Matthews described Obama as "almost Third World in his sort of presentation"
Appearing on the December 3 edition of NBC's Today to discuss presidential politics, MSNBC host Chris Matthews said of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "[H]e's so fresh-faced, so brand-new, almost Third World in his sort of presentation. He doesn't click as a usual politician."
From the December 3 edition of NBC's Today:
VIERA: Chris Matthews is the host of both MSNBC's Hardball and The Chris Matthews Show, as well as the author of Life's a Campaign. Chris, good morning to you.
MATTHEWS: Good morning, Meredith.
VIERA: And the big question this morning: What is going on? Starting with the Democrats, Obama now ahead of Clinton in the Iowa polls. Is it a matter of fluctuation in polls, normal fluctuation, or has the momentum really shifted?
MATTHEWS: Well, it's a clear trend, Obama, people want change and it's helping him. You never know in politics where you stand with the public 'til you make a mistake. And Hillary Clinton had a bad night six weeks ago in Philadelphia, as [NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent] Andrea [Mitchell] said in that report, and she's still reeling from it, and I think Obama's taking advantage of that. He's the change agent. And the Clinton campaign has still got a problem, something to do with veracity. It's not clear how they're going to deal with it.
VIERA: But why are women -- but why are women leaving her?
MATTHEWS: Well, the key thing is: Who would have believed a few months ago that three out of four women in Iowa, Democratic women, would not be committed to Hillary right now. She was supposed to have an advantage among women. Now, she doesn't have that advantage. I think women want change. I think they really want it, and they need it, especially women with need. And Hillary, unfortunately for her, represents the past, the cycle of the Clinton/Bush back-and-forth every couple of years, and it doesn't seem like a fresh start. Obama is the fresh start candidate.
VIERA: And what about Oprah [Winfrey] endorsing Obama? What kind of an impact do you think that is really having or will have?
MATTHEWS: It depends how she plays it. If she simply comes along and says, "I'm from Chicago. I'm African-American. I like this guy, he's my favorite son," it won't work. She's -- her great strength, if anybody watches the show -- and I think everybody does in Iowa; it's the number one show in Iowa -- she's instructive. She's empowering. Every time you watch an Oprah broadcast, at the end of it, you know more than you started and you feel stronger. That's her strength.
If she can bring those two qualities, those two abilities, to the campaign trail, the 8th and 9th this coming weekend, she can really bring up the vote, not just among women, but everybody. She has to be herself, though. She can't just be a politician.
VIERA: Biggest story, probably, Chris, is on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee now surging ahead of Mitt Romney in Iowa. He's only spent $300,000 compared to Romney spending $7 million. How has he pulled this off?
MATTHEWS: He's more likable.
VIERA: That simple?
MATTHEWS: It's as simple as that. People meet this guy, Huckabee, and they like him. They meet Romney, they meet a guy who looks like a Ken doll, who's very smart, very smooth, but too smooth. I don't think this is the year of the politician, to be honest about it. I look at Hillary, she's a politician. I look at Romney, he's a politician. I look at Huckabee, I'm not sure. He may be the best kind of politician -- he doesn't look like one.
And the other guy, you know, Obama, he's so fresh-faced, so brand-new, almost Third World in his sort of presentation. He doesn't click as a usual politician.
VIERA: OK, so the year of the non-politician.
MATTHEWS: I think the politicians are losing out this year. It's not a good year. They've not had a good -- well, they haven't had a good decade, let's be honest about it. People want a change.
VIERA: All right. Chris Matthews, thanks very much.
Ask yourself, Americans, would we feel comfortable voting for the dude from "The Gods Must Be Crazy" for president? "Third World in his sort of of presentation"? WTF is that supposed to mean? Has Chris Matthews finally jumped that shark or was this meant as a compliment? You know; Obama displays some third world earnestness or naivete that Americans can't feel in their president. In the context of saying Iowans find the Weight Watchers spokeman/ evangelical white guy more likeable than the rich fake Ken-doll of a white man, to throw in that a brother is third world in his sort of presentation seems like a faux pas to me, however well-intentioned it was. Then again, judging by how racist and polarized America's becoming, maybe Senator Obama's positive outlook and refreshing politics (in addition to his black skin) are too "third world" for us all. I know he has a lot of politcal hack/ punditing experience, but I would think that Chris Matthews would think a little bit more about what he's going to emit before he opened his mouth. He must not know that Third world="Turd World" to a lot of people watching this race. Way to diss the Senator, Mr. Matthews.
Brilliant. I was going to make a bone-in-the-lip comment, but the "The Gods Must be Crazy" reference says it all.
If Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity had ever said this, it would be non-stop hysteria on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, WaPo, ... you get the point.
But since Matthews is a good ol' cheerleader for the Democrats (only giving them a little bit of grief to attempt an air of impartiality), this will not be a story outside a handful of web sites.
"If Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity had ever said this, it would be non-stop hysteria on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, WaPo, ... you get the point."
No it wouldn't. It would be ignored. If it would, there'd be no reason for MMFA to exist.
Cheerleader for Democrats???? Back away from the crack pipe dude. This is the guy who said Bush was like Atticus Finch and shines with a sunny nobility. Who flits from man crush to man crush on whichever Republican catches his fancy. Slams Hillary with a kind of manic regularity. They guy is FAR from a cheerleader for Democrats. Do you just say whatever floats to the top of your head based on how to slam Dems without so much as a moments thought if it makes any sense whatsoever? Your post was plain delusional
The Insanitized Levinites say that trash about Matthews simply because they hear Sean Hannity's significant other, aka Mark Levin, slamming Matthews and his show just about every night. Levin is way too far gone over his doggie issues to even know what the hell he is talking about. Matthews definitely is no shill for the Dems. Not even close. The man has a major-league woody for Julie Annie.
Well said ... and lets not forget when Jon Stewart implied Matthew's book was fascistic. This occurred when Matthews was promoting his book on the Jon Stewart show ... that night Matthews supposedly stated he had been pressured by the Vice Prez's office [at aNBC gala event later] ... this ofcourse hit the wire immediatedly which in Matthews warped - Goebbel- like thinking ... eliminated the horror of being cast as a fascis. Well let me be clear [said with Craig-like enthusiasism] ... Matthews is a fascist ... and the reason he is so dispicable is that he hides behind his one year in the Peace Corps and his taking advantage of a job offer by Prez Carter - even though he didn't believe in the Democratic positions ... he did the job because he was taking advantage of an offer. He has an agenda ... and that agenda is ... FASCISM!!!
Shoesie, what happened to your two cents? With the devaluation of the dollar through BushieCo, I guess it's down to a Halfpenny.
If Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity had ever said this, it would be non-stop hysteria on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, WaPo, ... you get the point.
Actually no I don't.
Bill "I can't believe black folks eat in a restaurant with knives and forks" is known for making bigoted, racially insensitive remarks. Chris "Mitt has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, the perfect look" is known for making stupid remarks.
Chris Mattews = G.E Lapdog....end of story
Does Chris Matthews ever get to any political points? What has become of this man who seemed to have a grasp of politics years ago, and now can only make quirky snide remarks that have little to nothing to do with governing this nation.
If Matthews would leave his personal opinions aside and look at the issues (like most "news" people in other countries do) then we would have better dialog. Instead he leaves the Cons with stupid quotes to grasp onto as Bush pretends to be anything presidential.
He's being 'Foxified'.
I do not trust any of them to make any hard objective analyses of any of the candidates. Now it's all about stupid superficialities such as a candidate's laugh, haircut, height, weight, choice of spouse... you name it. Anything besides what it really takes to pull this country out of the Hell that George W. Bush has created.
It appears that Matthews was trying to make a compliment for Obama here, but I have no idea what the "third-world" aspect is supposed to mean. I hope it is not to say he looks like he's from a 3rd-world country. But that does not seem to be it.
"but I have no idea what the "third-world" aspect is supposed to mean."
It means he's not White.
That's ridiculous - because he isn't white? There is no racial angle here that I see.
The "Third World" reference is that Matthews views Obama as unpolished and straightforward, not a packaged politician with scripted speeches and media handlers to make him a robotic presence on the campaign stump. He isn't a usual politician, according to Matthews.
It might be a weird analogy, but there is nothing racial about it.
Wow. So Matthews views Obama as 'unpolished' and 'straightforward' - positive qualities indeed as in not being scripted and manipulated - and yet he uses a pejorative term - 'Third World' - to describe him?
Nope, can't see anything wrong with that at all... absolutely nothing. *rolls eyes*
Third World may not be the best descriptor, but he was referring to a more basic, less 2007-08 type candidate than the others appear to be - which he was contrasting.
Yeah, he was describing a candidate who's a straight-shooter and doesn't BS around unlike the rest of those '2007-2008 style' manipulated candidates. So why would he use ANY pejorative to describe Obama? Does Obama's 'style' rub him the wrong way as in Obama not being just another ordinary hack?
Seems to me Matthews just wants more of the same old tired BS that we've been forced to have for the past umpteen years. This also explains why the corrupt media have been deliberately attempting to derail Ron Paul's campaign.
I have no idea why he chose the "third world" term, Matthews often uses weird, foot-in-the-mouth analogies that aren't necessarily as insulting as they are thoughtless, perhaps. He talks so fast and his mind is all things political, he uses strange verbage at times.....this is one of them.
Don't feign ignorance. I think you know as well as I know why he did it.
Obama has been gaining and Hillary is falling... and Chrissy doesn't like it. I think he knows that IF Obama gets the nomination and he is pitted against Chrissy's (and the media's) BF Julie Annie Obama just might win.
Obama's rising in the polls is a scary thought for the Right as they have been counting on Hillary to get the nomination. All over the hate-speak AM radio dial they've been PRAYING for Hillary to get it and now there's a possibility that The Plan may fail. So they fire up the smear Obama machine...
All your silly pet names for those you dislike render any serious discussion meaningless, sorry.
Yeah, nice going, deflect as always. You cannot address the facts so you critique my choice of names. Beautiful.
Based on your stance then we can easily deem as worthless all the tripe that spews from the likes of Rush 'Breck Girl' Limbaugh, Mark 'Her Thighness' Levin, and Michael 'Sodomite' Savage as they utilise PLENTY of name-calling. As a matter of fact, that's the ONLY thing they have.
Funny how you cons cringe whenever a lib uses your playbook. What say you on that?
I would say your "lib" playbook of slurs and insults is alive and well......have at it, if it gives you some sense of superiority.
Why do you cons cringe so much whenever a lib plays by your side's rules? Are you secretly ashamed of the way your side plays? Why the double standard? Do you think the hatemongers on talk radio are allowed to have a monopoly on 'slurs' and 'insults'?
By the way... those are serious questions and your answers will be most interesting.
Pot meet kettle. Does the same hold true for you and your constant use of "silly pet names"? By your own standard, you just disqualified yourself from any "serious discussion."
Wonderful, then it worked on you.......don't be a hypocrite now and try and engage me in a non-serious discussion.
You're no longer making any sense. Please try and keep up.
Strange verbage that happens to contain a racial element.
"There is no racial angle here that I see."
As usual, just because you don't see it, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Matthews may not have meant it to come across that way, but when you're talking about a black candidate, the racial implications beyond the "third world" comment can't be dismissed so easily, no matter how hard you try to explain what he really meant. I agree that Matthews wasn't trying to be derogatory, but you can't deny that the phrase "third world" contains a racial angle.
...Meant "behind" not "beyond."
Race baiters see a racial angle in everything, and your comments here only soldify that notion. So, I expected nothing less.
So anyone who sees the obvious racial element to the phrase "third world" is a race baiter? Instead of your usual name-calling, maybe you'd like to list all those white third world countries that would actually back up your assertion?
White Third World countries... hmmm...
That would be too hard for him. We don't want him to burn his brain out coming up with that list.
If you would take a break from your constant knee-jerk reaction of seeing a racial angle in nearly everything, then you would understand the context of this discussion and realize that unless you can prove your silly racist accusation, there is nothing to suggest that Matthews was inferring that at all.
I have already explained what I thought he meant by the third world term, you on the other hand, offer nothing but a narrowminded reaction by dismissing the comparison Matthews is making with the other slick candidates he mentions and Obama, hence, perhaps, his poorly used phrase "third world", but the implication is that Obama is "underdeveloped" in campaigning and stumping, while not being as seasoned as some of the others. In that context, it was a compliment.
But you live and die by hauling out the racist term because you are a victim, and instead of addressing substance, which would require debating real issues - it's far easier for you to label those you disagree with as racists, thereby cutting off any serious discussion at the knees.......sorry, it doesn't work on me.
Wow, you're crazy. Take a deep breath and go back and take a look at what I wrote in my first post. Then you might want to take a look at the article and read the rest of the thread again, and recognize that I'm far from the only person who sees a racial connotation in the term. In fact you're the only one so far who is attempting to deny the racial angle. But your hatred of me is blinding you to all that I suppose. So it's easier for you to pretend that I'm the only one making this observation. Then you just can just call me a race-baiter and move on.
Once again your chief argument is that you have others here, dominated by far left liberals, agreeing with you - and I am supposed to be impressed by that? If your arguments can't stand alone without being propped up by everyone else, that is your problem.
So continue to point to others and say "See, they say it too!", but do you really believe that I expect anything different, here?
Um, no, that's not my "chief argument." It's pretty clear that you have no idea what my chief argument is, seeing as how you insist on mischaracterizing it in order to call me names. See Brab's post below. Maybe that'll clear things up for you.
Tommy, Clams said outright that he didn't think Matthews meant anything derogatory, but that the term has a racial angle. Of course it can reasonably be taken that way. But the context that you and I both talked about is what Clams used to determine that the racial angle was not intentional or malicious in nature.
So what's the problem?
Exactly. Thank you, Brab.
So how can you insist that something has a racial angle and then say it may not be derogatory? The very nature of Clams' post is exactly that, even if he tried to explain it otherwise - I don't buy it. And given his history of race-baiting, we both know what he is saying.
The word is "angle". It's not all-encompassing. It's an aspect of the term that may or may not be relevant based on how it's used.
Well, I have never heard the term "racial angle" to be anything but derogatory, perhaps in a subtle way, but derogatory nonetheless.
The term itself has a racial angle. That aspect of it is negated if it's used in a certain way, or emphasized if used in another. For instance, if it was "Obama looks like he should be running in a third-world country, not here", that would clearly be racist. That has a derogatory connotation to it.
"Fried chicken", when used in the context of black people, has a racist connotation. If I tell a group of white people "let's go out for some fried chicken", that negates any racial component. If I tell a group of black people "shouldn't you be out eating fried chicken", that emphasizes that component.
This is the second day in a row where you've started an argument with me based on what you think I meant, as opposed to what I've actually said. What I said here was that Matthews probably didn't mean anything derogatory by his comments, but that the term "third world" most obviously does have a negative connotation with an undeniable racial element. Is that really so difficult to understand?
If you're talking about the way some people may view the "third world" reference, then I don't disagree with you. Some people view innocuous statements and words negatively all the time, so if I misunderstood what your original point was, I apologize.
But that begs the question, WITH, then? There is no argument to be made that it's here because of the way some may see Matthews' words - it's here then because MMFA sees it that way, and as I said, there is no reason or evidence to suggest that.
This item should be removed.
"If you're talking about the way some people may view the 'third world' reference, then I don't disagree with you."
Well yeah, that's what I've been saying since my very first post. The intent behind Matthews' statement is something that we have no way of determining. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, as is everyone else in this thread, I believe. That doesn't dismiss the fact that his comments could be seen by a great many people as racially offensive. Just because you think that those people are race-baiters doesn't invalidate their viewpoint. "Third world" is not an innocuous term.
That is where we part company. Anyone that sees these comments as racially offensive in the context of this discussion Matthews is having here, with no proof or evidence, is absolutely race baiting. Comments such as "third world", in this instance, is dependent on its context, that cannot be dismissed and separated from that and call it racially offensive. That is wrong, unfair, and a clear example of race baiting.
If you cry racism, you'd better have context and intent, otherwise you have nothing.
What sort of 'proof' do you require? Should Matthews just come right out and say that his comment was racist? Do you really think he would do that? How many people do you know who actually come right out and say that they are racist and/or make racist remarks?
Even Imus didn't come right out with it after his little dustup with the women's basketball team and yet it was painfully obvious.
So you are fine with people calling others racist with no proof or evidence to back it up? Are you as equally comfortable with calling people criminals, or adulterers with no proof?
Quit deflecting.
No deflection. My examples went to the heart of where yours was wrong, don't answer if you can't, it's ok.
Oh please, don't sit there and admonish ME for not answering! YOU didn't answer ANY of my questions from the get-go so knock it off. Get off your high horse.
Who's calling Matthews a racist?
The context is that Matthews was talking about a black candidate and he used a term that has obvious racial connotations. There's no need to prove that "third world" has racial connotations. It very simply does, particularly when used in this context.
Typically, you see Obama's race as some factor in this discussion, when I don't. There is nothing about him being black that has any relevance to this discussion, it is about Obama's freshness and different style of campaigning as opposed to the others.
His race is irrelevant to me, and had no place in this discussion. Yet, you want to make it so, that is your business.
Hopefully Obama's race will become a non-issue, yet when people like you keep bringing it up, it never will.
It may not have been relevant to Matthews when he said it, either. But that doesn't change the fact that he used the term when talking about a black man.
Whether it was a factor in anyone's mind or not at the time, it's a factor in the discussion. It obviously plays into the perception of it.
No it does not. There is nothing in this discussion that went to Obama's race, nothing. So Matthews' reference to "third world" had no racial component in it, since that was no part of the discussion. Those that view it in that context are injecting race where none exists - race baiting 101.
Tommy, last week you insisted that Huckabee was talking about faith, even when there was no indication of it in his answer at all. That was your interpretation, in spite of what he actually said. But now, you are using the lack of any other racial indications to support the point that nobody should interpret what Matthews said a certain way.
Why is that? Why is it you are supposed to be reasonable when you do something, but when others do the same thing they are just plain wrong?
Obama is black. That is part of it all, whether that was the intent or not. From the context of it we can judge that it wasn't malicious, but when we're talking about racially charged speech you can't be surprised when people take it the other way.
Obama's race is irrelevant to this discussion, it had no place in it, was not a factor in any way - that is a fact.
The fact that many of you want to inject it reveals that many liberals absolutely DO want to make race an issue, this is proof of that. To make his race a factor where it is not is no different than when opponents of Obama inject his race in some negative way - both refuse not to make race an issue......their goals may be different, but their tactics are not.
This is ridiculous. Whether the perception of it is fair or not, Matthews using this term about a black man will make some people react badly to it. That's not injecting anything into anything. That's a very simple and reasonable observation. It doesn't say anything about what Matthews meant by it, or that he's a racist, or anything else.
So, you're excusing those that view non-racial situations through a racial prism, is that what you're saying? Because I find that reprehensible and a big reason why race relations in this country are still strained for so many.
We need to call these people out for injecting race where it doesn't exist, and those that see it where it's not there. For that only demeans and cheapens real racist incidences, surely you can see that?
Good lord, who is "excusing" anything?
Look, here's a hypothetical for you;let's say you have an area with tremendous poverty and very little police presence. Would you expect to see a lot of crime? You bet. Does that excuse it? Of course not.
By the same token, I understand how many people will take this to be racist. Now, if they insist on holding onto that perception even when challenged to provide evidence to back it up, or if they refuse to consider an alternative view, that is obviously behavior to be criticized. But that doesn't mean that you cant comprehend where it came from.
This is nothing new. You yourself have brought up Kerry's "for it before I was against it" line. It seems to me like you concluded that was his fault for making a comment that could be misinterpreted, even if the most basic analysis showed what he meant. That was a matter of perception. I understood how the comment could be perceived that way, whether it was fair or not, and so did you.
I will admit that when Clams clarified his comments and said that some people may view this in a racially insensitive light, I agreed - but after thinking it over, I feel differently. Can't agree with him, or you, on that anymore. I believe that anyone who views this Matthews comment through a racial prism is very misguided, and I offer no rationalizations as to why that is reasonable - for it is not. There is nothing in the context or intent that has any racial element in it whatsoever, so to infer one is jumping the gun unfairly.....that should be admonished, not excused as a possibility.
Sorry, I take back my "points noted". I inadvertantly jumped the gun, just to be nice :)
You're not really addressing what I'm saying. Why is it fair to blame Kerry for the misinterpretation of what he said, because it was careless, but if someone takes Matthew's careless commentary as racist, that's their fault? Matthews is no tenderfoot here, he's been involved in politics for thirty years. He should know just as well as anyone how comments are perceived.
I don't see the analogy in the two?? Political rhetoric and campaign spin are normal and almost expected, people jumped on him for political advantage and to score political points......this instance is about race and far more emotional and injurious.
Matthews should be held accountable for what he says, absolutely - but to hang him with an unfair racial component where it has not been demonstrated to exist is blatantly unfair, and uncalled for.
Interpretation is interpretation. In both cases you have people who have an inclination to reach a certain conclusion. It has nothing to do with how right or wrong that conclusion may be.
Surely Matthews has been around long enough to understand this. It's not like anyone who thinks their reputation has any bearing on their livelihood can just ignore public reaction because it's unfair. In that arena, perception is reality. Would you really say otherwise?
No, I agree with you - but I just think that giving in to this type of hysteria over a comment that has no racial overtones is just placating certain types who look for this stuff as some club to bludgeon those they disagree with, and it stinks.
If I was Matthews and was confronted with this, I would say "read the comments, see the context, prove your silly racial allegations, or shutup". I certainly wouldn't bend to some pressure when I did nothing wrong......it's PC gone amok again.
We'll see if there's much hysteria over it or not. A simple clarification should be sufficient. I would certainly argue on Matthews' side against those who would blindly deny that clarification.
I can't disagree. Clarification, simple and bold, would be fine.
Tommy, get into the REAL world. Your posts in this thread have definitely been 'third world' from an intellectual and realist standpoint.
Yeah, I was wondering that, since Dennis Kucinich and his campaign are 'different', why doesn't Chrissy call him 'third world'? Certainly that cannot be so bad in light of what the AM Radio Hatesquad has said about him, no?
So... c'mon, Chrissy, take the shot!
Hmmm...
I think that's right. As Solon said, if Matthews was talking about someone white it would be difficult to imagine him using that term.
And there it is. There's the crux.
The comment was racist... regardless of whether Chrissy admits it or not AND what Tommy thinks. Let's see if he applies the same appellation to a white person's campaign.
Exhibit A
But at the same time, I don't see how it's negative from the context it's in. Does it come from a recognition of racial difference? Almost surely. Does that make it racist? Not if it's not negative.
But it CAN be taken to be a negative.
I think it needs to be clarified. I understand how people will react to it, but looking at what was actually said I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that it was a slur of any sort.
If there's something in there that indicates it to be meant negatively, I'm willing to take that into account. I just haven't seen it yet.
And you can see by Rabbitluvr's reaction why race baiting is so injurious and unfair - he automatically sees Matthews as a racist, assume the negative first, case closed.......deplorable, almost as bad as racism itself.
Well, hot damn, Tommy is right. There is NO SUCH THING as 'racism' or 'prejudice' in America or anywhere else. Whenever people make comments about 'third world', 'nappy-headed hos', 'rice eaters', 'towelheads', 'sodomites', etc. they are just kidding and they are NEVER derogatory whatsoever. Just a joke, kiddies! All people who make such comments are basically kind and good-hearted people who do not have a single nefarious and prejudiced cell in their bodies. All those AM Radio hosts should be lauded for being such good and honest people too. Wow.
Thanks for setting me straight, Tommy. Really.
Nobody's saying anything like that. Each case is different, which is why they're interpreted individually.
Thank you for your reasonable take on this issue. It is appreciated.
I disagree. The Right Wing says it all the time. WE are the 'good' people, WE are the 'right' people, WE are the 'honest' people who NEVER do wrong, WE are the people who have God on OUR side, WE are the people who NEVER cheat on our spouses, even WE are the 'chosen' people who will inherit the world after Armageddon, blah blah blah. ANYONE who isn't with US is evil, depraved, corrupt, and on the way to HELL!
It would actually be hilarious if no-one bought into it. Sadly, about 50% - give or take - actually do.
I agree there are too many people who seem to have that attitude, but I have no idea what that has to do with what I said. Tommy's not saying that there's no racism, or anything else that you said for that matter.
"Nobody's saying anything like that. Each case is different, which is why they're interpreted individually."
Except that Tommy is saying that anyone who interprets this statement as being racially offensive is a "race-baiter." After he flip-flopped a bit, he's now saying that the only correct interpretation is his. And we can take Tommy's record into account here. The only time he's ever used the label "racist" is when he's referring to a black person. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson...he even called Bryant Gumbel racist. Much like Sean Hannity, he sees racism as a problem that originates with black people and his inflicted on white people. And if black people would just shut up already, then everything would be all right.
That may be fair, I wasn't looking at the historical record for that one. I suspect that the specific charge of intellectual dishonesty is a more supportable argument than the load of generalizations that rabbitluvr let loose.
Your complete and total fabricated misrepresentation of my position concering race and racism is nothing but a pure indication of a necessity for you to do so in order to demonize me on the issue, frankly I could care less coming from you, a small man who deseves no respect - for it goes directly to your wallowing in your own pathetic victimhood, otherwise you wouldn't have to lie to make your points.
You are a race baiter, you have exhibited that several times on several issues - for you must view non-racial issues through a racist prism to validate your victimhood, it is classic. Far easier to blame the evil "white man" than to take responsibility for your own personal failings, whatever those may be, it is classic.
So you, like many others, have a vested interest in keeping racism alive and well - for if it goes away, so goes your victim status, which would require a little personal responsibility - and the thought of that scares victims to death.
So invent racist "angles" where they don't exist, further racial animosity where is does not live, twist words into racial connotations where there is no evidence or proof. For that is worse than actual racism itself, if you had a shred of decency you would admit it, but you don't - so live with yourself.
Victim.
Interesting that you would go on a long rant like that and somehow manage to completely avoid disputing anything I've written above. It's easier to attack and name-call than it is to dispute facts. And these are the facts: You cry about "race-baiters" diminishing "real racism" but, on this board, the only people with whom you've ever leveled charges of "real racism" are black. There are dozens of threads where you repeatedly defend racist statements made by white people, and then attack those who point out those statements as "race baiters," "victims," "racists," and "bigots."
Your agenda is crystal clear.
Your hypothetical offers nothing here except that how can anyone refute it? As I said it goes to context and intent, the context of this discussion was completely absent of race, and the intent of the "third world" comment has been explained very reasonably - as to Obama's freshness and "underdeveloped" cynical and polished campaign style, as opposed to the other candidates.
It can be refuted if Matthews characterises a white person's campaign as 'third world' or something similar.
Tommy, please provide us with
1) ONE example in common parlance (ideally, cite something on a reasonably level-headed website), that uses the phrase "Third World" in a POSITIVE way!
2) WHEN, if ever has "Third World" been used to describe freshness? All I ever hear is it being used to describe backwardness/inefficiency/crumbling or nonexistent infrastructure.
3) As another poster has asked you, please name ONE "Third World" country whose inhabitants are predominantly white. This would go a long way to substantiate your claim that "Third World" is not a racially charged term.
4) Furthermore, please provide ONE instance when a white person has been described as being "Third World" in a positive light. If no such thing exists, then it is highly unlikely this term has no inherent racial component.
So, I have posed four specific challenges to you. Please substantiate all of them, and number them as above.
I will answer your questions with one word, as I have said twice now - "underdeveloped".
That is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear "third world". And in this context, that is what I believe Matthews is saying........that Obama's campaigning and freshness is still underdeveloped, as opposed to the very much "developed" skills of the other candidates, who are far more seasoned and political.
It was not a swipe at Obama, in my opinion. For me, it is a main reason I find him attractive as a candidate.
Tommy, I asked you to cite and number each point, so CITE THEM and NUMBER THEM.
Furthermore,
5) When has "underdeveloped" been used in a positive context?
According to Bartleby.com:
1. Not adequately or normally developed; immature: underdeveloped leaves and flowers. 2. Processed in too weak a developing solution, or for too short a time, or at too low a temperature to produce a normal degree of contrast. Used of film. 3. Having a low level of economic productivity and technological sophistication within the contemporary range of possibility; developing: underdeveloped countries.
I have explained it plenty, if it doesn't satisfy you, so be it.
No you haven't. I have read every one of your comments on this thread, and you have claimed that "third world" can be used positively. I asked you to (and I'm going to make this very clear)
***CITE EXAMPLES***
which you have heretofore not done to prove your point.
Until you ***CITE EXAMPLES*** for points numbered 1-5, do not say you have already "explained it plenty."
Put your CITE EXAMPLES admonition in 48 font, I can't see it........you have my answer and Brab's apt analogy of the term "outsider".
Brabantio is right that "Outsider" can be used with a positive context, and it is extremely easy for me to CITE EXAMPLES to prove it:
[link to www.npr.org]
[link to query.nytimes.com]
[link to abcnews.go.com]
However, I would be hard-pressed to find the word "misanthrope" or "troglodyte" used in a positive context. Hence the lack of EXAMPLES.
Just because SOME words can be context-dependent doesn't mean they ALL are to the same degree.
So, in order to prove that the analogy with "outsider" holds true for "Third World" you should be able to:
CITE EXAMPLES
You do realise that your questions will never get any solid answers, right? Conservatives, by nature, are not well-adept at answering direct questions - especially those that require critical thinking and those that may pose a challenge to their illogical and unrealistic beliefs. Hell, if this were the Sewer Nation or the Mark LeTrashBin show you wouldn't even make it past the screener so your questions would never be heard in the first place.
At least here at MMFA you actually CAN ask direct questions without having the mike cut off - certainly light-years ahead of those sorry AM Radio Hatefests.
Oh, of course I realize I'm not likely to get a straight answer, but it's lots of fun to illustrate very clearly how Tommy quite simply CAN'T make a straight answer to support his point, thus showing that his point is unsupportable (i.e., wrong).
Absolutely, and it amply demonstrates why debating with conservatives is an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, it IS fun in a way watching them squirm.
Too bad the Hatesquad won't subject themselves to the same level of direct questioning from their opponents but just getting them out of their AM Radio cocoons away from the safety of their screeners and mikes in the first place would be a big enough challenge in its own right.
Well, that doesn't mean much. "Outsider" is also a generally negative term, but when it's used in politics it's often a positive. Contrasting the usual with something new that people want in the same way.
Please see above, as to why this analogy is not relevant here.
The issue is that the context of the remark is positive. What did Matthews mean? I sure as hell don't know for sure. Nobody does. But the connotation is not negative. It's like you're looking at the comment and it reads "positive positive NEGATIVE RACIAL SLUR positive..." It just doesn't wash.
Remember, the whole thing is about what makes a "usual politician", and the term was used in contrast to that. So however he meant it, it's pretty clear that the dictionary doesn't exactly cover it.
I'm definitely not taking the position that it was intended as a racial "slur" or that he intended to portray anything negative by it.
On the other hand, I can't help wondering, WHAT THE HELL was he talking about? It is a bizarre term to use in this context, and one that (as far as I can tell) has absolutely no positive connotation (although I'm sure Tommy is still working on those EXAMPLES).
To use your "outsider" example:
Mr. Jones is totally unknown in politics. He has no history with lobbyists, no special interest ties, and does not seem inclined to overlook unethical behavior of his colleagues, which solidifies his position as a Washington outsider.
This makes perfect sense. This, on the other hand, does not:
Mr. Jones is totally unknown in politics. He has no history with lobbyists, no special interest ties, and does not seem inclined to overlook unethical behavior of his colleagues, which solidifies his position as a Washington misanthrope.
You're left with the feeling, why on earth did he say that?? It seems complimentary, but that very odd word indicates that there is some subtle negativity toward the subject. It is (dare I say it) "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
It's odd, as I've said several times. He should clarify, if he hasn't already.
So far I find the charges of racism to be inconclusive, but a conviction of stupidity in the first degree seems to be an open-and-shut case.
Four questions and they ALL get the same one-word answer? Come on! If this were an exam you'd get a zero.
Are you kidding me? Are you really trying to say that mentioning the race of a non white candidate or in any way drawing attention to it HAS to be derogatory? You really need to think that one through. There are many people who dont automatically think being non white is necessarily a bad thing. It can easily be just what it is a difference.
And appologists for racism NEVER see any. Please dont even try to tell me that the third world thing has no racial connotations. I dont think Tweety was trying to make a racial slur but I also dont think he would have EVER used the term for a white candidate
In Tommy's world, that makes you a race baiter.
I guess if "third-world" means unpolished and inexperienced in Washington politics, then you can find us some quotes of Matthews calling Bush "third-world" from the 2000 campaign. I'll wait patiently for that quote.
Honestly, I think it's more having to do with seeming to be more interested in the rights of people, to be more idealistic than cynical and manipulative of the system for one's own gain. I could be wrong, it's an odd phrase to be sure, but as he was talking about what makes a "usual politician" that's how I think he meant it.
I agree completely. There is nothing to indicate a racial angle of any sort considering the context of the discussion.
Now, if they were talking about race, or Obama being black, and Matthews had used that term, then I would absolutely say there was a racial element in it, but for the discussion they were having, there was not.
Obama is black. That is part of the context. Again, Matthews may not have meant it to be taken in a derogatory way, but there most definitely is a racial connotation in the phrase "third world." Nobody is calling Matthews a racist, and nobody is saying that he was intentionally alluding to Obama's race, but inadvertantly at least, he did.
Points noted.
But I believe this item being posted here at all is baiting in itself. It's wrong.
And I think your posts are preemptive racist appologies.
The "third world" reference was unfortunate. But in the same sentence Mathews said "...fresh faced, so brand new...”, which I assume he meant complimentarily. I disagree with this being an asset, at least for the general election.
He is often compared to JFK in this regard (as well to style which I don't have an opinion on). I saw an interview this year of President Kennedy's long time aide Ted Sorenson who is endorsing Obama. He said "We've seen this movie before.", referring to the complaints made against JFK's electability being similar to those against Obama. But even if I accept the equivalence of Irish-Catholic to Black Protestant comparison, I don't buy the equivalence of the youth/freshness thing. Although a couple years Obama's junior, Kennedy spent 3 years as a naval officer and 12 years in the U.S. Congress as compared to Obama's 2. It was well known that he was from a political family, a big city mayor for a grandfather and an ambassador for a father, which lends credibility in a similar way to experience.
The GOP candidate will have very little real to work with, but Obama would give them the experience issue.
Who would use "third world" as an equivalent to "fresh faced" ???? When I hear "third world" I think impoverished and uneducated.
Exactly!
Obviously, IF Chrissy's comment was meant in the way that Tommy is trying to justify then Chrissy is a pathetic excuse of a 'pundit'. He has no clue. Who the hell refers to 'fresh' as 'third world'???
Not sure how to take this. At first glance, it looks like Chrissy is trying to be somewhat complimentary in that Obams's style is a refreshing change from the in-your-face politics we have seen over the past two decades or so. On the other hand, third world politics (like it or not) usually involves a violent overthrow of the ruling class. I would sincerely hope Chrissy was referring to the former rather than the latter.
Third world party ain't no complement, specially coming from someone who has command of the english language. there is no doubt in my mind Mathews meant it as a derrogatory remark from the get-go. Just like the " macaca " comment from a formerly esteemed virginian.
I think that's a hell of an overstatement. It certainly seems to be a positive from the context, mostly meaning just different from typical American politics. The "macaca" comment was calling someone a monkey.
Was it stupid? Was it remarkably vague for someone who used to work in politics? You bet. But flat-out, undeniably racist like "macaca"? I don't see that at all. There's room for interpretation, especially given the context.
Was it stupid? Was it remarkably vague for someone who used to work in politics? You bet.
The whole piece is stupid. Chris says....
Hillary,... represents the past, the cycle of the Clinton/Bush back-and-forth every couple of years,
Yeah this change every couple of if years is wearing me out. After 7 years of Bush we are supposed to be tired of anyone named Clinton, according to Chris.
Sounds like Mathews needs to explain himself and what he means by third world presentaion.
Now that I don't have an issue with. It was stupidly put and liable to be interpreted negatively. Certainly he should clarify it.
Ought-O. That's a racist image.
And who cares about Iowa anyway? Why are Matthews and the others ignoring all the other primaries where Hillary's ahead? (And Iowa isn't even a primary!)
I guess the answer is obvious....
I swear watching this guy is like observing a free association therapy session. If there is any thought in his mind, he interupts and blurts it out regardless of relevence or propriety. I think he thinks that he is on $10,000 Pyramid or something.
And Chris Matthews (aka "Tweety Bird") is almost third-rate as a journalist....
It has been upgraded to an " entertainment show". More money in entertainment.
It's a pukefest... just like most of the trash on the tube these days. The term 'Idiot Box' is actually a correct term now.
Wow. I'm not even an Obama fan (and I'm as white as white can be) and I think this is absolutely atrocious and racially-influenced and unacceptable.
"3rd World"...I love how Matthews makes Barrack seem un-American. I mean, how there he dare break the W.A.S.P. homogeny!
Third world = brown.
Third world does indeed = Brown. Word to your mother.
Justice and Truth in the USA - The Decision:
It was OK to use the term "Third World" -
It would have been "wrong" (I guess) to use the term "Turd World"
(Let me give credit to Michael Savage for coining the term "Turd World" - it's funny!)
Have you ever left this country?
Are you one of the 80+% of Americans who doesn't have a passport.
Turd World is funny, to you? How bout black folks swinging from trees, that brings a smile to your face too? I love when you clowns show your true color. I know you don't go around saying the things you type here. Thats the difference between us. I speak open and honestly to everyone. I had a Jewish supervisor who taught me a lot. A Mormon Supervisor who invited me to Thanksgiving Dinner years ago. I have black friends, white friends and Hispanic friends. You clowns hide behind your phones and call Savage to speak for you. You hop on the internet and post hateful things. You rally in groups, but you don't stand alone as men and spout of the BS views you have. Don't worry. Soon enough you'll be judged as harshly as you judge others.
Funny only to YOU and YOUR defective stunted mind. About as funny as those stupid elementary school 'jokes' in the vein of "Forty Yards to the Outhouse" by Will E. Makeit or "Raunchy Cheerleaders Sitting on the Bleachers" by Seymour Butts.
You and your ilk are sad pathetic pea-brained folk.
I dont' care what any black man, white man or alien says - Racism is alive and well. The poster who has been arguing that this isn't racially motivated comes from the same cloth of folks who said, "Hey, why are the blacks so angry about being called refugees?" when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region. They don't get it, and will never get it because they are too convinced of their own superiority. Matthews is an educated jackass that knows exactly what he's doing. ClamsCasino, is 100-freaking- percent right. Some would have you believe everytime a black man shouts racism he's crying wolf, or worse it is a black man's fault to begin with. B.S., Tommy, B.S. Is it a man's fault he's born with a different pigmentation than you? And when have you ever heard a white man described as third world? Do you also blame women who get raped, or were you one of those that initially blamed Sean Taylor for getting robbed and killed?
So you, like many others, have a vested interest in keeping racism alive and well - for if it goes away, so goes your victim status, which would require a little personal responsibility - and the thought of that scares victims to death. - Tommy
What the hell does responsibility have to do with refering to someone as "Third World" If anything it's Matthews who's shown irresponsibility.
Thanks for showing your true colors though. Or lack of it.
Honestly, I truly believe that anyone who denies the fact that racism is alive and well is probably a racist him/herself. A sad but true fact of human nature - people tend to deny those things that they are in fact guilty of.
Hey august, a core tenet of the conservative belief is to blame the victim for their victimhood. To the conservative, a woman who dresses 'provocatively' is to be blamed if she gets raped, a surgical patient is to be blamed if the good surgeon snipped off the wrong body part of the hapless patient, consumers are to blame if they happen to be injured or, better yet, killed by defective products, and children who die from lack of medical insurance should be 'eulogised' at their funerals by Reverend Rush Limbaugh, who would most likely say that the child made a bad choice in parents and therefore deserved to die.
You get the idea...
Your idiotic straw arguments and useless generalizations do nothing except reveal how you thoroughly and completely misunderstand conservatism in any fashion.
But keep repeating your disingenuous slime and off base characterizations, because you are illl-equipped to discuss it honestly and without distortions and misrepresentations. That is sad, and another classic case of victimhood. You only make my earlier point, and I guess for that, I should be grateful. But I am not.
Once again, you fail to refute what I say and instead you choose to unleash ad hominems that do not prove a damn thing other than your inability to debate with facts and not emotion. It's all right though. I do understand.
However... I will help you. Here's an assignment that is connected to one of my examples. Explain to me why The Detestable One, aka Mark Levin, has such rabid hatred for John Edwards and his profession as a so-called 'slip and fall lawyer' - a gross and overly simplistic description btw. Why does he believe that Big Business or Big Medicine should be immune from liability of any sort? Answer those and then we'll talk.
Honestly, I've read you guys posts for years without actually registering. I find many of the post amusing, sometime educationa, but in general I love open dialogue.
However, to sit there and explain the BS that came out of Matthews mouth, whether he meant it as a compliment or not, is a joke. I've never heard anyone, ever described as "Third World" before, let alone a white man. Furthermore, everyone who has ever picked up a freaking history book knows "Third World" is not a positive description. It has negative connotation. I'm not saying this is a "nappy headed ho's" moment, but don't sit there and act like everything is all innocent and something is wrong with us.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone should give it.
"What the hell does responsibility have to do with refering to someone as "Third World" If anything it's Matthews who's shown irresponsibility."
Tommy has made this particular point time and time again. His message is clear: If black people would stop getting so riled up over things like this, then we wouldn't have so much racial strife. "Whining" and "playing the victim" over "innocuous" statements like this only distracts from incidents of "real racism." What's interesting though is that his idea of "real racism" is when a black person says something about whites. THEN he'll start throwing around accusations of racism.
Either Tommy is in serious denial about the existence of racism from whites against blacks OR he *may* actually be a racist and is in denial about that out of shame or whatever silly 'excuse' concocted. Only he knows the truth about his beliefs and I certainly would welcome his response on this issue.
I find it utterly stupefying that a person living in these days with the advances of communication and information access would even consider such an absurd idea that racism is only perpetuated by blacks. Obviously, a person holding that stance must be supremely ignorant of our own history, in particular, the history of the South where it was commonplace to see whites hosing down blacks, whites bombing black churches and killing black children, whites lynching blacks, whites promoting the KKK, and whites murdering civil rights workers. We certainly didn't see blacks doing that to whites during the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, did we? Of course, not ALL whites participated in such monstrosities but many DID - and to sit there and say that racism only originates within the black community and nowhere else is simply outrageous beyond comprehension.
Chris Matthews is just trying to chide Obama into attacking Hillary more aggressively. The guy clearly hates Hillary Clinton. He doesn't hide it.
Matthews Is Obsessed With Himself And Power
I was pulled into the Chis Matthews world of journalism by the once in a while rant directed at Republicans. Now, knowing it was nothing but a "hook," I can't watch more then a few minutes of his shows. He has single handedly created division within the Democratic Party, as he tries, on a daily basis, to force Barack Obama down Democrats throats.
This man hides nothing. He has no shame his show spends 90% of its content on Hillary Clinton. When I figured out he was destroying the Democratic front runner, he was will into the game. One poll, the ABC/Washington Post poll, was use to provide proof the Democratic front runner was losing ground to Obama, after many others came out saying the opposite. I continue to insist he change the name of his show to the "the lets beat up on Hillary Clinton hour."
You see this kind of negative obsession within the Republican Party. In fact, now you can plainly see he has picked Huckelbee to be his choice to beat Clinton in the National election. You can bet this obsession with Clinton is clinical and will cause MSNBC viewer-ship problems.
In the mean time, we need to let MSNBC know they are not representing fair coverage of our election process. Matthews clearly distorts and degrades the Democrats message.
Joseph
Read more >> Options >>