Matthews' post-forum pressing issues: Edwards' size, Clinton's voice
During MSNBC's August 7 coverage of the AFL-CIO Democratic presidential forum, host Chris Matthews asked Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson about former Sen. John Edwards' (NC) performance: "Why did they seem to be glancing blows that didn't grab the audience? Is the fact that he's a small man -- I mean, literally, physically?" Robinson responded: "He's not physically that small." Later, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) sometimes "moves from being strong to being strident," and that "she was getting close to it toward the end." After he added, "She didn't go too high," Matthews interrupted, saying, "You didn't hear the fingernails on the blackboard. ... You didn't hear them." Matthews then asked the panel, which also included former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, "You all agree?"
In contrast with Matthews' comments on Edwards' size and Clinton's voice, Matthews has accentuated what he clearly regards as the positive when discussing Republican candidates, as Media Matters for America has documented. On the January 19 edition of Hardball, Matthews said of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "He has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, he looks right. He looks like a Mountie. He looks like [he's] from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police." Discussing former Sen. Fred Thompson's (TN) potential presidential bid on the March 29 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted that Thompson "looks like a movie star" and that "people like movie stars," adding, "Maybe we will get [actor] Harrison Ford next time." He also said (subscription required) of Thompson: "Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva?" On the May 2, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews had said of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, "He looks like a president to me."
However, Media Matters also noted that, during the July 18, 2006, edition of NBC's The Tonight Show, Matthews predicted a Giuliani victory in 2008, but also asserted: "I hope the American people take the next election very seriously and don't just vote partisan ... or personality or who has the happiest smile ... but picks the person that makes us feel the safest."
As Media Matters has noted, Matthews -- who on his June 24, 2007, program said that he "love[s] gender politics" -- has frequently focused on gender issues when discussing Clinton. He has said that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard"; wondered if Clinton is "a convincing mom"; claimed that "men don't knock Hillary" and that they are "are afraid" to criticize her. He once also claimed that her criticism of the Bush administration's homeland security spending priorities made her look "witchy" and has wondered if there is a "gigantic monster," a "big, green, horny-headed ... monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself."
Matthews' discussion of Edwards' height and Clinton's voice came about three hours after a conversation on Hardball about gay marriage, during which he turned to Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, and said, "[Y]ou don't love your wife, do you? I'm just kidding." Moments later, Matthews said: "Let's get back to the debating point here before we get too frivolous."
From the August 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Does the Republican Party have a position on gay marriage now that you guys have obviously a position on multiple marriages?
JOHN FEEHERY (Republican strategist): Well, we're against gay marriage. I think the party is against gay marriage. I think that's pretty --
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think that's fair.
FEEHERY: -- pretty clear that most Republicans -- all Republicans I -- as far as -- maybe [Rep.] Ron Paul [R-TX] -- but all Republicans are against gay marriage.
MATTHEWS: Why?
FEEHERY: Well, because they think it's -- marriage is between a man and a woman, not between two men or two women. I mean, that's one of the party's principles.
MATTHEWS: Do they believe it's a danger to straight marriage to have gay marriage?
FEEHERY: I think some do -- some just --
MATTHEWS: The last thing you need in the Republican Party is another danger to straight marriage. 'Cause you've got a lot of them already, right?
FEEHERY: Well, you know -- I'm married. I love my wife, and that does it.
MATTHEWS: Oh, here we go. Let's -- you don't love your wife, do you? I'm just kidding.
FINNEY: I happen to be single, Chris, thanks for that.
MATTHEWS: Let's get back to the debating point here before we get too frivolous.
From MSNBC's August 7 post-forum coverage:
MATTHEWS: What about -- let's go back to Gene for that question. Do you agree with the mayor?
ROBINSON: Yes, I --
MATTHEWS: That Edwards missed a chance tonight?
ROBINSON: Absolutely. I do agree that Edwards -- Edwards took his cuts. I mean, he --
MATTHEWS: Why didn't they seem to sting? Why did they seem to be glancing blows that didn't grab the audience? Is the fact that he's a small man -- I mean, literally, physically? Is there something that can't command that stage?
ROBINSON: He's not physically that small. He's -- you know --
MATTHEWS: But what doesn't work?
ROBINSON: -- but he seems smaller in the setting of Soldier Field. It takes a lot to command Soldier Field.
MATTHEWS: I think he's great in a room of 200 people. I saw it in Iowa last time. He's fabulous in a cozy room. But in that --
ROBINSON: He's engaging. He's charming. He brings people in, but in that setting, he did not come across.
MATTHEWS: I agree. He doesn't work in the big hall. And there we are in Soldier Field.
[...]
BUCHANAN: But I think Hillary won it for this reason: Hillary had one problem in a sense --
BROWN: See, Hillary won.
BUCHANAN: -- and I think Hillary won -- but she has one problem and she's -- I tell you what: Edwards made a dumb mistake. He said, you know, "I'm not -- I won't be on the cover of Fortune magazine as the candidate of the corporation." She came on back, "I fought the right wing. I did -- I'm their -- I'm your girl." And she had --
MATTHEWS: "If you want somebody to take on the right wing, I'm your girl."
BROWN: "I'm your girl."
BUCHANAN: She was concrete. She --
MATTHEWS: She's post-feminist. You can say girl now. It's so fascinating.
BUCHANAN: But she had one problem --
MATTHEWS: It's not like million-dollar baby out there.
BROWN: Yeah, but, keep in mind --
BUCHANAN: Let me tell you one problem she had. Hold it. Hold it.
BROWN: Keep in mind, guys, she also said: "I'm your sister" in New York.
BUCHANAN: All right, let me tell you one problem she had. She's in Soldier Field and these guys -- all these guys -- you could feel they're brought out by the stadium and the size of it, they're almost yelling. And when she moves up that line, she moves from being strong to being strident, and she was getting close to it toward the end.
But she was -- I mean -- because you have to do that when you are in a stadium. When you see those folks, you don't think the microphone's doing it for you. You think all of them got to hear you in the back row and your voice has got to get louder. But she held it. She didn't go too high, but she can go awfully --
MATTHEWS: You didn't hear the fingernails on the blackboard.
BUCHANAN: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: You didn't hear them. You all agree? Hillary was not too strident, Mr. Mayor? Or what? Or do you think she went too far?
BROWN: No, she was not too strident. As a matter of fact, she was very clever. She talked about how her father came to Soldier's Field and he would be absolutely enthralled to see her or any member of their family on the 10-yard line.
BUCHANAN: 10-yard line.
BROWN: That was a neat way to enter, unlike Mr. Obama, whose home court it was, she immediately became an acceptable person in that forum.
ROBINSON: Well, he did that too. He makes an --
MATTHEWS: My God, she's everywhere. She was an Arkansas first lady for all those years. She's a New Yorker. She's the homegrown candidate of Chicago. She's really mobile, this woman. She is mobile.
ROBINSON: But did you notice, though, that when she is the former Arkansas first lady, she has the Southern drawl. Tonight --
MATTHEWS: Did you notice the Chicago? A little Chicago there.
ROBINSON: Well, look, she's from there. So, she earned that.
MATTHEWS: I know but it came back. It was revisited.
ROBINSON: It really came back. It was very strong tonight. It was very, very strong --
MATTHEWS: That "ah" sound that I of course got to know through my father-in-law. But the fact is: She's very good.
ROBINSON: It's called the Midwestern twang, I think it's called.
This is hardly representative of this post debate coverage. I saw some of this and they spent quite a bit of time on the candidate's foreign policy disagreements, among the other debate topics.
For MMFA to insinuate this was Matthew's "pressing issues" is ridiculous. And very misleading. Yes, they touched on all sorts of topics as the panelists batted around many opinions and ideas. So what? This insistence by this website that every political discussion on these cable chat shows stick exclusively to issues, aka C-Span or something, and refrain from any talk of image or presentation is absurd. This is all part of politics. Get over it.
Tommy, i thought last nights coverage of the debate was fair, if anything it was over the top in fairness to the candidates especially Hillary. Part of the reason probably was because Keith Olbermann was hosting this debate.
It was fair, and Clinton made good points, as well as Obama.
Edwards and Kucinich looked hysterical, in my opinion.
Well Edwards is becoming quite the joke, and making himself look foolish. He should give back his book money if he has a problem with News Corp donating money.
And the way he stomps his foot and says that the Democrats should stand up to Fox, yet he's been on there dozens of times when it suited him.
Phony.
Despite your conservative economic bias, Edwards still has the best domestic agenda this side of Kucinich.
My conservative economic bias isn't so inclined to support taking from one and giving to another, through a huge government income redistribution program.
Sorry.
That's funny, I don't know who or what you're talking about.
Edwards still has the best domestic agenda this side of Kucinich.I would say LBJ than Kucinich. In fact, his concern for Civil Rights in this country reminds me of LBJ.
Hmmm...LBJ? Interesting take. Could you elaborate?
What are some similarities? Some differences?
Well, just minor details about his war on poverty policies somewhat mirrors that of Lyndon B. Johnson’s The Great Society. And for a southern white man to advocate fighting for the rights of poor minorities—poor folks in general—parallels LBG. Unlike Bill Clinton who won his approval from blacks by going to Baptist churches and giving feel-good speeches while his policies regarding Civil Rights says otherwise, I believe Edwards is more sincere and less of a snake-oils salesman. To quote scholar Adolph Reed, Jr. where he mentioned the parallels between Clinton and LBJ:
Here’s the rest of the article entitled “Yackety-yak about race” that was published in “The Progressive.”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=20078647
I dunno, I could be wrong about Edwards, but he’s by far the only one that speaks on issues that interests me the most than the other two top-tier candidates. I think it’s a mistake for anyone to rule out Edwards; when you think about it, when was the last time America elected a President that wasn’t a Southern white male? Mid 60s, I believe? America maybe ready for a change, but America is a stubborn nation when it comes to <i>sudden</i> change, and to rule out Edwards because he's low in the polls is a mistake on anyone's part. I think at this stage in 2004 Kerry wasn't the front runner, was he?
Wow!
Thanks Preston. I agree with you. Also, I think in 92 Clinton wasn't polling well early either. I wonder how the extended campaign season will affect things?
Sorry for that link, I don’t think it worked. Here it goes again: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Yackety-yak+about+race-a020078647 (I wish someone would teach me how to link properly because I tried to use HTML but that doesn’t work in this forum.)
I remember reading books about how Clinton wasn’t leading in the polls in 1992, but I think we all know that Clinton was elected mostly because of Ross Perot. I still have this gut feeling that Edwards is going to upset a lot of folks in this upcoming election. As I mentioned before, it takes America a while for a drastic change, and I just don’t see right now, despite Bush fatigue, people in huge numbers voting for a black man or a woman. Maybe I’m just too cynical about race and gender issues, and how being both black and a female in this country is still a hindrance; but I do know America feels mostly comfortable with homogeneity with our presidential candidates. To leap from voting for Southern white men consecutively for decades to a candidate completely different in gender, race, and region is very hard for me to see. Then again, I’m sure I’m in the minority with this view.
One way to link:
Copy (ctrl-c) the url you wish to use as the target.
Click the "whole" chain-link in the pictographs above the post-box; that will open a dialogue with a field for the url (just paste it in); and a choice of whether to open in the same window (usually not good - that tends to "lose" the page from which the reader goes to your target) or new window (I like that better, since now I have two open windows, and can readily see both at once if desired, by sizing and positioning them); FINALLY, AND IMPORTANT: PREVIEW, to allow yourself to test the link prior to post - I was recently somewhat dismayed to find extraneous text in my posted link, although it was not visible in the copied url, and a resultant dead end "link".) There is no need known to me to supply anything for the "Title" box, but mileage may differ.
Text to use as "title": MORA
Thank you so much for that! I've been trying to figure out how to link properly in these forms for a while now and I appreciate you taking the time to show me the fundamentals. That's one of the reasons why I don't post that often because I have many links to back up some of my arguments, but cutting and pasting a link the old fashion way not only makes one's post look sloppy, but doing so also uses up the 750 character rate MMFA allows for a post. Can’t thank you enough.
There's a big difference between agreeing to allow Fox News to host a debate and appearing on their network on your own with a newscaster interviewing you. One gives Fox much more credibility than the other. Let me know if you need help figuring out which participation would do that, Tommy.
Crybabies that can face little ole' Fox News will have a [W]eally, [W]eally tough time against big bad bullies around the world.
I imagine you meant to say "can't." Taking this into account, I'll point out that spineless Morans who can't stand up to or even outright ignore the pitiful whining of a right-wing network and its brainless supporters will have little chance at facing real problems with less than friendly leaders around the world.
Oops, thanks for the correction, I did mean to say "can't". If there is one overriding quality that I admire of any politician is that they wade in unfriendly waters, where they might not get stock questions, and put themselves out there in tough, even unfair, venues.
Those that avoid those forums because they don't dare face something they aren't prepared for, are wimps.
By your own assertion then, George W. Bush isn't the tough guy most make him out to be. You know, because during his campaigns for office, he only allowed in pre-screened upstanding republicans who would only heap praise on him, or ask softball questions. George W. Bush never faced tough questions during his campaigns, and if he did, he wouldn't answer them.
So by your assertion, George W. Bush isn't as tough as he keeps telling us that he is.
I have no basis for disagreeing with what you said. Most politicians do very little unrehearsed without spokespeople and handlers.
It isn't exclusive to any party.
I don't see the Dems dodging the toughest crowd there is: the American people. They keep putting themselve out there in front of us.
Meanwhile, the stiff, top down Republicans keep retreating to controlled venues.
Go Republicans!
The best way to reach the largest number of American people watching cable TV news is putting yourself and your ideas on the number 1 news channel today, that being Fox News.
But if you are afraid, then you excuse it away by crying foul.
Republicans have Fox. They can keep it, television is controlled and passive.
Dems have the internet and the American people. There is no control over the internet, information has been democratized.
Washington Post, 8-3-07
............[ ]................
"Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said his boss donated the book payments to charity and that the expense money went to staffers and vendors. Citing the announcement that prompted Edwards's e-mail -- Murdoch's $5 billion deal to buy Dow Jones -- Schultz said, "This is about whether or not Murdoch should expand his media empire and use the Wall Street Journal to further promote his right-wing agenda."
..............[ ]......................
Thanks for this. It's paddling upstream to correct the misinformation and distortions of the right wing, but it makes a difference.
Well Edwards is becoming quite the joke, and making himself look foolish. He should give back his book money if he has a problem with News Corp donating money.
He doesn't have it. Whatever money John Edwards got from News Corp went to pay his researchers or was donated to charity,
Did you catch Kucinich's digging to China comment...that was classic. He had some crowd pleasing issues but I think his platform is overly idealistic and I don't think as president he would be very effective for that reason.
Well Dennis has about as much a chance to be President as Bush has in getting the Noble Peace Prize.
Kucinich as president wouldn't get one of his ideas through any party control of Congress, D or R.
I admire him, slightly, for sticking to his convictions, but he is out in left field for the most part.
He is further in left field than Barry Bonds.
Sorry, im in a comedy mood today LOL
He's also a bigger cheater than Bonds.
Just look at his wife.
This is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense and humor is based on reality.
Are you saying he cheats on his wife? Why would you want to cheat on a woman that incredibly good-looking?
I agree that talk of presentation of the candidate is common and at times has some merit (although the presentation issues they focus on in my opinion are not so useful). But I watched this coverage also and I have to say when one of the first things he said was about Clinton's voice my husband and I rolled our eyes and thought it was ridiculous to start with such a stupid issue. I did think much of the coverage was pretty reasonable and fair. My husband thought it didn't cover all the candidates enough and he could have done without the stupid physical comments in exchange for more time to cover everyone who participated in the debate.
That is why this whole thread is disingenuous. One reads this and it appears like the entire debate post coverage was all fluff.
And it's also standard operating procedure for mmfa when it comes to Hillary.
Hillary plainly stated at the dailykos convention that she helped start and supports mmfa.
An independent media watch dog organization might think it is disingenuous...but not mmfa. What they think is....it's their job to defend Hillary at all costs.
After all...she is their matron saint who got them off and running and has called in her markers.
You know it...and I know it.
If you know it, and I should know it, let's see your proof that Hillary told the DailyKos convention that she was one of the founders and creators of MMfA, and that she still supports it financially.
Waiting.....
No, it does not seem like that.
MMfA doesn't say that the whole coverage was biased or out of line.
MMfA says that one part of it was out of line. They say that Matthews has a history of being harder on Dems than on Republicans, and they document those times. It does not mean that everything he says is anti-Dems.
Why do you seem to have a problem with pointing out flaws in cases like this? They aren't saying that he's evil incarnate. They're saying he said some things that were out of line for a journalist to say. Why can't you acknowledge that? Why do you insist that mentioning errors like this is wrong because the guy is not 100% evil?
Out of line for a journalist to say? Well, excuse me. Perhaps Matthews should run his copy by the folks here to make sure that it's all pro Democrat, with no satire or humor ever directed at them in anything but the most positive light.
You are amazing.
I agree. I watched the post-debate coverage as well and I thought despite Matthews obsession in pointing out Hillary being "shrill," Buchanan and Brown gave the best analysis.
They did indeed. Buchannan for all his craziness when he’s turn loose to opine is very good at these post debate analyses and he seems to be very fair, and I believe Brown did an excellent job. I made a prediction the other day that I thought the Dems would ultimately put forward a Clinton- Obama, Rhicards, or Edwards ticket. I don't think so now, at least not Obama. There seems to be some animosity brewing between Clinton and Obama and I've read from people that don't have an ideological ax to grind with H. Clinton that she holds grudges. I think the Dems may be headed toward a Clinton- Biden or Dodd ticket. I’m not exactly overjoyed about that. These people represent the old school guard that will continue to protect that lobbyist-legislature alliance that has turned out some very troubling policy. Biden and Dodd are also co-conspirators in that credit card industry authored bankruptcy legislature imposed on us as far as I’m concerned. H Clinton has already said she's sees nothing wrong with the level of lobbyist participation in DC, and obviously they see nothing wrong with it. I find this very disturbing. I am pretty certain that once again I will find myself in the position of voting for the people that I think will do the least amount of damage. I am actually becoming more disheartened with Clinton as the campaign presses on and I find myself surprised at that, I always assumed that I would be really good with it. That said she will be ten times better than the crew that's there now. I can't imagine anything worse than that.
Lynn,
I am not so sure that there won't be a Clinton/Obama ticket. Often times these candidates spar and jab at each other during the primaries, but they always seem to blur those distinctions and buddy-up after they're over. And many times they become running mates.
I don't think she'd pick Edwards, besides he did it once. And Biden or Dodd might diminish her stature a little. So Obama would be a good choice for her.
You make good points.
To be clear, I didn't mean that Obama was less of a stature-esque figure than Dodd or Biden - I was speaking of their senatorial experience next to hers.
Tommy, I agree I could see a Clinton/Obama Ticket. Edwards is done, he lost in 04.
Well, Nixon was a loser before he was a winner.
Comparing Edwards to Nixon? Could you insult Edwards any more?
Touche'. If I were John Gibson I could ;)
Darn fine analysis, Lynn. I'm with you all the way on it.
Hey Round,
In another thread I relayed how I wasn't all that enthused with Bill Clinton the first time I voted for him, but I was extremely pleased with how he managed the country and without hesitation I cast a second vote for him.I wasn't enthralled with NAFTA or welfare reform, but Clinton did well overall.
Hi Lynn. I am having the opposite experience. I am more and more impressed with Clinton and less so with Obama. I would like to see a Clinton/Richards ticket. I think Obama needs to get a little more experience and I think he could be future presidential material for sure. I will probably support whoever ends up being the democratic candidate because there is certainly nothing on the other side I would go for and even the candidate I least support would still do a better job then the republicans they have up. IMHO
I agree, most of the Republican candidates are pretty scary. All they seem to offer is more of the same or worse. Except Ron Paul of course, but the Irag issue is pretty much all I agree with him on, but he seems like a nice sane fellow. (smile)
I'm disappointed that the former governor of Arkansas, Huckabee, isn't getting more attention.
He truly represents Republican values.
I'd never vote for him, but I'd really like it if the true Republicans in our nation took back their party from the fools who stole it, and a good way to do that would be to support someone like Huckabee.
Lostlogice I have to agree with your Clinton/Richards ticket as opposed to Lynn's Clinton/Dodd/Biden. Richards is great on N. Korea diplomacy and a former member of Bill Clinton's WH. He's also Hispanic which I think will vote primarily with the Dems. I cannot see anyone on the Republican side. They keep running the fear fear and more fear campaign. I am sort of interested in Unity 08 but I don't know too much about it.
I was trying to figure out who Richards was. Can't be Anne Richards. She's dead...though I suppose she'd still be an improvement over our current VP.
The two of you mean Richardson...Bill Richardson.
Great post, Lynn. I agree with you about Buchanan. I’m not fond of the old bigot either, but I would never deny that man isn’t smart, and when he does these analysis he’s on point all the time. I kind have this love ‘im/hate ‘im reaction to Buchanan as I do with Sharpton: both are pretty repugnant and opportunistic, but I do enjoy listening to them speak for both are intelligent and charismatic figures.
I also agree with you about a Clinton and Obama ticket. I just don’t see that happening. For one, I’m sure both Clinton and Obama are way too skeptical to believe America would vote for both a black man and a woman as President and Vice President. Regardless of what anyone says, race and gender are still issues in this country, and to risk an election on myopic optimism would be a mistake, in my opinion. But if I can be blunt with you, I’m neither a fan of Obama or Clinton. I don’t think politically they’re that different from each other. Their voting record is identical. Thus, if it was either Clinton or Obama who wins the nomination, I think both will continue the same neoliberal policies that harkens back to the Clinton Administration. One of the reasons why the Democrats lost control of Congress back in the 90s because of NAFTA, and to give a big “F-you” to the faces of working men and women who are the backbones of the party set off a backlash. I agree with Kucinich that neither one of Presidential hopefuls will do a damn thing to fix trade; they’ll follow Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” philosophy apropos to Affirmative Action. I’m like you, I’ll probably cast a vote for someone I really don’t like but feel comfortable with because they’re a little better than a Republican candidate, but I gotta tell you, this two-party system has completely gone down the toilet in my opinion.
I have my issues with Obama, however, I feel I shouldn’t stress them at this time for if I do, it would turn this forum into a completely different debate all together. (And, no, it has nothing to do with Obama’s “blackness” or other superficialities; it’s strictly policy-wise. I’m throwing that out there for those who view me here as a borderline Black Panther, lol.) I think the only way the Democratic Party will change is when the people from beneath mobilize and push the party to work for THEIR interests and favor. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act weren’t passed because the government finally at that moment in time felt the need to give minorities equal rights; those bills were passed because the protest movement from outside the system made the government work for them, not the other way around. Until the American people start to mobilize and challenge the government, then we’ll continue to get these cooperate-interest politicians running the show.
- this two-party system has completely gone down the toilet in my opinion...Until the American people start to mobilize and challenge the government, then we’ll continue to get these cooperate-interest politicians running the show. - Preston_P
While we may disagree on matters of policy...I agree whole-heartedly with your above comment. Americans must engage in the political process.
The malaise of the voting public has allowed the rot in Washington to expand...incumbents get re-elected over and over...thumbing their noses at us while giving lip service to their constituents.
Term limits? I've never been a fan...but it's one way to stop the power of lobbyists and the horrific increase in pork spending.
Wow, I have to say I didn’t expect someone as politically opposite as Wesley to agree with me! I pretty much agree with everything you posted; so much I don’t think I need to add anything future to your argument. I find it quite telling that the more I read these threads—watching conservatives and liberals debate on various issues—the more I noticed how we all share this disenchantment over our current government and the political process of selecting elected officials to represent us. As someone who reads Media Matters’ threads more often than participate in debates, I can’t help but notice THAT similarity between liberal and conservative posters.
Term limits? I've never been a fan...but it's one way to stop the power of lobbyists and the horrific increase in pork spending. Wesley
I must add that I never thought I would see the day that I could agree with Wesley also but I say give them two terms to do what they promise and if they don't boot them out and try someone new. At this point I'm willing to try anything execpt the "status quo".
Preston/Pearlene
When liberals and conservatives "discuss" the issues it's bound to get rough and tumble at times.
I get my news from a variety of sites...like I'm sure most everyone else here does. But this is the only site that I post on...I get no satisfaction or have any interest in back slapping and cheerleading with a bunch of like minded conservatives.
While I find plenty of fault with mmfa's motives and reporting...their articles are always pretty well sourced...and that's a big reason why I come here.
Back to the issue we were discussing...Ross Perot proved that a third party candidate is a real viability. Unfortunately, he proved to be a nut.
However, early in the race he ran neck and neck in the polls with the traditional candidates...and even after his campaign imploded...he still got 19% of the vote.
Left, right, or maybe both...there is a third party lurking in the minds of the American public. The landscape is ripe for a real leader to emerge and break the choke hold that the current crop of pimps and whores have on the electoral system.
The only way that a third party candidate has a chance (instead of playing spoiler) would be to have run-off voting in this country. It works well elsewhere.
Perot was more than a spoiler early in the election process...A Washington Post/ABC News poll had Bush at 36%, Clinton at 31% and Perot 30%...in April 1992.
His in...then out...then in again strategy wrecked his chances. But I believe his early strength showed the possibility of a third party candidate winning...not just running as a spoiler.
I think if alternate parties are going to be viable need to form at the grass roots levels and not just jump in during presidential elections. They have to strat winning local and state offices. I actually think I would like the parlimentary democracies. They have multiple parties and powered is sort of shared based on the percentages that the parties receive. That seems pretty fair to me.
I think MMFA would have done itself much better by looking at it more scientifically.
How much time did Matthews spend discussing Edwards' size and Hillary's voice? And how much time did he spend discussing the content of the forum?
They are, however, on point about Matthews gushing over how handsome the Republicans are while nitpicking the Dems' looks, voices and mannerisms to pieces.
I actually thought the debate was pretty good. It has to be embarassing for Obama to have Hillary steal each and every debate from him, especially at his home court. She did it twice at the two debates held at HBCs, and she did it again at his home court in Chicago. If he's expecting to lead her in the polls he should try to hone his debating skills, because homeboy is lookin' kinda green.
My own little trick for dealing with Chris Matthews: I close my eyes and pretend he's Fred Willard in "Best of Show."
I didn't love the post-debate coverage, but the debate was terrific. The questions were intended to show real differences between the candidates and the audiences. The moderator was smart and the audience was even smarter.
BTW, Thank God there's a progressive with the sense to refer to Obama as "homeboy." I'd been counting on Ann Coulter to come up with an under-the-radar racial epithet for him. Now watch her take the credit after we've done all the work.
BTW, Thank God there's a progressive with the sense to refer to Obama as "homeboy." I'd been counting on Ann Coulter to come up with an under-the-radar racial epithet for him. Now watch her take the credit after we've done all the work.Ha! Thanks for that. I'm sure if she does steal a little street slang and refers to Obama as "homeboy" she will twist it in such a way it will make her appear pompous towards him. Then again I always get a kick out of conservative pundits using street slang. Like when Michelle Malkin told one guest when she subbed for O'Reilly that she knows her Hip Hop music, and she was "down with" Queen Latifah and MC Lite in her youth. lol
Apparently you all have forgotten the way Matthews gushed over Bush in a flight suit during the "Mission Accomplished" phase of the Iraq invasion.
Matthews has a bad habit of trivializing the conversation by referring to the physical characteristics of the candidates.
MMFA is correct to point out according to Matthews Democrats are "shrill" and "small" while any Republican appears to be "presidential."
Johnny, Matthews gushed over the flight suit because Bush looked so big in that codpiece.
Edwards is small.
Tweety's a Size Queen (with a comfortable chin).
Chris Matthews has a hatred of Hillary Clinton that is apparent on every one of his shows. I want someone to have the courage to call him on it. To ask why he detests this woman with every fiber of his being and why he has the need to share his vitriolic hatred of her every day. At the same time he has been openly flaking for Rudy Giuliani since before he announced. Whatever small amount of integrity he possessed he has sold it out to be a Republican shill.
Matthews continues to avoid the tough issues. Last night, he had Jesse Jackson on to discuss the burning question, "Is Obama Black enough?". Jackson chastised the press in general for wasting time on such nonsense, considering the thousands of weapons and billions of dollars that have been "misplaced" in Iraq. I don't always agree wih Jesse, but I applaud him for this, even though he was probably wasting his breath.
Yup, and the next time Al Sharpton is on he’ll ask him and any Black person he believes to have come up through the I think he put it as "polarizing" civil rights movement.
I get so sick of this "Obama black enough" question that pundits still bring up in the media. Now, I can't speak for all black folks, but I do know whenever I go and get my haircut at the barbershop and chat about politics, notably Obama, not a single one of us raise the question in the debate "is Obama black enough?" This just shows how lazy and inept our media has become over the past fifteen to twenty years. When a few black conservative journalists or black militants write op-ed pieces about Obama's "blackness" that somehow represents the entire "black community" resistance or indifference to Obama. Kinda like when Louis Farrakhan became infamous in the media with his anti-Semitic rants, he somehow exemplified this "black Anti-Semitism" that was secretly brewing beneath the surface. (Because I’m sure you know, Lynn, that we are a homogeneous group, according to the media, of course.) I get tired of Blizter, Matthews, Cooper, etc., continuing to bring this up as if it’s a huge issue with black people. Do some of these pundits perform any research before raising such a question like this? Historically, black folks in this country have had no problem accepting Stokey Carmichael, Langston Hughes, Sidney Poitier, W.E.B. Dubois, Julian Bonds, and many others who were either biracial, light-skinned, sons of immigrant parents whose ancestors aren’t connected to the West African slaves that arrived here in chains, or highly respected scholars, activists and entertainers, who were and are equally as charismatic and intelligent as Obama.
But this “Obama black enough” question won’t stop because our media is too sensationalistic to give up such a juicy, presumably divisive story as this one. And nothing is more newsworthy than blacks at each others’ throats over some petty bullsh**. Matthews and others are just as disgraceful and tacky with this as Hannity and his hackneyed argument about Obama’s church being separatist.
Mathews is a bloviating blowhard who fancies himself a newsman's newsman. What he's "good" at is talking over his guests. If he'd shut his mouth more and listen he might learn something.
I watched the entire telecast of the candidates debate at Chicago's Soldier Field. It was my opinion that the candidates that did the best, and the ones that got the loudest cheers, were John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich (sp). Yet during the Chris Mathews post debate show, Kucinich was hardly mentioned. I didn't think Hillary did all that well, and I didn't think Barack did all that well either. I don't know if kucinich would make that great a President, but he has some terriffic ideas that should be debated. I live in Oregon, and I know that with the early primarys in all the other states, I will not have a chance to vote for Kucinich, or probably for Edwards either. I don't think that it is because voters don't like their message, but that they don't hear their message.