Chris Matthews' double-standard: makes Obama references like those he criticized from Kerrey
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Chris Matthews speculated on how the world would react to a win by Sen. Barack Obama in the Iowa caucuses: "I tell you, it's going to be a headline all over the world: 'Barack Hussein Obama wins first presidential test in America with a Kenyan father.' " Matthews went on to say, "I just think it's absolutely -- with an Islamic background in his family -- is so dramatic." Matthews used Obama's middle name and referred to "an Islamic background in his family" despite his criticism of former Sen. Bob Kerrey two weeks earlier for making similar comments.
During the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- speculated on how the world would react to a win by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the January 3 Iowa Democratic caucuses: "I tell you, it's going to be a headline all over the world: 'Barack Hussein Obama wins first presidential test in America with a Kenyan father.' " Matthews went on to say, "I just think it's absolutely -- with an Islamic background in his family -- is so dramatic." Matthews used Obama's middle name and referred to "an Islamic background in his family" despite his criticism of former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) two weeks earlier for making similar comments.
On December 16, Kerrey announced his endorsement of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) for president. Following the official announcement, Kerrey said of Obama, "I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal." On the December 17 edition of Hardball, Matthews read Kerrey's comments and asked during the segment, "What the hell is Bob Kerrey doing?"
Matthews' criticism of Kerrey notwithstanding, the first mention of Obama's middle name in a political context that Media Matters for America found in the Nexis database came from Matthews himself. During MSNBC's special election coverage on November 7, 2006, Matthews stated that Obama's "middle name is Hussein" and suggested that "that'll be interesting down the road." Cook Political Report editor and publisher Charlie Cook responded that he "didn't know that." Matthews laughed and said: "Well, now you do."
As Media Matters documented, allegations that Obama was a practicing Muslim as a child in Indonesia and attended a "madrassa" have been disproved by the Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. The Tribune reported that "[i]nterviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia." In a Time magazine piece posted online on October 16, 2006, Obama wrote that "although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition." Further, Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro was described by the Tribune as "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim."
From the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
DAVID SHUSTER (MSNBC correspondent): Hey, Chris, it's Shuster here. Great to see you, and I want to get you to say something that you've said before about Obama. And that is, if Obama wins -- you've said on our conference calls as we get ready for Hardball -- this will be the biggest, biggest story around the world. I want you to get in and explain why.
MATTHEWS: Well, I think the biggest story if Obama wins tonight will be Obama around the world. I mean, the newspapers in Europe will start printing their headlines around midnight our time tonight, and I'd like to see copies of them if we're still on the air.
Because I think the idea of a guy who has a Kenyan father, at a time when Kenya is in such turmoil, a man with a real third-world background -- and I mean that very positively, because this brings us back into the world. It will be taken by the American people as a 180 on Bush. Everything they don't like about Bush in the world -- our go-it-alone, our way or the highway, our interventionism, our use of our military to enforce our will in other regions of the world -- all those things they don't like about us, they'll say, "Wait a minute. The American people must not have liked that because, look they're going 180."
I think it really dismayed the world when Bush got re-elected. They could no longer say it's the American government they don't like, it's the American people, then. But now if the American people shift or begin to shift, I tell you, it's going to be a headline all over the world: "Barack Hussein Obama wins first presidential test in America with a Kenyan father." I just think it's absolutely -- with an Islamic background in his family -- is so dramatic.
I don't think we who have gotten used to it over the last six months are realizing what a thunderclap that's going to be around the planet.
From the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: What the hell is Bob Kerrey doing? Here's what Clinton-boosting Kerrey said about Barack Obama out in Iowa the other day. Quote, "It's probably not something that appeals to him" -- here he's talking about Obama himself -- "but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim, and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."
Well, I, as a friend and somebody who likes Bob Kerrey, sincerely hopes that Kerrey is appealing to our optimism here and not simply poisoning the well, like some of the other people have been doing against Barack.
I don't see the double standard here. Matthews is speculating on world reaction in context of Kenya's current turmoil should Obama win in Iowa - his criticism of Kerrey was warranted as a campaign seed-planter for Hillary.
These are vastly different circumstances, in my opinion.
Rush Limbaugh couldn't have said it better than Matthews.
All Matthews is doing here is regurgitating far right/republican talking points under the guise of speculation.
Or like Bob Kerrey?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-kerrey-obama_N.htm?csp=34
I don't think you read the article. Matthews is simply talking about how dramatic an Obama win would be, and how the world would react positively to someone so different from Bush, with a multicultural background. I don't see how Limbaugh would want to make that argument.
Obama's middle name is a negative. When Kerrey used it, it seemed disingenuous because he's a Hillary supporter, and so the praise of Obama came off as a weak excuse to highlight that negative. But Matthews can point out the dramatic nature of overcoming that without "poisoning the well" himself.
I just don't see how pointing out how the world would gain respect for the American people for supporting someone with such third-world ties is inconsistent with criticizing Kerrey for pushing that negative for dubious reasons. This seems like an invalid criticism, highly questionable at best.
Yeah Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Gibson/Beck/Coulter would never mention Obama's middle name, while ignoring the middle name of all the other candidates and state falsely he has muslim roots.
The point is the ones you mention would never make the argument as how it relates to anything positive coming from an Obama win in Iowa, the way Matthews is doing here.
No, they wouldn't mention his middle name in the context of..."Everything they don't like about Bush in the world -- our go-it-alone, our way or the highway, our interventionism, our use of our military to enforce our will in other regions of the world -- all those things they don't like about us, they'll say, "Wait a minute. The American people must not have liked that because, look they're going 180.""
Hardliners like Limbaugh don't give a damn if the rest of the world like us more for supporting someone with a multicultural image. They certainly wouldn't talk about it as if it was a good thing, in any event.
Hard liners like Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Gibson/Beck/Coulter don't give a damn about context as long as they can hammer "Hussein" and "muslim" into the skulls of the far right sheep to keep them part of the herd.
Matthews is just carrying the word to a smaller but more main stream audience.
Either that or he's a total hypocrite for criticizing Kerry.
It's obvious you've already made up your mind here, even though you continue to ignore the context of Matthews' explanation.
(and I'm stubborn?)
Every good propagandist knows it's not what you say, it's what your audience hears.
It would have to be a very ill-informed european to believe "muslim" "Hussein" Obama is more opposed to Bush's policies than any of the other Democratic candidates.
And most of the other candidates are stuffed shirt white men, except for Hillary, lifetime politicians with long resumes in Congress, etc. It's the perception and the 180 degree turn, as Matthews explains.
Perhaps you can explain where Matthews gets his expertise about how europeans view American politics?
Is there something in his resume I'm missing?
He's making it up as he goes along echoing right wing talking points.
He's a political analyist, analyzing, in his opinion, what possible effect an Obama win in Iowa would have around the world - obviously it's his opinion, but being a political observer and a insider for decades, I'd say his opinion is as good as anyone.
You obviously disagree, and that is fine.
Bingo. I guess Tommy would consider it "positive" if Matthews said something like this- "I think it's amazing that Barack Hussein Obama, a black man with an Islamic past, a Muslim past, with a father from Africa, and the middle name of Hussein, a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, with a Muslim background, could take the first step toward becoming President of the United States, a country fighting Islamo-Fascism, even though his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he has an Islamic past and his father was African and black...."
As you said- its what the audience hears that counts. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I fully expect the Republicans to bleat endlessly that it doesnt matter that Barack Hussein Obama's middle name is Hussein, and that they don't CARE if his father was an Islamo-Fascist, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, that's not important, and it's so unimportant that we should repeat it again...
I'm sure Tommy read the article. He just doesn't care what it says. As usual.
I'm not compelled by the empty assertion. It was a message that it would be good for our image as a country. That's not pushing any right-wing message whatsoever.
And it's not the same as what Kerrey did. When a Hillary supporter springs the middle name out of nowhere as supposed praise, you almost have to question the motive there. Matthews can do that and note the positive of Obama winning in Iowa at the same time. It's perfectly reasonable to think that he wants Obama to win, given the way he talks about Hillary.
If you have anything to support your argument, I'm willing to listen. I'm not a Matthews fan. But so far I'm just not seeing the double standard, or any other problem with what he said.
It was a message that it would be good for our image as a country. That's not pushing any right-wing message whatsoever.
Matthews is not the first "news personalty" (can't quite call him a journalist) who said this and IF you take the time to examine it, what Matthews says is right. Can you imagine what other countries, especially Muslims countries would think IF Obama won in Iowa?
Kerrey's comment on Obama, IMO, came from a 'hit man' for Hillary's camp. He had just supported her and needed to take Obama down a little while not alienating Obama supporters. Matthews comment was more of a remark about the perception of our country from around the world, NOT directed towards Obama personally.
Given the options you present, my respponse would be that Matthews is a hypocrite. Having followed his commentary for some time, I think he's a very sincere right winger who's a tad less offensive than Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and somewhat better slightly mannered than Ann Coulter.
you must be blind
Wow more anti Matthews hate from MMFA, he points out fairly how Bob Kerrey smeared Obaman , and now MMFA has an issue with that because he dared take the partisan glasses off.
Good job Matthews. The guy is one of the few fair people on MSNBC, the network of double standards (Imus, Savage)
how did kerrey smear obama?
Happy New Year!!
Bob Kerrey is really a disapointment, this is a man who came out and wrote an op-ed piece in support of the racist Imus. Then he uses the "Hussein" middle name referenec. Its disgusting and another reason why Obama needs to be the clear choice at this point for the Democratic party to get out of the polarization.
Hi J
You are right about Bob Kerrey, the fact that he supports Hillary and used the middle name to scare the American people is just plain wrong. Matthews has a great point, if Obama wins, his victory means America is possibly on the right track in many ways.
kerrey did not support any racism by imus. he called his remarks "offensive" and a "terrible transgression". and you still have not shown how kerrey smeared obama.
Sueeld said he smeared Obama not me but this was in the Huffington Post last month so there are others who think Kerrey smeared Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/clinton-backer-bob-kerrey_b_77249.html
i posted under the wrong post, but the question is still to sueeld. how did kerrey smear obama?
Using the "Hussein" middle name is an attempt to frighten and scare the American public. It promotes Right wing propaganda and is a smear. MMFA has been documenting very well how the right wing uses the "Hussein" name. Sorry if you are a fan of Kerrey and do not like how he engaged in the gutter on this one. Gladly he knew he was wrong and apologized.
so it was a smear for matthews to use it?
No because Matthews has been going against the smears toward Obama, he has said this
I tell you, it's going to be a headline all over the world: 'Barack Hussein Obama wins first presidential test in America with a Kenyan father.' " Matthews went on to say, "I just think it's absolutely -- with an Islamic background in his family -- is so dramatic."
He is saying despite the smears from the Cons and Hillary supporters. You can not have it both ways, if you want me to say he was smearing her fine, bottom line though was Kerrey brought it up, Hillarys campaign has brought up drug use, they have done everything to hurt this young man. And if he wins it sends a nice message that hateful campaigns will not be tolerated (at least in Iowa).
he's not saying anything of the sort you suggested. he is saying that it would be seen as a positive thing, which is what kerrey said.
It seems hard to believe that Kerrey was being sincere in his praise. Remember, he also said: "He should do a commercial, look the camera straight in the eye, and say, 'My wife Michelle and I are Christians, but my father was a Muslim and my paternal grandfather was a Muslim, and that fact and my name means I can speak to a billion people around the world" who need to hear from the United States."
For a Clinton supporter to give that sort of advice sounds a little like Br'er Rabbit saying he doesn't want to be thrown into the briar patch. Yes, advertise your muslim ties, that's how to beat the person I'm endorsing.
the point would be that kerrey and matthews said virtually the same thing: that it would be a positive image to present to the world. you can't say one is wrong and the other right when they say the same thing.
You have to look at context and motivation. Kerrey is a Hillary supporter so anything he says about her, or her opponents, need to be evaluated in that context.
Matthews' dislikes Hillary, that is pretty much of a given, but he doesn't apparently share the same animosity for Obama, so whatever he says should also be evaluated in that context.
Their motivations are vastly different, as well as their context.
Of course you can, because of different context and circumstances. Kerrey supports Hillary. Matthews does not. It's a serious difference between what obviously came across as an unprompted, thinly-veiled jab at Obama and reasonable analysis of what the world would think if we supported someone like Barack Hussein Obama after the last eight years of belligerent American nationalism.
He made a valid point, and asserting there's some partisan motive behind it is an assumption. Outside of that explanation, I don't know why he'd be on the attack. It's certainly not because he's supporting Hillary instead.
I should say after the last seven years. I'm looking ahead to the general election, for some reason.
that's your opinion that it "obviously" was a jab at obama. they said the same thing. if you want to see it as a jab at obama, fine. one can also see it the other way. it's not like any of this is any secret now. would the republicans use his middle name? of course, but whatever kerrey says won't make any diffence.
Actually, I said it obviously came across as a jab at Obama. Nobody should have been surprised that people were going to think that, because it's a reasonable interpretation, and it would have been truly bizarre for Matthews not to talk about that. If there's a case for seeing Kerrey's words as genuine praise and advice for someone running against his endorsed candidate, then I'm willing to listen.
Again, the circumstances of comments change their meaning. Without some reasonable explanation of motive, any claims of an attack are just an assumption. For Kerrey, there's a reasonable explanation. That's a key difference.
whatever. came across is no different from what i said. and just possibly and reasonably, kerrey meant it as praise. when he said "i like the fact...", he could have been commenting on his opinion of obama. put what matthews and kerrey said side by side, without identifying them, and tell me which one is an attack and which isn't.
"Came across" is certainly different from drawing the conclusion itself. If Kerrey meant it sincerely, then that's fine. But that's not how it seemed when he said it, and it's fair for anyone to comment on that.
"put what matthews and kerrey said side by side, without identifying them, and tell me which one is an attack and which isn't."
Yes, that would be difficult to do. And that's exactly why I've been saying that the context and the circumstances make a difference. Two separate people, two separate sets of circumstances, two different meanings. If your employee makes a comment about your weight after you give them a bad performance review, and your wife tells you that you need to get back to the gym, you could say the same thing. Look at the two comments and identify which is an attack and which isn't. One was a jab out of spite, the other is honest concern for your health from someone who cares about you.
It's not supposed to be completely analogous, because I don't know how much Matthews likes Obama. But don't pretend that similar words have the same motivation behind them regardless of where they came from.
"obviously came across as a jab" and "obviously a jab" are the same thing. word parsing at best. and i don't think your analogy is the same, since saying "that tub of lard" would be taken as a jab. i've followed kerrey for many years and always found him to be a straightforward honest guy, without a trace of being devious. i don't think there is any reason to say that it obviously comes across as a jab. feel free to take it that way. that doesn't mean it was obvious to me.
""obviously came across as a jab" and "obviously a jab" are the same thing. word parsing at best."
No, it's not word parsing at all. The latter is drawing a definite conclusion. The former is simply pointing out what it seems to be. I could tell you that something you said came across badly, even if I specifically told you I knew you didn't mean it that way. "I know what you meant, but it's easy to see how they interpreted you otherwise". Matthews pointed out that Kerrey was a Clinton-booster, and asked why he made those comments. And he expressed admiration for Kerrey at the same time. Obviously he wasn't definitively saying it was an attack, but questioned it because that's the obvious interpretation of it. I used the specific wording I did because there is a very clear distinction there.
"and i don't think your analogy is the same, since saying "that tub of lard" would be taken as a jab."
I didn't specify that wording. You could use the same words for both people, and have different intent behind them. You can make a joking comment to your friend, but if you said the same thing to someone you didn't know you might get smacked. You can look at the words, but the circumstances surrounding them make a difference. I honestly don't see how you can attempt to argue otherwise.
If it's inconsistent with Kerrey's character, then maybe he really did mean it. It still seems odd, and of course anyone should question him on it.
your weight analogy does not compare anyway. if you are heavy enough that your weight is being mentioned, that is a comment that can only be taken one way, that you are overweight. that does not compare to saying someone's name or religious heritage. that's something you cannot change. and say whatever you want, saying that something "obviously comes across as a jab" is a conclusion about the person saying it. i did not see that way, and it think it's quite reasonable to say it did not come across as a jab. it was not obvious to me. that's my opinion, no matter what you feel is obvious.
"if you are heavy enough that your weight is being mentioned, that is a comment that can only be taken one way, that you are overweight."
You're being remarkably obtuse. You can bring up someone's weight for different purposes, to be mean or out of heartfelt concern. That's what I already said, so I can't imagine how you thought your point was relevant. You can bring up religion as an attack or as pointing out the dynamics of supporting someone connected to that religion. Different motives and circumstances.
"and say whatever you want, saying that something "obviously comes across as a jab" is a conclusion about the person saying it."
Absurd. Look again at what Matthews said previously. He questioned what Kerrey said. He obviously didn't want to draw any conclusions, but he clearly knew how Kerrey's comments came off. How is it possible for someone to ask "is that what he really meant?" or "Is that why he said that?" without drawing a conclusion about the person, according to you?
If you want to believe that Kerrey rises above politics all the time, then that's up to you. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. But your faith in him doesn't make the reasonable interpretations of his actions any less valid.
your problem is you don't see any "reasonable" interpretation but yours, because it "obviously comes across as a jab". which means i must be obviously wrong.
You can admit what it seems to be and claim he didn't mean it that way at the same time.
Kerrey:"Again, I am sorry for the insult and wish you the best on January 3 and beyond..."
Sorry for the insult? What interesting wording. Even as he says that's not how he meant it, there's no denying that Kerrey himself understood how his words came off.
I've said several times that it's possible Kerrey was being sincere. So I'm not saying you're wrong. But no matter what you think Kerrey meant, it's obvious why many people thought he was insulting Obama. Even Kerrey gets it.
the letter is in this link. kerrey notes that when obama was running in his senate primary, he praised him in a public letter as one of the two or three most talented people he had ever met. kerrey also says that: "i answered a question about your qualifications to be president in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. i assure you i meant to do just the opposite." i did not and do not see it as an insult. i think it's very "reasonable" to see it as praise. you're the one who thinks it obviously seems to be a jab. it's not obvious at all.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/kerrey-apologizes-to-obama/index.html
you also said: "it seems hard to believe kerrey was being sincere in his praise." so the only thing you see as reasonable is that it was a jab.
I remember what I said. Yes, that's my impression of what he did. That's my personal opinion based on an experienced politician advising Obama to advertise his Muslim ties while we're occupying a Middle Eastern country and six years after being attacked by Muslim extremists. I think that's sort of giving Kerrey the benefit of the doubt, to think that he doesn't genuinely believe that to be a sound strategy.
So I believe personally that it obviously was a jab, but that's not the argument I was making. I specified that it was obviously going to be interpreted as a jab, because that goes beyond me, and justifies Matthews talking about it because that doesn't rely on any conclusions he is making.
I'm sorry you're offended that I don't think your opinion of a politician makes for a reasonable explanation in and of itself of how they are being sincere. That really doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making.
i never said it was just my opinion of kerrey "in and of itself" that made it a reasonable explanation. it can be a reasonable interpretation on the face of it. you just won't accept that.
What do you mean it can be a reasonable explanation on the face of it? Either it is or it isn't. When I see a case made for some explanation, then I will accept that.
I don't have any stake in slamming Kerrey here. I have no prejudices regarding him. It just that it doesn't pass the smell test, and your high regards for him isn't a compelling reason for me to reevaluate that.
what i meant by "it" is a reasonable explanation, is the same thing i said all along. it being the reasonable explanation that what kerrey said was praise. and if kerrey had simply said i was misinterpreted, it would be kerrey issues a half hearted apology. second, if you had said his comments "could have been seen as a jab", i would say fine, i disagree, but your opinion. instead you repeat over and over that it "obviously came across as a jab". in other words, your opinion is the only obvious one. i can't see what is "obvious". three, along with tommy, you want to paint matthews as some nuetral observer, when he has a long history of anti hillary comments. it's not a surprise that he would take a shot at one of her supporters. say what you want, you are insisting your opinion of the situation is obvious.
You keep conflating these two things, hoping that you'll magically become right.
Remember Bill Bennett and his comment about aborting all black babies and lowering crime? I understood the point he was making, and didn't think he was being racist (but he lost me with his self-defense tactics afterwards). At the same time, it obviously was going to be taken as racist. Whether that's how he really meant it, or whether I thought he meant it that way, I knew how it was going to be widely interpreted. And what a shock, that's exactly what happened.
So see, they're two separate things. Just because I see how a comment is going to be interpreted doesn't mean it's the only reasonable way of doing it.
Do you honestly believe that one has to hate Hillary to question what Kerrey said? Holy cow. How could anyone with any knowledge of politics not immediately have to consider the possibility that Kerrey was playing political games?
that's a total stretch. bennett's remarks are not even the same. and i am not the one trying to be "right". that's you. you can't accept that maybe kerrey was saying it can be seen as a positive.
The comments don't have to be the same at all! I have no concept what difference you think invalidates the point that you can think someone means one thing but know that many people will take it another way. I don't expect you to be able to explain it.
"you can't accept that maybe kerrey was saying it can be seen as a positive."
I said already that it's possible, I just don't think it's likely. At best it was extremely short-sighted on his part. Even Matthews accepted the possibility that Kerrey was being sincere, but it still raised valid questions.
first of all, i am hardly the only one who thinks that there is a whiff of hypocrisy about matthews here. that is what this whole article is about. someone thought that beside me. and again, this comes down to an opinion. you say it obviously seems to be a jab. i say there is nothing obvious about it.
"the point would be that kerrey and matthews said virtually the same thing: that it would be a positive image to present to the world. you can't say one is wrong and the other right when they say the same thing."
If both of them were "right" because they said the same thing, then Matthews would be hypocritical for questioning if Kerrey was "poisoning the well" when he said it. The whole basis of your argument dictates hypocrisy on Matthews' part. I have no idea how you imagine you can claim otherwise.
I read it already. Nothing you're saying is contradicting what I said. Kerrey said he was praising Obama, but at the same time recognized how it came off as an insult.
Look, Kerrey endorses Hillary, then brings up a clear negative about Obama. I'm not enamored with any politician to the point where I wouldn't admit that looks bad if they did the same thing. Whether you believe him or not, you should be able to see the impression it creates to others. To say that something obviously comes off a certain way doesn't mean everyone has to believe it's the actual truth, just that it's going to be a very common and understandable conclusion.
Does that clarify it at all? Is there really some valid disagreement to be had with that?you're proving my point here. according to you what kerrey said is a "clear negative". so when matthews said it, it was high praise and when kerrey said it, it's a "clear negative", "obviously" seems to be a jab, and hard to believe he was sincere in praising obama. i got it. clear negative, no doubt about it according to you. i disagree.
"so when matthews said it, it was high praise and when kerrey said it, it's a "clear negative""
No, not "high praise". It's not praise or condemnation, just a comment about the dramatic effect of Americans supporting a candidate that has such a clear negative. How is that proving your point?
my point was that you insist everything is so obvious and so "clear".
It's a clear negative in both cases. Muslim ties are certainly not a plus in our current environment.
And when someone endorses one candidate and then brings up that negative about another, then it's obviously going to be widely interpreted as negative.
I think those are perfectly understandable points. Why not?
i have to go to work, but i said further back in this thread that obama's muslim ties are no secret to anyone. if you think that they are such a "clear negative" that you cannot even mention them, then he is going to have a rough time indeed with the guys like limbaugh if he becomes the nominee. and it shows your thinking here, that matthews brought them up, but that is not a "clear negative". you need to make up your mind.
and i am referring to the second time that matthews brought his muslim heritage up, without the kerrey remarks being discussed. if his muslim heritage is such a clear negative, then matthews should not have brought it up. kerrey had nothing to do with it this time.
Just because something is a negative doesn't mean they can't ever be brought up by anyone. How else can you discuss the potential problems with someone's campaign if you can't ever discuss these things? That's a huge part of political analysis.
There's obviously a difference between saying "I support Hillary, but Obama is a great guy because his middle name is Hussein" and saying "What will the world think if someone with Hussein in their name wins in Iowa?" They both might be innocuous, but Kerrey's comment is a hell of a lot more questionable considering he's endorsing Obama's opponent.
kerrey said the same thing. he said this is how it can be seen as a positive. if you want to suggest another motive, ok. but he said the same thing.
"if you want to suggest another motive, ok. but he said the same thing."
I acknowledged that the comments are similar a long time ago. That doesn't mean anything, as I demonstrated already. Of course he had another motive, whether he was actually acting on it or not, and that's why it appeared to be disingenuous to so many people. That perception is what makes the difference between the two comments.
That's the point I've been making all along.
i was referring to kerrey having another motive beside the one you are insisting he had. and the point you have been making all along is that it "obviously seems to be a jab". it don't think it's obvious. you do, i don't.
"and the point you have been making all along is that it "obviously seems to be a jab"."
Whether you agree with the perception or not is irrelevant. To go back to Bennett, I can't deny the impression it creates to others just because I saw it differently.
And if very few people didn't question Kerrey over it, I wonder why there was any controversy at all, or what he thought he had to clarify/apologize for. He clearly didn't buy the argument that there was no false impression floating around about what he did because you believed he was sincere.
I'm not buying it either.
Using the "Hussein" middle name is an attempt to frighten and scare the American public.
If Obama's middle name "frightens and scares" Americans, that says something really sad about the American public.
Here is the op-ed piece from Kerrey regarding Imus
He said he would go on the show again, that means he approves of Imus.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/10/21/2007-10-21_seal_of_approval.html
and clarence page and former senator harold ford, both black, said they would consider going on imus again.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/04/imus-guest-list-whos-out-whos-in-whos-waffling.php
that's former congressman and senatorial candidate harold ford.
Yeah Harold Ford Jr, that current FOX News Analyst. Wonderful.
and clarence page and frank rich of the new york times, who said he would consider it also?
It does not make them right, enabling a drug user is not right either. Going on the Imus show is wrong in my view. The man is a racist.
that is your opinion to make and quite possibly true. but this started with you saying kerrey did an op-ed piece "in support of the racist imus". he called his remarks offensive and as i pointed out there are other people, liberals included, willing to go on the imus show. so it's nothing exclusive to kerrey.
And it is just another reason to be disapointed in Kerrey, from his op-ed piece supporting Imus (of course everyone says the comments were horrible and wrong including Imus himself). The real courage would be to never appear on the show again and send a message that racism will never be tolerated again. Imus might do alot for children but he should never have the forum and just because Liberals go on his show does not make it right.
that's fine. but it does not prove anything about kerrey, one way or the other.
Unlike Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Gibson/Beck/Coulter Kerry apologized.
Matthews was gushing in a positive way in addressing the prospect of an Obama victory.
Yeah I know MMFA suspect Chris of only nefarious motives every time he opens his mouth, but THIS time they are way off.
AND let's not forget that Bob Kerrey is a Hillary supporter, which does put a different slant on his similar words.
Well said Jeter, Matthews often creates a knee jerk reaction here, with little regard to context, obviously.
Of course there is no double standard here: we do maintain separate standards for general education and "special" education, and Chrissy clearly qualifies for a shorter bus.
Plus, we have different requirements for policital persons and those who merely slander and demean all the political persons who are Democrats or liberals; again, Chrissy gets the exemption.
I think the "vibe" from Matthew's and Kerrey's comments are different. I got a smug, "yeah-right-they'll-vote-for-someone-with-Islam-in-their-background" from Kerrey, whereas my first reaction from Matthew's comments was that Chris thought it would be an overall positive reaction from the world.
I will say this again and again .... Matthews is a fascist. He should be ashamed ... but he is not ... and that is why he is so despicable.
he is a "facist"?
It is smears like that will prevent you from being taken seriously. Get off your hate horse.
Oh, let's just start a campaign now to get MMFA to change all their stationary and get rid of the word "conservative" and replace it with "fascist".
Be done with it already. ;)
Hey Tommy here's a suggestion for their new About Us:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) Communist research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting Fascist misinformation in the U.S. media.
;-)
hahahaha...nice.
I will refer you to the last thread as to a detailed discussion of what "fascist" really means.
On that note, I think Matthews was generally positive, though I don't think the "with a Kenyan father" should have been included, IMO. It seems irrelevant to an absurd degree.
"Thunderclap" or groundhog fart?
So, Tweety, let me see if I got this right: If 1/6 of 1 percent of a sparsely-populated state selects (NOT elects) some delegates for Obama, it will be "a thunderclap that's going to be around the planet"?
Uhhh... time to check your blood sugar, Tweety.
Drafted,
A small point. I understand your sentiment, but not your math.
The way I figure it, if 33% of the Dems and Indipendents go for BHO that would be approximately 50,000 out of about 150,000.
The population of Iowa is about 3 million.
By my calculations that is 1.67% of the population not 0.167 as you suggested. I think you undercounted the chad husks by a factor of 10. :-)
Drats.. I decided to spell out Independents after first abbreviating the word to Indies.. I didn't want to confuse so I misspelled instead. Srry.
I think what he means is 1/6th of 1 percent of the nation's population, which would be .167 percent. That's from the fact that Iowa's population is 1/100th the population of the USA.
I think...
DB,
Too bad he said 1/6 of 1% of a sparsly populated state rather than ...sparsley populated country.
ps. I didn't know they grew sparsly in Iowa let alone arugula? :-)
It is a minor point but fun to needle. :-)
hehe...they also grow a lot of Hellery and Okrama.
I know it's what he said, but I've heard that statistic a number of times, and 1/6 of 1 percent of the entire country will be voting in the Iowa Caucases.
I know, nitpicking. Let's just agree to agree.
I wanted to show everyone this.
How disingenuous is it to try to show that this is a "Hillary campaign front" by doing a search on the site for "Clinton"?
Dbeden, I don't think that website is aimed at anybody who knows what "disingenuous" means.
I do like the description of MMFA as "loathsome", though.Best one since being named one of the most dangerous organizations in the universe, or whatever that one was.
Think that was Billo. Describing MMFA as the most vicious website on the planet.
That'a a funny website, and by funny, I mean sad. As in, they know not what they talk about.
Here is a simple thing for the people on that other site cited by your link. If you want MMFA to stop talking about Hillary, stop the loudmouths in the media from spewing misinformation about her. If the talking heads stop lying about her, then MMFA won't have anything to put up here about Hillary, but alas, this is just a front for Hillary anyway, even though there isn't really anything on here provided by Hillary's campaign, and this site, far as I know, doesn't support or endorse candidates for whatever offices might be open. Maybe the folks who raise so much venom about this site should actually read it, and see that the information contained within comes from their heroes.
Duck!
That whoooshing sound was the point in my previouos post going right over everyone's head!
The frothing at the mouth over Iowa is more because of the screaming media (like Tweety) than anything else.
The real function of this out-of-date system of musical-chairs-in-a-church-basement is to thin the herd. This year, even NH and SC don't mean all that much, except to Edwards.
You'll see.
Nice wisequack.
where?
Sorry, that was kinda vague. I meant, where's the Duck?
No big surprise from Matthews (repug lover) but why does he resort to cheap shots. Their is enough wrong with Sen. Clinton that the cheap shots aren't needed. Keep it up and the sympathy vote for Sen. Clinton will start to come in. (Not from me)
I will vote for Barak Obama if he is the nominee, but:
Barack Obama is a bad ballot name. I think there will be a significant number of voters who will vote against him on that basis.
The politically correct Republican types who want him to be the nominee think they can beat him easier and in a classier way, without having to stoop to character assassination, and thereby improve their party's image. They also think he will have reverse coattails, thereby helping them to regain Congress or at least mitigate the damage. Further, if worse comes to worse and he is elected President, they will cement the Democratic Party in the public mind as the party of the outsider, the interloper, the non-real American.
However, the very worst damage is the idea that will be planted, and I believe the reality, that forces beyond the control of ordinary party regulars have foisted an inexperienced minority on the party as a form of social engineering. This will damage the party’s credibility at a time when it should be trying to regain the support of disenchanted Republicans who may be coming out of the fog fostered by their clergy and the GOP leaning media.
In better economic times, as in 1960 perhaps (although JFK was far more experienced), this sort of thing would be an acceptable risk. The fiscal condition of America needs changing and it sounds like another Republican will not do what is right for the country.
On the other hand, in the long run it may be better for the Democratic Party to lose the Presidency if I am right about the coming depression.
As an African-American I can attest that Chris Matthews sees everything/everyone through the prism of RACE or SEX. Consequently, as w/Rush, he disseminates opinions from that pivot. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of RACISM and SEXISM. Mr. Matthews is at his funniest (or saddest?) when he tells African-Americans what we think or how we will vote for his favorite -- Barak Obama. Of course, the ultimate pervisity is NBC/GE's desire for an Obama candidacy because that is the ONLY hope the Conservatives/Republicans have at winning the Election. Mr. Obama is AMERICAN. He is not African. He is CHRISTIAN. He should not be constantly identified as what his father was (note, Mr. Matthews never focuses on what his mother was?). Are Messrs. Russert, Matthews or Mss. O'Donnel and the rest of the Irish-American collective at NBC/MSNBC -- sons/daughters of IRELAND??? This is ridiculous and unworthy of assessment of political candidates vying for the opportunity to rectify what Chris Matthews' former candidates, Bush/Cheney (YES, he says he voted for them!) have done to our Nation and the world. First order of business for Hillary, take back OUR airwaves from this cabal! They are a public trust!
"I tell you, it's going to be a headline all over the world: 'Barack Hussein Obama wins first presidential test in America with a Kenyan father.'"
It might make news in Kenya I guess, in a 'local son makes good' kind of way, but out here in the 'world', we have plenty of female and non-white leaders. What we really find weird is the fact that America can be so fascinated and horrified by such utter irrelevancies.
Too many people are interested in those irrelevancies, which is why it would be such a big story. It would show that we're getting away from that mindset, which is a notable step indeed.
Once again Chris Mathews plays the I'm greater than thou tune. I think Chris is in his own world, where he belives he's always right and fair. Fox should be offering him a job soon.