Matthews claimed "Clinton people ... trying to intimidate" Blitzer -- after Blitzer had denied it
MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews began his November 13 show by asserting that "the Clinton people" are "trying to intimidate" CNN host Wolf Blitzer, who is scheduled to moderate a November 15 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. But less than an hour earlier, Blitzer had said on CNN's The Situation Room, "No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me. ... No one has even called me to try to pressure me or anything like that. ... I have not felt any pressure whatsoever." Later during the same edition of Hardball, Matthews referred to Blitzer's denial but misrepresented it.
Matthews' claim echoed an anonymously sourced blurb on the Drudge Report homepage, which asserted that "Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and quoted an anonymous "top Clinton insider" saying, "This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy. ... Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert,' " referring to NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert who moderated the October 30 Democratic debate in Philadelphia.
By the time Matthews asserted at 5 p.m. ET that "the Clinton people" are "trying to intimidate" Blitzer, Drudge had updated his post to include Blitzer's denial.
From the Drudge Report's front page, as it appeared at 4:45 p.m. ET on November 13:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux ... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'... Developing ...
Later during Hardball, Matthews returned to the story -- this time noting that it came from the Drudge Report. Matthews said: "Drudge referred to an insider today intimidating -- trying to intimidate our colleague Wolf Blitzer, who said he is not being intimidated." In fact, Blitzer's denial was broader than Matthews claimed. While Matthews asserted that Blitzer said "he is not being intimidated," Blitzer actually stated, "No one is trying to intimidate me," [emphasis added] and "I have not felt any pressure whatsoever."
From the November 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Who's afraid of the big, bad Wolf? First, the Clinton people blamed the moderator in that Philadelphia debate for Hillary's bad night. Then, they confess to feeding questions in televised town meetings. Now they're trying to intimidate the next debate moderator. Is everyone fair game except the candidate? Let's play Hardball.
[...]
MATTHEWS: It seems like, Chuck, every time we have a conversation, it's like a Rorschach test, and sometimes, it's gender specific, but it isn't always, where you get a lot of reaction to the smallest things like this ringer story. You know, Joe Klein was on and says everybody does it -- I don't know if that's true or not -- but everybody sort of jumps one way or the other. This shows that she's a manipulative candidate; other people say it's trivial to even talk about it.
CHUCK TODD (NBC News political director): Well, no, I mean, the problem -- and both [NBC News chief White House correspondent] David [Gregory] and Julie hit on this -- is that she's got to be careful of the old storylines coming back. I mean, you know, I've always had this theory, if she becomes president, it's because she's a woman; if she loses, it's because she's a Clinton
And that ultimately, the Clinton stereotype of being triangulating, calculating, parsing sentences, if that is ever the message of the week or the campaign debate of the week, as it was for about three or four days, and planting questions fits into that whole umbrella.
Whenever that's being done, those are bad days for Hillary Clinton, because then, suddenly, it's the Clinton that's being emphasized and not the Hillary.
MATTHEWS: David, it seems like there's so many voices coming out of the campaign. I mean, Drudge referred to an insider today intimidating -- trying to intimidate our colleague Wolf Blitzer, who said he is not being intimidated.
But these weird voices that come out in the middle of the night -- is it Mark Penn, is it Mandy -- who are, you know we're not going to say who they are, but it seems like there's so many voices coming out of that campaign they're not under control -- or are they?
From the November 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
JACK CAFFERTY (commentator): Usually, we only do one question at a time in these segments, but, today, I have an extra question. And it has to do with the Drudge Report and my pal, Wolf Blitzer. I was clicking on the Drudge Report, and there you are, big as life, in the middle of the Drudge Report this afternoon, with a headline suggesting that the Hillary Clinton campaign is trying to intimidate you before you moderate this big debate in Las Vegas. What up with that?
BLITZER: Not true. No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me.
CAFFERTY: They'd better not. I'll come down there.
BLITZER: No one has even called me to try to pressure me or anything like that.
CAFFERTY: Where do -- where does a silly thing like that come from?
BLITZER: I don't know. You know, I try to suspect that maybe some rival campaigns are trying to create a little mischief, try to get her embarrassed a little bit getting into the debate Thursday night, but I have no idea where it's coming from. I have no idea who generated this story, but I can tell you I have not felt any pressure whatsoever.
CAFFERTY: What about Drudge just rushing this thing right onto the website without knowing if it's true or not?
BLITZER: Well, that's another story.
CAFFERTY: Well, that's -- we may get into that at some point.
BLITZER: Maybe we will.
Go ahead Mr. B get into Drudges methods of operation, history, sources, outlets. I don't see much enthusiasm to do this somehow.
personally, I'd LOVE to see someone fully investigate Drudge's methods of operation, history, sources, and outlets. Show him for the closeted gay liar that he is.
I listened to about a half hour of Limbaugh today (I was stuck in traffic) and he said this exact same thing. It makes me think that Tweety gets his talking points from Limbaugh.
So much for the "Liberal Media."
[end sarcasm]
I heard it on Hannity, except he was using the word "threatened" instead of pressured. I'm sure he and Rush will be airing their retractions/corrections today. Har jar.
Well, we know that Hillary threatened that restaurant manager in Iowa with a butterknife so he would say they left a tip. I guess it's just a short step to threatening journalists.
She probably threatened him with a razor. I'm betting on a "Gillette".
You got bad information. She stood in the door, pulled a grenade from her purse, and with one finger ready to pull the pin she demanded the manger lie to the press. Having no option, with only the concern of his staff and patrons, he immediately contacted AP and made up a story about her giving a tip of $100, at which point she thanked him, sat in the nonsmoking section and proceeded to order boiled puppy and a side salad.
I heard it was ROAST puppy. With a side of panda.
would that have been giant panda by chance?
And Perrigrine Falcon Hot Wings for an appetizer....
My, did you not hear about the tank she had parked outside?
Why not just make this part of Hillary's campaign website? Now EVERY item in today's MMfA references Clinton. Is she that maligned?
Folks. come on - Now its getting BORING.
Does this mean you will be going away? Darn...
Let me ask you...would you like me to not post here any more? Is it your meaning that only those who agree with your point of view be allowed to post here?
Admit it...These items are boring with the "all Hillary..all the time" format.
By the way...I actually like Hillary and think she would do a good job as president. She is a moderate and appears to be pragmatic. I think far left smear sites (like this one - sometimes) do her a disservice by alienating voters, like me, who are more center and undecided.
If you like her so much, then you should understand and appreciate the effort to prevent people from lying about her.
The bottom line seems to be "I'm moving to the center because I like Hillary, but any site that points out lies about her is a far-left smear site!" Truly bizarre.
nice to know that you are so shallow that you would not vote for hillary based on what this "smear site" does or says. how about listening to what she says and making up your mind based on that?
Exactly - anyone who is that easily influenced by a 'smear site' instead of the candidate's ideas should reevaluate what they are really voting for and why.
---"Admit it...These items are boring with the "all Hillary..all the time" format. "---
Know what's *really* boring?? The right-wing's constant, relentless media misinformation re: Hillary followed by the inevitable right-winger complaining here about 'all you ever talk about is 'the relentless media misinformation re: Hillary'.
Seems the most logical thing would be to contact the media and complain to them, not us.
The problem is that Hillary is appears to have a hand in the smear site. Tell me, does she actually dictate the items that will be posted here?
damn, you figured it out. pack up, everyone. game's over.
Of course, that's why there are articles about Obama and Edwards, her rivals. Because she wants to help their image.
The problem is that Hillary is appears to have a hand in the smear site. Tell me, does she actually dictate the items that will be posted here?
Uh-oh. We're busted.
Ok. Gotta confess. It's true. Hillary doesn't just have a hand, or simply "dictage". She's the only hand. Hillary is Orson Welles and The Wizard combined. Produced, written and directed by.
Just to make it look good, she's been throwing in non-Hillary items about Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and others, in the majority of the posts on this site.
Actually. Full disclosure. I am, in fact, Hillary. As are solon, HBL, and others. We all are one and the same.
Objective = smear.
The problem is your imagination doesnt define reality
So smears of Hillary ought to go unanswered because YOU find them boring? I suggest you just skip the Hillary threads. I suggest that it isnt UP TO YOU what is posted here. Feel free to start your own website and let US come by and tell YOU how to run it. It would surely be a favor to the right to just allow smears like this to go unanswered but I am not inclined to DO THEM any favors. I couldnt care less if you like it or not.
Less than half of today's articles had something to do with one Clinton or the other. But we won't let facts get in the way of your rant, will we?
Why not just make this part of Hillary's campaign website? Now EVERY item in today's MMfA references Clinton. Is she that maligned?
Folks. come on - Now its getting BORING.
Actually, the only thing that's boring is the numbskulls like you trying to tell MMFA what should and should not be discussed.
Tell ya what - as soon as YOU can convince Rush Limbaugh to discuss his arrest in the company of that male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s AND get George W. Bush to discuss how he forced his underage girlfriend to get an abortion BEFORE Roe v. Wade made such a procedure legal, THEN we'll give your suggestions some consideration......
"Maybe we will."
No they won't.
GF, will you still be here when it gets to excrudiatingly painful?
So ask the various parts of the axis of weasels your last question. It would seem to be a good idea to ask the source as opposed to someplace that merely notes the quotes.
"...as opposed to someplace that merely notes the quotes". eweston8542983
So you're contention is that MMfA is not biased? They merely "note the quotes"? Come on...Don't be naive
MMFA is only biased in the sense that their mission is to expose only conservative misinformation. No one is arguing that there isn't also liberal misinformation, but that is not MMFA's mission.
I think if one is objective, you can look at the lion's share of MMFA items and see a fact based refutation of what mostly constitutes lies, innuendo, or the attempts made to frame a given item or debate around the conservative/RNC viewpoint. Why they are so valuable is that they continually expose the myth of the so-called Liberal Media. And given trends (at least from my vantage point), the notion of an objective media is a quaint but out-of-date notion. To be informed, a voter has to cull information from multiple sources and seek facts and truths relentlessly as you often have to go 2 or 3 layers deep to ferret out any semblance of "reality".
So in that sense, MMFA is no less "biased" than Faux News is "Fair and Balanced" - the difference is Faux and others promote information that they themselves state is wrong or unverified, just as Matthews has done here. This revolving door full of crap is, at its essence, propaganda, with further erosion of a Jeffersonian ideal in a democracy - an informed electorate.
And also I'd like to see a conservative equivalent of this site. A well presented, fact-based context of liberal quotes in the media, with a repudiation (as MMFA does) using counter opposing facts. Then allowing a forum to discuss (as MMFA does). It doesn't exist.
"It doesn't exist." - MickD
Except for these:
But I'm sure you will have ample reason to dismiss these sites as right-wing propaganda.
Goodfella,
Do you honestly believe those sites are fact-based?
Little Green Footballs? Fact-based and allow dissenting comments? Really?
You are right we have ample reason to dismiss littlegreenmorons and Townhall as rightwing propaganda sites. Newsbusters is better but not on a par with MMFA. I would say MRC and AIM but they really arent on a par with this site either.
"BLITZER: Maybe we will" You better you idiot. Rumors spread from Drudge and Fox to the MSM and even when they're proven false, no one bothers to investigate the source. That should be their job instead of just repeating falsehoods.
We've got politicians who lie and a news media that can't get the facts straight or won't. Isn't it amazing that most of this country believes in the absolute accuracy of a story 2007 years old and yet everyday, with all our technology, we can't get clear on just about anything. Is today Tuesday? I don't trust Fox News to tell me the truth.
"BLITZER: Maybe we will" You better you idiot.
NO chance. I laughed when I read it. Blitzer and everybody knows (as you stated) that Drudge reports anonymous information without checking. It's "meat on the table" for Blitzer and the industry. That's about as likely as a story on why you shouldn't watch so much TV.
Any one want to make bets if Chris Matthews will now spend the next two weeks attacking in his rabid, bombastic, and idiotic ways his boyfriend Guiliani over the breaking story about the Kerick's girlfriend being told to lie by the News Corps top executives to the Federal Investigators concerning Kerick in order to protect the presidential ambitions of Guiliani himself ? As an aside, did anyone notice Matthews snide and sarcastic tone when he did mention Blizter's denial of the story about being pressured by Clinton for the debate ? This man should charged with journalistic misconduct along with his palls Russert and Williams.
Little known blitzer factoid, he changed his name from "Shark Divebomber". He felt Wolf Blitzer was much more dramatic.
Good grief, you folks do make me chuckle at times.
While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton camp to personally intimidate or pressure anyone if they thought they could get away with it...they really don't have to.
It's out there all over the airwaves & in print.
It started right after the debate. Anonymous Clintonites began jumping all over Russert. He was playing Gotcha!, let's just set aside the fact that Hills couldn't give a straight answer to a very specific question! They blamed Hillary's stumble on being piled on by Russert & her opponents. The hounddog used code words like swiftboating. Then whined that the boys were being tough on her.
Nah none of that is implied pressure to treat Hills with kid gloves or intimidating to the next debate commentator ::eye roll::
Being that Wolf is such a wimp I'm sure he'll buckle. Watch for him to walk on eggshells around Hillary.
Or maybe, unlike Russert, he'll just ask honest and informed questions. Or maybe he'll even allow for more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer to questions about complex issues like immigration.
he'll even allow for more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer to questions about complex issues like immigration
Clams,
This wasn't a general question about ILLEGAL immigration. It was very specific. Do you agree with Governor Spitzer's plans to give Drivers Licenses to ILLEGALS?
Yes or No?
Easy...unless you're a professional panderer like Hills.
Could not have said it better Jeter. It was only a matter of minutes before they were attacking Russert as being unfair. It still amazes me how many posters here stilllll claim he was asking her to explain immigration in 30 seconds....he was not. He gave her two chances to support or oppose a policy proposal IN HER OWN STATE. She could not do it. Of course it is his fault....the bully!!!
To all you who say it wasn't a gotcha question then ask Romney, in a debate, If he is a "true mormon" and believes all the teachings of his "Prophets" and answer that in 30 sec. blip...won't happen because it's not that simple...Immigration isn't that simple either.
Let's ask Gulliani, in a debate, why he suggested to Bush that Kerrick be considered for a head of homeland security, with his ties to the mob, and see him answer in 30 sec blip...won't happen... it's not that simple.
lookit, all this questioning about whether those were gotcha questions? all you have to do is go to the Daily Howler to see for yourself. it's actually, you know, QUALITY coverage of our media, like MMFA. the debate questioning was unprecedented in it's character and tone. enjoy.....
But if you ask him if a Mormon should be able to marry 3 women in Utah I bet he can answer that in 30 seconds. Wow, the degree you will go to to protect HC.
Attention is a strange thing. We never look but through a screen of words, explanations and prejudices; we never listen save through judgements, comparisons and remembrances. The very naming of the flower, the bird, is a distraction. The mind is never still to look, to listen.
Matthews spewd this lie about hillary trying to intimidate Wolf because it fit a story line he wanted to peddle about her. Facts were not important to him, because the truth was available to him and he ignored it! he gave us a polluted glass of water to drink and we should respond to him by letting him and MSNBC know we don't appreciate it. We got GWB because of a willing press chose to ignore the truth and stuck to story lines they wanted to feed us. This site is full of examples. Personally I find Mr. Matthews and Tim Russert despicable and full of themselves. They are not concerned with informing anyone but only in talking to themselves and those in the beltway, almost like they have some devine knowledge us commoners can never grasp. We have to let them know about it every chance we get. Fight Back!
I've said this on a previous post and I will repeat again today. Fear and fear alone is what drives people to spew nasty things about Hillary Clinton. People are afraid of change. This attack on Clinton's character started well before she announced she was running and has nothing to do with her policies. We all bared witness to it. Some of us may have chuckled, but seriously what's the joke? Is it funny that an audience member ask Senator John McCain, who claims to respect Hillary Clinton, "So how do we beat the bitch?" and he doesn't address the inappropriateness of a comment like that in a political setting? That's funny? How about Tucker calling her a stereotypical bitch? How about Matthews riding her for clapping? Now her "people" are intimidating moderators?!? I'm not a Hillary apologist. Honestly I believe our selection of candidates aren't always the greatest in a two party system and we're forced to choose the lesser of two evils. But this concentrated assault on Hillary is one of the reason support for her is so prevalent on this website. When you constantly make someone the under dog and the butt of jokes, they garner sympathy. When it is unwarranted you make them a hero in the eyes of many. Just wait. All of you chauvanist, conservatives and jealous females out there who hate Hillary but can't come up with anything better than her laugh or her being "phony" as a reason, you'll all see what America says. Intimidation is not asking for fair questions to be asked at a debate. Intimidation is constantly having to live with an ELEVATED TERROR ALERT since 2001.
Someone explain why Wolf has to admit that HE was intimidated. That's not the point.
He said nobody tried to intimidate him.
What is the point?
Because he doesnt want to be part of a LIE being spread about which he is the central character? I understand you have little understanding of the concept of integrity but to those of us who do, why he would deny the LIE is pretty obvious.
I'm so glad someone is watching Chris Mathews! He's worse every day. He's obviously got his panties in a bunch over Hillary...spins everything he can against her. He's beating the drum on illegal immigrants now. He sounds like the Lou Dobbs of MSNBC.
I agree with a previous post...WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA????
I sent this to Media Matters today. Hopefully they will do something before it is too late:
Dear Media Matters: I am sure you are all aware of the proposed FCC rule change that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to rush through Congress by December 18. [link to dorgan.senate.gov] Last time they tried this it was defeated by a grass roots blitz because there was enough time to stop it. That is why this time around they kept it a secret until last minute. Without preaching to the choir about why this is a bigger issue than everything else you do at Media Matters it is imperative that you use your widespread audience to mobilize this immediately. So far, I have heard this mentioned on Rachel Maddow's show twice and a mention on the Ed Shultz show once. It is not enough. This needs to be right on yourmain web page for the next few weeks including telling people where they can go to flood the FCC with opposition to the rule change. [link to www.stopbigmedia.com] [link to www.commoncause.org] If Media Matters doesn't take control of this effort who will? And if you don't do it you might as well stop complaining about the negative catalyst to progress the news media has become because when you had the chance to make a difference you did nothing.
Wolf and Cafferty didn't really take the time...
to take a close look at how this garbage could make its way front-and-center on the Sludge Report. They just glossed it over--just another right-wing lie.
--"CNN, don't tell us you're the No. 1 source for serious analysis of the "news," and then proceed to ask questions that the candidates answer by raising their hands."