Matthews asked about Clinton endorsers' "willingness" "to become castratos in the eunuch chorus"
On the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed: "Every day I pick up the paper and there's another quote out there from somebody who's a wannabe, saying whatever the Clinton people told them to say apparently." Moments later, Matthews asked Financial Times U.S. managing editor Chrystia Freeland: "[A]ren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are?" Matthews made the comment in the context of discussing endorsements of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and specifically that of former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), who made reference following a December 16 campaign event to, among other things, Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) middle name.
Freeland responded: "Well, I'm not going to comment on whether they have been castrated or not, but what I do think is interesting is whether these stings are really going to work."
As Media Matters documented, Matthews' colleague, MNSBC host Tucker Carlson, has repeatedly made castration comments in reference to Clinton. On the March 20 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, Carlson said: "[T]here's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary." Media Matters has also documented that nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly used the expression "testicle lockbox," claiming that Clinton has one.
In addition, Media Matters also documented that Matthews previously asked on the November 13, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, if Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the then-presumptive speaker-elect of the House of Representatives, was "going to castrate [Rep.] Steny Hoyer [D-MD]" if Hoyer were elected House majority leader in the 110th Congress.
From the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which also included Congressional Quarterly reporter Jonathan Allen and Washington Post staff writer Chris Cillizza:
MATTHEWS: You know, I'm looking at this thing and I'm watching people like Bob Kerrey show up, who you used to think of as kind of an independent force in American politics. You know, he gave up his Senate seat, he dated Debra Winger. A lot of sizes -- a lot of things suggest a really independent guy.
ALLEN: An officer and a gentleman, right?
MATTHEWS: Officer and a gentleman. Then he moves to New York and becomes president of the New School, a big school, and now he's out there sort of playing whatever for Hillary, saying things all about Barack Obama having a Muslim father and having Hussein for a middle name. You gotta wonder if this isn't The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
ALLEN: Well, what I think you got going on is a lot of Democrats who are looking at possible jobs in a Clinton administration potentially. The look at, you know, if they are on her side and not on Obama's side --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
ALLEN: -- he's gonna -- he's gonna have to forgive a lot of Democrats for that anyway. If you get on the wrong side of her and she becomes president, you're out. And also, Kerrey's living in New York now. We know he wants to get back in the Senate. Maybe he'll run for her Senate seat if she wins.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask Chris Cillizza. Are these the meal tickets lining up? Is that what we're watching?
CILLIZZA: I -- you know, Chris, I think Jonathan's right to a point. Remember, though, that Hillary Clinton was always going to be the establishment candidate. I don't care who else ran. She was always going to be the establishment candidate because of her husband, because of the reach that the Clintons have within in the party. That works, but only to a point. That all the weight of the establishment support behind her -- and it feels like she's announcing the support of three or four endorsements from elected officials a day -- all that weight is all well and good if you win. If you lose, that weight all of a sudden becomes a --
MATTHEWS: OK.
CILLIZZA: -- crushing weight on you.
MATTHEWS: I'm talking about the moral weight. I'm talking about the moral weight on these people who are willing to do anything now. You got [former Iowa Gov. Tom] Vilsack out there, [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland, [Sen.] Evan Bayh [D-IN]. Every day I pick up a paper, there's another quote out there from somebody who's a wannabe, saying whatever the Clinton people told them to say, apparently.
CILLIZZA: Politics is politics, Chris.
MATTHEWS: These lines look like they're being fed -- well, let me find some outrage here. Can I get some from Chrystia? I'm not getting any from you. Chrystia, do you -- aren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are? What do you call them? I don't know what they are. What do you think of these people?
FREELAND: Well, I'm not going to comment on whether they have been castrated or not, but what I do think is interesting is whether these stings are really going to work.
Pot, Kettle....
Tweety sez: "...from somebody who's a wannabe,..."
Stop trying, Tweety - you're never gonna get Lil' Russ's job.
I worked for Bob Kerrey and he has been my favorite politician since 1988. I have prayed that he would be elected President ever since then. I am shocked to find that today, with his underhanded smear of Obama, that I will never trust anything he says again. I imagine the Clinton's purchased his subtle smear for a high price. Karl Rove could have written the same comments. I feel like a naive child who just found out his hero is the opposite of a hero. Maybe I should seek counseling at a cult awareness group. I hope there is a limit to the number of Robert Hansen's in the Democratic Party.
I guess I just don't get this whole conspiracy theory thing between Hillary and Obama. Do you think there are any attacks coming out on either side that would not come out in a magnitude of 10 during the general election, once the candidates for each party are decided?
Personally, I think both camps should quit crying foul, buck up, and accept it as politics as usual. If voters are going to make a decision about someone based on what they were taught or did as a child then this country is in worse shape than I ever imagined.
A LOT of voters did drugs in their youth and a lot were taught different religious teachings than what they have embraced as an adult. The whole thing is ridiculous - I thought only the Republicans worried about impressing their base with spotless squeaky clean candidates? Get real! The Dems are making fools of themselves with this sort of infighting.
He did not smear Obama! He said it was a very good thing for America that a man with his background, and his name, would be in very serious contention for the presidency. Please, this is political correctness taken to the nth degree, or perhaps gamesmanship from the Obama camp. If he is the Democratic winner, it's very important, in fact, that people know him quite well, and then when the evil e-mail with all the leering rumors arrives, they'll know it's crap.
Don't worry Mr. Matthews, YOU need balls to be castrated. There isn't a magnifying glass powerful enough to find yours and tweezers small enough to grab yours.
Why does this guy worry sooo much about Hillary Clinton? Let us voters decide.
wtf is wrong with this once upon a time journalist.
How tragic to see our journalistic outlets hijacked by this kind of discourse, during a war -- and with so much at stake for the Nation, our children and the world. What an embarassment for G.E./NBCU to permit this kind of hysterical, (literally) spitting, ranting against those who have the nerve to endorse Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Matthews and Mr. Russert are a disgrace...and Meet the Press and the ridiculous Chris Matthews Show are unworthy of the Sunday morning legacy and unworthy of the American people. As an African-American woman I have this to say -- the more Barak is promoted by Mr. Matthews and he/his wife/Oprah say nothing about a woman candidate being defamed in this manner -- the more determined I am NOT to vote for Barak. It is a curious think watching someone as racist as Mr. Mattnews leverage surrogates to try to tell his audience what African-Americans will/will not do -- about Barak. Anyone, black or white, Mr. Mattnews is for (remember, he says he voted for George Bush...dah?) -- I am AGAINST.
"[A]ren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are?"
When I read this...... my immediate thought was that he was talking about himself and those over at FOX and CNN as it pertains to their willingness to sing along with the criminals working in the White House!!
Alas, Chris was simply reminding his penis that its going to stay hard, so long as he speaks of the Clintons....... eewwwww
No, Foster, you knew who he was talking about – any ‘man’ who would support nurse Ratched. I wonder how many times a day they have to line up for their saltpetre; those who aren’t completely ‘castrato’ that is.
she really scares you, doesn't she?
Almost reason enough to vote for her. I mean, if she gets these big tough conservative guys to pee their pants like this even before the first primary, eight years of bowel evacuations ... hmm. This could get messy.
Glutus, If that is the case about men backing Hillary, what does that make women who back Guiliani or any other Republan running for the White House? They must be _________. Please fill in the blank since you seem to speak from a greater knowledge of the sexes than most of us. Help me out please.
That’s simple, Princess, for one they would be referred to as women who can take care of themselves and their families and are not dependant on government handouts and social programs for their survival. Unlike liberal ‘men’ who would prefer to be in the asylum with Ratched, lining up for their meds everyday rather than be out in the scary real world where they might have to demonstrate some self reliance.
Completely and utterly false. I don't even need to explain why.
You are incapable of explaining why, DBeden.
Ok, fine. based on her record in the senate here, She's on the right side of the Democratic aisle...Just as you pointed out below Brutus, thus making your little rant moot as you obviously assume Clinton is some sort of Communist nut. And those women who vote for whatever Republican candidate wins the nomination? Most of them are not self-reliant. They go to church, don't they? If you've ever been, you realize that most churches emphasize helping each other, the less fortunate, and the community. I'm sure they've been given some sort of help at some point, and if they weren't a part of that church, their lives would suffer significantly (like my parents for instance...when my father lost his job, we would have been living on the streets if it wasn't for our church. They helped him find a job, and helped us pay the bills until we could get back on our feet. And who payed for it? YOU DID. It's called Faith-Based Initiatives.)
Man, helping the poor and the less fortunate, such a liberal position for these Republican women...
So, DBeden, do you think that the people who helped your father would have turned him down if not for the ‘faith-based initiatives’? Where do you think the money came from in the first place (a rhetorical question since you pointed it out yourself)? It was sucked out of the community by the government, run through the ringer and then a small PART of it was returned in the form of some social initiative or another.
The only thing that the government did was make it HARDER for the community to help your family.Hillary's voting record is almost exactly like Obama's.
If you Republicans are so self-reliant, then how come you depend on Big Brother to listen to your phone conversations and protect you from the evul turr-ists?
You might be thinking of Ron Paul voters when you say self-reliant. Giuliani voters need their strong, protective daddy-figure.
Here's a civics lesson for you, Ski - Mayors don't vote on congressional bills. But the senate does, and there's a 'yea' next to 'Clinton, (D-NY)' in support of the Patriot Act to "...deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."
If you don't like it blame her not Rudy.
You obviously have no argument, or you wouldn't be using inflamatory rhetoric and reasoning by analogy. If real men are self reliant, then why is it that the states who tend to vote Republican are the ones who get the *most* federal aid, who are being subsidized by the liberal states?
link
You notice by the chart that states like Massachusetts and California are subsidizing states like Texas and Kentucky? Then by your defnition, the real men are the liberals in Massachusetts and California.
Going by your analysis alone, Funnypants, I would laugh and say that that,s poetic justice. But of course there’s more to the story. I’ve lived in ‘red’ states and can tell you that there are HUGE numbers of good-for-nothing scum living in cities like Atlanta, Houston, Jackson, etc. where concepts such as work, self-reliance, and personal responsibility are scoffed at. These are the ‘blues’ areas of the states. That’s where the money is going.
>>I’ve lived in ‘red’ states and can tell you that there are HUGE numbers of good-for-nothing scum living in cities like Atlanta, Houston, Jackson, etc. where concepts such as work, self-reliance, and personal responsibility are scoffed at. These are the ‘blues’ areas of the states. That’s where the money is going.
Now you are making things up. You can't back that up at all. You notice how I included an actual link? You notice how those so called liberal free loaders from Massachusetts are subsidizing states like Nebraska? (Where are the free loaders in Nebraska?) I guess the liberals are so super reliant that they can give money to the red states.
I guess according you your analysis, we know where the real men live--and its not in the red states.
What part am I making up, Funnypants? Do you think that the residents of Atlanta and Houston tend to vote for republicans or democrats? Do you think that those same people tend to take a bigger or smaller share of government spending?
>>Do you think that the residents of Atlanta and Houston tend to vote for republicans or democrats? Do you think that those same people tend to take a bigger or smaller share of government spending?
Nice try. You are making up just that. If you have any facts to back up your assumption, please do so. But even if you do, that still won't help your argument.
Let's pretend you are right that the people from Houston get more government subsidies. Then how about the people from Boston? Or Lowell, or any other Massachusetts' city? Why is it as a whole that Massachusetts gives more to the government than it gets back?
I'll not hold my breath waiting for you to actually back up your assertion. Real men! Huh!
And by the way, you called the people who rely on government "good-for-nothing scum living in cities like Atlanta, Houston, Jackson, etc. where concepts such as work, self-reliance, and personal responsibility are scoffed at."
So please explain to me where these "scum" are located in states like Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, etc. Again, I won't hold my breath waiting for facts from you. You like to spout inflamatory rhetoric that you can't back up.
Your analysis is weak, funnypants. Calling a state a ‘red state’ because it went republican in some election is like calling the country ‘red’ because Bush won the last election. How accurate would that be?
There are going to be those who enjoy government largesse in every state and county of the country – like those farmers in Nebraska sucking up federal money in the name of ‘renewable energy’ and other subsidies. If a bunch of morons in Massachusetts WANT to fund those programs I guess they’re free to donate.
>>Your analysis is weak, funnypants. Calling a state a ‘red state’ because it went republican in some election is like calling the country ‘red’ because Bush won the last election. How accurate would that be?
Translation: I have not fact to back up my speculation, and the facts are clearly against me, so now I'll try to switch tack and hope no one is paying attention. Well, I'm paying attention, and if you want to see humor, read over the way you are wiggling in this thread. First, it was a stupid inflamatory attack, in which you reasoned by analogy. When you couldn't defend that, it was the people in Houston excuse; when you couldn't back that up, you then make some generalization that just because the people in a state vote Republican, that does not make the state red. Oh really? So Idaho, which is very, very republican, is not a red state?
Why don't you just admit you have no facts rather than keep shoveling?
>>There are going to be those who enjoy government largesse in every state and county of the country – like those farmers in Nebraska sucking up federal money in the name of ‘renewable energy’ and other subsidies. If a bunch of morons in Massachusetts WANT to fund those programs I guess they’re free to donate.
Whether the people in Massachusetts want to donate to the loser Republicans who can't support themselves is another matter. You made the claim that real men didn't rely on government handouts. So I guess Republicans aren't real men. What a bunch of sissies Republicans are! And they must really have problems with their masculanity if they fear a woman in power, as your rhetoric suggests.
That’s pretty funny coming from you, funnypants. The one link that you provide as ‘proof’ is someone else’s blog – from three years ago.
Do I really need to feed you all of the information? The current mayor of Houston was a deputy secretary under President Clinton. He was also chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. Is that ‘blue’ enough for you? The mayor of Atlanta is Shirley Franklin. Do you think she’s a democrat or republican? The Austin mayor is crazier than Algore, etc, etc.
Now, if the people of Massachusetts don’t want to donate to those losers, then they should be pushing for spending cuts. By the way, how’s that federally bailed-out big-dig going?
Good grief! The blog links to a tax study. You understand the difference?
>>the current mayor of Houston was a deputy secretary under President Clinton. He was also chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. Is that ‘blue’ enough for you? The mayor of Atlanta is Shirley Franklin. Do you think she’s a democrat or republican?
Wow this is stupid. The study I pointed to shows that the *red* states take more federal subsidies than the blue states. Your information above shows that some cities in the red states elected a democratic mayor. It does not show:
1. That the state as a whole is blue
2. That the people in those cities receive more federal funding than the people elsewhere
3. That states like Idaho or Wyoming have any blue pockets at all.
In other words, you are all rhetoric and no fact. No surprise.
>>Now, if the people of Massachusetts don’t want to donate to those losers, then they should be pushing for spending cuts. By the way, how’s that federally bailed-out big-dig going?
And again, you are trying to mislead, but fooling no one. Whether or not Massachusetts wants to subsidize other lazy, Republicans who can't sustain themselves is another matter. You made the claim that real men are self-sustaining and don't rely on government handouts. But the Republicans are the ones who are the most reliant!
So why don't you just admit the Republicans are a bunch of sissies?
You’re still saying nothing, funnypants. The people living in those states, democrats or republicans, are not helped by the tax and spend policies of the federal government that the ‘blue staters’ seem to love so much.
Using your idiotic logic, if the government took $600 million in taxes from a town, and spent $700 million building a bike trail there (an actual pork barrel project in the current spending bill) you could then claim that without the money that had been spent in their town they wouldn’t be able to take care of themselves. The truth, of course, is that they would be a LOT better off if the $600 million had not been taken in the first place. Only a moronic liberal like you thinks that it was a good deal.
What a completely weak response. Do you know that it is a logical fallacy to reason by analogy? Let construct a similarly *stupid* analogy. The Republicans are Stalinists who won't to crush any dissent with force. Bush=Stalin; his supporters = Stalin lovers.
Wow! That was easy! I can go on making analogies all day, comparing people I don't agree with to some ugly character, fictional or not! How about if Bush = Franko? or if Bush = Satan? Wow, this is easy!
Chris Matthews has issues with Hillary and Bill Clinton. As I watched his show this evening (my misfortune) he insisted his panel agree with him that Bill Clinton was picking on Obama. He arm wrestles his guests until he acheives his result,melign Hillary. He's sexist and has an axe he would like to grind on her. It's acceptble for Obama and Edwards to throw jabs at Hillary, but, when she fights back it's attacking her opponents. I can;t believe this man gets paid for this unjournalistic rambelings. His pass time is finding Hillary news and twist and omits the story in it's context and makes these disgusting faces when talking about the Clintons. I personally find him revolting and if you get too close I think he drools. He's a goof who probabaly emulates Hannity. His mother must be proud. I say, go Hilary all the way to the Whitehouse where we can restore the damage of the Bush era. Who better then Bill to repair the dmage. He's the best and Hillary will make a fine President.
Rose
Matthews has become increasingly obsessed with Sen. Clinton, and with Pres. Clinton's future sex life. He gets creepier every day, and now almost shows froth on his lips as he bullies and shoves his guests into supporting his paranoic Hillary hate. I saw this exchange today and had to switch channels just where the above transcript ends. The vitriol and the smears he provides against Mrs. Clinton every day, for me, just makes her a more sympathetic candidate; if Chris Matthews is this strongly against her, and so strongly for Sen. Obama, maybe I should move the oppposite way.
I have never seen so many irelevent reporters 'Chris Matthews" twist and distort the truth in an effort to manipulate a nieve audiance. Matthews is as idiot for misreresenting Hillary Clinton in a negative light night-after-night. I turn him off the minute he starts to draw blood. The double standard a woman has to tollerate reenforces my opinion Hillary can stand up against the conservative right. Go Hillary, you earned the right to get your party's nomination. Have you noticed on MSNBC there is no direct link to email Matthews? Cowrad
Rose, your posts are right on point. I remember in him teasing a segment during Bill Clinton's final term with something like "Are Bill and Hillary evil?" or some reference to Satan. I was dumbfounded that he could get away with that on a supposed "real" news program.
If Lieberman decides to support McCain, it's a boon for McCain, and it reinforces Lieberman's "maverick" image. All plusses, those endorsements.
But a Democrat who supports Hillary? It's all about losing the balls. Can't be a MAN and support Hillary, so if you support Hillary, you must be castrated.
That damn Liberal Media. Their disparate coverage of the exact SAME issue is so blatantly biased, and so predictably consistent.
Conservrats should face up to their fears, and cut their own nuts off. Really show the Dems who's boss.
How does this 'castrato' imagery make any sense?
It doesn't-- it connotes reprisal and punishment, not sucking-up. Castration is something you do to a foe.
These guys are so eager to use this sexist imagery that they are not even concerned about its meaning, its connotation, or anything remotely sensible. They're stupid.
Plus-- do any of them know that castratos actually had beautiful voices? So what's their point?
I just hate it when Matthews thinks he’s showing intellectual superiority by using some Latin-based words that half of his audience don’t even know the meaning of.
I’m sure his Magisters are proud of the fact that their brainwashing has worked – with all their Catholic teachings of women as the subservient. Yes Chris, you make it all very obvious where you are “coming from” most every time you open your mouth, but will you ever transcend into the 21st century?.Not to mention the incorrect use of the plural of 'castrato'. I believe that would be 'castrati', not 'castratos'. If they want to seem so smart, they should do some research.
I've always thought the media's main purpose was to report the news in a non-partisan way. Ye Right! However, I'm no dummy, I quit listening to Chrissy about four years ago for his (Limbaugh like) non substantiated off-the-wall comments. Comments so far off the main stream they never rang the truth meter. I just figured he may be toying around with the same pharmaceutical's Rush was so fond of that makes him such a blabbermouth!
I discovered that there are reruns of Two and a Half Men on at the same time as Matthews. I decided that if I was going to watch a sexist pig, I might as well watch the one who is open about it.
I suggest everyone who finds this offensive write to NBC to complain.
I've always thought the media's main purpose was to report the news in a non-partisan way. Ye Right! However, I'm no dummy, I quit listening to Chrissy about four years ago for his (Limbaugh like) non substantiated off-the-wall comments. Comments so far off the main stream they never rang the truth meter. I just figured he may be toying around with the same pharmaceutical's Rush was so fond of that makes him such a blabbermouth!
I have been a fan of Chris Matthews...but no longer. His one-sided rants against the Clintons reveals more about Matthews than the Clintons. This is Fox News style of reporting at MS-NBC. I'd get rid of Chris in a second if I were them and get a real reporter who has an ounce of objectivity. He is pitiful.
This thing that chris matthews spies with his little mind's eye, this "chorus of eunuchs" and "wannabes", all saying what they're told to say...
...he's describing the Republican Noise Machine.
He's describing hannity and coulter and limbaugh and o'reilly and cavuto and hume and morris and snow and the whole Fox "all-star lineup".
chris matthews sees the mote, but he misses the beam.
And as far as who and who is not castrated: I'd say tucker carlson's voice makes him a likelihood, but looking at ann coulter's adam's apple, who can say for sure.
Word of The Day
Gynophobia (n): The fear of women. [From Greek gyne (female, woman) + -phobia (fear). Chris Matthews has a severe case of gynophobia.
Hillaryous. :-)
My rant on Matthews.
He is a fool. However, I watch his show b/c there's not much else on at that hour.
He always makes dumb comments, like the above, which he thinks make him sound clever. He always draws dumb analogies between clinton and nurse ratched (cuckoos nest), as well as with madame defarge, to make himself sound literary or something. Or he'll make a conclusory statement about something sounding "Orwellian," without explaining why . .. Or he'll take some obscure quote, (inevitably out of context), to try to impress some guest who he won't let talk anyway.
He's self-conscious about his intellect and yet desperately wants to be accepted by so-called "intellectuals." And in that regard, he tries to prove too much.
An inside joke, I assure you.
Matthews is simply getting in front of the Huckabee/Dumond pardon before most of America learns about it in full.
You know, barring some rather fantastic revelation there's no way I'd support Clinton over Obama (or anyone else over Obama, for that matter) and of all the Dem's in the field, I'm the least enthusiastic about Sen. Clinton. But this guy [Mathews] is just being absurd. How can he say "castrados in the eunich chorus" and expect to have any credability left with regard to objectivity or journalist integrity/detachment. This sounds like something Rush would say. I used to like [Mathews], but can't even watch this guy anymore. (And Russert's not much better either.)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I remember years ago when Bob Kerrey was called upon to explain a mission he had as a commander of a special forces long range patrol that destroyed an occupied village in Vietnam. Many innocents civilians died, and the day haughts him stil.
Matthews was all giddy to pile on this decorated warrior to add to his credentials, he was pleased to make hay of the carnage of war, and to villify the warrior!
Now we have Matthews hailing Kerrey for his political courage while implying that he would have to be castrated to stand for the Clinton Campaign. I say Matthews has long since proven his willingness to swing with the breeze that keeps him on the aire and with his own show!!!!
Remember how he so "Loved the President" and how he blubbered before the 'o4 election that GWB is such a "real man." Matthews check his package and found it empty.
Bob Kerrey is a real man, George Bush is not. If you want to make a real comparison to find out, just look at how they chose to answer the call to war when they were old enough to answer the call! One of the two was a DRAFT DODGER, the other was a WAR HERO that the Republicans were happy to smear for his very service!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Well said. And just to cut off the inevitable right-wing counter that "W" didn't dodge the draft:
If 50,000 men die in the jungles of Vietnam while you're fighting communism in the skies over Texas - YOU'RE A DRAFT-DODGER!
(And that's assuming he actually showed up!)
This is why shows like Hardball have become so irrelevant. Supposed journalists like Chris Matthews have strong, personal likes and dislikes that they don't even bother to hide when reporting on political races and other news. I can't remember ever seeing anyone on Hardball openly disagree with Matthews on any subject, even if he stopped talking long enough to let them speak. After all, they want to be invited back. If Matthews is wondering why his ratings have taken a nosedive, it's because viewers like me don't trust him or the information we hear on his show.
I am 100% in support of the election of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the President of the United States of America in 2008 and I have not been "castrated".
I have advised those making noise about the ideals of Senator Barack Obama to have a reality check, because of their political naivety and immaturity.
Eloquence avails nothing against the voice of gold.
Even if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is not contesting, Senator Barack Obama cannot get 40% of the votes of Democrats and any of the Republican presidential candidates will walk over Barack Obama.
The only Democratic presidential candidate the GOP is scared of, is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Republicans are those recruiting anti-Clinton campaigners who are willing "to become castratos in the eunuch chorus".
Making childish and foolish political jokes cannot do Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton any harm.
Tweety breaks the irony meter yet again
"The Chorus of Eunuchs" eh?
kind of like all the talking heads, most notably Tweety and G. Gordon Liddy who got a little too excited over the Codpiece.
It takes either a lot of nerve or a glaring lack of self-consciousness and short-term memory for a guy who seems to enjoy being at least figuratively "pegged" by Ann Coulter (though it would not surprise me if it were literal, too...eww) to say some crap like that.
And don't even get me started on his fixation with Rudy and "the pee smell"
Clinton reminds him of his wife. It's obvious who wears the pants in that family. The Hillary bashing is 75% sexism, even if it may be unconscious. Politics is dirty. Cinderella or Peter Pan would be demolished by the swift-boating lying, viciousness of the Republicans- why are they not called "castrators?" Is not Karl Rove the lyingest castrator of all? The Clintons have the power and desire to neutralize this battle- because they've been in the mud, and know the (ugly) game. Sad, but true- this is American politics. Ugly deterrents.
Oh c'mon. Matthews is being genuinely funny for the first time in his entire life and you're gonna kneecap the guy? Why didn't you nail him for his demagoguing on immigration a few weeks ago? This is nothing.
even though i'm not totally enthused about anybody in the pack so far, Tweety has been grossly fixated on a series of latently creepy issues he seems to have toward Hillary Clinton.
The guy has major issues. He gets all swoony and giddy then starts gushing over Mitt's broad shoulders, over Dubya's bulging crotch in a flight suit and over Giuliani's supposed mastery of "The pee smell," as if he had each of their names scribbled lovingly in the margins of the Hello Kitty notebook he keeps just out of the view of the cameras, but bring up the subject of Hillary and suddenly he's as catty and b*tchy as if she showed up to a cocktail party wearing the same dress he was wearing.
So, DBeden, do you think that the people who helped your father would have turned him down if not for the ‘faith-based initiatives’? Where do you think the money came from in the first place (a rhetorical question since you pointed it out yourself)? It was sucked out of the community by the government, run through the ringer and then a small PART of it was returned in the form of some social initiative or another.
The only thing that the government did was make it HARDER for the community to help your family.And your proof of this? You know, the facts for once rather than just your rhetoric?
The womanizer Mr. Matthews does not need to be castrated as he is already so insecure about his male organ that he offends every intelligent female who appears on his second rate program, which, by the way, my husband and I have stopped watching. One can only imagine what strong women like Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Pelosi do to his masculinity. Get over it, Chris, you bloviating blow-hard. We women number more than half of the population and if you had had to rely purely on your brain or charisma in a truly gender equal society, you would not have made janitor at MSNBC.
What a bad joke of a human being this evil slug is. Support Hillary or support any other of the candidates, this is just evil stupidity. What special thing makes Hillary supporters into these brainless zombies, as Matthews says? He never says why he dislikes her so profoundly, but I have a theory: the thought that pursues Matthew night and day is "vagina dentata."
Mr. Matthews has been spewing this nonsense since the election when GWBush stole the Election. He was rewarded with a Sunday program to round out the other Conservative-GE-interest promoting "news" programming. He is doing the bidding of GE/NBCU. Period. Russert pitches his books or his teams...and, "The Press" is himself. When Mr. Matthews needs the "black" perspective, he brings in Al Sharpton, who in an ironic twist, he treats w/deference. As an African-American woman it is evident he is both racist and sexist because ONLY both would have Al Sharpton on the show to speak FOR African-Americans -- when one could call in black scholars, real grass roots/non-conflicted Civil Rights activists, retired military, professors, lawyers, bankers, judges, physicians... I have made a mental comparison to how Al Sharpton was not grilled by Mr. Matthews last Election cycle -- and, what he is attempting to do to Mrs. Clinton, a former First Lady and current United States Senator. Watching him pick her mannerisms apart -- while (literally) spitting at the screen, is tragic -- for our airwaves to be leveraged at this critical juncture for the Nation and the world, in this manner. It is high time GE/NBCU pull back the very dated Messrs. Russert, Carlson and Matthews to write their books and discuss football, whatever, among themselves - and move forward with REAL journalists like the very successful Mr. Olberman. Perhaps bringing back Mr. Donahue is in order. Americans need REAL information and honest discourse. The Bush/Cheny era and their media apparatus have had their day. Conservatives want Mr. Obama to win, so they can win another (4) years. Watching Conservatives like Mr. Carlson feign outrage about poor Barak...is sickening. Mr. Obama, be careful of the company you keep today. After (8) years of Mrs. Clinton, we will need you on deck and we are watching. You should NOT want Conservatives or Mr. Matthews running interference for you....
Matthews has become an embarrassment with his obsession with Clinton. he only invites guest that agree with him. 3 years I tivo'd him he is now canceled
Matthews has an obvious problem about women. Gynophobia is probably about right. It's really amazing all of the stuff he gets away with because it's his show. It's very much like the idiots who were regulars on the Imus show, even tho he kept saying racist, misogynist things. Someday Matthews will cross the line (not easy on MSNBC) and all of his regulars will say "What!!!! We didn't realize that he was a sick, sick dog."