Discussing poll question on Clinton's "warmth," Matthews said: "She has to smile when she puts the knife in"
On the August 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, prior to the AFL-CIO's Democratic candidates' forum airing on MSNBC later that day, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell referred to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that 39 percent of respondents said they "feel positive" toward Clinton on the issue of her "warmth and compassion," while 30 percent said they "feel negative." Saying that Clinton's "negatives are still so high on warmth and compassion," Mitchell asserted that Clinton "has to show some personality and some likability, because she really has to show that she's approachable and a little bit softer than she's been in the past." Hardball host Chris Matthews replied: "I know. She has to smile when she puts the knife in."
From the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:
|
17. Let me read you a number of characteristics and ask you to evaluate Hillary Clinton on each one. For each item, please tell me whether you feel positive about Hillary Clinton, negative about her, or whether you have neutral or mixed feelings about her. | |||||
|
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE WHO SAY FEEL POSITIVE |
|||||
|
Feel Positive |
Feel Negative |
Have Neutal/Mixed Feelings |
Not Sure | ||
|
Her experience and competence *............ |
53 |
22 |
24 |
1 |
[218] |
|
Her values and character **...................... |
44 |
29 |
26 |
1 |
[221] |
|
That Bill Clinton is her husband **............. |
42 |
28 |
29 |
1 |
[222] |
|
Her warmth and compassion **................. |
39 |
30 |
29 |
2 |
[223] |
|
Her personality and style *........................ |
38 |
31 |
30 |
1 |
[219] |
|
Her positions on the issues *..................... |
33 |
32 |
34 |
1 |
[220] |
|
* Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A). ** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B). | |||||
The poll did not ask about respondents' feelings toward any other individual candidate.
Matthews later said he agreed with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson's assessment that Clinton has run a "smart, good campaign," but added, "I have not seen anybody this smooth in a long time." Matthews then said: "Is it 'Slick Hillary' now, eh?"
Media Matters for America has noted numerous instances of the media characterizing Clinton as ruthless, or cold. Matthews himself has referred to Clinton as the Charles Dickens villain Madame DeFarge more than once, claimed she looked at former Vice President Al Gore with "dead people's eyes," and laughed at the suggestion that Clinton would poison Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Matthews' reference to Clinton using a knife is also not the media's first. On the January 24 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank asserted: "Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind Barack Obama" during President Bush's State of the Union address, "making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do." Additionally, on the January 19 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, host Glenn Beck said "if you live in Chappaqua, New York, and you hear a strange grinding noise coming from the Clinton estate, it could be Hillary Clinton sharpening her knives in the basement."
From the August 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, is it possible for Hillary Clinton to take a punch and smile?
MITCHELL: I think it is. In fact, one of the things you notice in the polling is that even though she's really opened up this 22-point lead, if you look down at our poll, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week, her negatives are still so high on warmth and compassion. Thirty percent negative on whether she's warm enough, compassionate enough. Only 39 percent positive, so she always has that double bind as a woman candidate.
MATTHEWS: Right.
MITCHELL: She has to show her toughness on commander in chief issues, but she also has to show some personality and some likability because she really has to show that she's approachable and a little bit softer than she's been in the past.
MATTHEWS: I know. She has to smile when she puts the knife in.
ROBINSON: Well, I think credit has to be given, though, because she has really run, I think, a really smart, good campaign to this point.
MATTHEWS: Oh, you're not kidding. I share that assessment.
ROBINSON: Look at the national numbers.
MATTHEWS: I have not seen anybody this smooth in a long time.
ROBINSON: She's done really, really well. If, you know -- maybe some things are happening on the state level that are in Obama's favor.
MATTHEWS: Is it "Slick Hillary" now, eh? Anyway, thank you, Andrea Mitchell. Thank you, Lynn Sweet. Thank you, Pat Buchanan. Thank you, Eugene Robinson.
I think she performed well last night, but Obama held is own especially on the Pakistan exchange. She was booed when she said something to effect that "you should not say what you think when you run for President". That sort of statement is why I could never support her. Obama is a better choice , he sticks to his convictions.
I disagree. I think it showed Obama's lack of diplomatic experience in spouting off the way he did on Pakistan. Clinton is correct good diplomacy (which we are saddley lacking these days) requires tack and discretion...there is alot of ego stroking...that is why you don't say such aggressive things in public thereby forcing the other to save face. You are diplomatic in public and you twist arms behind closed doors. I think the fact that Clinton is not afraid of saying something that will result in her being booed also debunks your characterization of her...if she didn't stick by what she believes she would appease the crowd and not risk being booed.
One additional point...I respect Obama, even if I don't think he is the best candidate for president but my respect took a hit when he lied about his comments in the debate last night.
Lostlogic, I agree with you. I thought Clinton held her own and she made the correct statement that when you say things they are dangerous if you are in the process of running for President.
She sounded like Bush and the republicans with that remark in my opinion. She may "appear" presidential, but if you want another 4 years of polarization and demonization, you're welcome to it. Personally I wish the parties weren't running around trying to knife each other in the back at every turn.
Unfortunately if a Democrat is going to win they will have to sound like a Republican at times. That's exactly what Obama did with his Pakistan comment. Personally I think her statement was right on.
I disagree I think Obama was the one who sounded like the administration with his lack of diplomatic skills. Bush is famous for these stupid "cowboy" threats" and "tough talk" that has so damaged our standing and ability to work with other countries. I don't think showing good diplomatic skills is sounding like a republican quite the contrary.
"Hitlery" is the one being demonized again and again. The GOP has cornered the market on demonization ever since the 1988 Willie Horton ad.
How exactly did Sen. Obama "lie" about his comments last night?
I watched the debate and from what i could tell he REPEATED his comments made earlier with regards to Pakistan, if that is what you are referring to.
I mean I know all the media pundits are falling over themselves to coronate Hillary as the democratic nominee, but please.
I had the TV on MSNBC for the majority of the night from Hardball thru Tucker, the debate and Tweety's post-game wrap up. You don't think Tweety would have pointed out that Obama lied on the stage there if he did?
None of the pundits mentioned anything about Obama "lying" and neither did Hillary's campaign spokesman who was spoken to in the post-game.
Sure, they criticized his stance but no one said he lied and I'm quite sure that Hillary's campaign people would have had that talking point all over the media.
One other observation - Tucker Carlson is a prick. Never watched his MSNBC show before and after watching last night, now I know why.
I noticed Edwards and Dodd shaking their heads when he brought it back up. He embellished or elaborated on his original comments.
He did mistate what he said. If you don't want to use the "L" word fine. You are incorrect that noone called him on this. They called him on it during the debate (Dodd). David Schuster called him on it during his check the truth segment. And there were articles out today that called him on it. Maybe you missed all these things but they were out there. But judge for yourself read his original statement then read the transcript of the debate where he claims he didn't say it and explains what he did say...do you call that a lie...I do.
Expressing "convictions" too openly is exactly what we beat up Chavez (and Castro) about.
It also cost Goldwater ("extremism in defense of liberty is no vice") pretty severely. While I think we need to know our candidates' positions, I also believe one can be slightly circumspect with regard to whether one intends to attack a sovereign nation before or after tea.
Sueeld
I thought Hillary did a great job last night, she is showing more and more of her strengths when compared to Obama.
Every time Hillary is booed by a Democratic crowd a conservative likes her more. She's a lock, whether she is the best candidate is another matter but she worked the crowd. This is why she is a senator from New York, she's smart and speaks to her audience. I got a kick out of her comment about knowing how to beat the right wing machine. It's true, she does. Main stream conservatives are warming up to her, she'll need them and she'll get them with her shrewd diplomatic skills and her love of corporations. We on the left have no choice, we'll have to vote for her whether we want to or not.
Well if it is a choice between Hillary and Rudy , Hillary will get the blog vote, but I still fear will she get that Southern vote, and western vote? That scares me, would she win Florida? Could we have another stolen election?
The South? No problem. Thanks to Dean's 50 state strategy and conservative disenfranchisement with the Republican party and her being in Arkansas over a dozen years. Florida won't be a problem either. The midwest, she's from Chicago, no problem. None of the Republicans can touch her. I'm from New York, transplanted to Colorado. I know the area she had to woo to become Senator. Solidly moderate Republicans in upstate. She knows how to win people over and has proved she will say the unpopular thing at times. She is a very very good politician.
That does seem to be the case. The momentum definitely seems to on her side and I hope that I'll feel better about her on election date. This is actually how I felt about her husband during his first presidential run. I wasn't all that enthused but I voted for him and I was very very pleased with his performance as president. (with the exception of the Rwandan situation- he should have acted) I very happily and with no reservations voted for him the second time around.
Bing, I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis on Hillary. From her first MSNBC debate to the latest one, she has completely mopped the floor with all the presidential hopefuls and proved without a single doubt that she’s ready to take her position as president of this country. Though I’m no fan of Clinton, and I view her as conservative-lite, as you said so eloquently, we lefties and liberals have no choice: she’s going to be the nominee. Perhaps ignorantly I’ve built this optimism for Edwards since I applaud his efforts advocating and fighting for the working-class in this country, but honestly, the Clinton Machine is just too damn powerful to stop, and it will run over anyone that gets in their way. What impresses me the most about Hillary is how her calculation as a savvy politician with this cold demeanor works in her favor rather than against her. She brilliantly twisted the image the Right Wing created for her on its head, and made that femme fatale persona monarchial and commanding. (Perhaps Edwards could learn a thing or two from her by taking the pretty-boy image the media has created for him and work it in his favor, say, in a witty campaign ad?) It’s funny because I was talking about Hillary with one of my British friends, and he told me that her divisiveness, calculation and coldness reminds him of Margaret Thatcher, for she too was as equally ridiculed and admired in Britain similar to Hillary here in America.
I don’t support her winning the nomination, but for the past months I can’t see how any hater—even her arch adversary Dick Morris—can criticize her in these debates harshly. I mean, seriously, how many middle-aged white women can pimp slap Obama TWICE at the debates held at HBCs, and steal the black audience over from him with ease? Yeah, I may not like Clinton, but I have to admit, sistha got mad skillz!
Aw, heck, folks: as did everyone else here, I perceived the winner of the "debate" to be the very same guy I favored before the debate! And if one needs to know why, it is because Edwards draws criticism from Tommy, Another American, and the rest of a crowd I would love to see discomfitted. I do wish for America most of the same things Edwards espouses; and I do believe that even if Edwards seemed to use 3-minute speeches to supply 30-second answers (despite Olbermann's attempts to cut him off) he expressed much of that desire very well.
I saw Hillary second, and Kucinich next, with Obama running only fourth.
(Understand that I filter much of that perception through a lens of really left-wing beliefs, so you are free to wonder how Hillary came 2nd, despite her Corporatist stance. I sort of wonder, myself.)
I think all Americans were the winners last night.
However, MSNBC has to put Matthews out to pasture sooner rather than later if they hope to continue picking up ground in the cable news ratings race.
Hmm, clearly I am missing something...other than the fact that Matthews HATES Hillary Clinton (for what specific slight, I suspect we will never know) and he does seem to do a lot of projecting since he does smile when he puts his knife in her back... I was surprised that Matthews focused on her "personality" issues since the data appears to show that she has is more favorably viewed on those issues than on "positions on the issues" which seems much more relevant. Except that the less important issue seems to be important to Matthews since it reinforces his bias against women in politics. He is an old fashioned sexist, and he seems to revel in it. Oink oink.
About the Obama-Clinton dust up. It is clear that the Clinton narrative about Obama not being ready for prime time is gaining traction in the media which tends to forego independent analysis for lazy feeds from spinners (that's how the mainstream media pushed the Bush War in Iraq). Either and both (Obama or/and Clinton) are better and more relevant than any of the Republicans running. Obama, however, is right on the law about this: if a state harbors terrorists who have attacked the US, our current laws assert that those countries give up their right of sovereignity and the US can attack. Bill Clinton did it. The kicker was that Obama stated the he would categorically not use nuclear weapons against Pakistan in such an action. The way Fox News and the right wing are piling on Obama about this makes me believe they are more nervous about him running that Hilary Clinton - they've got it wrong again, they should fear both.
I bet Matthews was baring his canines when he unloaded that knife comment.
Kuchinich won the debate. Too bad so many people think he's unelectable. Too bad it's only money that dicatates who the front-runners are, not policy. Kuchinich is the ONLY candidate who is not a slave to to lobbyists and corporations.
The trouble Matthews goes to in order to utter something negative about Hillary has gotten to the point where he makes himself look assinine when he does it.
She might on occasion do something that legitimately would be worthy of a negative report by a real newsperson. Matthews has run it into the ground so far that he has ceased to be a believable commentator on any subject simply because his prejudices are so well known as to make him useless.
You can lean to the left or right and still be beliveable because people know you are simply coloring the facts to conform to your political stance, but they are still facts. Matthews no longer bothers with facts just ad hominum attacks on anyone he dislikes and love letters to anyone he likes.
MSNBC should give him a long vacation until his contract runs out.
Maybe I'm missing something. Because Hillary Clinton is a smart, savvy, assertive woman, she's also a killer? Why all these references to her stabbing people in the back? She doesn't even play much dirty politics, as far as I can tell.