Matthews asserted that Clinton got Register endorsement "thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher"
On the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "She may have gotten The Des Moines Register's endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher, but voters have spotted the dagger, and they don't like what it looks like." Matthews went on to say, "Hillary's loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition right now."
A December 15 New York Times article reported that "[t]he other day ... former President Bill Clinton held forth on a sofa in the publisher's suite at The Des Moines Register, explaining why he believed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton should win the newspaper's coveted endorsement." The Times further reported: "Presidential candidates of both parties have long dutifully appeared before the editorial board of The Register, Iowa's most influential newspaper. But this year the Democrats, particularly Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, have gone to extraordinary lengths to win over the publisher, the editor and the editorial page editor ahead of endorsements."
On December 15, the Register endorsed Clinton as the Democratic nominee in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. The Register wrote that the "editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process were: Laura Hollingsworth, publisher; Carolyn Washburn, editor; Carol Hunter, editorial page editor; Linda Lantor Fandel, deputy editorial page editor; Rox Laird, editorial writer; and Andie Dominick, editorial writer." (According to their Register biographies, Laird is a male and Dominick is a female.)
From the 7 p.m. ET December 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: The biggest news of this week, it's all weekend -- it's all we've been talking about, it went again this morning. The worst week of last week was Hillary Clinton. She may have gotten The Des Moines Register's endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher, but voters have spotted the dagger, and they don't like what it looks like. Hillary's loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition right now.
Why was Bill sitting on the sofa with the Register's editorial board and not the candidate herself? Did Mrs. Obama do the same thing?
Tommy,
Surely your first question is rhetorical?
It's apparent that Hillary is simply a front for Bill. Hillary's/Bill's campaign slogan should be
"Both of Us for POTUS"
You are exactly right. Bill Clinton is the Trump Card in this campaign. No other candidate can tout 8 years of experience on the job for their closest policy advisor. Republicans like yourself can't see through the Bushes and realize that government was more effective and much less wasteful when Bill Clinton ran the show. Monica this, Monica that but the people couldn't care less then and they still couldn't care less. Obviously, the people do not have cable shows or columns to write but they do know competency and the Clinton Administration displayed plenty of it. Just look at the numbers. Don't you have a coffee to fetch for B. Bozell the 12th?
Now that is interesting. Five of the six are female? Since Bill lobbied them and since they endorsed Hillary. Looks like Chris was correct in that regard.
The reference to the dagger is a little vague.
The eyescratching comment looks to me to be a bit snarky. But then again it is Matthews and he doesn't like the Clintons. Maybe I'll have to start watching? ;-)
Matthews asserted that Clinton got Register endorsement "thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher"
Ha! Wouldn't surprise me at all ;-)
I'd say schmoozing over drinks and appetizers at some trendy eatery is definitely "lobbying".
Those silly women! Why do they even let them into the newspaper business? They are too easily swayed by a charming scoundrel like Bill. They would never make the choice based on policy or actual politics. Silly women. That's what I hear you guys saying.
No doubt over at the Des Moines Register they are asking, "Does this glass ceiling make my butt look big?" ;-)
Nah, what you should hear me saying is that I would put nothing past Bill & Hill when it comes to this election.
Whatever it takes. The stakes are high. I don't want to watch a high-minded fair play guy lose the general election again.
I'll likely be a massive hypocrite throughout this campaign. The crap the Republicans pulled has kept them in power, and if those are the only winning tactics, so be it.
We can worry about theoretical ideals of proper governance after movement conservatism has been eradicated.
I'll likely be a massive hypocrite throughout this campaign
Fair warning. Thanks, I'll bring this admittance to your attention when necessary ;-)
So who's doing Atwater and/or Rove for them Jeter. You posted that the Obama cocaine thing was of their mechanization. "Obviously" their fault and with bad intent. I don't see the smoothness of a Lee or Karl take out. Where are all the cutouts that keep the source secure for either a goodly grace period, or forever. Either of the two would call the Clinton brainpool amatuer hour at best. Can they do a quality dirty trick and get away with it? So far I'd don't see that they can.
Mark Penn.
Keep an eye on this scumbag. He ain't Rove yet, but he has a great deal of promise.
He is a very sleezy man. The Clintons are running what I think is one of the most scumiest campaigns in Democratic Primary history
Absolutely. They may outdo Rove at the rate they're going.
"The Clintons are running what I think is one of the most scumiest campaigns in Democratic Primary history.."
Gimme a break. What-- You mean that criticizing opponents is off limits for her?
Apparently the rules for H.C are different than what the others get.
Apparently you are unable to differentiate between slime and legitimate criticism of factual difference. This disease is rife within the right-wing and FOX news and it is sadly catching hold in the Clinton campaign.
Hillary deserves better from her supporters. She has a long history of commitment to the best ideals of the Democratic Party (better than Bill's frankly). Unfortunately, she has allowed her surrogates to take the low road, following the playbook of Rove and so misreading the mood of Americans' desire to see politics out of the gutter and back on the road of idealism, respectfulness, and dignity.
Exactly SUELD, for the life of me I can't understand why some want to continue to polarize this nation with partisan battles. If elected, Hillary Clinton will get nothing done but defending herself against right wing attacks while doing some attacking of her own. Nominating her is sure defeat for the Democrats, but If I am wrong about that then her winning is sure defeat for the nation in terms of getting things done. Who wants eight more years of endless investigations, inuendo, blah, blah. We have a choice of more of the same, or something new. I guess folks will have to decide for themselves which of those pertain to Hillary.
His so called cacaine info seemed nowhere near the level of expertise of either Atwater or Rove. It came back at him very quickly. This never happenned to Lee or Karl. I don't think he's at anywhere near their level of work. What comparable work has he done?
Now this makes Anne Coulter's case that women should not be able to vote (sic).
"The Des Moines Register with its female editors and publisher"
"Hillary's loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition right now"
I'd either guess that this guy chris matthews believes his television audience (however small) is mostly other guys...
...or if not, then he's working hard at making it so.
I swear Chris is a girl at heart, what with his little crushes and all. And saying things like scratching people's eyes out is so grade school. He sounds like he's dispensing some gossip at the lunch table, hunched over with some other girls. "Why, did you SEE the dress Hillary was wearing, girl?" And "don't you just know that those women were crushing on Bill?" Sheesh.
Oh you called it exactly. Girlie Chris leaning forward, panting with enthusiasm, almost projecting saliva in his glee. No Walter Cronkite this one. Not wise sage, but childish gossip.
OK. Someone please explain this to me. Bill Clinton's worst sin is that he's a womanizer. At leats that's the view of most of the republican's I've talked. Policy-wise I swear that liberal's are more critical than conservatives. (Again, there his worst sin seems to be having been able to balance a budget.) So... if he's so bad towards women (adulterer, sexual harrasser, rapist - I've heard him called all that and more by you guys) then why on earth would he be able to sway a 5/6 female board? Surely there are at least a few feminists on that board?
Be careful with your answer. There are only a few possibilities that I see, based on what you guys and tweety are saying...
1) Women are stupid. (This has to hold if Bill's as bad as y'all say he is.)
2) All your stuff about Clinton is BS. (Well, most of it anyway. I'm not a complete fool after all.) (And I didn't even vote for him!)
3) The women on the board liked Hillary for policy reasons. (No need for Bill to woo them if you choose this one - so tweety is FoS.)
4) The women on the board liked Hillary for feminist reasons. (And thus Bill had nothing to do with it! And... tweety is FoS.)
There are several statements here that are mutually exclusive with what's presented in the story. Please reconcile your position here, becasue otherwise Mathews is just full of $#!+.
1) Women are stupid. (This has to hold if Bill's as bad as y'all say he is.)
Not all women are stupid. However most progressive feminist Clinton groupies seem to be by virtue of supporting Bill's lack of virtue.
Does the shoe fit the Des Moines Register Editorial Broad? I'll let you decide. ;-)Not all women are stupid. However most progressive feminist Clinton groupies seem to be by virtue of supporting Bill's lack of virtue.
Who claims they support Bill's lack of virtue? The women was wronged by a philandering husband and now you think feminists should punish the victim by denying her the nomination? Right.
Middle,
My point exactly. (See #1)Why because they agreed to see him? They were supposed to refuse or at least refuse to endorse his wife? The sinner goes to coffee with some ignorant feminists and they foolishly endorse his wife because they don't care about his lack of virtue? You are sticking to that ridiculous story?
Come on, Eddie, quit being so rational. The wingnuts want to chatter about "co-presidents" and get all catty towards guys who know how to talk to women.
‘‘
You know what? It seems that most women (feminists and just, ya know, regular wimmin' types) have actual critical thinking skills and can differentiate between Bill Clinton, the man and Bill Clinton, the policy maker. Imagine that. Rational women. Who'd have thunk it? Now, that being said, it's the wimmin' types that will vote for any old GOP slopper wearing pants that worry me.
Julia,
See #1.
Oh, now don't make me go all Jeter2 on ya, AA. I should have put that little smiley face thingy in my post so you could understand the sarcasm. But then you neocon bastids have no sense of humor :-0)
I think Barney has dug himself a little hole. !
Give credit there, HBL. He gave me a great assist.
Har! I'll give him that, AA's a great straight man when he tries to get clever!
Julia and HBL,
Hey friends, it takes away from the fun when you have to 'splain it.
But it does add to the fun when you don't get it. :-)
Well, I guess you'll just have to keep it to yourself, baby. Too bad, so sad for us. I'm sure it was rippin' good. ;-)
See #1.
When I look at your posts, all I see is #2.
So true. It amazes how utterly afraid of women most men are. I just don't get it.
Surely you know by now that feminists don't care if Bill Clinton is a sexual harasser or a rapist for that matter.
You NEVER saw feminists accuse him of any misbehavior when he was president.
He supports their social agenda, so he can club baby seals and rape 10-year-olds and it doesn't matter to feminists.
"...feminists don't care if Bill Clinton is a sexual harasser or a rapist..." (Leatherhelmet)
1. Do you have any quotes from feminists backing this up?
2. Do Values voters care if Huckabee is a child molester?
Absolutely. They may outdo Rove at the rate they're going.
jeter2
============================================
They've got MILES to go before they're even in the same zip code with Rove. But keep on wishing ...
All the news opinionators, save Bill Moyers, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, John Stewart and Steven Colbert are self-aggrandizing blowhards. It's a pretty sad commentary when you've got to go to Comedy Central for the real story. The corporate whores sure aren't telling it like it is.
"thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher"
Not exactly germaine to the subject, wonder why he said it that way?
"Hillary's loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition right now."
And again, another unprofessional and overtly intentional use of a phrase.
Can't journallists (of all stripes) just report the news?
Has anyone bothered to find how many of the editors are females? If they were only male would Chris have said "thanks to her husband's lobbying with its male editors and publisher"?
Why does he keep saying things like this? Why doesn't he just go on We TV and do another gossip show? He'd be better at that than talking real politics.
It's obvious Matthews has some real issues with women. He's either ogling like some 8th grade schoolboy or acting like a misogynist.
Get some help Chris, it’s very unprofessional!I cannot believe after (8) years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Chris Matthews can find fault with the things he does regarding President and Mrs. Clinton. I cannot believe, with what we have on our plate to clean up -- Messrs. Matthews, Carlson and Russert play GOTCHA with the airtime that belongs to the citizenry. I cannot believe Chris Matthews EVER identified as a (spitting?) journalist. He is now a characture and a stooge for the Conservative GE/NBCU agenda -- for, WHY else would someone like this merit not one, but TWO shows and one on Sunday morning??? We need our airwaves reregulated. This is dangerous for our DEMOCRACY.
Maybe the ladies just liked Hillary. Sorry, that slant is probably going to be used in the general election or if Hillary is close to getting the Democratic nomination. Mr. Clinton will be an after thought and the "REAL" Hillary stories will appear.
Rove, a GENIUS...no way. A rat, yes. Let us not forget that he will be the man known for dismantling the Republan Party from the inside. Last November was only the beginning. Thank You Karl, you've done America a great service
I never knew why they called Rove a genius. What's so genius about lying and cheating? That's all he does. He obviously did not think about the long term health of his party as you said. A real strategegist thinks far into the future.
There is something unbecoming about The Ex-President performing tasks for Mrs. Clinton which she is incapable of accomplishing for herself. It begs the question, "Who would be in charge if she were elected President"? Nepotism is always unseemly wherever it exist.
"Nepotism is always unseemly wherever it exist."
Are you saying that Bill is taking a job away from some other campaign staffer?
Oh yeah, another thing; in response to the recent and ampant abuse of the phrase, I'm going to hook you up with an explanation of the term "beg the question".
If you study this, you'll be able to see that your post is more a glaring example of this logical fallacy than a citation of it.
You're welcome.
Now I'm going to look up "ampant". In the meantime, just substitute "rampant".
Nepotism is always unseemly wherever it exist.
Says someone who posts like a supporter of George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, etc. etc. etc.
I can never fully fathom Chris Matthews' hatred of the Clintons, especially when the present occupant of the Oval Office has lied us into wars and conducted illegal surveillance. Matthews should re-examine his priorities. Keith Olbermann is now the voice of conscience of MSNBC. Matthews engages in endless speculation that after awhile dulls one's mind.