About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Matthews repeated disputed claim about Sen. Clinton's presidential ambitions

June 04, 2007 7:24 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

17 Comments

On the June 3 edition of NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews asserted that, in their forthcoming book, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007), Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta "charge[] that more than 20 years ago, the Clintons 'planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two terms for [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton (D-NY)].' " However, as Media Matters for America has noted, Gerth and Van Natta's claim that the Clintons expanded their purported "twenty-year project" to include a Hillary Clinton presidency is based on a source who has referred to the account as "preposterous."

In a prepublication copy of Her Way obtained by Media Matters, Gerth and Van Natta claim that, early in their respective careers, the Clintons made a "secret pact" to "revolutionize the Democratic Party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill" -- their so-called "twenty-year project." Gerth and Van Natta cite former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta and an anonymous "former Clinton administration official" as their sources for the Clintons' original "twenty-year project."

In the version obtained by Media Matters, Gerth and Van Natta also claim that, shortly after Bill Clinton assumed the presidency, the Clintons updated the alleged "plan" to include two presidential terms for each of them. The authors' source for this claim is an account by former New York Times reporter Ann Crittenden and her husband, John Henry, of a conversation they purportedly had with historian Taylor Branch. In the conversation, as reportedly described by Crittenden and Henry, Branch allegedly recounted to them a conversation he had with then-President Clinton in 1993 in which Clinton said both Clintons had a plan to become president. But as Media Matters has previously noted, in a May 25 article, The Washington Post reported that "Branch said that 'the story is preposterous' and that 'I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.'"

In Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta write:

By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington, sometimes called Potomac fever, had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary.

Branch described the plan to two Washington friends, John Henry and Ann Crittenden, over a barbeque dinner at a rodeo in Aspen, Colorado, that summer.71 The president would frequently talk with Branch, a well-respected historian and author, about his place in history, and shortly after he was elected president, Branch said, Bill asked him to begin recording "diary sessions"72 as part of an oral-history project.

Branch had just come from one of those sessions, a marathon late-night chat with Bill at the White House, where the two men had talked as they stood on the back balcony, looking toward the Washington Monument. Now in the cool mountains of Colorado, Branch told his friends about the Clintons' presidential plans. The bold goal of sixteen years in the White House took Henry's breath away. "I was shocked,"73 he said. [Pages 128-129]

Associated endnotes:

71. Author interviews with John Henry and Ann Crittenden in 2007. Branch, in an interview with one of the authors in 2007, said, "I don't remember" the conversation but "I'm not denying it." He acknowledged that he knows Henry and Crittenden and that he has been to Aspen many times. But Branch declined to discuss Hillary or Bill, saying it was "stupid" to do so in light of the fact that he was doing his own book on Bill's presidency.

72. Julie Bosman, "Historian Plans Book from Chats with Clinton," New York Times, March 22, 2007, El; author interview with Taylor Branch in 2007. Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, says the oral history project began in late 1993. (Clinton, My Life, ii.)

73. Author interview with John Henry in 2007.

Later, Matthews posed a question to Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that even he conceded "may be sexist." He asked: "[T]he question, I think, somewhere in the middle of this -- and this may be sexist, I don't deny it -- but is the charge that she's calculating, that they're calculating together, a little too much planning, this two presidency following two presidencies, this 20-year plan, so-called, does this hurt?"

On the March 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews asserted that "[i]t's the women" who criticize Sen. Clinton and that the men he talks to "don't knock Hillary." Matthews added: "[T]he crowd I hang out with don't want to be caught knocking her, because it's sexist." At that time, Media Matters noted numerous examples of Matthews himself making remarks about Clinton that could be construed as sexist:

  • On the January 29 edition of Hardball, Matthews asked how former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) could "go into a debate with Hillary Clinton and land a punch against a woman." Matthews continued: "Isn't that going to be tricky for somebody like Rudy, who knows how to land a punch, to go up ... against a woman?"
  • During MSNBC's election coverage on November 7, 2006, Matthews said: "We were watching Hillary Clinton earlier tonight; she was giving a campaign 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, perhaps."
  • On the September 19, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews stated that Clinton "may not want to risk being another Dukakis -- this time in a dress." Later, 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."
  • On the December 19, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser," said "her hair looked ... great," and wondered if Clinton is "a convincing mom."
  • On the July 11, 2005, edition of Hardball, Matthews said Clinton "looked more witchy" because she criticized the Bush administration's homeland security spending priorities on July 8, a day after the London bombings.
  • On the April 24, 2005, edition of the Chris Matthews Show, Matthews referred Clinton as "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left," a characterization he repeated on the March 25, 2007, edition of the show.

Media Matters also separately noted sexist remarks made by Matthews at the MSNBC-hosted Democratic presidential debate on April 27, where he focused obsessively on the appearances of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) wife, Michelle, to the point that NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reminded him that they are Yale and Harvard-educated lawyers, respectively.

From the June 3 edition of NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:

MATTHEWS: But this week, two new books -- Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge and Her Way by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta raise some new questions. For one, Her Way charges that, more than 20 years ago, the Clintons "planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two terms for Hillary."

Patrick, apart from all the details in these books -- and they're going to be read all summer by the political junkies -- does this force the conversation back to the past and the problems, and away from where Hillary must want them to go, which is hope and the future?

PATRICK HEALY (New York Times reporter): Yeah, it puts all these issues back on the table in a way that the Clinton campaign doesn't want. They don't want it to be about her, her personality, her marriage, her vote on Iraq in 2002 -- wants it to be about competence, about her agenda for the country, about health care.

But, inevitably, this raises a lot of people's feelings about -- does she -- where does she start and he end, you know? Are they just such a unit -- are they such an arrangement that, inevitably, all the scandals, all sort of the bad news from the past is going to come and get in the way of the message that she wants to get out to people?

MATTHEWS: Cynthia, the question, I think -- somewhere in the middle of this -- and this may be sexist, I don't deny it -- but is the charge that she's calculating, that they're calculating together, a little too much planning, this two presidency following two presidencies, this 20-year plan, so-called, does this hurt?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (June 04, 2007 8:44 pm ET)
         

      i've have read, can't prove it, but i have read that the bush family thought that one day jeb would run for president and that they were shocked when w was elected as governor of texas and jeb defeated by lawton chiles in his first bid for florida governor.  supposedly it was jeb who was the anointed one.  why has this never been given a tenth of the attention of this supposed pact by the clintons?  [and imagine a more arrogant version of w, and that's jeb]

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (June 04, 2007 8:45 pm ET)
           

        i've read or i have read.  take your choice.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (June 04, 2007 10:04 pm ET)
           

        In fact, W was present when the Queen of England last visited, when Poppy GHW Bush was president. Jeb was introduced as the prince in waiting, the heir apparent, and W was introduced as the "black sheep". Reportedly, W took it in good humor, asking the Queen if she had any Black Sheep in HER family.

        W was the screw-up, the loser, the drinker, the party-guy, the one who could be so depended upon to LOSE money in a business, he was reliably used as a tax writeoff by GHW Bush's oil buddies. His rise to the White House must've astonished his family. Of course, if America were just another business he was handed by his daddy and his daddy's pals to play with (and, in all practical ways, it IS), then the fate of this nation has paralleled the fate of Arbusto and every other of Bush's previous failures. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 05, 2007 12:58 am ET)
             

          Remember, Karl Rove made a bet.

          He bet that he could get any idiot elected as Governor of Texas.

          He chose George Bush as his available idiot. He showed how good he is at convincing the public to vote the way he wants them to by getting Bush elected. He then went on to get him elected as President.

          Rove helped George W Bush. He just happened to help him because George was in Texas where Rove was too, and that's where the bet was made.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by booker2two2495 (June 05, 2007 8:00 am ET)
               

            Remember, Karl Rove made a bet.

            He bet that he could get any idiot elected as Governor of Texas.

            He chose George Bush as his available idiot.

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            I've never heard that story, where did you read it? Could you please provide a credible account (link) to back it up? Or is it just some urban legend that's been passed around?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 05, 2007 12:35 pm ET)
                 

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-karl-rove-will-never-_b_4367.html This is a quote from an interview with James Moore, one of the authors of "Bush's Brain".

              Bush's presidency is a creation of Rove. In 1989, before Bush was even a marginally successful managing general partner of a losing baseball team, prior to the time Bush made the strategic move of trading Sammy Sosa, Rove was sitting down with a friend and explaining how he could make W governor and use that office as a platform for the presidency. And five years later, Bush was elected governor on his way to the White House 11 years after Rove had first given voice to his ambition to make Bush president.

              Also, from Wayne Slater, the other author of the same book http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html

              Karl Rove clearly already in 1988 had the son in mind as a potential candidate for office. He approached several Texas reporters, and said, "Notice the son; look at George Bush over there," encouraging us to interview the son and talk with him at that point. Rove already was setting in motion the future political career of George W. Bush. He tried to get George Bush to run for office in 1990.

              Karl was key in pushing George Bush along, encouraging him as a candidate. George Bush was receptive to the idea, but I don't think he knew that he could win. In fact, I'm positive. By 1994, when George Bush was running for governor, he told me, "I think I can't beat Ann Richards." Rove thought just the opposite, had numbers and a theory and a plan and a vision to say otherwise. But early on it was Rove driving this train. ... It was Rove who was convinced that George Bush could be a candidate for the future.

              Rove was interested, this operative told me, not so much in the candidates that were under way in 1990, but [in] the future candidacy of George W. Bush. He said that Rove talked about Bush as an enormously powerful political figure in Texas, even though he had never held office before. [Rove] said: "I know how you can make George Bush governor. You can do this and this and this. And I know how you can make George Bush president. Here's how you do it, having made him governor." That was 1990. And George Bush was already on Karl Rove's mind as a future candidate for president of the United States. Karl Rove had the blueprint for the Bush presidency before George Bush even knew he would become a candidate.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 05, 2007 5:09 pm ET)
                   

                Excuse me George/Sue,

                But where is the part about the bet Rove made that he could get any idiot elected as Governor of Texas?

                That's what you claimed to know. Do you have proof of that or not?

                Try again. I'll be back.

                [bet Sue/George won't!]

                Report Abuse
      • Author by JuiceD (June 04, 2007 10:04 pm ET)
           

        Hi mefirst, I don't know where you happen to read that, but I read it in Kitty Kelly's book "The Family"  I'm not sure that's the most reliable of sources, but I've read it elsewhere as well. The Bush's were even more astounded that George made it to the White House, they always figured it would be Jeb.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (June 05, 2007 9:55 pm ET)
             

          i read kelly's book on nancy reagan.  it's really about the both of them.  no one talks about the fact that she was telling ronnie the things her astrologer said about government decisions.  ronnie's chief of staff, don regan, confirmed that in his book, a little payback for nancy's role in getting him fired.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (June 04, 2007 9:18 pm ET)
         

      That side shot is totally unflattering. Make the hair black, and put a little mustachio under his nose, and viola! little adolf!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (June 04, 2007 9:56 pm ET)
         

      Matthews, a SEXIST? Yup, he admits it. He's "in tune" with those Deer Hunter guys, those beercan smashing knuckle-draggers referred to as "heartland good-ol' boys".

      Yet, in channeling that mindset of the throwback man who just can't accept the idea of a competent and able WOMAN doing a job, he pontificates from the rarified atmosphere of the Washington DC cocktail party. Oh, and he virtually SWOONS over seeing a manly man in a flight suit ... not exactly a hairy-chested response destined to promote bonding with the other guys (and they all moved away from him on the Group W Bench).

      So, what we have here is a nationally seen pundit whose "opinion" is both biased and schizophrenic/hypocritical. He sees "Deliverance", and although he WISHES to be identified with the mountain men running their stills, he instead sees himself as one of the city-boy rafters PLAYACTING at being an outdoorsman. Must be painful for him. It's certainly painful for those of us unfortunate enough to HEAR him drone on and on as one of America's network's premier personalities. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (June 05, 2007 1:23 am ET)
           

        Tex

        Didn't Tweety once say of Dubya' that "he has a real purty' mouth"?

        Or maybe that was about Rudy or McCain.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by NL207 (June 05, 2007 9:20 am ET)
         

      What drivel!

      Hilary Clinton is a declared candidiate for President.   Anyone with a brain can discern that has been her intention since she first declared herself a candidate for the office of Senator, New York in 2000.  All of her actions since that time have been in accordance with such a plan.   Were it her intention to remain Senator she would not be a candidate for President today.

      Inescapable conclusion ==> Hillary was planning this bid for the Presidency since 1999.  ==> MMFA's arguments to the contrary are (a) based on hearsay and (b) contradicted by demonstrable fact.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (June 05, 2007 11:25 am ET)
           

        I agree, that's why the Clintons were behind the voter fraud in Ohio in 2004, they needed GWB to win so she could run in 2008.  Otherwise she would have had to wait until 2012.  All part of the plan...I'm going with it. ;-)

        Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (June 05, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
           

        Yeah, and she wants to be ruler of the universe after that. right?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NL207 (June 06, 2007 2:02 am ET)
             

          Only a blind man would fail to notice that Hillary Clinton is afflicted with the vice of ambition.  When was the last time YOU visited an optometrist?

          Those who are consumed by ambition, as this woman's actions suggest she is, are prone to desire more and more power.  The power they have is never enough.  Once Napoleon was a mere Lieutenant in the French Artillery.  Even becoming First Citizen did not satisfy him, he wanted more.  Emperor of France.  Emperor of the World.  What ambition drove Alexander?  Why did Caesar cross the Rubicon?  What was Xerxes doing in the Hellasgate?  Ghengis Khan ruled all China.  Why did he need to send Subitai west with a mighty army?  Why wasn't Loius XIV satisfied with the throne of France?  Why did Ramses need another statue?  Were ANY of these people able to say 'No' to power?   How is Hillary any different except in that she has not this far succeeded in her aims?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Mia T (June 06, 2007 8:53 am ET)
         

      FROM CARL BERNSTEIN TO THE BROADDRICK RAPE: Connecting the Dots HILLARY CALLS NEW BOOKS 'REHASH FOR CASH.' (NOT SO FAST, MISSUS CLINTON.)

      by Mia T, 6.04.07

      "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women." (Carl Bernstein)

      Howard Wolfson doth protest too little.

      Yawn in tow--or is it a smirk?--the clinton flack is making the rounds trying to convince us that the two new hillary books about to hit the stores, "A Woman in Charge," by Carl Bernstein of 'Woodward and'/Watergate fame, and "Her Way," by former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth and current one Don Van Natta Jr., are nothing new.

      But Wolfson's claim--and his yawn--are belied by his tactic: That is, if these books are simply warmed over calumny, why the redundancy of clinton schemes trying to kill them, (and kill them preemptively, no less)?

      Listen to clinton operatives Wolfson, Philippe Reines et al. Their oh-so-carefully-crafted sound bites--"rehash for cash" and "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?'--reveal real concern in the clinton camp about the books.

      'OLD NEWS'

      The clinton machine wants us to think the books are about the clinton marriage and so-called adultery and, as such, are 'old news.'

      What is 'old news' is that tired clinton turn of phrase. Concocted to cause us to dismiss clinton crimes, abuses and failures, it is a non sequitur that insults us all. In clinton-machine scandal-mitigation parlance, the implied premise of 'old news' is that there is a statute of limitations on 'venal' and 'inept.' (ASIDE: 9/11 shot that one down, didn't it?)

      'ADULTERY'

      Falsely portraying the clinton marital deal as 'adultery' has enabled missus clinton for decades to play the victim, which in turn enabled the clintons to win elections and avoid the slammer (though not always in that order). (HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes)

      But the marital 'arrangement' detailed by these two books vitiates the 'adultery' charge.

      Worse, it supports the Juanita Broaddrick allegations of rape by bill clinton and threats by hillary clinton two weeks after the rape.

      As Carl Bernstein himself put it last week (Today): "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women."

      Don't fall for the clintons' own rehash for cash and power. The clinton story is no soap opera. It is a horror story about abuse of women, abuse of power and willful utter failure to confront terrorism.

      The clinton story is about the clintons' fundamental unfitness to be out kids' babysitters, much less senator or--heaven forbid--president... again.

      As missus clinton cynically targets us, abuses us, yet one more time, we women, especially, must open our eyes.

      "The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)

      VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

      We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

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

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace