About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani

December 18, 2007 1:59 pm ET

98 Comments

On October 4, MSNBC host Chris Matthews professed his neutrality in the presidential race. "I'm pretty independent, in terms of the two parties," he said. "I have been just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them."

In order to ascertain whether this claim is true, Media Matters for America examined every evaluative remark Matthews made on MSNBC's Hardball during the months of September, October, and November about either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, the two national front-runners for their respective parties' nominations during that period. We excluded instances in which Matthews was simply reporting facts (e.g. "A new poll shows Giuliani leading ... ") and restricted ourselves to cases in which Matthews offered his own opinions or judgments.[1] We also excluded instances in which there was any ambiguity about whether the statement was positive or negative.

The results demonstrate that Matthews has been particularly friendly to Rudy Giuliani in recent months, and extremely hostile toward Hillary Clinton. Not only is there a qualitative difference between the kinds of praise and criticism he offers these two candidates, but a quantitative difference, as well: Matthews made 10 negative remarks about Clinton for every negative remark he made about Giuliani, and nearly three times as many positive remarks about the former New York City mayor as about Clinton. The ratio of positive to negative remarks was 3.5-to-1 for Giuliani, but 1-to-8.2 for Clinton.

  • Matthews made 10 positive remarks about Hillary Clinton in the past three months, most of which were evaluations of her campaign performance. But six of these 10 remarks also contained some criticism, as when he said, "She has been charming but cold and absolutely flawless," or when he described a debate as "a highly scripted, brilliant performance by Hillary Clinton." Others -- for instance, his praise of Clinton's success in getting support from "every interest area in the Democratic Party" -- could also plausibly be interpreted as backhanded compliments.
  • Matthews made 82 negative remarks about Clinton during this period. They cover a wide range of topics, but most have to do with character issues -- that Clinton is overly calculating, disingenuous, or unethical.
  • Matthews made 28 positive remarks about Rudy Giuliani, most concerning how much of a leader and how tough Giuliani is.
  • Matthews made eight negative remarks about Giuliani, most about his stance on immigration.

The complete list of positive and negative remarks is available at the end of this report.[2]

The picture painted by this list is clear. Indeed, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported in June 2001 that Matthews told an MSNBC colleague, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

A sampling of negative remarks about Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton did what she always does, what her husband always does is refuse to pay a price for political office. To always defer to someone; always avoid taking a position within any interest group that might offend some interest group within the Democratic Party. It seems the whole tactic of the Clintons, never take a stand that offends anybody in the whole room full of Democratic donors and then you get elected because you don't offend anybody." (September 26)

"Sometimes, I wonder, with the Clintons, do they really have that spontaneous ability to react to events, or is it just all script? That bothers me sometimes." (October 4)

"And Hillary's so lawyered up and consultanted-up. We don't know what they really think, do we?" (October 11)

"I think a lot of people pick a president they figure would sort of like them if they knew them. And if you are overweight or have a problem with your diet -- and I certainly did for years -- you may figure Hillary doesn't like people like me. She's looking down on me. What do you think? Howie, she's looking down on me, that woman. She thinks she's better than me." (October 19)

"But did she think up this malarkey about, I'm going stick with the -- doesn't she step back for three seconds and say she grew up in Chicago. You're always loyal to the team you grew up with as a kid. She went to the Yankees so that she could run for senator from New York. It's so obvious. Well, why is she -- doesn't she know she looks like a fraud?" (October 26)

"They have to nestle and pander, if you will. It seems like Hillary Clinton has made her bed. She's going to be for the side of the illegal immigrants. That's where she is." (October 31)

"I hear the sharp notes there coming out of her mouth. Is that bad for her? You know, like in piano music, the notes seem a half a note too sharp. And is that going to hurt?" (November 16)

A sampling of positive remarks about Giuliani:

"That's what I began hearing several years ago, that Southerners look to Giuliani as a leader. And Republicans, as we all know, love leaders. Watch for Rudy to surprise the pundits and pull pretty good numbers down in Dixie." (October 18)

"Rudy is this tough, kick-butt cop from New York. You know he is not a nice guy. You know he can be a SOB. But maybe that is what you want on the subway at 3:00 in the morning. Maybe that is what people feel like in their heads right now. It is 3:00 in the morning. And we want tough guy on that subway with us, right?" (November 6)

"Rudy Giuliani, after 9/11, the galloping horse of history came by. He jumped in the saddle and made himself Winston Churchill. You either grab your opportunity when it comes, or you blow it. This guy grabbed it. That is why I think he is the number one possibility to be the next Republican nominee for president." (November 6)

"I think reading this [Newsweek] article may give me a sense of why in fact he's got this tough persona that I think is part of the reason why he stayed at the top of the polls for all these many months, about a year or so already, coming -- coming out of the background that he did. No one say he came from a -- a very pampered, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth type background, as -- as other presidents have done. That may give a sense as to why he's got the kind of demeanor and the toughness that I think made him a success as mayor and I think will make him a success on this campaign trail." (November 26)

Negative remarks about Hillary Clinton (82)

September 11

"The target of the Romney sleaze, Fred Thompson, was, of course, the senator assigned the job of probing all that honky-tonk fund-raising the -- the Clinton family did back when they held the White House, all those Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers for those who could pay the price in Clinton campaign contributions, all that Motel 6 use of the president's house. Well, here we go again. Hillary Clinton has just been caught with and has had to return $850,000 from a guy named Norman Hsu, now under investigation by the FBI."

September 13

"I mean, I have noticed her trying to do the pyramid play, the Betty and Veronica number, on this war issue for months now, saying, I want a residual military force over there. I don't want to talk to Ahmadinejad, all that kind of hawkish talk, to go along with the anti-war sentiments of her party."

September 19

"Talk about the Keating Five. Here's a meeting in Washington with a bunch of Congress people, including apparently Sheila Jackson Lee, who escaped the chance to be on the show tonight, all sitting around being introduced to a bunch of lobbyists, who are trying to sell security equipment to the federal government. It's a match making operation, a pimping operation. Hillary Clinton is the queen bee of it. Is this the future if she gets elected president?"

September 20

"And you've got this question of bundling. It's been reported in the paper today that people are being asked to kick in to campaigns and then being compensated by their bosses. They're Republicans being forced to kick in to Hillary Clinton's campaign. A lot of this sleaze is going on. It's not the new kind of post-Watergate politics we were promised."

September 20

"You're saying it forces them [the Clintons] to be corrupt? Excuse me, are we now in the business of justifying -- because their ambitions are so grand, we can't expect them to be careful in how they raise money? Excuse me, they choose to run for president. They believe they can handle the job without being corrupt. They say so. And when they are found to be corrupt, we say oh, that comes with the territory. Is that the excuse?"

September 20

"Is this corrupt, what Hillary Clinton is doing, holding fund-raisers with lobbyists, pimping them, basically, saying, if you give money to me, you lobbyists, I will sit you down to lunch with members of Congress, chairmen of committees, and they will sit around with you and you will get to be friends with each other, but give me the money first, and I will set up those deals, those lunches?"

September 26

"Hillary Clinton did what she always does, what her husband always does is refuse to pay a price for political office. To always defer to someone; always avoid taking a position within any interest group that might offend some interest group within the Democratic Party. It seems the whole tactic of the Clintons, never take a stand that offends anybody in the whole room full of Democratic donors and then you get elected because you don't offend anybody."

September 26

"But the Clintons always do this 'slip-sliding-away' thing. They beat Paul Tsongas with this back in '92, she's following the same playbook now. Don't take positions on anything that offends anyone and you can slip-slide your way into the nomination."

September 26

"What do you make of her commitment on Iraq to keep the troops in there so she can do the old Betty and Veronica play here, where I'm for pulling the troops out but I'm for keeping the troops in? It's like Archie, you know, Archie Andrews, I mean, she seems to say I'm coming home but I'm staying. You know, what is it? I feel like Jackie Mason here, she's in -- she's out. The question is do you think she has an authentic policy proposal or is your policy proposal for a federalization system over there where you share the oil revenues; you break up the land into different confessional groups. Is that the solution you believe in? Do you think she really believes you keep a certain number of troops there forever to fight Al Qaeda and you take the other ones home? I mean, does that make sense to you?"

September 26

"What about when she said, 'I know this is of special interest to you.' For whom is Social Security not a special interest? I mean that was the strangest kind of response to someone."

September 26

"I've got you figured out boy. Yeah right. I just thought that was outrageous. There's not a senior citizen in America that doesn't think that the future of Social Security is of ultimate relevance to them."

September 26

"It's how they destroyed Paul Tsongas back in '92. Let the other guy propose reforms, you talk reform but don't say anything, ever."

September 26

"Do you think that Hillary Clinton is trying to have it both ways in the war on Iraq by maintaining a combat troop presence to fight Al Qaeda, that's her phraseology, which avoids having to say I'm pulling the troops out. Is that a strategy to keep everyone happy with a policy that really does divide Americans?"

September 26

"I thought it was interesting, you couldn't get her to say raise taxes, change the benefits or change the amount of income taxed. That pretty much defines inaction, doesn't it?"

September 26

"Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is. She was asked by you, sir, about whether we're going to get full disclosure of contributors to presidential libraries. And she did not feel that she had the latitude in her husband's absence to give you an answer. She said, you'll have to ask my husband, as if you're a guy going door to door trying to sell someone and says you'll have to wait for my husband to get home. It was unbelievable that she wouldn't answer that. Never mind, let's drop this. I just thought it was extraordinary that their deal doesn't have that much clarity to it."

September 26

"Yes. But she has always had that -- you know, you have dealt with her. You know if you have a town meeting with her, 10 minutes before the town meeting, one of the press people comes in and asks you the questions, what they're going to be. This is Hillary-land. You've go to live in that land. We all live in that land. She wants -- she doesn't want to have any risks. She wants to get the presidency without risk and that's not surprising if you're the frontrunner."

September 26

"But let me ask you about this about the issue tonight. Is Hillary Clinton vulnerable to the charge that she's been sloppy about taking money from Hsu, from dealing with this guy Follieri? Is she too loose when it comes to the people she hangs around with and lets her people hang around with? Is there a problem of corruption in the front-runner's campaign?"

September 26

"We've got the big presidential debate right now. And the question is, will sleaze stop Hillary Clinton?"

September 26

"What is it about the Clintons' world that is more connected with big money people, a lot of foreign people, a lot of people with particular interests and kind of seedy people, as opposed to Barack's campaign? Is it the fact that he gets small contributors, idealistic contributors, and they deal with the old interest people or what?"

September 26

"Let me ask you about the peculiar nature of the Clintons fund-raising operation. They are -- let's try to use the right word -- notorious for the wholesale manner in which they haul people in and shake them down for lots of money. This reached a head during the 1990s, when they were hauling people into the Lincoln Bedroom, letting people stay overnight in droves, one after another. They called it Motel 6. Senator Fred Thompson was the man who led the committee that investigated that. They couldn't prove anything to put the Clintons away. Is there something about the Clintons that's different than the usual sleazy fund-raising in politics?"

September 26

"But I do see this story building. It looks to me like the one big weakness of Hillary Clinton is not that she's a woman, not that she's not smart, not that she's not hard working, not that she's not experienced, not that she's too middle-of-the-road, but that she's too establishment. She's too much a part of the old way of doing things, and it's very hard to say she's the candidate of change."

September 26

"Jill, do you think the fact that Hillary is a woman, that she's married to Bill, and they have had the history of Motel 6 and raising money in the White House, the fact that she voted to authorize the war, adds up to a vulnerability?"

September 27

"Well, today Bill Clinton, as usual, tried to turn her dodging into a chivalry issue, something he's done so many times before. He's just looking out for his honey."

September 26

"She's still doing this, what I call, this Betty and Veronica pyramid play of saying I'll keep the hawks happy, I'll keep the doves happy, I'll keep some troops in forever to fight this Al Qaeda potential threat over there."

September 27

"Debra, what do you think looking at it from your side of things? Do you think Hillary Clinton has a notion, much less a vision, of what to do in Iraq?"

September 27

"Archie Andrews had in the comic books of Betty and Veronica. He wanted both of them. And that's what she wants, both arguments. She wants to be seen as a hawk and be seen as a dove for the purposes of this campaign."

September 28

"And here's Barack hitting Hillary Clinton for her bogus baseball fannery."

September 28

"More news today about the Clintons' strong-arming of that magazine 'Gentleman's Quarterly,' their killing of a Hillary story that they didn't like the look of. ... I don't know if the Clintons can keep getting away with this. It's kind of rough treatment, you might even say a little fascistic treatment, of the journalistic world."

October 1

"I got to tell you, I love Frank Rich, and I love him especially when he points out what seems to me to be the obvious, that Hillary Clinton is hedging, that she wants to have the hawks in the Democratic Party, the hawks in the general election, and the anti-war people in the Democratic Party all to like her, and it's starting to show, this hedging of her bets."

October 1

"And Hillary can't seem to decide, is she a hawk who wants to take on Iran, who supports the latest resolution from the neo-conservatives, is she the hawk who wants to keep troops in Iraq forever, or is she the one who wants to bring our boys home and end this war? She says both things all the time. What is she? Can you read her?"

October 1

"You said the other night, when we were talking at dinner, you said that people don't mind you taking any position except the fetal position. Is that what Hillary's doing? I don't know what it is. It's like the quarterback who falls down on the ball, rather than trying to advance it, because he knows he's winning the game. That's what she seems to be doing. Every time there's a play, she falls down on the ball so she won't, you know, fumble."

October 1

"I think the country wants to move the ball. They don't want somebody to keep control of the ball, like the Clintons do, hold the ball for the rest of their lives when what people want is it to move forward. They want to get out of Iraq. They want to avoid going into Iran. They want to have the economy better off and more secure. And here's a woman who's playing it safe and hedging her bets."

October 1

"Well, she doesn't want to lose it. But it's not -- OK, that's playing for her, it's not playing for us."

October 1

"I know, but Drew, I'm hoping it's real because I really liked the cackle when she did it to Chris and -- because I love to be rivals with everybody. But I've also heard that she cackled when she was talking to Bob Schieffer, which made no sense. I can't figure her out. Is the cackle killing her? You think it's a distraction. What is it?"

October 1

"If she keeps cackling, we'll keep talking about it. So I don't think she can win this baby! I don't know what to say."

October 1

"But the first African-American guy to really have a shot, that the voice of the future, no more Clinton versus -- Clinton and Bush rotating the job of the presidency like rotating old cans on a shelf in a supermarket, dusting off the cans because nobody is buying them."

October 2

"I still am in wonder of how Hillary Clinton can keep saying she didn't vote for the war."

October 3

"They used to say back in the old days at the Dewey campaign in '48 that he had a brilliant communications operation on his train as it whistle-stopped through the country, but it said nothing. Let me ask you about Hillary Clinton. She went on the Sunday talk shows, all five of them, made no news in five appearances. It was a tour de force, if her goal is to say nothing."

October 3

"All I know is this: I think we need a national health care system and the Democrats say they're for one. But when it comes time to create one, they don't even have the guts to finance it. If we're going to have a 200 billion dollar health care program, like Hillary and the others are talking about, you have to be willing to finance it. If all they're going to do is a number of saying, someday I'll raise the cigarette tax, that's not exactly a profile in courage, Rachel. Either you're going to pay for this stuff or stop talking about it. Hillary and Barack and Edwards are all talking about national health care. And all they can think of is some cigarette tax they know they will never pass. Why don't they put up their money where their mouth is, and say, we're for national health? And damn it, we're going to pay for it. We're going to cut something here. We're going to raise taxes here. It's going to add up. Why don't they say that?"

October 3

"But, Emily, how can she get away with leading a party by 33 points that's so totally against this war? We had the number on last night, four out of five Democrats want the Congress to be much tougher in taking on this war policy. And yet, Hillary doing that sort of interesting back and forth play she does on the war, where she's hawkish, in terms of Iran, hawkish in terms of keeping troops in Iraq. Yet says the right things most of the time about ending the war. How can she get away with that pyramid play in a party that's so overwhelmingly anti-war?"

October 4

"Sometimes, I wonder, with the Clintons, do they really have that spontaneous ability to react to events, or is it just all script? That bothers me sometimes."

October 8

"I've been saying a long time anecdotally, because I love to do these things, that anybody with a gun and a boat, Hillary hasn't got their vote. And I'm trying to be like Jesse Jackson here with little rhyming here. But that guy, that independent working guy, he's hard to get for a liberal Democrat, isn't he?"

October 11

"And Hillary's so lawyered up and consultanted-up. We don't know what they really think, do we?"

October 18

"What about when she does this sort of awkward, I think, or highly rehearsed, Us girls have to get together and circle the wagons against those men? Is that attractive to women voters or not?"

October 19

" 'The Los Angeles Times' reports today that Hillary has raised unprecedented amounts of money from poor Chinatown residents -- quote -- 'Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fund-raisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury' -- quote. The report goes on to say that many of the donors, some of whom don't even vote, felt pressured to give because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. Well, while she shovels in money in one door, she shovels out the federal money in another. Republicans in Congress have just succeeded in killing an earmark proposed by Senator Clinton and New York's Chuck Schumer. It would have provided $1 million for a Woodstock museum in Upstate New York."

October 19

"I think a lot of people pick a president they figure would sort of like them if they knew them. And if you are overweight or have a problem with your diet -- and I certainly did for years -- you may figure Hillary doesn't like people like me. She's looking down on me. What do you think? Howie, she's looking down on me, that woman. She thinks she's better than me."

October 22

"That's right, the same thing she said about her vote authorizing the war with Iraq. Hillary wants hawks in the party to think she's the most hawkish of Democrats and still make the cut with the doves. Talk about a wide stance."

October 23

"Julie, I think they're going to skunk Hillary the way they did Dukakis back in 1988. They're going to say, we want change but not this one, baby."

October 26

"But did she think up this malarkey about, I'm going stick with the -- doesn't she step back for three seconds and say she grew up in Chicago. You're always loyal to the team you grew up with as a kid. She went to the Yankees so that she could run for senator from New York. It's so obvious. Well, why is she -- doesn't she know she looks like a fraud?"

October 26

"What's with her clapping? Why is she always clapping? There we see her -- I don't know any -- is this a Chinese thing? What is this clapping? She doesn't clap like you do at a movie you like or something. She claps when she meets people. She claps -- is that Tom Friedman? I mean, she claps when she stands at a luncheon. What is all the clapping about?"

October 26

"Does she exploit it and get power by knowing that he's always feeling guilty with her? In other words, did she get power -- I heard this from David Gergen. She got power over health care financing, the biggest issue of that administration ... because he was so hooked up in the problem of Paula Jones that she just squeezed it out of -- OK, give me the health care thing, and I'll be quiet."

October 26

"Is that the kind of exploitation, or what do you call it -- what do you call it, blackmail? What do you call it?"

October 26

"And she exploited it to get more power."

October 26

"It was a fund-raiser, of course. Like so much of the Clintons' life, they use it for fund-raising purposes or political purposes."

October 26

"I find them both amazingly likable people when I'm with them, especially Hillary. I do find a fraudulence, a public fraudulence, in all this Yankee/Red Sox stuff. It's so hokey, so baloney, so B.S. It makes me wonder about how much more B.S. there is. When you can actually pretend it's an issue that somebody roots for the Sox, when your team loses the division, I mean, who cares?"

October 26

"It was the worst of both worlds, Sally. It was the fingers on the blackboard and a stupid topic."

October 26

"How do we discern how they work together in the White House, because there's this problem you're pointing to of trying to get the record out. Explain the problem of getting the record out about how Bill and Hillary operated for eight years in the White House."

October 26

"When you want to find out about something, they [the Clintons] say, oh, that's politics. You can't look at it. If it's something to do with policy, they say that's policy. By the way, who's in charge?"

October 29

"Here's what I think Obama should say starting tomorrow night at the big MSNBC debate in my hometown of Philly. Quote, 'This country's in a rut, a rut that leads to endless war in Iraq, that leads to inevitable war with Iran. The American people, and not just the Democrats, want to get our country out of this rut. The great majority of them want this election to take us to a new place, not just led by someone smarter along the same rut. I promise to take us to that new place. Senator Clinton is smart. She's hardworking. She's serious. But every vote she has cast, every word she has spoken says yes to the status quo. She voted to approve the war with Iraq. She just voted with the hawks to target Iran. She always seems to choose the safe boat that leaves this country in the same rut, the rut of fearful politics and endless war. I promise change. I promise a new approach. I promise deliverance from the rut of endless war in Iraq, inevitable war in Iran. So there you have it. It's for you, my fellow Democrats, to decide. If you think Bush's policies would have been succeed if they were better executed, then go with Senator Clinton. If you think the Bush policies were wrong, dead wrong, I'm with you.' "

October 29

"I mean, I made the point early in the show, as I started the show, I think he has to say that Hillary Clinton keeps us in the rut we're in right now. She offers no change, more war with Iraq, inevitable war with Iran. You need a whole new approach to the foreign policy of this country, and she's not offering it."

October 29

"But Hillary is basically column A. She's a smarter Bush."

October 29

"By the way, that might be the smartest politics, because having just been at Fenway Park and heard some of the rumbling behind me about Hillary; 'Is she really going to be the nominee? Tell me she's not going to be the nominee. Tell me I don't have her as president.' That was what I was hearing behind me."

October 29

"She's very much the establishment candidate. She's doing the establishment thing, taking money from the interest groups, whatever they are, saying she really doesn't pay much attention where the money comes from. That's Bill Clinton politics. That's what they did in the White House. Is it going to work?"

October 30

"Dan, it seems to me that she has managed to keep the voice tenor down. There has been none of that fingernail on the blackboard kind of hectoring sound."

October 31

"Roger, it seems to me that she uses this phrase, 'undocumented workers,' rather than illegal immigrants. It's obviously pandering. It doesn't tell you anything. 'Undocumented worker' can mean anything. She doesn't use the actual language of reality. These people are in the country illegally. And then she seeks to solve the problem by giving them documents, as that -- as if that's their only problem. They're in the country illegally. She wants to give them driver's licenses. By the way, she finally went full circle again today and said, Yes, give them driver's licenses."

October 31

"You know, last night, Anne, I thought Hillary Clinton was playing a pretty good game of eightball in pool, and then she scratched at the end. She was the one that put the cueball in the hole, in the pocket. She committed the self-inflicted wound of coming out for driver's licenses, documentation for people in this country illegally. I don't know how she wins on this. "

October 31

"I think she's ready to switch again, Pat. We'll be right back. I swear she switches on this like a top in the next couple of months."

October 31

"The hottest issue in the Democratic Party is the war. The hottest issue in the Republican Party is illegal immigration. And now Hillary has sided with illegal immigration."

October 31

"What is this, Pat? Dodgeball? That's not a position for the first lady?"

October 31

"I mean, her husband is the guy she is using as her number-one trolley to the White House here, and she can't give him a call and say, hey, dear, why don't you release those documents, so I can brag about my record at the White House?"

October 31

"Do you think she is hiding something? Do you think she's hiding something, that she did something during the administration of her husband that is embarrassing to her, and that's why she doesn't want the papers out?"

October 31

"They have to nestle and pander, if you will. It seems like Hillary Clinton has made her bed. She's going to be for the side of the illegal immigrants. That's where she is."

November 1

"First she mocks the debate, now she's playing the woman card. Will either move pay off for Hillary Clinton after her flip-flop on this issue we're talking about, driver's licenses for people in the country illegally?"

November 1

"I was just triggered into thinking about the number of times Hillary Clinton has yielded herself to this gender card; I'm your girl out in Chicago. What gives me experience in dealing with evil men, and now this one, rallying the troops up at Wellesley. Is she going to do a seven sisters tour now, a college tour now with Hillary to rally the women against the men?"

November 1

"Is this pandering or playing to the Seven Sisters crowd up at these all-women's colleges, where there may be that sort of mood if you're -- and they all want dates. I assume a lot of them do, on weekends. But this anti-male thing, is that something that's particularly something you can sort of spruce up, you can play up, up there?"

November 2

"Is Hillary out of line for painting herself as a victimized woman every time her male rivals criticize her? And do we want a president who plays the gender card every time her opponents attack her?"

November 6

"Hillary Clinton's team, led by very smart people, the best and the brightest in the business, people like Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald, they're putting out the word -- first of all, they put out the word to Drudge that night that somehow Tim Russert was too tough. Then they put out the word the next day at a fund raising meeting, in a conference call, that the other rivals were too tough. Then she dropped the Wellesley -- maybe she did it rightly or wrongly, but she did do the gender card thing. And now they're putting out the fact, Bill, that they're Swift Boating this poor woman. You know, just a month ago, she's I'm your girl. In Chicago, she was tough. I can take on all these bad guys. Now, what's big brother coming to defend her for? What's all this excuse-making?"

November 6

"No, I think it's [clapping] bizarre behavior. Anyway, I think it has something to do with -- men don't know what to do with their hands. I guess she's like us. Anyway, we'll be right back with more of the round table. I want an answer, why is she clapping. Matt, please. Tell me. Why does she clap all the time?"

November 9

"Hillary Clinton has this number I just looked at the other day, we all saw it. Fifty five percent of married men in the country say they'll never vote for her under any circumstances. Doesn't she walk into the White House really a pariah amongst so many people?"

November 13

"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? First the Clinton people blamed the moderator in that Philadelphia debate for Hillary's bad night. Then they confessed to feeding questions in televised town meetings. Now they're trying to intimidate the next debate moderator. Is everyone fair game except the candidate?"

November 13

"This shows that she's a manipulative candidate."

November 16

"I hear the sharp notes there coming out of her mouth. Is that bad for her? You know, like in piano music, the notes seem a half a note too sharp. And is that going to hurt?"

Positive remarks about Hillary Clinton (10)

October 1*

"Hey, Mike, Drew, I'm warming up towards her, despite how hard I get on this show, because it's my job to play hardball and be tough on all these guys. But I do think she's so much more appealing as a political figure, after all these years of putting up with Bill."

October 4*

"Well, Hillary -- and this will sound negative towards Hillary, but, you know, I have come to like her a lot more over the years. I just respect how far she's come. I think putting up with Bill has been her rite of passage, putting up with that marriage, and coming out pretty whole, at least the way we look at it. And I think that's a fair estimate. It's not the nicest estimate. But she's a tough cookie. And I think he made her tougher, not necessarily by being nice. But she's a tougher woman than she was 20, 30 years ago, I'm sure."

October 5

"She's much cuter. Cut her some slack, will you? You are brutal."

October 8

"Let's come back and talk about Hillary, who's just leaped to the front of Iowa. She could run the table if she keeps it up. It will confound some people. She's definitely running an impressive campaign."

October 25*

"The establishment, the interest groups, the older women, the working women, the minorities, minorities -- I don't know if gays -- if they're significant, but they're probably for Hillary too. It's unbelievable."

October 29*

"But how do you bring about that choice with Hillary? Hillary is out there with these incredible numbers. Women seem to be voting for her in large numbers. Minorities are voting for her, poor people, working people and old people. She seems to have corralled every interest area of the Democratic Party right now."

October 30*

"The calm, cool presence of a Grace Kelly, if you will. It is almost -- that is the way that Hillary has been. She has been charming but cold and absolutely flawless, I agree."

November 8

"As her friends and foes must have noticed, I get a kick out of going after Hillary's fondness for public clapping. She does it everywhere. Every time she gets in front of a crowd of supporters, she keeps clapping and clapping and clapping. Well, I was up at my old high school the other night, La Salle in Philly, last night. And I talked to Agnes Hallis (ph), who is married to John Hallis (ph), who used to play French horn with me in the school band. She gave me four -- make that a full quartet of reasons why Hillary likes to clap. I love these reasons. Number one, it's a polite way to show she appreciates the applause from the people around her. She's responding. Number two, it's a way to jazz up the energy in the room, sort of like being a cheerleader of the crowd. She's sort of cheering them up, getting them going. Three -- I love these last two -- it's like Peter Pan. If you clap, Tinker Bell will get better. Four, that's that old kid's song. If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. Anyway, so, don't let my Scrooge attitude about clapping make you think anything less of this or take away any reasons why a person running for commander in chief shouldn't enjoy this campaign any way she chooses."

November 16*

"You know what I saw, David, there? A highly scripted, brilliant performance by Hillary Clinton that hit all three bells."

November 30

"Well done. You know, that's what people like to see in politicians. It seems to me, regardless of political parties or attitudes about the person, to get out there on the curb, as she is right there in front of her house answering questions, right away, speaking to the public in a transparent fashion, no hiding in the back. People love it. I hope we see more of that from politicians in the future. It's good stuff. I also like the fact she thanked her volunteers and those of every other campaign, young people in their 20s who run American politics because they have the time to go out there and volunteer. I hope they still do."

* These remarks were positive overall but also contained some negative element.

Positive remarks about Rudy Giuliani (28)

September 4

"Word is that he [John McCain] might be inclined to throw his backing to Rudy Giuliani. The beauty of that is, it would whack Romney, smash his erstwhile buddy, Thompson, who wasn't supposed to run as long as John McCain was in the race, and give a real lift to a fellow maverick. Lots of grit in those two, Rudy and McCain."

September 12

"Were you impressed that 92 percent of the people, almost everybody, thinks he was totally within his rights to celebrate 9/11, and be a main celebrant of it, that he owns that horror? He was there."

September 14

"There's another piece to it [Giuliani's popularity] that you haven't mentioned. I think they like -- people on the conservative side tend to like strong leaders."

October 3

"Rudy's opportunity to pick up on the Bush vote is clearly in the east, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, maybe Ohio. Pick up some opportunity there. They already have Ohio. Pick up some eastern, more ethnic cities, where people like gritty people like Rudy."

October 8

"Rudy's got a gritty image."

October 8

"OK. Let's put a picture up here, a gritty, big-city guy, with a long ethnic name from New York, tough on crime, great during 9/11, Giuliani, right?"

October 9

"That is so smart [that Giuliani listens to his opponents and responds to them]."

October 10

"Well, I think Rudy is right [that he is the most electable -- the "50-state" candidate]."

October 11

"You're with me on that one [that Giuliani will be very tough]. That's what I think."

October 11

"Everything you say is true about Rudy Giuliani. I have been saying that for two years. Whatever your position, liberal, middle, or left, or right, Giuliani has beat the spread week after week after week. And, if you just watch this business, the Republican Party seems to want strength more than anything else. And, for whatever reason, good, bad or fictitious, or whatever, he exudes it."

October 18

"That's what I began hearing several years ago, that Southerners look to Giuliani as a leader. And Republicans, as we all know, love leaders. Watch for Rudy to surprise the pundits and pull pretty good numbers down in Dixie."

October 19

"I'll tell you, Rudy Giuliani wants to bring Ron Paul into every debate for the rest of his life, because he does this alley-oop play. Every time Ron Paul gives the Libertarian, anti-neo-conservative argument, Rudy says what about 9/11 and gets the home run again."

October 22

"He's [Rudy Giuliani] not competing to be the most conservative, he's competing to be the leader."

October 22

"I have a sense that the coasts are going to be owned by Rudy Giuliani just because of the unit rule and the way he can roll it up in Florida and New Jersey and California."

October 23

"OK, I still bet on Giuliani to be the toughest competitor of Hillary."

October 24

"Well, it [Giuliani's claim to be supporting the Red Sox in the World Series] sounds reasonable to me. Is he supposed to be voting for the team from the other league?"

October 30

"Rudy Giuliani enjoys that same kind of popularity in the suburbs, because people want to go back to the old neighborhood. They want to be able to walk around it without getting hurt. They love it. They love their cities. That's why Rudy is popular."

November 6

"Tonight the person with the best shot to win the Republican nomination, I say it's Rudy Giuliani. Once again it is based on national and key state polling, international betting odds and perhaps the most important point, his best and most distinguishing strengths."

November 6

"What is his power punch? The way I see it, Republicans like leaders, as I said, he can win big in big states. And the Christian right now sees anti-terrorism, for which he is famous, as a moral virtue. What could stop him? His positions on social issues like abortion rights and gay rights. Early losses, really bad ones, could kill his big state bid before it even gets started. And finally, some Gotham blowback from firefighters, widows, police, anyone who tries to poke holes in his 9/11 legacy, that could be a problem."

November 6

"You know why I have been saying this guy looks good for a long time, he looks like a potential winner? Because I have been talking to a lot of people in the South, guys that go to lunches in the South, not necessarily church-y people, just secular Republicans, they hear about lower taxes, law and order, they like him. They can't spell his name down there, some people, but they love the idea he is a tough, kick-butt policeman, basically, in New York, a prosecutor, a guy who puts bad guys like Milken away."

November 6

"Rudy is this tough, kick-butt cop from New York. You know he is not a nice guy. You know he can be a SOB. But maybe that is what you want on the subway at 3:00 in the morning. Maybe that is what people feel like in their heads right now. It is 3:00 in the morning. And we want tough guy on that subway with us, right?"

November 6

"Rudy Giuliani, after 9/11, the galloping horse of history came by. He jumped in the saddle and made himself Winston Churchill. You either grab your opportunity when it comes, or you blow it. This guy grabbed it. That is why I think he is the number one possibility to be the next Republican nominee for president."

November 6

"Well, he's [Giuliani] the leader in that party. He looks more like a leader than the rest of them. "

November 20

"Well, that's Rudy at his best [making fun of Barack Obama's admission of past drug use]."

November 26

"So the people looking for a tough guy leader are going to Rudy. They know who they like, in a time of crime fear and terrorism fear, that makes sense."

November 26

"I think reading this [Newsweek] article may give me a sense of why in fact he's got this tough persona that I think is part of the reason why he stayed at the top of the polls for all these many months, about a year or so already, coming -- coming out of the background that he did. No one say he came from a -- a very pampered, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth type background, as -- as other presidents have done. That may give a sense as to why he's got the kind of demeanor and the toughness that I think made him a success as mayor and I think will make him a success on this campaign trail."

November 26

"The Italian-Americans [references a Giuliani profile in Newsweek] are the people that rub the graffiti off the walls when somebody puts it on the wall. They're the ones that won't move out of the neighborhood when it changes. They're the ones that really do fight for the city. They try to keep it straight and narrow. They are straight-and-narrow people. It seems to me it's a plus."

November 28

"I have to tell you, when I watched it [a debate], I thought every -- those two guys were operating at a different level than the rest of the guys, the rest of the candidates, that those two guys, Rudy and Romney, were so far ahead, they were like -- they were like the top-ranked football teams."

Negative remarks about Rudy Giuliani (8)

September 13

"Rudy Giuliani gets whacked on immigration, and maybe deserves it."

September 13

"Republican candidates for president are still pouncing on Rudy Giuliani for remarks he made on talk radio about illegal immigration. He said that being in the United States illegally should not be a federal crime -- quote -- 'because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people' -- close quote. Well, his position puts him clearly at odds with top supporters like Peter King of New York, who want the law enforced. Well, excuse me, but how can a law and order conservative like Giuliani think it's OK for the first thing a person does on entering this country to break the law? In the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, by the way, Giuliani has seen his lead over Fred Thompson shrink from 13 points down just to six points. It will keep shrinking if he keeps sounding soft on illegal immigration."

September 13

"Rudy Giuliani sounds soft on illegal immigration. What's he up to?"

September 24

"Call me old-fashioned, but, when you invite people to go to the trouble to come to an event and listen to what you have to say, you give your first attention to them. You don't operate a switchboard of anyone who feels like interrupting you [referring to Giuliani's answering of a cell phone call during a campaign speech]. If this thing happens again, and people aren't openly offended by it, that's their fault. Cute once, maybe, not cute twice, not cool, if it happens again."

October 1

"Rudy Giuliani explains why he keeps interrupting speeches to take his wife's telephone calls. And wouldn't you know it, it has to do with 9/11."

November 6

"Big problem, small problem, his [Rudy Giuliani] inability to answer that quickly? He was mocking Hillary for having a problem with a question. Brian asked him a fairly obvious question, he took the longest time to say how long he hasn't talked to the guy [Kerik]."

November 26

"Which of these two top Republicans [Romney and Giuliani] is least likely to give you an extension [on a loan]? I don't see a whole lot of heart from either of these guys."

November 29

"You know what I liked about last night, gentlemen, was that there was one issue that neither of these heavyweights, Rudy Giuliani or -- or Governor Mitt Romney, had prepared themselves for in this campaign. They had adjusted their positions on abortion, on gun control, on a whole array of issues to make themselves acceptable to the arch-conservatives, but they hadn't adjusted their records on immigration, illegal immigration. They were both caught flat-footed last night. And you saw that great battle between them, knowing each other was vulnerable. They were both vulnerable on the issue, because neither one has been a red-hot on this issue."



[1] We did not count the plentiful instances in which Matthews criticized Bill Clinton unless he also explicitly criticized Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that criticism of the former is obviously no help to the latter.

[2] We considered each remark to begin when Matthews began speaking and to end when a guest began speaking. Consequently, there were a few occasions on which Matthews made multiple negative or positive remarks regarding the same topic during a single conversation.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jason10006 (December 18, 2007 2:08 pm ET)
         

      Its kinda hard to argue when you include all the comments - and anyone who watches more than three episodes of hardball knows that Matthews loves McCain and Rudy and despises Hilary.  That is perfectly OK, as long he does not also profess neatrality.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolfbato (December 18, 2007 6:58 pm ET)
           

        Finally proof of what we all knew ... Matthews is a blowhard with fascistic tendencies.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by wolfbato (December 19, 2007 9:47 am ET)
           

        Fire at Eisehower Exec. Office ... guess all those records will be destroyed.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikeinmd (December 19, 2007 11:18 am ET)
             

          CNN reports the fire is in the "Vice President's Ceremonial Offices".  Is Cheney burning more records or did the ceremonial sacrifices to Satan get out of control?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (December 18, 2007 2:12 pm ET)
         

      I guess Chris is raising (co)caine again. I know, wrong thread but I got nothin' here. Obviously Chris likes the authoritarian types. Except when he likes the handsome and presidential looking types. I stopped watching this braying DONkey (nod to Shrek) years ago.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (December 18, 2007 2:43 pm ET)
           

        I think these types of shows should be truncated to about 10 minutes a day for all of the "substance" they provide. Some dude opining in a circular  fashion day in/out, using plenty of air time but essentially saying nothing.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 2:14 pm ET)
         

      So it's fairly obvious that because of this exhaustive study, we have a much clearer picture of what Matthews likes and dislikes about each of these two candidates - even refererenced in this piece.

      He likes Hillary's campaign performance but dislikes her cold and calculating style.

      He likes Rudy's toughness but dislikes his flip-flops and softness on illegal immigration.

      Like most of us, there are characteristics about both he admires, and those he is not too fond of.  In other words, he has evaluated them and offers his opinions as such.  That is not bias, that is analysis. 

      MMFA just doesn't like it. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (December 18, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
           

        What MMFA did was examine Matthews statement that ""I'm pretty independent, in terms of the two parties," he said. "I have been just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them."

        11% of the remarks about Clinton were positive while 78% remarks about Giuliani were.

        He's entitled to his opinion but Matthews shouldn't try to portray himself as some one who's playing it down the middle when he clearly isn't.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 2:33 pm ET)
             

          Matthews' statement of independence may not have been 100% accurate, but to skew him over it this way is silly.  He was saying that he criticizes both, all parties, which he does.  To compare comment vs. comment over three months, two of which were after his Oct 4th statement, and then paint him as some hypocrite because his criticisms are exactly equal, is just absurd.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 2:34 pm ET)
               

            aren't exactly equal.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by TomJoad (December 18, 2007 4:44 pm ET)
                 

              It's absolutely not absurd. Whats absurd is your analysis.

              "He likes Hillary's campaign performance but dislikes her cold and calculating style.

              He likes Rudy's toughness but dislikes his flip-flops and softness on illegal immigration."

              You attempt to paint this study as demonstrating some sort of even-handed analysis by Matthews. He likes/dislikes both candidates... the only word you can't write is 'equally,' which is the whole point of the study. I don't know how someone can be so far off the mark.... i think the 'killing a spectator with your bat' idea from below is fairly spot on.  

              Report Abuse
              • Author by What Happened to Gannon (December 18, 2007 6:05 pm ET)
                   

                So Tommy has probably surpassed 1,000 hours on this site attacking MMFA this year. What's so absurd about that? ; )

                Report Abuse
      • Author by (December 18, 2007 2:50 pm ET)
           

        So when he compared Hillary to nurse Rachet (sp?) what issue was this in reference to? This was his opinion on what topic? Tommy, you continue to ignore Matthews behavior by saying it's "just his opinion". This is crazy and I can't understand for the life of me why you think it is ok. Please help me understand.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 3:12 pm ET)
             

          They are Matthews' opinions and one is free to agree or disagree with them wholeheartedly.  Matthews is a political commentator, it's what he does for a living.  It is his show and one would expect him to give his opinions during his show. He is not a news anchor or a news reporter.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by (December 18, 2007 3:56 pm ET)
               

            I'm not saying he should be silenced. But what he does is wrong. If he did this to a Republican I would be just as mad, or perhaps just embarrassed for "our side". It simply is not ok for this man to give us his opinion on Hillary's character based on his hatred of her. People listen to him, and some respect him and are influenced by what he says. He simply isn't an "opinion man". I would hope he has some pride in his occupation, he isn't just another Rush I would hope.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by achrispage6992 (December 18, 2007 5:18 pm ET)
                 

              Were you angry when he called dick Cheney a "chowderhead" Despite my agreement, I think it is important to note that Matthews has been a strong opponent of the Iraq war and has on many occasions offered his opinion as to the character of Bush and Cheney. I'm not defending either of them, but there are two sides to his criticism.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by (December 18, 2007 6:01 pm ET)
                   

                I don't believe Matthews is a partisan hack. I believe he is a Hillary hack, and back in 2000 he was a Gore hack. He does some good work, but often the man is a lunatic.

                Honestly, I don't believe the "chowderhead" remark made me mad. But wasn't that a one time thing? If he did this on a daily basis (like he does with Hillary), then I would call into question his professionalism (even though I'm far from a Cheney man). Leave the baseless name calling to the likes of Rush and Savage.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by achrispage6992 (December 19, 2007 8:03 am ET)
                     

                  Appleboy,

                  I understand and your points are graciously taken. It just seems that MMFA is trying to portray Matthews as a partisan hack, when nothing is further from the truth. If you have watched his show in the past you would undoubtedly see how he has taken Bush, Cheney, and other neocons to task. Although I can't find this, I distinctly remember him referring to Cheney as a war criminal or something of that nature. IN fact, O'Reilly attacked him for it the very next day. He also was very vocal in his disdain for George Allen's "Macaca" statement, taking to task anyone who dared to defend Allen. While MMFA did in fact prove that his assertion of him being just as hard on Rudy as he is Hillary as false; it has been my experience that he is in fact much more independent in respect to parties than others in the media.  

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by moss1fan844201 (December 19, 2007 12:13 pm ET)
                       

                    achrispage6992 ,

                    You are wrong! Chris Matthews is not an opponent for the Iraq war & for years did not take Bush to task. In fact Mathews was drooling over Bush and the war from the get go. When Bush was in his flight suit and announced "Mission Accomplished" it was Matthews fawning over Bush calling him "John Wayne" and how he had a "swager" to him no other President could pull off. It was Matthews who voted for Bush in 2000 and he was proud of his guy.

                    Matthews attacks on Hillary would be fine if they were not sexist. It is always about her laugh, her cleavage, her clapping or any other part of her that should not be analyzed nightly. 

                    Bill Clinton had given security to a woman like Rudy did it would lead every show every night. Matthews always wants to talk about the Clinton Library donations but never the about the ties Rudy has with the Middle East.

                    Only recently has Matthews criticized Bush & the war. It is a fact that Matthews says whatever is popular at the time. He talks about Hillary being poll driven and this guy changes his stances when the wind blows!

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (December 18, 2007 3:21 pm ET)
           

        Tommy:

        Your point is valid.  I'll go one step further - I find that this type of "analysis" is mostly bogus because MMFA is trying to measure something that is QUALITATIVE with a purely QUANTITATIVE approach.

        Let me expand - MMFA puts various remarks into overly simplistic "CATEGORIES" or "BOXES" and then COUNTS them. 

        The question I have is WHAT TYPE OF CRITERIA was  used to SELECT and then CATEGORIZE the DATA?  I believe that different people might have selected different quotes and then put them in different categoris.

        So, on the most basic level I find that the MMFA "analysis" is simplistic, reductionistic, and I question the validity and reliability of the analysis.  Note to MMFA: "content" analysis is a difficult type of analysis - it's probably best if you leave it to real social scientists instead of engaging in amatuer hour goofball "reports".

        Further - this topic once again shows the arrogance and pro-Hillary tilt of MMFA.  Matthews original quote was this:

        "I have been just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them."

        Well, where is the analysis of the "whole bunch of them" (Dem. and Rep.)?

        Once again, MMFA limits this topic to Hillary - always Hillary! - and ignores the whole field VERSUS one single Republican.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
             

          Great points. Selective outrage, I would say.

          This entire "critical analysis" comes from a pro-Hillary, anti-Matthews bent in the first place......its inherently flawed from that standpoint alone. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (December 18, 2007 10:35 pm ET)
               

            You guys just don't get it, do you?

            The Hillary/Rudy comparison is a valid one-- they are both the presumed frontrunners. The chart makes clear that Matthews favors one and not the other. A 10:1 difference in positive utterances is pretty conclusive. It also shows that he's absolutely obsessed with Hillary.

             

            Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (December 18, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
             

          This encapsulates the idiocy of the "pro-Hillary" idiots.  Matthews mentions Hillary explicitly, and you're puzzled why MMFA mentions Hillary explicitly.

          Just like Hillary getting the most misinformed attacks, and you all wondering why there are so many Hillary posts here.

          It's like complaining how your posts are biased towards using the letter "e".

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Si_W (December 18, 2007 6:45 pm ET)
             

          It doesn't matter about the others specifically because these two were mentioned specifically.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 18, 2007 3:28 pm ET)
           

        Wow.  It's like you swung, missed and then lost your bat and killed a spectator.  Numbers don't lie dude, and you're batting .000 with that post.  How can you support his clain of being "objective"?  You're right, there plenty to like and dislike about both candidates.  Trouble is he criticises one (which you say is fair, andI don't necessarily disagree) but not the other.  And while YOU may feel Judi is somehow above criticsim, I'm sure you realize that there are plently of people (many of them posting here!) that don't share that opinion.  Judi has a lot to answer for.  And Mr. "Hardball" keeps throwing him "Softballs."  You can't do that and then claim your not favoring one over the other.  If he like Judi better, that's FINE, just come out and say it!  Stop claiming to be on the fence!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (December 18, 2007 3:47 pm ET)
             

          I guess NAC thinks concrete comments are somehow subjective and abstract , but only if it fits his hypothesis. MMFA did some good work here. I'd hate for that dude to be on anybody's jury.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (December 18, 2007 8:48 pm ET)
             

          Are you actually trying to reason with Tommy?  Are you even reading his moronic posts?  He just keeps saying over and over "Matthews is entitled to his opinion."  He couldnt care LESS about the substance of the argument- that Matthews claimed to be "just as tough" on Hillary as he is on Rudy, and he sure as HELL couldn't care less that the numbers prove Matthews is lying.  Those are facts, and they are never allowed to intrude into Tommy's life.  Trying to argue with Mr. "I'm just saying, hey, I dont' really have a dog in this fight" is a huge waste of time.

          Tommy is totally anti-Hillary, which is fine, but he repeatedly acts as if being anti-Hillary means that he's entitled to his own personal set of facts.  

          Tommy: You are a moron.  I like pretty much everyone else on this site.

          I think I'm just as hard on everyone else as I am on Tommy.   I'm entitled to my opinion.  And my own set of facts prove me right.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 19, 2007 4:39 pm ET)
               

            It's interesting to watch some of the people on the right who post here.  Some of them whine "Waaahhh, why is this here?" and "Waaahhh, Mathews is entitled to his opinion!"

            Fine.  If that's your stance, then you should realize that MMfA is entitled to their opinions, just like Mathews.  If you don't like it, tough s**t

            There is a difference:  Mathews has a national platform.  MMfA doesn't.  Mathews, while being a political commentator, should still be fair.  He is NOT an independent.  Anyone who has watched his program for all of five minutes knows this.  Quit trying to paint him as otherwise.  He's a partisan hack with a national platform which he uses to beat back Democrats and lift up Republicans - nothing more, nothing less.

             

            Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (December 19, 2007 11:11 am ET)
           

        TOMMY says of Matthews, "He likes Hillary's campaign performance ..." as if that's an indication that Matthews attaches the same support to that as, say, Guilliani's "toughness".

        Except lauding "toughness" is about the man's character himself, while "complimenting" campaign performance is in no way complimentary.

        It recognizes the reality of Hillary being the frontrunner, which could not be possible without a good campaign. Yet, this does not compliment Hillary at all, since (1) being a good "politician" is considered a NEGATIVE by most pundits, because it opens up all the political negatives such as pandering, being insincere, flip flopping to garner favor depending on which audience is being spoken to, how campaign dollars are raised and who might be "owed", and all that stuff we hear every day levelled at the Democratic frontrunners.

        Further, (2) having a "good campaign" reflects not on the candidate, but on the staff and handlers (the way it's reported in the Media). Thus, having a "good campaign" is NOT a compliment, it's a grudging recognition of reality tinged with a host of accusations.

        NOBODY would say Limbaugh does not have the skills to be a successful radio announcer, but ADMITTING these skills in no way obligates the speaker to SUPPORT a single thing Limbaugh says.

        What Tommy points to as "support" Matthews has spoken well about Hillary, is not evidence of that kind of compliment AT ALL. Quite the opposite. PERSONALLY, Matthews fauns over Guillani (toughness), while Hillary "castrates" people. THAT is the indicator of Matthew's political bias.

        Why is it so important to Tommy that Matthew's rightwing bias, empirically proven here, be discounted? Matthews is clearly on YOUR TEAM, Tom! Be PROUD! 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (December 18, 2007 2:16 pm ET)
         

      Tweety's Song:

      Hillary? pillory, Pillory, PILLORY!!

      Rudy?  Root, root, Ruuu-Tee-Toot-TOOOT!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by desertjim (December 18, 2007 2:21 pm ET)
         

      The point (which you seem to have missed) is that Matthews said, "I have been just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them."

      That statement is demonstrably not true. Matthews has been much more negative (blatantly so) against Senator Clinton than against the ex-mayor of NYC. MMFA has done the research to show that Matthews is pretty much one-sided on this, contrary to his own claim.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 2:24 pm ET)
           

        I read it.  So do you suggest that Matthews sit down and tally up these remarks, categorize them either positively or negatively, and then and ONLY then,  is he allowed to make such statements?

        The ratio may not be 1 to 1, but isn't that just a little bit ridiculous? 

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by desertjim (December 18, 2007 2:35 pm ET)
             

          You are right, the ratio is not 1:1. Its more like 8:1 in favor of Rudy.

          Are you suggesting that Matthews is too stupid to remember his own comments?  If Matthews cannot remember that he seems to be in love with the ex-mayor and appears to hate the senator, he is seriously out of touch with his own rantings.

          Of course, you may be right. Maybe Matthews is hopelessly confused. Or, more likely, he just lied.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tex (December 18, 2007 10:56 pm ET)
               

            Matthews WANTS to be thought of as "OBJECTIVE". He is not.

            Matthews wants his show to be considered even-handedly FAIR in its "hardball" approach to all personalities. It is NOT.

            Matthews wants to claim he's equally hard on all comers. He is NOT. He plays his favorite(s), and his animosity towards those he does NOT favor is both quantitatively and qualitatively measurable. MMFA measured it, and it PROVES Matthews is LYING: I.E. he is engaging in misinformation that is RIGHTWING misinformation since his bias is proven to be FOR the Republicans and AGAINST the Democrats. 

            Specifically, he claimed to be just as hard on Hillary as he is on Guilliani. He is NOT. He is LYING. He is presenting MISINFORMATION in the hopes that just CLAIMING he is even-handed will be enought to earn him cred as a fair and impartial straight-shooter. He is NOT.

            Matthews, like FOX News, is biased to the Right, BIGTIME. Like FOX, which claims to be "fair and balanced", Matthews claims the same fair and balanced treatment of those in politics. FOX lies, and Matthews lies. They are in the bag for the Republicans, and it is clear to all. It is MEASURABLE, and empirically provable.

            Those who can THINK, LISTEN, and REASON see it clearly. Those who cannot, are Tommy. 

            Report Abuse
        • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 4:24 pm ET)
             

          No one is suggesting that Matthews do anything but tell the truth. He doesn't like the Clintons and he does like Rudy and McCain. So what. Just say it and then people can be confident in your analysis and commentary. Claiming to be something he is not -- in this case indepedent with no particular bias -- is patently untrue. Can't you see that? Or is it you choose not to confront misinformation by the so-called "liberal"media even when its spelled out for you in black and white?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (December 18, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
         

      WOW! I'm impressed MMFA Staff. I mean seriously impressed. (Not that anyone who is a regular viewer of Hardball didn't already know he is full of it to be suggesting his "neutrallity". This is as shameless as O'Reilly's claim to being Independent.)

      I hope you sent Chris Matthews an email link to this page!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 2:35 pm ET)
           

        He didn't say he was neutral, he said he was independent of both parties, there is a big difference.  One can be independent and still more critical of one than another.  Neutrality is another matter.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by desertjim (December 18, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
             

          He said - "I have been just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them."

          Not true, as MMFA makes clear in the post.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 2:49 pm ET)
               

            Well, considering MMFA is such a stickler for these types of things - Matthews made this statement on Oct 4th about how he has treated the candidates - so why not do this study for July, Aug and Sept, instead of Sept, Oct and Nov?  Wouldn't that be more accurate?  It may not change the numbers, but 100% accuracy is worth it, right?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (December 18, 2007 3:04 pm ET)
                 

              Vintage Tommy.  Obfuscate when busted rather than admit error.

              It's funny how you try to paint 8:1 as not quite exactly balanced.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by TomJoad (December 18, 2007 4:40 pm ET)
                   

                "He didn't say he was neutral, he said he was independent of both parties, there is a big difference.  One can be independent and still more critical of one than another.  Neutrality is another matter."

                AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA and you accuse ME of parsing words!??!?! AHAHHAHAHAHHA

                Dude, in the context of "i have been just as..." in Matthews quote, independent has the exact same meaning as neutral. You are being truly pathetic.  The 'when in a hole' analogy comes to mind...

                Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (December 18, 2007 2:42 pm ET)
             

          I understand Tommy.

          You're an independent as well.

          The difference between you and Matthews is that you don't drool over the Republican candidates.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (December 18, 2007 2:47 pm ET)
               

            King,

            Matthews drools over Rudy, not ALL Republicans. He also has a fair balance of Dem/Rep on his program.

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (December 18, 2007 2:50 pm ET)
                 

              Yes he does have both Republicans and Democrats on, but he's had several other "mancrushes" on Mitt and for a short time with Fred.

              HBL has pictures to prove it.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Sueelldd (December 18, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
                 

              I think Matthews is overall fair and goes after most equally.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
                   

                Of course he is Sue - considering all the pundits on Fox, and Matthews' coworker Olbermann - he is one of the most equal opportunity skewers on the air today.  Why he is so despised here is a mystery?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Sueelldd (December 18, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
                     

                  I think he is despised because he hits everyone , fair people are targeted by partisans. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 4:33 pm ET)
                       

                    Sue you have offered absolutely nothing of value to this thread other than your standard apologist and condescending tone. This is a media watchdog site that attempts to reveal rightwing information. I don't know why that ticks you, Tommy and Jeter off so much. You did not even touch on the proof of bias supplied by MMFA's painstakingly arduous analysis. Your one note responses are at times tiresome and predictable. I'm only calling you on it, this is not personal. Up your game or risk irrelevancy.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DorisRussell (December 18, 2007 4:59 pm ET)
                         

                      Oh Kromecom please what are Jeter, Tommy and Sue supposed to do? Provide a 100 page essay? I am not a fan of Matthews and I think he does not like Hillary, I do think he likes Rudy, but I think it has nothing to do with poltiics, he is just an egomaniac. Look how much he gets excited over Jim Webb and Joe Biden. 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by achrispage6992 (December 18, 2007 5:11 pm ET)
                           

                        Good point Doris. I believe there has to be some "benefit of the doubt " given here. Mathews said he is "pretty independent in terms of the two parties" he pointed to his analysis of Hillary, Rudy, and the whole bunch of them. I think what MMFA has proved here is that Matthews likes Rudy more than Hillary. they have not proven that he is not independent in terms of the two parties. I would be interested in a study in which positive and negative remarks are made about party policies. Just because MMFA has proven that he is tougher on Hillary does in no way mean he somehow exudes conservative bias.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 5:19 pm ET)
                             

                          Who are you people? You're the reason these clowns hold sway. Edward R. Murrow is spinning in grave right now.

                          Do you understand the sway these folks have? The represent the fourth estate -- along with clergy, nobility and commons respectively. And as one enlightenment philosopher stated "they wield more power than all the rest combined" That;s  

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 5:19 pm ET)
                             

                          Who are you people? You're the reason these clowns hold sway. Edward R. Murrow is spinning in grave right now.

                          Do you understand the sway these folks have? The represent the fourth estate -- along with clergy, nobility and commons respectively. And as one enlightenment philosopher stated "they wield more power than all the rest combined" That's

                          wh

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 5:27 pm ET)
                             

                          Great analysis Chris.

                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 5:13 pm ET)
                           

                        He is supposed to tell the truth. Any commentator should. If you claim to be equally tough on all candidates -- we should expect you to be. And yes, I do expect more than predictable responses and trite dismissals of significant research. Fine if he likes some democrats --most notably Biden, but its not okay to have Jihad against another unless you acknowledge it at the outset.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 5:30 pm ET)
                             

                          What many of you can't, or won't, grasp is just because you don't agree with a pundit's opinion, doesn't mean that pundit is not telling the truth.  

                          Much of Matthews' statements here are subjective opinions,  his take, his preferences and views.  You may not share it, but that is just too bad.  Stop labeling opinions you don't like as lies, it's patently ridiculous. 

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 6:05 pm ET)
                               

                            You're right many of his comments are subjective. You're wrong if you think opinion can't be based on lies and misinformation.

                             MMFA used both qualitative (coding comments as positive or negative) AND quantitative analysis to determine a bias that contradicted his claim to be balanced. End of story. Spin all you want. And careful about telling us what we "don't understand," since there appears to be a great deal that you don't seem to understand.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by tommy (December 18, 2007 6:12 pm ET)
                                 

                              Take almost any of the "negative" comments above, like the one from October 1, about her "cackling"......that is absolutely opinion, there is no lie there, nor any misinformation.  It is the way Matthews' sees it, you may disagree, but as I said, it's his opinion.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 6:47 pm ET)
                                   

                                Interesting that you would being up that word -- another would be "shrill" -- since it is used only by her oponents. Somewhere the thing she was laughing at became lost and received almost no analysis.

                                 Tommy you are smart enough to understand subtext and both terms (cackle and shrill) have not so subtle gender connotations. These are really examples of her opponents playing the gender card. Don't allow yourself to "be played." Healthy doses of cynicism and skepticism are good for society. Buying what they're selling you is bad on its face and is a waste and shame.  

                                Report Abuse
                    • Author by jjamele2880 (December 18, 2007 8:53 pm ET)
                         

                      The total suspension of reality regularly accomplished here by people like Tommy and Sue is just astounding.  How ANYONE could watch fifteen minutes of any Matthews show and not come away absolutely convinced that the man loathes Hillary- well, like I said, total suspension of belief.

                      Coming next:  Tommy and Sue explain to us that Rush Limbaugh seems perfectly balanced in his analysis of current events, and only "partisans" think otherwise. 

                      Report Abuse
              • Author by Clevenative (December 18, 2007 9:55 pm ET)
                   

                I think Matthews is overall fair and goes after most equally.

                SueEld: I think you don’t watch much of Hardball. His obsession with “Maverick” McCain bordered on a man crush since long before he even announced. He launches more out-of-the-blue attacks on Hillary than anyone on Fox News (I think they just watch his show to get their latest mud). And thanks to Matthews, some people in the country probably think that Giuliani is the best qualified candidate for president because, not only is he THE true hero of 9/11, he single-handedly  got the “pee” smell out of the NY subways.

                I know Matthews has the ability to “go after most equally”. He used to be a lot better at that.  He is quite knowledgeable in politics and can be a great interviewer. But it seems that he chooses take the low road more and more often as time goes on (or ratings dictate?).

                Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (December 18, 2007 10:39 pm ET)
             

          "One can be independent and still more critical of one than another.  Neutrality is another matter."

          Eight to one is not neutrality or independence. It's evidence of overwhelming bias.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pkinbar (December 18, 2007 3:08 pm ET)
           

        I am equally impressed. I have noticed the constant Hillary-bashing when I watch Chris. I would really like to know why he hates the Clintons so much. Chris obviously has an emotional reaction to the Clintons. And I don't think it's strictly limited to Chris. It's the entire NBC news/entertainment staff including Tim Russert and David Gregory not to mention Nora O'Donnell. What's the motivation over there? I might have to donate some money for your work on this.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (December 18, 2007 2:35 pm ET)
         

      Matthews loves Rudy & loathes Hillary. I watch Hardball nightly & I will attest to that as being a fact.

      I'm amazed that Matthews would even make a statement like this.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (December 18, 2007 2:38 pm ET)
           

        Simple. He was for them before he was against them.  :-)

        Report Abuse
      • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
           

        Darn Jeter, I mentioned you above along with Sue and Tommy before I saw your post. Please disregard it since you are showing independent thought in this thread. You can't watch that show without Matthews biases being apparent.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (December 18, 2007 6:00 pm ET)
             

          No problem Krome :-)

          I must admit that when I read your other post my first thought was: well WTF is Krome going on about?

          BTW you'll find I use Independent thought on a regular basis. I simply try to be honest. Please keep in mind that just because we don't always agree it doesn't mean I'm simply mimicking the GOP party line. My opinions are my own.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by kromecom48 (December 19, 2007 12:06 am ET)
               

            Duly noted in this instance Jeter. Thanks for being good natured about it.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (December 18, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
         

      Looks to me like MMFA wants to scratch Matthew's eyes out. :-)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (December 18, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
           

        MMFA & their troops hate Matthews. I will also attest to that as fact ;-)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (December 18, 2007 2:54 pm ET)
             

          Hate is a strong word. I think he's a lightweight fluffernutter - creamy marshmallow for most Repub dudes in the race and a little PeaNUTTY butter for the Dems. Take that and run with it AA.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (December 18, 2007 3:02 pm ET)
               

            Damn you Julia. Now I'm hungry.

            I've gone to go get a snack.

            Be back soon ;-)

            Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (December 18, 2007 3:18 pm ET)
               

            Julia,

            Hahaha...  Maybe we'll have to call him Skippy? :-) 

            Like  Jeter, I'll be back in a Jif.

             

            Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (December 18, 2007 3:07 pm ET)
             

          MMFA likely hates the system that gives such meatheads a national platform.

          Is it too much to ask our media personalities to be in the top 50% of the population in critical thinking?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by kromecom48 (December 18, 2007 2:49 pm ET)
         

      Brilliant MMFA. I know it's time consuming and labor intensive but this is really good research. Please do more content analysis like this.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Marker (December 18, 2007 4:31 pm ET)
         

      Media Matters doesn't need to go to such great lengths to show Matthews bias. I get it Tweety, you don't like her (Clinton). I wouldn't vote for her if she becomes the Democratice nominee, but I wouldn't vote for a repug. If the pundits keep up the Hillary bashing it can only inspire more women to vote for her and help get her elected.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by zappatero (December 18, 2007 5:18 pm ET)
         

      Chris is "fair and balanced" - in the current definition of the term.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pawsie444 (December 18, 2007 7:17 pm ET)
         

      this is the guy who made a book called.. Life is a Campaign.  So ... there's obvious bias in his opinion... and he plays true to what he believes.. which isn't exactly journalism..  Just an opinion. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by swift (December 18, 2007 7:31 pm ET)
         

      The main thing is, what the hell is the so-called evidence that's she's "cold and calculating?" I would hope that politicians are calculating. The very idea that any exhibition of "spontaneity" in a politician is GOOD is absurd. One politician goes to the public with a plan. They're not standup comedians. And besides, most ad lib comedy stinks, and you neither could nor should do your medical plan that way. The cold part is in that huge head of Tweety's. Some feminist scared him one day, and he's never forgiven her.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by king60 (December 18, 2007 8:09 pm ET)
         

      Way to go Chris!!

       Hillary and the libs have imploded!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 19, 2007 5:07 pm ET)
           

        You may want to reword your statement.  Hillary has not imploded, nor have 'the libs'. Try not to be a partisan jagoff and add something of substance to the conversation.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by MinerSam (December 19, 2007 4:04 am ET)
         

      REPUBLICANS NOW IN CONTROL OF DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN.  

      Chris Mathews(GE) is a Psychological Abuser and self proclaimed alchoholic who is only accurate 40-50% of the time.

      He has (along with Tim Russert who uses Republican Talking Points and out of context quotes to challange Democrats) Have turned GE/NBC into an another (inapproriate) Opposition Party against the Democrats.

      GE and the Highly Media Trained Republicans have poisoned the oxigen of the information pipleines so critical to an informed electorate.

      GE has consistantly attacked the Democratic Frontrunner.  This rather then educating the electorate who are too busy working to know to strop buying GE products which perhaps is what needs to be done.

      And it was Chris GE Mathews who gave the Swiftboat Liars for the War in Vietnam tens of billions in free advertising for 35 days, with only 1 mention about the fact that their leader was not even in Vietnam when Kerry was, and had been put up to discreditting Kerry by Nixon (for which Nixon appologized before he died)

      This current attack upon Hillary began one week prior the last MSNBC debate when he egged Obama on to attack Hillary, night after night.

      Then came the Republican GE's handling of the debate. Tim Russert asked a number of erroneous questions of Hillary, and Obama stepped right in and erroneously attacked Hillary. Edwards then made it personal, using Republican Talking Points.

      I believe it was at the end of this Debate when Republicans Mathews and Russert attacked Social Security the Bush way.

      And from that point on night after night Chris Mathews INVENTED that Hillary failed in that debate, has been building up Obama (while you can tell by Obama's voice that he is now full of himself) 

      GE/Mathews has been making erroneous assertions about Hillary Clinton for about 2 months...while leading (the witnesses) his guests to do the same, particularly certan GEN-EX women* "journalists"...whom I call "lyadies against women"

      *All a certain dysfunctional generation know is that you are supposed to vote your team members of the Island.

      Hitler and his "Architect" Goebbles, to they delight, discovered that if they repeated lies enough people wil begin to believe that it's true.

      In the 90s Gnewt Gangrene (who recently told the American Riffle Association that the Democrats want to get rid of the Department of Difense) used to FAX out his daily talking Points to thousands of Republicans, so the guest on Channel 2 would repeat the same things as the ones on channel 32 and 68.

      Today Tim Russert challanges Democrats with Republican Talking Points instead of the facts.  CNN/Time Warner sited the Facts and called them Democratic Talking Points in the lead up to the 2004 elections. And consistantly misrepresent the fact when it comes to the Democrats.

      And recently Karl Rove was given his own platform in Newsweek, so now the Tim Russerts of the world no longer have to protect him as their secret sources.

      Meanwhile Obama and Edwards are being built up by the Republican controlled Media, without one peep of critisism...just as they did with Howard Dean (who got to be on Meet the Press twice) -- So that like a dog smaking around a rag doll they can knock Obama down (along with whomever the Republican nominee is)

      Particularly interesting is that when Hillary's campaign raised the matter that whatever Obama put in his book will make him a hell of a lot vulenerable to Republican attacks than anyone else..Cris Mathews/GE was attacking Hillary's campaing for bringing it up.

      I LOVE Senator Clinton, because she is not only a good and interesing person, and the most intelligent candidate out there, But because she is 10 times more capable of rebuilding the damage that has been done. by the 20 yeard of Republican President and 12 years of Republican controll of legislature....a group of Juvenile delinquents who are looting the US treasury with tax cuts of which 30% went to 130,000 people.

       

         

      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (December 19, 2007 11:26 am ET)
           

        Boy, they sure have it bad. The conservatives attack them as liberal, Liberals like you attack them for being conservative. The consolation would be that independents/moderates (thank god for them) take these two opposing viewpoints and conclude GE is probably fair. Let us hope so for the countries sake. I find it really hard to believe that you think Hillary can unite this nation. Do you not realize how polarizing she is? Do you not realize that she is starting with a 40% disapprovable rating? That means 40% of the country will never vote for her and leaves her battling for 60% of the electorate. She can't win.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (December 20, 2007 11:42 am ET)
             

          Your post has no logic. You don’t know the meaning of the word “polarizing” nor “hypocrite”, if you insist on making such claims. Do you realize how “polarizing” the Republican run Administration has been for the past 7 years? If Hillary is perceived as “polarizing” by anyone, it’s not likely because of anything she has done, but rather because of the fact that Republicans have spent the past year trying to paint her as such.

          A 40% disapproval rating when 40% of the voters are registered Republicans who hate anything Clinton? Hmmm, any correlation here? Depending on whether a strong 3rd party candidate pops up  - this election could be won with even less than 40% of the popular vote – not to mention that popular vote does not determine who wins the Presidency in the U.S. (just ask Al Gore). To say “she can’t win” is only your party's wishful thinking - in your dreams.  

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Pixie79 (December 19, 2007 9:11 am ET)
         

      Excellent research MMFA! My condolences to the hard working staff members who had to endure so many episodes of Hardball in one sitting.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by larman (December 19, 2007 9:24 am ET)
         

      OMG!! You folks at MMFA deserve a Medal of Honor and a week off with pay. I am STUNNED you watched Chris Matthews that much and kept that much track. I cannot imagine a worse job. I would rather drink toxic waste. You are heroes for doing it. I'm an atheist but all I can think to say is God Bless You! LOL. Another great job by the staff at MMFA. You can't argue with those facts and the facts are that Matthews is a biased sexist moron. MMFA just absolutely rules! I love you guys!

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by joanortl4103 (December 19, 2007 11:00 am ET)
         

      As a "former" admirerer of Chris Matthews, in the last few months I find it hard to even keep tuned to his station as he totally makes a fool of himself by showing his complete bias against Hillary Clinton.  Even when Chris is forced to say something positive about Hillary, simply because all the other news people are saying it, he manages to add a VERY negative word into his statement.  I think it is time Chris Matthews seeks some professional help to get over his problem he definitely has regarding Hillary.  No longer a fan of Chris and VERY disappointed that MSNBC allows him to go on his unnatural rants. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Reiner (December 19, 2007 12:17 pm ET)
         

      I would like to add my name to the list of appreciative readers of MMFA. Great research on this issue. I have seen quite clearly Matthews bias towards Rudy and McCain and his disdain for all things Hillary. why his own statement is evidence of his prejudice..."I have been just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them."

      Who is running for office here? Hillary? Yes. Rudy? Yes. BILL????? I don't think so...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (December 19, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
         

      Another home run for Media Matters!!!

      You've absolutely destroyed Chris Matthews.  You've reduced him to an absolute laughingstock.  A fate he so richly deserves.

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by barbrajeanne3947 (December 19, 2007 3:42 pm ET)
         

      I wrote Chris Matthews at MSNBC and told him I was renaming MSNBC to ARATT Station which stands for "ALL RUDY ALL THE TIME" 

      Chris Matthews' HATES the Clintons.  He wants Rudy in there.  That is why he is giving Huckabee such a hard time right now.....Matthews knows Huckabee could go all the way as the (R) Nominee and so he is out there screaming about the Religion thing. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by chharris7416 (December 19, 2007 4:19 pm ET)
         

      NAC, glad to see you've taken stats 101. Obvisouly you need a little help with some of the concepts you brought up. MMFA analysis involved both qualitative and quantitative analyses which is completely legitimate. They qualified the statements (i.e. positive or negative) and then counted them. Demonstrating CM made 8 times as many negative comments about HRC than he made about RG while making three times as many positive comments about RG. Now as you pointed out, one can dispute the qualitative analysis, and of course one could argue MMFA left some statements out (i.e. selection). My question is; based on the comments provided by MMFA, do you agree with the qualitative findings? I read some (certainly not all) and tended to agree with every one of their categorizations. As to your problem with their analysis being simple and reductionistic. Complexity does not infer correctness of design. Some of the most powerful statistical analyses are quite simple (e.g. the present MMFA analysis or showing that two groups have different means on some score), and do you know what analysis means? Look it up. Content analysis is not difficult. Give a few people the same passage and ask them if it is positive or negative. When they agree, you've got inter-rater reliability and you've analyzed the content. Validity is a complex subject that you've already demonstrated you know little about, but I would direct you to Cronbach and Meehl if you're interested. Your last point doesn't hold much water either. CM names two people running for office HRC and RG, so it is completly fair to analyze his own statements about those two. It is also fair to analyze his statements about the other folks running. I wouldn't want to bet against the outcome being the same.  

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (December 19, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
           

        I applaud your efforts CH,

        But there is a certain percentage of Cons (not all, I'd say about 15 to 20 percent) where logic will never penetrate their brains.  

        This group--the Sawdust Brains--are the voters most prized by the GOP. 

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by sneakypie (December 19, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
         

      Matthews is obsessed with his hatred of Senator Clinton.  I've written to Hardball and MSNBC.  It is obvious that this station is in the bag for Rudy Giuliani.  Just watch Morning Joe some AM.  I stopped watching it as it's too much like a frat party with overaged frat boys trying to out clever each other.  But, when he had CM on it was like a boys locker room after an intermural Lacross match.  Had they been in the same room they would have chest butted each other and snapped towels.  Journalists, not so much.  But, they are doing their best to influence.   Add to the mix the prep school boy, Tucker.  He not only hates Senator Clinton, he hates all Dems.  You've gotta admit it.  These guys are selling their integrity to take down Senator Clinton.  Makes you wonder why?     

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Terry-D (December 19, 2007 5:49 pm ET)
         

      The Media Matters study avoids the bizarre performance of guests on Chris Mathews’ show throughout November and December. This can only be a planned trashing of Hillary emanating from MSNBC’s corporate ownership, corporate advertisers, or a misguided reaction to programming changes at CNN. It’s hard to believe Chris Mathews would attempt this blatant attack on any candidate, even in light of his personal contempt toward her. Still, we’re all aware that Mathews acts petty toward Hillary given her refusal to be interviewed by him. This history emerged from Mathews’ own self-serving behavior. 

       

      An explanation for the performance of guests on Hardball to join in the eating frenzy of Hillary must be that they’ve been hand-picked and pre-coached as to the show’s position against Hillary. More times than not, Hardball pundit panels have been constructed by those seemingly with a mandate to stop Hillary. Traditionally objective guests seemingly overnight into vindictive, slanderous attackers. Did they accept these positions just to meet some standard by Harball to grant them air time?

       

      Beginning two weeks before the Philadelphia debate where Hillary seemingly stumbled, Mathews was incessant that someone, particularly Obama, had to stop her. Mathews routinely coached Obama on-air in how to fight against her. This routine has been beyond anything witnessed on otherwise mainstream media, but for content viewed by outwardly biased media, such as Fox News.

       

      Since the November debate, Hardball with Chris Mathews has used cherry-picked and out-dated poll results to prove Hillary’s demise. In Mathews-speak, Hillary never leads Obama, but is only in a statistical tie. As Obama’s momentum has slowed, but Hillary still leads in polls, Obama in Mathews-speak is “still surging,” while Hillary still slumps. Mathews even resorts to quoting right wing headlines from the New York Daily News as a source for negative stories against Hillary. Mathews’ own headlines trashing Hillary have become nothing but tabloid surpassing the heyday of the National Enquirer trumpeting “aliens from Mars.”

       

      In accommodating corporate interests or to gain ratings against MSNBC, CNN has resorted to similar attacks and tabloid headlines against Hillary. While Mathews feels pressure from Keith Olberman’s meteoric ratings performance and while CNN relaxes its standards to become more competitive with MSNBC, Mathews only solution for survival seems to be a race to the sensational and to the right wing for viewers. This viewer has stopped watching Chris Mathews.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by justthefactsplease (December 19, 2007 5:50 pm ET)
         

      Anyone who can handle watching Harball on a regular basis is fully aware of Chris Matthews" obsession and dislike of Hillary Clinton.  I do wonder if he would have the same problem with any woman running for President since so much of his commentary is focused on the fact that she is a female seeking to be the most powerful person in the U.S.  His concentration and "fascination" with what he refers to "gender politics" allows him to present some very sexist views that would be flagged on other programs that have sizable viewership.  The good news  for women is that Matthews has a statistically small audience. 

      Ok by me if MSNBC wants to allow Matthews to rant about Hillary every show - but they should advertise the show for what it is - an opinion show hosted by Chris Matthews -  a fellow in need of serious counseling.  I think they should have a panel of shrinks on after each show discussing Matthews and his problems with women- that would be truly fascinating teevee. 

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jwt77 (December 20, 2007 12:50 pm ET)
         

      Okay now that you have it documented what are you going to do about it? Have you contacted Mathews for a comment? Have you distributed this info to all the news organizations? Have you contacted Howie Kurtz for a comment?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (December 20, 2007 1:30 pm ET)
         

      Why doesn't Matthews just install a toilet on the set of his show?

      After wrapping up another edition of Hardball--and before signing off--he can go over and stuff his head in the toilet.  This will alert the audience to the type of journalism they're receiving.

      The level of sh*t from that day's show could be measured by how long he can hold his head in the toilet.  This could be a ratings bonanza!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sunne120012172 (December 21, 2007 10:55 am ET)
         

      I  WATCH  CHRIS  MATTHEWS  EVERY  NIGHT,  AND  YOU  ARE  ABSOLUTELY  CORRECT.   HE  PROFESSES  TO  BE  NEUTRAL;  BUT  THAT  IS  DEFINITELY  NOT  THE  CASE!  IT  APPEARS  THAT  THE  MALE CANDIDATES, IN  MATHEWS' EYES, HAVE  TO  GO  "ONCE AROUND  THE BLOCK",  WHILE  CLINTON  HAS  TO  GO  2  OR  3  TIMES  "AROUND  THE BLOCK".  ALSO,  WHERE  IS  THE  CRITICISM OF  THE  MALE  CANDIDATES?  HILLARY  WAS  CRITICISED  FOR:  CLEAVAGE,  COLORS, PEARLS, NECKLACE, LAUGH, HAIR, HOW TIRED SHE LOOKS.  THE  MALES GET  A  PASS;  YOU  DON'T  HEAR  ONE  CRITICISM  OF  THEM.  AND  AS  FAR  AS  THE  JOURNALISTS  GO?  DON'T  EVEN  GET  ME  GOING  ON  THAT.  WE  NO  LONGER  HAVE "JOURNALISTS"!  WE  HAVE  LAZY  PEOPLE  WHO  DO  NOT  KNOW  WHAT  "INVESTIGATIVE  JOURNALISM" IS.    THEY  ARE  SO  COZY  IN  THEIR  "SOAP  OPERA"  ANALYSIS  ENTERTAINMENT  PROGRAMS.  THAT  IS  WHY  SO  MANY  OF  THESE  CRITICAL  VIOLATIONS  COMMITTED  BY  THE  BUSH  ADMINISTRATION  HAVE  BEEN  ABLE  TO  HAPPEN.   THE  PRESS,  WHICH  IS  TO  BE  THE  CHECK  POINT  FOR  AMERICANS,  IS  ASLEEP  AT  THE  SWITCH!!!!!

      Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace