Is Bill Clinton going to stop trying to play Holly Golightly up in New York? I'm just wondering. When he stops that -- if he's doing it -- she'll be better off. Anyway, thank you, Hilary.
ROSEN: Holly Golightly!
MATTHEWS: Hilary. Thank you, Rick. I lost my teleprompter.
From the February 26 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: I don't know anything, either. Let me get Chris Cillizza that question. I noticed your newspaper, Anne Kornblut, made a point it was really a retrospective concern that the Democrats running against Clinton -- Hillary Clinton, in this case -- might raise impeachment. That's not the issue. In all fairness, the issue is current behavior raised by The New York Times a couple of months ago and then raised again by David Geffen. Current behavior is the issue.
From the February 25 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: After The New York Times, Michele [Norris], a couple of -- couple of months ago wrote that big, front-page piece saying the Democrats are worried about Bill Clinton's personal behavior right now, not '98. The Clinton response to that -- the campaign response is "That's personal. That's private." That's a fallback position from "There's no trouble there." It's like saying, "Don't talk about that stuff, whatever it is."
From the February 23 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: I think the scab's been ripped off so early that Bill's in play now. The New York Times put him in play a few months ago. Now Geffen's put him in play. It just seems to me that we're talking about stuff I thought wouldn't be talked about 'til next whenever.
From the February 22 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Patrick Healy, a couple of weeks ago -- in fact, about several months ago now -- wrote that big, front-page piece about Bill Clinton's social life, if you will. That touched a nerve, obviously, with the Clinton campaign.
Then, yesterday, as you point out, David Geffen, apparently speaking as a major supporter of [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL], said, "Well, Bill Clinton hasn't changed in six years, and what the Republicans will do is wait for Hillary to get the nomination, then jump that family with everything they have got."
[...]
MATTHEWS: Anne, when you were at the Times, was there a big reaction from the Clintons when that Patrick Healy piece ran on the top of the front page, raising all kinds of issues about Bill Clinton's social life?
KORNBLUT: "His social life."
MATTHEWS: Well, I'm trying to be nice.
[...]
MATTHEWS: He's saying she wins in February and then the assaults come on Mr. Bill and what he's up to and all of that -- whatever that is -- that becomes subject A.
MOLINARI: You know, I almost -- you know, with regard to Senator Clinton and Mayor Giuliani, I don't know what else -- I mean, people in the know --
MATTHEWS: Do you think they might agree that their personal lives in both cases are somewhat confusing and we better leave them both out?
MOLINARI: And I think people --
MATTHEWS: Is that what --
MOLINARI: -- know what's about their personal lives. You know, there is this whisper campaign that there's something that we don't know about the Clintons --
MATTHEWS: No, there's not --
MOLINARI: -- and we don't know about --
MATTHEWS: -- a whisper campaign. No, no, no, no, no.
MOLINARI: -- Mayor Giuliani.
MATTHEWS: There's a buzz.
MOLINARI: A buzz.
MATTHEWS: And I don't know whether it's true or not, but there's the buzz, and it's in The New York Times. Let's not get complicated here. Patrick Healy's front-page piece a while back laid the whole thing out. I don't know any more than that.
From the February 21 edition of Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Sure. That's on the issues. There's no doubt about that. But then Patrick Healy, a couple of months back, puts a front-page, top-of-the-fold story on about Bill Clinton and his personal life.
I'm just asking you: Do you believe you can keep that out of action, out of play -- questions about the former president's personal life? If that's an issue with you -- that you think any candidate that raises that is playing dirty pool -- fine, we'll move on.
From the February 2 edition of Hardball:
MATTHEWS: -- 'cause he's a multitasker. He's going to behave himself, right? No bad publicity. Did you see that story in the big -- in The New York Times, though, a couple months back, about Bill Clinton better watch it -- front page, top of the fold -- he better watch it?
LEWIS: You couldn't miss it. And I was interested to see that that was the most important news that The New York Times could have, was to try to write a story about people's private lives.
But you know what? At the end of the day, you read the story, it said there's no there there. Guess what? That's the story, folks. There's no there there.
MATTHEWS: So, do you think The New York Times is going to stop writing about this?
LEWIS: No. I think Bill Clinton's going to continue doing his work, going around the world, saving lives.
MATTHEWS: So, he's going to behave himself.
LEWIS: He's going to be out on the campaign trail -- and we're -- you'll be --
MATTHEWS: And he's going to behave himself so that Hillary can be the first woman president.
Thanks for putting up an explanation of the "Holly Golightly" thing. I hadn't a clue what that referred to, but I could tell from context that it was a thigh-rubbing slam of some kind...
Perhaps it is by my remove, I do -- BOYCOTT Cable TV -- that raises this in contrast so sharp and focussed:
MATTHEWS is a feakin philanderer. Obsession shows Confession. It is obvious from a distance.
Is he married? Does his wife know he is in many women's woolies?
My gawd, the jerk is a john. Plain and simple and one minute Max.
It's a testament to how much they Fear the Senator's presidential candidacy, by how much they mal-address it...
It's seems as though they think, that campaigning against her being a woman is a good idea...
Is it?
I mean, who are they rallying with that complaint... woman-hating men?
Because that's what it looks like against the former First Lady, it looks like woman-hating...
Yeah, the family values party would simply get divorced over this sort of thing--but no, the Clinton's chose to work it out, and keep their marriage intact. In the right wings eyes, they are disgusting. It shows that their values are lacking. But we already knew that, didn't we.
I think political punditry is a pretty boring business when you won't (either because of your "connections" or your corporation) fight the power. So why shouldn't Tweety be obsessed with a now 12 year old sex scandal and fantasize about the participants. Its better than dead soldiers!
The sense of humorless PC left wing police is out in full force today.........get over it, when we stop skewering our public figures we become Iran.
go to my above links, tommy
I did, I think I saw Elvis eating a pork chop a few minutes ago too.
I saw Chrissy Goloopy eating a fudgy the whale cake.
Well that proves once and for all--Elvis was NOT a Muslim.
But isn't that what Bush and Co. want? To become another religious state, in which the government controls the media and flow of information?
I don't know, nor do I care, what Bush and Co. want. Their languishing poll numbers and near irrelevancy render them close to pointless.
Um.
Tommy, regardless of what the polls say, George Bush is the President of the United States, and barring impeachment can pretty much do whatever he pleases between now and 20 Jan 2009. He hasn't shown himself to be particularly interested in public opinion or the trappings of democracy (cf. signing statements, "I'm the Decider," etc.).
You may be using a different definition of "near irrelevancy" than the one I am familiar with...
"Near irrelevancy" would be for a lame duck President who is very unpopular, running a mess of a war that's even more unpopular, and becoming less and less of a meaningful leader, in a literal sense, with every day. Of course he could change all that, but as of today - that is his legacy.
And yet, even give his personal unpopularity and the unpopularity of "his" war... he has been able to escalate that war. He was able to fire the military leaders that opposed his escalation and put his hand-picked successor through a Congress controlled by the opposition.
I'm sorry,but I see George W. Bush as very relevant. If history is any indication, he will become more set in his ways as his popularity falls. And there is no real check on his power.
Val, Blame that on the spineless opposition that now controls both houses of Congress.
I do. I certainly do.
But if Bush has proven one thing, he still has his signing statements, the power to spy on anyone or throw them in jail without due process. He still has John Ashcroft and a stacked Supreme Court and a vice president that shoot someone in the face and have that person take responsibility for it.
Only a shill, will dismiss Bush as a lame-duck president to divert our attention and to actually have us believe that he is "irrelevant". He's still a threat to our personal freedoms and it's sad that you refuse to believe it.
Ashcroft?
what are two things that don't go together? tommy and an understanding of the constitution. how else to explain his babbling incoherence that we should ignore the man who sits in the white house for the next two years. the air must be pretty rare up there on planet wingtroll.
Forgive me for responding to you, because your trollish nature does not deserve it - but please show me where I said "ignore" the President.
Perhaps reading over something 8 or 9 times might help you avoid posting so sloppily.
With this kind of esoteric head-scratcher reference Matthews might be lining himself up to be the next William F. Buckley (if he's lucky) or Dennis Miller (if he's not).
I've always loved Matthew's forays into the literary world.
Bill Clinton = Holly Golightly
George Bush = Atticus Finch
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602270010
The nice thing about it is you can make a cerebral sounding statement without having to back up your assertions.
hey at least we know he reads books right? or cliff's notes...
Or rents the movies.
And notice that Matthews never really responded to the "there's no there there" comment. What a dork. And a transparently dorky dork at that.
Holly Golightly...neat name. Having never seen Breakfast at Tiffany's it's the first time I've heard it. I often spend a great deal of my time here defending Matthews & Hardball. I like the guy, and enjoy his program.
Matthews is not without his faults. He interrupts guests on occasion, gushes over certain political figures, and seems to have it in for others.
He has also done outstanding interviews, isn't afraid to go after Bush & Cheney, and his program has been on top of the Libby trial
Matthews doesn't like Hillary Clinton. That's an undeniable fact to anyone who has ever seen his show. He is obsessed with anything Clinton. I think for most of us the sex stuff is yesterday's news. But I expect Matthews fascination with Bill & Hill to continue.
Of course if Bill had behaved they'd be nothing for Matthews to obsess about ;-)
My all time favorite comparison by Twetty is his statement that Rick Santorum's concession speech would be "Churchillian".
That's Rick (man on dog sex) Santorum, soon to be seen regularly on Fox News. Is anyone surprised that little Rickey wound wind up on Fox?
Matthews brings up a good point about Hillary's relationship to Bill. Do we want a serial sexual predator, who used the power of the Presidency, to try to thwart justice, back in the White House?
Do we want as President, a woman who was an enabler and defender of such an abuser?
What does that say about their relationship? What does that say about Hillary as Prez?
Gee AA, were you this concerned about having an alcoholic former cokehead with crazy superstitious beliefs and his boyfriend-killing wife in the White House?
Get that Bush Derangement Syndrome looked at, Rusty.AA was only noticing Matthews' "good point". Har!
Leave Pickles out of this Rusty.
Rusty
You're talking about Clinton, and AA said he WAS concerned.
"Matthews brings up a good point"
What is the point?
When did former Pres. Clinton become a "sexual predator"? The women who has "sexual relations" with Pres. Clinton were of legal age and consenting. The two that say they were not consenting were some nurse who appeared on some show claiming that Clinton assaulted her and Paula. We know that Paula was financed by Richard Skagel and many other Republican contributors. So it's only by your definition that Clinton was a "sexual predator" I call a sexual predator, Jeffrey or Ted Bundy.
In trying to "thwart justice" a man like millions of men and women each day tried to keep what was a huge mistake from his wife and the public. He did no different than what any other person would have done.
The enabler believes in her marriage. As Republican like to say, marriage is between a man and a woman so you cannot call her an enabler, unless you are now a part of the Clinton marriage.
When the Republican and conservatives can admit that they took the cheapest shot to get back a someone the despised and lost then we can go on When you stop using words like "sexual predator" to describe and legal and consensual affair we can go forward. But if you can't admit that you were way way way out of line, then for a "sexual predator" Clinton did one hell of a job for the country while getting a little on the side. Maybe Bush should get a little on the side, this country could sure use some changes and sooner rather than later!
"Maybe Bush should get a little on the side"
I think you're right, Pearlene, that might make him a little less violent. Got any volunteers?
Sorry, no. I couldn't even fake it!
But I would like to volunteer Ann Coulter or maybe Rush or Savage
Bill would never have busted that move on Angela Merkel. Clinton may have had dick control issues, but at least he wasn't weird.
Yeah, Clinton did a great job! All the jobs started flying overseas and he kept the bombs dropping on Iraq and Serbia. He also presided over the US using chemical warfare on Colombian civilians and the US reaching the world record in incarcerating it's own citizens. Wonderful job he did. Absolutely fantastic.
What is it with Matthews? This is getting genuinely obsessive. It's a bit creepy.
Is he just not getting enough? What's going on?
"front page, top of the fold."
In Chris Matthews defense, he frequently expresses amazement that the story about dynamics of the Clintons' marriage was "front page, top of the fold".
Bottom line is this... Bill Clinton is a popular and intriguing character with a documented history of philandering, for which most people have forgiven. In fact, it makes him more interesting. Apparently, people can't get enough of him. His wife is running foe Prseident and people are still fascinated by Bill Clinton. I've come to a realization of what's essentially and fundamentally wrong with Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy: Hillary's not Bill Clinton!
Bill IS interesting. Can't decide if he's the illigitimate son of W.C. Fields (check out the nose) or Mr. McGoo (eyes).
Try to figure out if Chimpy McCokespoon is the love child of a baboon and a succubus from Hell or an especially dumb chimpanzee and the polluted womb of of a subhuman harpy
I still say George W. and Pat Robertson bear an uncanny resemblence.
This is easy, Matthews hates Senator Clinton, he will be obsessed with her until he dies.
"Matthews hates Senator Clinton"
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say Matthews hates Hillary Clinton but he doesn't respect her or her candidacy that much. Why, in my opinion? Because Hillary ain't no Bill Clinton!
I think Matthews regards Hillary as a lightweight, as a politician, next to Bill. Matthews admires skillful politicians... but wears moral blinders, though, when judging their political skills.
No , I think he hates her and he loves Adolph Guiliani.
"personal behavior," "current behavior," ?????? Ya just gotta laugh when this man's behavior is so far off the normalcy charts, there's clearly not ONE diagnosis for all his mental illnesses! i.e. fixation and obsession is just the tip of the iceberg. Can you say, MAJOR OCD? Go back and watch the coverage of the 04 republican convention in NYC outside Macy's on that small island. The man is clearly on some sort of stimulant probably for his massive ADD. His inability to remain FOCUSED, SILENT and actually LISTEN to anyone but himself is blindingly obvious. Completely zoned out - look at his eyes - he's just rambles on and on and on and doesn't even hear what anyone else is saying! Not only does he show signs of OCD and ADD but is most likely bi-polar as well judging by his massive highs and then extreme lows when he starts these attacks and paranoia. How he is NOT been fired or under treatment for these mental illnesses is criminal. You take what he says with a grain of salt merely because he is obviously going through a bout of something when he goes on these insane tangents. We've always wondered if alcohol plays a factor as well. Prevents him from taking his meds or goes on air under the influence. Is there ANYONE affiliated with the republican party who is NOT an addict and or suffering from some mental illness? Why no one's done an expose on this is mind boggling.
Why doesn’t the next so called panel member respond to Chris’s inevitable next question like this. “Chris, why don’t we make a deal? You stopping asking these inane irrelevant questions about Senator Clinton’s marriage and I won’t ask you why you don’t ask the same questions about other candidates more recent and more relevant infidelities.” That would be playing Hardball. Unfortunately, no guest could pull that off because inevitably Matthews would interrupt and here is how it would go. Matthews: “But really how long can Bill stay on his best behavior. He is going to do something to embarrass himself eventually?” Guest: “Chris, why don’t” Matthews interrupting: “It is not entirely his fault though. I mean you really cannot blame him with Hillary’s think ankles and all.” Guest: “Chris that is entire...” Matthews interrupting: “Really she has really think ankles. She’ll keep trying to change her hairstyle to draw attention away from it, but it won’t work. And John Edwards what is with that hair?” Guest: “How is John Ed…?” Matthews interrupting: “You know who has great hair, Mit Romney. I mean that gray at the temples that is great.” Guest: “Chris can we stay on top.” Matthews interrupting: “Romney really looks like a president. The only thing is that he might have a ranch and I am sick of presidents with ranches. I want a president who is out on the street corners saying stuff. Someone like Giuliani. Thank you for playing Hardball. Michael Smerconish what do you think?”
{Why doesn’t the next so called panel member respond to Chris’s inevitable next question like this.}Because just like you said, you can't get a word in edgewise with these narcissists. And when you try and answer there ludicrous allegations and statements they talk louder or over you, insult you, call you grade school names or simply shut the mike off when it's a caller. There pretentious stuck up self-aggrandizing megalomaniacs. Look at O'Really and that other blithering idiot Limbaugh. What is there claim to fame except bullying people? Which everyone knows are nothing more than total cowards. Again I ask is there anyone left in and or associated with the republican party who IS mentally stable and competent? Look at these people who represent them and then ask yourself if they not the lowest and most ignorant people in America today? All they do is A) Scream and yell and carry on like the lunatics they are and B) Start the name calling if you dare not agree with their insanity. I wouldn't waste a scintilla or time watching any of them. Anne Coulter? Mike Savage? How bout those pathological lying SOB's, Rove, Ken Melman and Tony Snow who is so delusional I swear he thinks he is the President! Two words; CHARLIE ROSE if you want to watch the finest journalism there is today.
Chris Matthews has a sick, compulsive obsession with the Clintons. He really needs to seek help.
He's a gossip columnist. Nothing more. He can't think any higher than celebrity name-dropping. Mainstream media's packed with people like him. It's all about the celebrity, all about the gossip. Tabloid TV is all they got left in them.
That's the Plan, you see. The corpos that own the "mainstream"...ugh, I prefer the term "totally commercial"...tv networks also own the record and movie industries. They have an incredible concentration of cultural influence and are exploiting it to the hilt. They're pumping their products, their celebrities du jour, at us furiously with that domination of the TV channels. They fighting tooth and nail over slicing us up into markets and it's the dominant theme in all their productions, including their TV news.
Notice how few of the news shows actually talk about Bush and his presidency. I wonder if that's a command from the boardrooms.
Note how Mathews tried to compare Giuliani's disastrous social life with Clinton's calm social life. Not even close. Hillary was the recipient of infidelity in the Lewinsky case, so we need to discard this case. What else do they have on her? Nothing. At all.
]Meanwhile Giuliani married his cousin, cheated on his second cousin, married three times, was buddies with Bernard Kerrik, etc.
Talk about bias.