Matthews: Clinton campaign's "goal is to smother the young senator [Obama] in his crib"
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews introduced the "Hot Topic" for the December 20 edition of Hardball: "Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate [Sen. Barack] Obama's candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there's any chance he catches on?" Matthews used imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama several times during the show, including saying that "the goal is to smother the young senator in his crib."
During the December 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews introduced as the "Hot Topic" for that night's show -- "Is the [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] campaign trying to obliterate [Sen. Barack] Obama's [D-IL] candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there's any chance he catches on?" Matthews then asserted there were "[m]ore efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib" and went on to say, "The picture is not pretty, but it could very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib." In fact, during the one-hour show, Matthews invoked imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama on four occasions, noting in a later discussion, "My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they have to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa," and asking Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, "Everybody's got a job in mind [in a Hillary Clinton administration], and they're willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language?" Scarborough responded, "No, it's not."
Matthews later suggested that Clinton's surrogates were "attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it," and he asked, "Is this an attempt to basically get a preliminary shot against this guy? Kill him early. Before Christmas." NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell responded, "Kneecap him, I mean, if you have to." He then asked Mitchell "[W]ill she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion?" Mitchell replied by asserting: "Absolutely." Matthews then described the "poisons" he associated with Clinton's surrogates: "Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water?" He concluded by saying, "She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her," referring to a Mafia enforcer in the Mario Puzo novel The Godfather.
As Media Matters for America has documented, media figures frequently portray the Clintons and their staff as ruthless and even violent.
From the December 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. The "Hot Topic" tonight: Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate Obama's candidacy? Not just beat it but strangle it in the crib before there's any chance he catches on? That's our "Hot Topic" tonight.
On the Republican side, thrice-married Giuliani loses his once commanding lead nationally, and the Reverend Huckabee is ascending. And speaking of Huckabee, is he the affable Midwestern pastor, or is there a reason to be afraid of his candidacy? So who's afraid of Mike Huckabee? We'll debate that tonight.
And we'll ask you -- we'll give you, rather, our daily "Political Fix" with Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell and John Harwood.
But first, the "Hot Topic." More efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib, as I said. One, a letter attacking Obama's health care plan pretending to come from John Edwards but actually set up by a pro-Clinton union. Two, the launching of two websites specifically targeting and attacking Barack. Suddenly, the campaign for president on the Democratic side is dominated by this dark struggle to hold power.
The Clintons -- Hillary, Bill, the whole universe of advisers and backers known as Hillary-land -- have targeted its enemy. The Clinton order comfortable at the center of Democratic power for a full generation is on the attack. The target: the junior senator from Illinois who dares to challenge the former first lady for commander-in-chief. The weapons being wielded against him are the wide-ranging regiments of Clinton people.
A Clinton surrogate attacks Barack for saying he'd like to be president back when he was in kindergarten. In New Hampshire, the husband of a former governor talks up what Republicans would do with Barack's admission of using drugs as a teenager. A former senator from Nebraska talks up Barack's middle name and the religion of his forebears, a comment for which he later apologized.
But the attacks refuse to stop. Keeping up the beat, a group of back-bench congresspeople held a press conference today -- actually, a conference on telephone to call reporters to attack Senator Obama for voting president -- present -- as a state legislator back in Springfield. A friendly labor union is now putting out an attack on Barack's health care plan, making it appear to be from John Edwards. And according to ABC's Jack Tayper [sic: Jake Tapper], the Clinton troops have now set up two different websites with the expressed mission of destroying Obama. Tapper says it's the first case, at least in this campaign, of a candidate setting up websites with the single purpose of attacking another candidate.
The picture is not pretty, but it could be very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib. Whether it's right or wrong is, as in much of politics, a matter of how you look at it. A lot of true believers, the young and idealistic at heart, will find it -- let's agree on this thing -- dispiriting.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Is there a smart political tactic here, Mark [Green, president of Air America Radio]? You've been in some campaigns. You've won a lot of them. Is there a smart political tactic here -- if you're a Clintonite, saying, "Wait a minute, don't let this guy land on the beach"? It's like the Germans when they saw us coming in Normandy -- "Don't let them land on the beach because once they're on the beach, they're going to break out." Are the Clinton people afraid that if Barack does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be unstoppable, therefore, they've got to throw every trash can they got at him right now?
GREEN: I agree with everything --
MATTHEWS: Is that the strategy?
ED SCHULTZ (liberal radio host): Absolutely.
GREEN: One second.
MATTHEWS: OK --
GREEN: I agree with everything you just said except for the word "trash." Ed, there's no serious evidence --
MATTHEWS: Trash can.
[...]
MATTHEWS:. Let's talk about this fight here. My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they've got to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa. And they are unleashing everybody they've got, everybody who wants -- every meal ticket they've got, everybody that wants to be a cabinet member, a VP, a staffer. They're all out there -- [former Sen.] Bob Kerrey [D-NE], [former Iowa governor Tom] Vilsack, [former Clinton campaign New Hampshire co-chairman] Billy Shaheen, [Clinton campaign strategist] Mark Penn, [Clinton campaign spokesman] Phil Singer.
Everybody's got a job in mind, and they're willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language, Joe Scarborough?
JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC anchor): No, it's not, because if she wins Iowa, she walks toward the nomination. The problem is, they're trying too hard. I can't help but go back -- and I know you were there, too, Chris -- in 2004 in Iowa, and you had all these people shipped in from out of state and it ended up making the Iowans just roll their eyes and toss Howard Dean to the side and go with John Kerry.
No, I think actually the person who is damaged goods right now is Hillary Clinton. If you look at the latest NBC poll, which shows that Obama does much better in general election match-ups, and Hillary's negatives are above her positives now.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to the question of tactics here. She is using things like having AFSCME -- the union, the federal, the state and county employees -- put out a letter that looked like it came from John Edwards, apparently, attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Andrea, again, about this way this campaign has to be run. The traditional way of an incumbent to defeat a challenger, in any congressional race we've ever covered or seen, you try to, first of all, check their petitions and make sure there's no names wrong, use every trick in the book to get them out of the race. Is this an attempt to basically get a preliminary shot against this guy? Kill him early. Before Christmas.
MITCHELL: Kneecap him, I mean, if you have to. The whole point is to get him out by Iowa so that she doesn't have to face him in New Hampshire, because what she's seeing is that her New Hampshire firewall, what was to be the firewall, has eroded. And that depending on the poll, they're either dead even -- he's ahead in some, she's ahead in others. So she no longer can count on New Hampshire, where the Clintons have a record.
MATTHEWS: Will she continue -- Andrea, you first. Will she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion?
MITCHELL: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water?
MITCHELL: I think it will continue to be this kind of tough, nasty campaign. The difference is that it was a big mistake for her to do some of the negative stuff. She is going to be all warm and fuzzy.
MATTHEWS: She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her.
Hey Mathews,
GW Bush's campaign's "goal is to smother the old senator [McCain] in his crib"
As an African-American woman, I thank Messrs. Matthews and Carlson for replaying 2000 and 2004. I was undecided regarding Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Over the last two weeks, it became clear to me Messrs. Obama (and Edwards) are exploiting the SAME games the "journalists" played that put Bush/Cheney in Office. Namely, Ralph Nader (and Al Sharpton), the jesters of the Democratic Party were given airtime to tarnish in audio/visual soundbites on MSNBC, NBC and Fox -- Mr. Gore, including but not limited to misquoting his so-called claim to have discovered the Internet, which he NEVER said -- though he did help fund important development while in Congress. The real fathers of the Internet confirm this, but were never given an opportunity to be heard to rebut this disinformation campaign. So, Mr. Gore, one of our best/brightest was dispatched by the media and a disgraceful cabal -- and, of course, our Supreme Court. What we received instead, we already know. Mr. Gore has gone on to stablize his life, win prizes and join investment banks in Silicon Valley who KNOW his value and contributions to the Internet and technology. Now, circa 2007, after the WORST Presidency ever -- the same networks are at it again. My point? If the only way Messrs. Obama or Edwards can win is to participate in this same game -- and do not speak up to address these smears (ostensibly on their behalf, for now) against the Clintons, who Democrats and the world KNOW served this Nation -- then they are as character-flawed as Messrs. Nader and Sharpton, putting their OWN personal interests ahead of ours. We ALREADY have an imperial Presidency, gentlemen. If you try to win by tarnishing Hillary, I ask all Americans to NOT replay this BAD MOVIE. Thanks to the surrogates of Messrs. Obama and Edwards on "Hardball" this week -- I will be casting my vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. We don't need games. We need LEADERSHIP. We can't have Mr. Gore. We will have Mrs. Clinton.
saw meet the press this morning with ron paul. russert challenged one of paul's answers by saying "that sounds like i voted for it before i voted against it". but the simple truth is that kerry was telling a crowd about two bills, virtually identical, except one paid for iraq funding with a tax increase on the wealthy. so every senator voted for one and against the other. that was what kerry explained to the crowd. but the media, in their quest to assist republicans in portraying kerry as a flip flopper, showed only the clip of him saying i voted for it before i voted against it.
Could we start a fund to buy Ritalin for Chris Matthews? Perhaps another medication or two, just to take the edge off, to establish a better connection between his brain and his mouth? Something that would allow him to follow other people's trains of thought, or at least more of his own? There might be hope, unlike Tucker, who is to broadcast journalism as Gonzalez is to legal theory.
Sadly I don't think medication can help Tweety. I don't think his problem is medical. I think he is dumb as a post. I think he WANTS to be fair and would like to make sense while being entertaining but frankly isnt bright enough.
220 more Hardballs and counting....
Just think! Only 11 more months of Tweety churning out his pathetic anti-Hillary tirades.
Maybe he'll start getting pointers from Mikey Weiner-Savage.
If Hillary Clinton serves 8 years, then we'll have 8 years of anti-Clinton remarks from Chris Matthews.
And what is your point, sir?
¶Regardless of verifiable, eye-witness testimony about donkeys flying, as crap shoots out of a goose, master Mathews relishes in perfidious delight transcribing his execrable, dilettantish verbal excrement, attesting to his version, "...actually they were elephants, reputable sources have testified."
Sure Chrissy, "your cheque is in the mail, the government is your friend and someone else promises to..."
Drafted, even when Hillary gets elected Mathews won't let up. He hounded Bill Clinton every day he was in office. He hates the Clintons but loves crooks like Rudy.
This guy picks some of the strangest uses of metaphor and hyperbole imaginable. I think that every morning he goes to some “Book of Metaphors” that he’s got on the shelf, opens it at random, fingers the first one he sees, and then writes his “spin of the day” wrapped around the selection.
No seriously, he has to – or else he’s completely losing his mind?
We’ve heard much of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I think that’s pure projection from the Right, given their attitude towards President Bill Clinton.
But much more interesting to me, is what I see as Hillary Derangement Syndrome of not only the Right (in large part by association to her husband) but also from normal people. My theory is that everyone has been exposed to so much demonization of the former First Lady that they have unwittingly picked up negative attitudes toward her.
In this particular case it’s Mathews describing standard political strategy in personal terms, which is a false analogy. In other cases her voice or appearance will be over analyzed using a very high standard. All her actions are subjected to hyper critical analysis. It as though she was God, or said she was, and now has to be proven wrong. Anyone could be made to look bad if they were to be so critically analyzed---even if the criticisms are invalid to most people most of the time! A small percentage of people will agree with each negative analysis or characterization. If done enough, a majority of people will pick up a number of negative attitudes towards the unfortunate subject of this slow character assassination which originates with the Right but is then picked up by those Democrats they also infect, creating a snowball effect.
It’s my view that even the man who’s birth we’re about to celebrate wouldn’t hold up in the public mind to this kind of scrutiny. I think she’s (and her husband during his time in the barrel) handled this phenomenon with extraordinary grace and poise.
It’s human nature to be judgmental and to look for a scapegoat, but we don’t have to obey our nature. In fact, civilization demands we restrain much of our nature. And wasn’t that a lot of what Christ’s teachings were about?
(Having said all that, I’m still for Edwards.)
Mr. Mathews please take the penny out of the fuse holder of your Dark Struggle Alarm. Install the properly rated fuse into it, or we're going to void its warrenty.
The "I know what they're saying" release 2.33 should be ready for instalation soon. So please.....please try.....try to......to hold.....hold on.
From the Sales Staff at Mythological Electronics.
Yeah, everyone tune in to watch the doofus who doesn't even know what religion Obama's parents are.
This stooge's "prep time" for this show was spent memorizing the word "crib". It was obviously very difficult for him, as he had to keep repeating it.
I know the dunce doesn't really have an audience, but why would anyone ever watch him? Between him and the guy who delivered my pizza, why did NBC pick him?
I find it extremely odd Matthews would choose to call his show Hardball then take politicians to task when they practice a little hardball themselves.
Chris Matthews is the schoolyard BULLY...and GE/NBCU have allowed him to pervert real Journalism by rewarding him with TWO shows -- one, on Sunday mornings. His paternalistic view of women and constant discourse about REAL men with BRAWNEY SHOULDERS should not in any way, shape or form be part of political discourse -- particular when we have wars to fight, boomers turning 60 at the rate of 1000/minute and STILL 40 million Americans w/out health insurance while New Orleans is flailing. His personalization of EVERYTHING, narcissistic view of seeing EVERYTHING through the prism of himself, slamming anyone/everyone who disagrees with HIS opinions -- and, REAL belief that HIS opinion defines THE OPINION -- are classic BULLY. Pitching HIS books, HIS "princess" -- HIS VIEWS six days a week, makes one wonder whether we need to evaluate a REREGULATION OF OUR AIRWAVES! "Meet the Press" has become a joke -- and one man (Russert) is NOT THE PRESS. What happened to the panel of REAL JOURNALISTS??? Finally, constantly discussing issues through the prism of enthnicity and pressing their own (Irish/Catholic) -- is disgusting. Chris Matthews is a REAL racist, cleverly pushing Obama, Al Sharpton as surrogates. It's a tradeoff: He validates them on his show, they don't challenge his (again) paternalistic/patronizing views of how African-Americans think. I love when he makes statements about how WE (African-Americans) think, leveraging his surrogates to validate HIS expertise about how WE think? A classic was this week -- NOBODY was thinking the drug use discussion re Obama was racist until Chris Matthews spun this five nights in a row! As an African-American, I do not think Senator Kerry was making a racist statement by mentioning this at all. We already have an (imperial) President who received a pass (and vote) from Mr. Matthews when his youthful alcoholism and draft evasion(s) were not scrutinized. To say Hillary or Bob Kerry are "killing in the crib" a candidate who may have to make tough decisions cleaning up a mighty MESS -- is paternalistic and patronizing. I will not vote for Mr. Obama because he has allowed his surrogates to collude with Mr. Matthews in this ridiculous VICTIM game. We need LEADERSHIP that is tough and can a) get by the Republican/media cabal next November -- and, b) clean up the MESS (again), as the Clintons had to do after the first Bush Presidency. Chris Matthews wants to sell books. Ditto Russert. They view this as a game ("gotcha" as Hillary rightly said). We must go online and educate ourselves so we elevate the discussion and this time make an INFORMED decision. This isn't about RATINGS or BOOK SALES...for the Nation.
He only does that with Dems. When Repubs to it, then it's simply Hardball.
Chris Mathews thinks he is a king maker. (He and Russett wanted Bush to win) He hates the Clintons always has and always will. I think the republicans want Obama to win the nomination because they know that Obama will probably be easier to defeat than Hillary. Just like they did with McGovern and Muskie. He lies distorts and bullies and interrupts his guests who disagree with him. But one day some one will get on his show and out shout him.
Actually, they wanted McCain to win. And they want Rudy this time, but they aren't getting him.
Despite their 100% propaganda saturation, they only have enough weight to swing close elections.
It was hannity that cheerlead for Bush.
Tragically, BETTYSINSKI, Obama's game is to leverage Republican support...and so he has and will, until (he cynically) hopes he wins. Then, in a replay from 2000/04 when Nader/Sharpton leveraged the same thing/people -- the Republicans will back the opposite Nominee who will look GOOD in comparison to the toxic Democratic field. NBCU's stooges give no discussion to the ECONOMIC DISASTERS OCCURRING RIGHT NOW, the War, real healthcare issues, etc. This morning on the so-called "Meet the Press" and The Chris Matthews (promotional) Show -- the cynical Obama love fest continued. Matthews and Russert even like to spin he is like their idol, JFK. As an African-American, I say he IS NOT, excepting how he is trying to win playing very dirty indeed -- leveraging ALL parties/interests against eachother to tarnish the Clintons -- who gave us a SURPLUS when they left office. Now we have a $10 Trillion DEFICIT, Mortgage CRISIS where 2mil Americans will lose their homes, etc. that none of these pundits or their stooge "journalist" panelists dare touch. Obama/Matthews/Russert (not Edwards) focuses on whether Hillary is liked and parses unfairly her every word. Obama does not want scrutiny and deflects attention w/his Republican "friends" away from it. If anyone looks at him they are trying to "kill him in his cradle" (last week's tagline on NBCU properties). No man...or black man...should want to be discussed in this manner. If Obama cannot win w/out courting Republicans and making a faustian bargain where he now publicly states he is more desirable to Republicans as a selling point over Hillary, then he should lose. I will proudly vote for Hillary Clinton and her judgement/strength/character -- over someone who is as cynical as Mr. Obama seems to be. Message to Chris Matthews -- African-Americans KNOW Mr. Obama and Michelle/Oprah cannot cover the fact he is NOT one of us. Through Slavery and Segregation we were a hopeful people. Perhaps our lack of cynacism has held us back, but our optimistic culture and hopefulness has held us up as a beacon of what can be accomplished under the worst circumstances. Obama did not grow up w/in our culture. Women of all ethnicities know this sentiment as well. Perhaps Republicans like Messrs. Russert and Matthews (and the other NBCU pundits) love you so much because you are like them...and you know it, which is WHY your calling card is now you are more desirable to REPUBLICANS. That is not what American needs. We need politicians who stand up for Democratic principles and remember the 90s as what they were -- and can build on THAT legacy for the future -- making the last 7 years an abberation. We don't need someone who is embraced and makes faustian bargains w/REPUBLICANS. No more tradeoffs. Hillary, as a mother, sibling, wife has much more in common w/average people of every color. Mr. Obama is a Republican. African-Americans who are savvy and intuitive, know it. The most cynical play is to take someone like Condi Rice and Colin Powell -- and sell them to us. We know a Republican when we see one. I hope Hillary's people are reading this. THIS is how you can beat Mr. Obama. Sorry Oprah. Your people don't live YOUR elite life you left behind and forgot a long time ago..when you joined up w/Dr. Phil. We live in the REAL world.
"Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security." Krugman Op-Ed - 12/24/07 - NYT
This is Mr. Obama all. As an informed African-American woman, I know our people can feel this and Chris Matthews (and other MSNBC pundits) attempts to SPIN us about how we feel about Mr. Obama or our willingness to vote for him, KNOW he is cynical and will collaborate/exploit anyone/anything to win. His surrogates, Oprah and Michelle, do NOT satisfy our instinct that Mr. Obama does not and will not speak to OUR interests (minorities or women). It is very clever how he now says Republicans feel more comfortable with him...as an asset. I wonder WHY?