Matthews brought Clinton fixation to GOP debate, asking about prospect of "Big Bill" back in White House
During the May 3 Republican presidential debate on MSNBC, moderator and Hardball host Chris Matthews said, "[L]et me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously." He asked, "Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?" Later, when he reiterated the question, Matthews asked, "Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially Big Bill?"
Contrary to Matthews' suggestion that the prospect of Bill Clinton back in the White House "might be a negative in the upcoming campaign," according to a March 23-25 USA Today/Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans say Bill Clinton will do "more good than harm" for his wife's campaign. That poll also put President Clinton's approval rating at 60 percent, compared with 38 percent who disapproved, according to a USA Today article on the poll. Additionally, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll -- taken April 10-12 and noted by CNN's Political Ticker weblog -- "If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination and goes on to win the general election in 2008, 60 percent of Americans believe her husband would have a positive effect on her administration, while 30 percent think it would be negative."
The debate question was not Matthews' first recent reference to the fact that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean that the former president would also return to the White House. On the March 23 edition of Hardball, he asserted:
MATTHEWS: This week, we saw the spotlight shone on spouses of the 2008 candidates for president. On Thursday, of course, a sad story. John Edwards announced that his wife's cancer had returned but that he would continue his campaign in full force, with her full help. The New York papers today are reporting that Judith Giuliani has been married three times, not twice, as most of us thought. Plus continued intrigue -- I love that word, it would have been mine, as well -- at what might be called about -- might be called intrigue about having Bill Clinton back in the White House.
Previously, as Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has obsessed over what he has referred to as Bill Clinton's "social life," "personal behavior," "current behavior," and "personal life." Additionally, he has repeatedly referred to the Clintons' marriage as a "sitcom." As Media Matters noted, on the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Matthews referred to the purported terms of the Clintons' relationship as a "sitcom": "We're all supposed to notice this sitcom but not mention it. We're supposed to notice. He always wants us to know he's got AstroTurf in the back of his car. He always wants us to know that stuff, that he's the stud. But we're not supposed to talk about it. He wants us to know it, and clam up, and live with it. That's his attitude towards this."
On the February 23 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "I think the scab has been ripped off so early that Bill is in play now. The New York Times put him in play a few months ago. Now Geffen has put him in play. It just seems to be that we're talking about stuff I didn't think we'd be talking about until next whenever." Matthews was referring to a May 23, 2006, New York Times article by Patrick Healy, noted by Media Matters, and a February 21 column by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in which Dowd reported comments by Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a longtime donor to the Clintons, also noted by Media Matters. When MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford responded that "[a]ll I've seen the Clintons do is gain from this kind of stuff" and The Hill's A.B. Stoddard agreed, Matthews protested, "You don't think people are tired of the sitcom?"
On the February 8 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "Then there's the other part of me that says she'll go right up to the edge, sometime in August of 2008 and the gender thing and the past will kick in and all of a sudden people will go, I don't know. Back to Bill and Hillary again. Back to the sitcom. Back to this."
From the May 3 Republican presidential debate on MSNBC:
MATTHEWS: I want to ask you a question almost as much fun -- I want to get to the next question. I'm sorry, because you can expand on your thought as part of this answer. I asked about raising taxes. It was almost like the Reagan round here. Everybody wanted to do that. I'm sure he was listening to that good thought.
[laughter]
But let me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously. Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?
[laughter]
MITT ROMNEY (former Massachusetts governor): You have got to be kidding.
MATTHEWS: No, I'm not.
[laughter]
MATTHEWS: His wife's running, haven't you heard?
ROMNEY: The only thing I can think of that'd be as bad as that would be to have the gang of three running the war on terror: Pelosi, Reid and Hillary Clinton. So I have to be honest with you, I think it'd be an awful thing for a lot of reasons.
MATTHEWS: Senator Brownback?
SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS): I think it'd be bad because it would mean that Hillary Clinton would be elected, not because of who she is, but because of the policies that she stands for of raising taxes, of not standing up for life, for marriage. I mean, those are what would be bad for the country.
MATTHEWS: Governor, Bill Clinton back in the White House?
JIM GILMORE (former Virginia governor): You know, no, because that would mean that Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States, and where you have been is where you're going to go. And Hillary Clinton tried to socialize medicine in this country -- a very bad idea. You need to keep that in the private sector. And yet she said in their own [unintelligible] debate --
MATTHEWS: Well, we have a razorback ready to talk to you, a razorback from Arkansas. Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially Big Bill?
MIKE HUCKABEE (former Arkansas governor): No one on this stage probably knows Hillary Clinton better than I do --
UNKNOWN: Oh, my.
UNKNOWN: Oh.
[Laughter]
HUCKABEE: -- and I will tell you that it's probably not a good idea to put either of them in the White House.
MATTHEWS: OK.
"Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?"
No, Chris... if Hillary's elected we'll insist that a little, tin-roofed shack be constructed on the South Lawn where Bill will reside.
Is Matthews on drugs? I swear, he used to be better than this. He used to at least ask good questions that got to the heart of an issue. Lately, his questions have been about as profound as Glenn Beck's. What gives, Chris...?
This was ridiculous- each of these Repubs smirking and acting horrified at the idea, while avoiding even mentioning their current president the whole night.
Then again, their responses that BC in the White House is a bad idea may have been honest. They probably wouldn't want to see that contrast between Clinton and Bush emphasized any more than they have to..
Right ! What kind of question was this ? What did we hear from the candidates that we didn't already know they would spew ? Of course they are ALL going to say it's a bad idea, which one would have dared to say otherwise ? Absolutely ridiculous. The Schiavo question was good, though most who answered didn't understand it !
Fixation? Ridiculous.
Considering Bill's wife is a leading contender to take up residence in the White House in less than two years, it may be a silly, softball question lobbed at Clinton-bashing Republicans during a debate.......but it's relevance is hardly a fixation.
Tommy
I thought the question was ridiculous. Of course the Republicans would answer that way, what was the reason Matthews would ask such a question? It was just another opportunity on the national stage to mock and spew hate toward the Clintons. You could see the hate coming out of some of them especially Duncan Hunter a liar in his answer about the military cuts.
Doris,
Considering the venue and the participants, who looked more foolish? Bill Clinton, or the Republicans taking their cheap, partisan shots at him?
Everyone looked foolish, but the attempt was to smear the 42nd President and his wife.
Why would Matthews' question make Bill Clinton look foolish ?? Not picking up what you're laying down.
You misunderstood. The Republicans looked foolish in their gratuitous slap at Clinton.
Tommy,
First & foremost Matthews looked foolish for even asking the question, and for framing it the way he did.
Matthew's distain of Hillary was the motive. The Republican candidates would have been wiser to have told Matthews this election is not about Bill instead of engaging in bashing the Clintons.
Matthews did a lousy job all around.
I'm just relieved he didn't embarrass himself by slobbering all over Rudy, as that's the guy he so obviously wants for President.
J,
I don't disagree, but it was largely a television moment.....as I said, it was a chance at a little dustup during a 90 minute, mostly snoozy affair......and your assessment of what the Republicans should have said is exactly right. That is why I say they are the ones who came off looking petty and foolish.......and Matthews was being Matthews with his silly questions.
Bashing Clinton and getting laughs from the partisan crowd did nothing to ingratiate them to anyone other than other rabid Clinton haters......the rest of us rolled our eyes and probably remembered the Clinton days more fondly than if the question had never been asked.
Tommy,
Overall did you think Clinton was a good president?
Lynn,
Although I disagreed with Clinton on some issues, i.e. raising taxes in 93, Don't ask Don't tell.......all in all, I think he was a good President. I think he was and is an amzingly intellectual man, he is so versed on so many things, and I always thought he really wanted to do a good job for the country - he did care about people and making America better, I really believe that.
His personal life is his business, and as long as it didn't affect his governing, I could care less about it......
Yes, I liked Clinton.
I agree with most of your assessment big suprise right? I thought the tax thing was necesssary and the don't ask don't tell thing was an attempt to copmpromise. It was silly to me because I think Gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. What do strait people think they're going to do?? I took issue with Clinton's handeling or non handeling of the Rawandan crisis, but I didn't completely appreciate what was happening there at the time. I think a lot of us didn't. He and other world leaders should have intervened. He's said that was one of the biggest regrets of his presidency.
I agree with you on Rwanda.
I have never been a Clinton basher here or anywhere......I was not in favor of impeaching him and I remember how he was viciously attacked by the right during his term. So when Republicans take their shots at him, as they did following Matthew's question, I look at them as political opportunists foaming at the mouth to bash Clinton......yeech.
Other than voting to impeach Clinton, I very much like Ron Paul. He is for very limited government, not policing the world, eliminates the income tax, etc. He hasn't a chance, in my opinion........but his views are more closely aligned with mine than anyone else running.
what would you put in place of the income tax?
Jeter,
What did you think of the candidates? I thought some of them actually many of them were down right scary. Too much war talk for me. If the pubs don't come up with something more palable than what was on the menu last night it's going to be a tough sale to get backing for these guys. But then again my fellow Americans suprise me and scare me at times. Huckabee seems like a likable guy but he lost me with the evolution thing and his post interview views on faith and politics were not to my liking. I have my faith and I don't want to impose it on anyone.
I meant palatable of course.
Lynn,
I wasn't terribly impressed with any of them though if I had to say who "won", I'd give the nod to Romney.
I don't personally like or support any of the current Republican candidates. I doubt Chuck Hagel will end up throwing his hat in the ring, but he's the only Republican I'd consider voting for at the moment.
Be very wary of Romney. It is NOT a good thing that the best book he says he ever read was 'Battlefield Earth' by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was a sci-fi hack writer who, in order to win a bet, invented a Religion. And Scientology is what he loosed on the world. A mormon who loves Hubbard? WHOA!!!!! Danger, Danger, DANGER!!!!
CRAZY MONKEY LADY:
Thanks for the reference to the Ron Hubbard bet. No one else believes this story when I tell them. Scientology is an immense practical joke, which is even more successful because the Scientologists don't get it.
"but it's relevance is hardly a fixation."
I'm not 100% sure who's fixation that you or MMFA are referring to.
If MMFA meant the GOP's fixation, not that of Matthews, then I think the label is appropriate and undeniable.
For at least two years now, despite everything that's happened at home and in the Middle East, the rightwing noise machine simply hasn't been able to get enough of Hillary and 2008, loading us down with a myriad of reasons why we need run from her screaming in fear. And how do they justify it every time the Bush Administration does something stupid? "Bill Clinton did it too!"
The word fixation is a little melodramatic for me, that's all I'm saying.
And I absolutely get tired of the right blaming Clinton for our ills today, it is ridiculous and a dereliction of the current administration's responsibility.
That being said, the Clinton "talk" will only get more intense the closer Hillary gets to the nomination.......you can't get away from it. She is putting herself out in the national spotlight, asking for votes and support, so the comparisons and all the Clintonian references will surface.......fairly and unfairly, for sure. It's politics, it's juicy, it's familial, it's 24/7 cable news channels..........it's the Clintong.
Sorry, it's not the Clintong, it's the Clintons.
Tommy, did you read the entire MMFA writeup ? Because if you did you would understand why MMFA is saying that Matthews is fixated on Bill Clinton.
I read it. I disagree with the fixation label, the selective pieces they pull out from Matthews on Clinton make it look like it's an obsession. Matthews is on the air at least 5 hours a week, and another cable show on the weekends........in my opinion, he is fixated on politics.
Sure, he's on a lot, and covers many other topics. But when the subject of either Clinton comes up, he seems to always have something snide to say, particularly about Hillary.
I like the idea of a "Clintong," like the Chinatown tongs...
If Tweety were any more FIXATED on the Clintons, they would need a restraining order.
In other news, the RNC is furiously negotiating with his agent for his services as MC of the Republican convention.
If Tweety were any more FIXATED on the Clintons, he'd be Dick Morris.
Thank you, now that's a fixation.
I now see your point. CM's "fixation" is comparatively quite trivial in comparison to Morris' fixation on all things Clinton.
I'll bet Morris has some family pet he named after a Clinton. He just strikes me as that kind of creep. Of course, my dog is named tommy, but it I assure you it is merely coincidental.
; )
Tommy,
While the question might not come to you as a 'fixation' on Matthews and basically all the Republican candidates parts it is just the next installment of the right-wing hard-on that the right-wing has had for Bill Clinton since the days of Monica and also the prospect that Hillary might be called #44 someday.
Although I hold out for Edwards (P) and Obama (VP)
I wrote to you last week that I would enjoy having a debate on any issue with you but if you insist on not seeing the pattern here in this obvious show of pathetic(ness) then I don't see how this would be possible.......
But I hold on to hope!
Just think, if they took away that two term limit, who do you think would have a better chance of getting re-elected a 3rd time - Bill, or 30% George?
he he he ... if it wasn't for term limits and that pesky constitution the voters would have elected "Big Bill" King of the Universe Forever :)
All, this is totally off topic, but after recalling all the right wing posts about Cho, I wonder how they rectify their beliefs when their beloved NRA says this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070504/terror-suspects-guns
Oh my god, reading that made my jaw drop. Astounding. They do all of that profiling and they're worried about gun ownership ?
The whole thing was pretty ridiculous. I thought that Mattews et. al. were all over the place with their questions. The questions ran the whole spectrum - It would have been better for them to have given more time for answers and just asked fewer questions. A one minute sound bite is not long enough for a politician to tell you their name....why not drop the silly questions like this one and just ask about things that actually matter and give them more time to answer (or dig their own grave - whatever the case may be)?
Hmmm, the sound bite debate...
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but the headline...
Matthews brought Clinton fixation to GOP debate, asking about prospect of "Big Bill" back in White House
...I mean, these are the terms we deal in, "Clinton fixation" and (much worse) "Big Bill"?
...and not much better, the way the words 'brought' and 'prospect' and even 'back' are used?
Think about it: I just accounted for nearly all that the headline says... "Clinton fixation" and "Big Bill" and the words 'brought' and 'prospect' and 'back'...
Matthews brought Clinton fixation to GOP debate, asking about prospect of "Big Bill" back in White House
That's a substantial (even coherent) sentence?
The time (and substance) is ripe... make the words not so rotten (and insubstantial).
Please.
I have read it over and over and still have no idea what you're trying to say.
I give up.
I understand the headline just fine. Matthews is the one who used the phrase "Big Bill", of course, which is why it's included.
"Brought", past tense of "bring", right. He brought his personal prejudice where it didn't belong. "Prospect", yes, the prospect of Bill Clinton back in the White House. That makes sense. "Back", well yes, he was out of the White House, if Hillary were to win he would be back in it, residentially speaking. How are any of these "rotten" words, or how is their usage inappropriate or unclear?
As for "Clinton fixation", that's a perfectly understandable term. If you want to argue Matthews doesn't have such a fixation, that may be a valid point. The rest of your post, as Tommy suggested, seems largely meaningless.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hungabout.
It's getting hard to someone, but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.
Matthews has been mesmerised by the Clenis for over a decade now. He tried transferring his man-crush to McCain but it seems like he can't shake "big Bill..."
Matthews used to be a pretty good columnist in SF. He has morphed into a third rate TV hack. Even Joe Scarborough (who I loathe as part of the WJC attack squad) is better on TV.
Please Chris, go back to writing and rediscover your soul.
I would rather ask Romney who he would appoint to the Supreme Court, a much more relevant question in my humble opinion.
Wolf, why would you want to ruin all the fun by asking a substansive question?
There once was a puke, name of Chrissy
Who got his drawers all in a hissy
At the thought of "Big Bill"
Being back on the hill
So Republican butt did he kissy
Yer really throwing down the gauntlet, you Limerick cranking-out machine ! Nice one!
But these limericks make my head hurt more than Chris Matthews and his braying.
Matthews just now finished an interview with Bill Richardson by mentioning Reagan and saying "you're bigger than him, arent you?" Richardson clearly didnt understand the question or why Matthews was asking it, stumbled, and said "I'm bigger than most of them..."
Matthews: "And we had a lot of big Republicans up here on the stage last night..."
What the hell is Matthews' obsession with size? What a moron. He never stops acting like a schoolgirl with a crush on the QB. The name of the QB just changes now and then.
Are you calling Tweety a size queen?
Can anyone tell me where CM got the appelation "tweety?"
Since I'm a progressive, I'm not a huge Clinton fan myself. Still, I'm a little confused as to why CM would wear his bias on his shirtsleeve as he recently has. Not having cable, I'm not as familiar with him as many of you are, but until fairly recently it seemed to me that he was moderate enough to make the rightie claim of liberal bias slightly plausable. When he criticised a Dem, he had enough credibility to pass it off as "non partisan" criticism. Please feel free to correct me about this.
It seems to me now that he is now willing to sacrifice that "moderate" image and become openly partisan for the first time. Desperation?
The moniker "Tweety" comes from his physical resemblance to "Tweety Bird".
Actually, Matthews was crowned MMFA'S MISINFORMER OF THE YEAR for 2006, if I remember correctly.
I believe that Tweety hauled in that coveted title for 05', J.
Nope.
It WAS for '06.
Mea Culpa.
Matthews' question was disgraceful. It had no place in that debate and giving all ten candidates time to answer made it even worse.
I think he did it for several reasons:
1. He wanted to be "one of the guys" up there on stage.
2. He has a big ego and knew he could get away with it.
3. He's a control freak.
4. He is extremely biased against Hillary.
5. He is daring Hillary or Bill to come on "Hardball."
6. He likes being the center of attention.
7. He needs something or someone to be angry about and Hillary is it.
This debate was little more than a Clinton bash. And Tweety's attitude was condecending and disrespectful. Why pick on just one dem? It seemed very mean spirited. But then again, the republicans have stooped lower and lower each election. I'm already sick of the 2008 election cycle... Calgon, take me away!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that MSNBC tapped Matthews to "moderate" the debate just goes to show that the event was not to be taken seriously but rather as just another piece of infotainment. The only difference between Matthews and a real joke is that Chris isn't funny. Clearly, the questions were Matthews' own, not vetted or edited by a grown-up. Does no one at the network give a crap? Jeez, I would've rather had Tucker or Scarborough asking the questions.
And what was the deal with that other guy striding across the stage to ask his question right into the candidate's face? The Democratic debate was bad enough; this was a travesty. Embarrassing.
Of course, nobody else from the MSM points out that the emperor has no clothes.
Robert ... That other guy was for the Hardball questions. Chris was too busy doing the soft ones and keeping Fixations off of GWB.
The Republican Presidential Fixation was to avoid Bush and invoke Ronald.
Democrats get asked questions to respond to phony attacks by Republicans. Republicans get asked questions to make more phony attacks on Democrats.
Yeah, Skip. The Brian Williams questions for the Dems were "what do you say about your $400 haircut?" and "you've said things some people called hurtful (to Biden)" while the Republicans got questions like "what would you do to win the war in Iraq?" There was not one black person at the Republican debate but the Dem debate had mostly black people, and the raucous crowd outside the Dem debate seemed to imply, "here are the Democrats, rowdy black people. The Republicans are respectable white people." Yet I still hear people call CSPAN and complain that the debates were biased toward the Democrats and MSNBC was left wing!