More violent imagery from Matthews: If Clinton beats Obama, "what does she do with the body?"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Chris Matthews again used violent imagery to portray Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, asking, "[W]hat does she do with the body? How does she get rid of a Barack Obama if she ever gets to beat him?" Matthews has previously asked, "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?" Other media figures have also portrayed Clinton and her aides as violent or ruthless, including Maureen Dowd who once wrote that Clinton, like Tony Soprano, "is so power-hungry that she can justify any thuggish means to get the prize."
On the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while discussing the Democratic presidential candidacies of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), host Chris Matthews asked: "[W]hat does she do with the body? How does she get rid of a Barack Obama if she ever gets to beat him?" Matthews added: "How does she say, 'Now, step aside and go back to being junior senator from Illinois. Oh, you'll never be on the ticket because, hm, I have other plans. I'm going to give it to -- oh, I'll give it to [Sen.] Evan [Bayh (D-IN)]. ... I'll give it to [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland.' "
This is not the first time Matthews has used violent imagery to portray Clinton and her aides. As Media Matters for America has documented, Matthews and other media figures have repeatedly used violent and ruthless imagery to portray Clinton and her advisers. For example, during the December 20 edition of Hardball, Matthews asked: "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?" During the one-hour show, Matthews also invoked imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama on four occasions, including saying that there were "[m]ore efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib" and that "[t]he picture is not pretty, but it could very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib." He later said: "She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her," referring to a Mafia enforcer in the Mario Puzo novel The Godfather.
Additionally, on the April 24, 2005, edition of his NBC-syndicated television show, Matthews referred to Clinton as "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left," referring to a villainous character in Charles Dickens' novel, A Tale of Two Cities. According to BookRags.com, a website that provides study guides for classic novels, Madame Defarge is "a cruel, vengeance-seeking agent of the [French] revolution ... [who] spends her days knitting a 'register' of names of people she has marked for death."
Media Matters has noted that other media figures have also portrayed Clinton and her aides as violent or ruthless. For instance, in her June 20, 2007, column, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote about an online video produced by Clinton's presidential campaign that features Sen. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton spoofing a scene from the series finale of HBO's The Sopranos. Dowd wrote that Sen. Clinton, like main character Tony Soprano, "is so power-hungry that she can justify any thuggish means to get the prize." Additionally, on the January 24, 2007, broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, discussing the potential 2008 presidential candidates who attended President Bush's State of the Union address, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank asserted: "Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind Barack Obama, making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do."
Further, Media Matters has documented numerous instances (here, here, and here) of nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh insinuating that the Clintons were involved in the death of then-deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, who committed suicide in Northern Virginia's Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Limbaugh also once advised a caller to "go to Fort Marcy Park" when she visited Washington, D.C., and "[s]ee if you get out alive."
From the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC's Morning Joe host): I would like to know, though, what is the last great American political speech that rivaled what we saw last night with Barack Obama?
JENNIFER DONAHUE (New Hampshire Institute of Politics senior adviser): See, but he's been giving that speech --
SCARBOROUGH: Well, wait --
DONAHUE: No, you gotta listen --
SCARBOROUGH: Wait a second.
MATTHEWS: [Ronald] Reagan's in '64. [Barry] Goldwater.
SCARBOROUGH: Reagan's in '64, maybe Bobby Kennedy's the night Martin Luther King died. This was one of the great speeches, one of the great moments of modern American politics, and you can't buy that. If you have that, plus a hundred million dollars --
DONAHUE: Right. No, I agree with you.
SCARBOROUGH: -- get out of the way.
DONAHUE: I agree with you --
SCARBOROUGH: Duck.
DONAHUE: -- on that. It was --
MATTHEWS: And by the way, what does she do with the body? How does she get rid of a Barack Obama if she ever gets to beat him?
[laughter]
DONAHUE: Oh, my God.
MATTHEWS: How does she tell him --
SCARBOROUGH: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: How does she say, "Now, step aside and go back to being junior senator from Illinois. Oh, you'll never be on the ticket because, hm, I have other plans. I'm going to give it to -- oh, I'll give it to Evan."
SCARBOROUGH: Evan, yeah.
MATTHEWS: "I'll give it to Strickland." Also --
DONAHUE: OK, wait, wait, wait.
MATTHEWS: -- how does she say no when that drum is beating at the convention. And then in Denver --
DONAHUE: She can't. She's in a box, guys.
MATTHEWS: -- demanding this guy.
DONAHUE: She's in a box.
"everyone i used to know is either dead or in prison." -tom waits - christmas card form a hooker in minneapolis.
Careful Tweety.
Senator Clinton's liable to have her new assistant come speak to you.
[link to www.imdb.com]
Which would prove true every story ever told about the dangers of hilary. ;)
The scripts were all written by the Republican side, how to combat a threat from a WOMAN seeking the Presidency:
Too weak. Too soft to defend America. Too sentimental to be tough. Unable to stand up against tough opponents.
This is the IMAGE that Hillary knew had been crafted for any woman candidate, and she purposefully set about demonstrating that she could be as tough and ruthless as any man.
It worked. Matthews is convinced, as are those Republican scenario writers, who have now thrown all those "too soft" attacks out the window and are now furiously writing "too tough" and "too ruthless" attacks instead.
It's a much better place for her to be, and she forged it herself.
Let's see. We have one group actively engaging in voter caging, pushing for electronic voting machines with no traceable paper trail, trying to change the way democratic states allots their electoral votes, pushing homeland security to protect America by building a fence only on the southern border (like terrorists can't come across from Canada?), demands for the government to only recognize the christian religion, fear of mexicans, fear of blacks, fear of women and rampant racism. Too bad these nut jobs have wrestled control of the republican party away from the conservatives. If real conservatives want their party back they should not vote for these whackjobs even if it means losing to liberals. Winning at all costs should be the least concern for you guys.
Matthews blows the Vince Foster dog-whistle.
I find it interesting now Hillary is saying that IOWA was not that important and really dosen't mean that much.I know that someone in the audience can tell us how much money she spent in IOWA.If it was more than say a million dollars ,where I come from thats kind of important money.
She didn't exactly flop in Iowa, but is maybe revising history a bit. She started 3 weeks ago so she knew what was afoot. Bill Clinton didn't win Iowa either, so I'll just take a wait and see attitude. I'm happy with the Dem candidates on one hand and unhappy with many of them on the other. There's nobody that fits my bill entirely, I don't have a firm fave yet. I wish I did.
But I am glad I quit watching the braying arse, CM years ago.
There's a bit of a difference between Clinton 'losing' in 1992 and Clinton losing in 2008.
Bill Clinton didn't lose in Iowa. He didn't even compete. He was a little known governor who decided his little funds would be best spent on New Hampshire--where he still came in second.
Hillary Clinton went into the campaign the most well-known and most well-funded candidate in the race. She left Iowa having decidedly lost.
Well, I didn't say Bill Clinton lost, just that he didn't win. So the race is far from over imo. Yes, there is a difference, but I would say getting almost a third of the vote isn't a flop and there is still a ways to go. Characterize this any way you like, but Hillary is still very much in it. With the three front runners I am still making up my mind and the results in Iowa seem to back up the fact that others are in the same boat. I think they're all good with some caveats.
It's certainly not over, but I just think comparing 1992 to 2008 is playing directly into 'Clintonian' spin. The former president keeps repeating that he didn't win until Georgia. That's true, but he was competing in a wide open field. On Thursday, this officially became a two person race, and Clinton actually got fewer votes than somebody who can no longer compete. She lost big. To a person who may be more talented speaker and politician than her husband ever was.
In the end, I think the point here was that if she wins, she's going to have to tear down Obama. She is going to have to create a scenario in which no one could vote for him because she can't win on style or eloquence. She can't compete on change or on inspiration. So how do you defeat somebody who beats you on so many fundamental levels? You have to take that person out. She can't even put him on the ticket because she continually says that he's not ready to be president. Plus, he would outshine her in ways Edwards was supposed to outshine Kerry (and failed).
Explain this conventional 'wisdom' to me. "Clinton actually got fewer votes than somebody who can no longer compete"
I've heard many Progressives and conservatives alike echo similar phrases, yet none of them try to support this claim. On a much smaller, publicly funded budget, Edwards beat the front runner for Pete's sake. How on earth is the man out of this?
He's out of this in breaker's world, but not the real world. And HRC is not out of this, she has legs no matter how uninspiring she is for breaker. Obama gives a great stump speech. I'll give him that. But I'm not totally sold on him yet.
She's got legs alright, big fat ones that match her age. IMO The LAST thing the US needs is an unhealthy president who will continue the status quo in our government.
Yet, I'm willing to bet you would gleefully cast you vote for the more war, more corporate control status quo conservative. But at least none of the righties have cankles. What a blessing.
The "Conventional Wisdom" that Edwards is finished is simply because he is trailing Obama and Clinton by a large margin in these upcoming primary states and he needed a victory in Iowa to gain some momentum in these other states. He didn't get that victory and he is finished.
He did beat Hillary in Iowa, true, but her polling numbers in these other states are vastly superior to Edwards.
He also has less money than the other candidates to try to rally his candidacy through advertising, etc...
And that's a pity for us, because Edward's policy positions are the most progressive of the 3 Democratic front runners. Giving good speeches is all well and good, but working to enact good policy is the better.
I appreciate your take, Bruce. and thanks for offering an explanation. But until Edwards quits, I think it's little more than wishful thinking to discount him.
Roundhouse,
I'm no fan of Edwards or Clintons but I think the media has already decided Obama is their darling & he's the Dems nominee.
Now of course they can't vote for us all, but they [media] are repeating their predictions non-stop, & it could cause some voters to shrug & perhaps even decide that the race is over.
On the Republican side the media seems to be rooting for McCain or possibly Huckabee. They seem to be making a huge effort to bury Romney.
The question by Russert for the Republican strategist on Meet the Press this morning was: What did the Iowa Caucus tell you?
The answer: It tells me that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.
Now, COULD this be construed as conservative misinformation by this website since it was an anti-Hillary comment?
I know one thing...any misinformation about Obama that gets documented on here will have to be weeded out from the gigantic suckathon that the mainstream media is currently engaging in regarding his candidacy.
Bruce,
You cheapen yourself with that MMFA as a Hillary front group implication.
That certainly wasn't my intent, but I did think that comment of Obama's inevitibility was very premature. I do view that as misinformation that is not supported by all the evidence looking at National polling data.
This race is just getting started. Now that Obama is the frontrunner real or perceived, the expectations on him are going to rise bigtime. Time will tell if he's able to meet them.
That's cool. I guess I get hypersensitized to the petty criticisms of MMFA from reading post after post by the likes of stranger and philib and autopsychic and rinohunter.
Sorry, Bruce. I thought you were echoing their sentiments.
And yes, any mention of inevitability at this point is unfounded. Despite the poll numbers in NH and SC I still think any of the four remaining candidates can gain momentum.
Subject: Corporate Media Distortion Of Campaign Issues
Specifically, Chrissie using whatever he thinks might stick to Senator Clinton, and then, in quick succession, whatever will hurt whoever comes next in the Democratic pantheon. Those who don't throw things at the TV anytime this uselessness comes on, just aren't paying attention, for unless you are one of the 1%, he's doing you, too.
Enough Is Enough
MSNBC along with CNN and Fox news should be made to officially acknowledge they are campaigning aghast Hillary Clinton. The public would then know best how to receive this constant drum beat of attacks on Clinton. There are two very important factors overlooked by the Democratic voters trying to decide who should represent them.
Reason one: How much have this right-wing help excelled Obama's campaign? Without this free 7 day a week, 24 hour a day of the media trashing of Clinton, how far would Obama be? This is a very important point the Democrats will not know unless they demand the media back off.
The second reason: Once the Democrats have trashed their front runner for Chris Matthews' choice, will Matthews go after Obama for his conservative choice? I see this as clearly as Obama won on Thursday. It is called divide and conquer -- the Democrats are more easily maintained if factions are set against each other, and not allowed to beat the socks out of the Republicans.
I think MSNBC have gone too far. They should not be allowed to actively influence the Democratic process as much as they do. I am a "who can beat the Republicans" supporter. I would like to find out who is the best without the hidden agenda of the right-wing media. Until the Democrats stop responding with repeating the media spin, the Democratic primary process will be tainted and not allowed to pick the best choice for beating the Republicans in the general election. This media influence has got to stop.
Joseph
Read more >> Options >>Very well written and cogently thought out. I applaud you for getting to the heart of the matter so succinctly.
Let's see. The pundits who were on their knees for Bush up until recently are disqualified from assessing the current crop of candidates. Doesn't Matthews ever get any feedback on how awful he is? Maybe, Olberman should start going after him on a nightly basis. There's enough material.
When Hillary was 30 points ahead nationally for many months she was faulted for being 'inevitable'. Even before the Iowa caucuses, Obama was being crowned 'King of the World'. Hillary winning the nomination would be a powerful lesson for the pundits but they won't learn.
There's something terribly wrong with me. I listened carefully to Obama's acceptance speech and ........................? I think the audience was 'prejudiced' in that they were going to cheer the reading of the phone book. Hope and change. Hope and change. Hpoe nad cahnge. Ugh. Put that speech on uTube and if he wins, he can just replay it at his inauguration. What else could he say at that point?
The lesson, one supposes, is that the best known, best funded, least exciting, and least inspirational can still win as long as they convince people to be afraid to vote for anybody but them?
And if Obama wins? What is the lesson? A well-funded, incredibly talented and smart candidate can beat one of the most well-known people in the world with a message of hope rather than fear-mongering? That such a candidate can bring new people into the process and, for once, actually get them to participate?
I'll take hope and change over 9/11 and torture.
I just find it entertaining that pundits and posters here hyperventilate about the caucus results, then add that the early caucus results of previous campaigns had very little relation to the ultimate election results.
And they all talk as if they're doing science, while setting up all sorts of "I told you so" scenarios no matter what the results.
Especially those who are really obsessed with Hillary Clinton, meaning , generally, conservatives.
We are beyond compromising and triangulating, aka the Clintons. Our DNA as a Nation requires we STAND FOR SOMETHING. As an African-American woman, I wanted to pull the lever for Hillary. However, she has been in the elitist bubble for far too long. There is no ENERGY coming out of her campaign -- or those around her, including the narcissistic Bill. Chelsea's REFUSAL to answer a small child's question -- while simultaneously asking for our time, money, vote for HER mother -- is part of the bubble. Chelsea is an ADULT and a little grace was/is in order. Growing up in the elitist bubble translated in that moment of REFUSAL. It is not her fault. The sickening Chris Matthews has more than enough information at his disposal to NOT replay 2000 again -- where he did the same thing to Al Gore -- while pushing George Bush, who he acknowledges he voted for. I made my decision to vote for Mr. Obama this week based upon his ability to pull Republicans, Independents and Democrats together in Iowa - and our excited our youngsters about participating in the process that will determin THEIR future. Mrs. Clinton's entorage spoke volumes when she graciously accepted defeat Thurs. night. George W. Bush also came with one, and they and their sense of entitlement, righting perceived previous wrongs, etc. have done us severe HARM. This is a new world and Mrs. Clinton's careful ju-jitsu regarding the War lacks LEADERSHIP and put political expediency before what New Yorkers wanted. No more compromises. The Clinton's friends Democratic Leadership Council include the (now defacto/closet Republican) former VP candidate of 2000 from CT. We need to KNOW where our candidates stand...and we need to STAND FOR OUR IDEALS once again. Barack Obama has already provided LEADERSHIP for us to remember what they were. We need LEADERSHIP, not MANAGEMENT. No more CEO Presidents. Take a look at Wall Street. Dah?
"We are beyond compromising and triangulating, aka the Clintons. Our DNA as a Nation requires we STAND FOR SOMETHING."
"No more compromises."
"I made my decision to vote for Mr. Obama this week based upon his ability to pull Republicans, Independents and Democrats together in Iowa"
The cheap smear of Chelsea notwithstanding, do you see the contradiction of talking about no compromise while acknowledging the kind of inherent compromise it takes to pull Republicans and Democrats together? It's a small sticking point of course and I share your dislike of candidate Hillary. I just don't see Obama as any more Progressive or Liberal than Hillary.
However exciting Barack is, and he is an exciting speaker and persona. Just know that his whole appeal is that of a great compromiser. And if you look at the track record of how Republicans and the corporatists "compromise" you might want to reconsider the value of a compromising Democrat.
Having said that, I will support Barack if he gets the nomination. I'll just do it with more trepidation than some.
Clinton supporters are grasping for straws here ....
most intelligent liberal democrats think for themselves and don't watch these idiots anyway.
Hilary lost my vote by FOLDING to the military establishment on Iraq and Iran ...
I am very scared about what she would wind up doing to prove she is "man enough" if elected.
It's about what she has done vs what people say about her. As she so rightly puts it - her "experience.
Obama or Edwards would be a much better president.
Hilary is so far right that we might as well vote for McCain ... sticking with no child left behind! disgusting!
This is a little off subject but did anyone catch the Democractic debate last night on ABC and the curious exchange between Charles Gibson and the canidates concerning the surge? CG actually dropping his facade of objectivity and defending the surge as a sucess despite the lack of political reconciliation which the surge was to give time for, despite the precarious calm that even our military commanders say could disrupt into a fire storm of unrest at any second, not to mention that Iraqi's and soldiers are still dying and great economic and social problems still exist and are exacerbated by our illegal occupation of this nation. Gibsons exhange with the Democratic canidates was contentious and over the line just as Matthews attempt to portray Hillary as some coniving thug. I don't know what can be done about this other than to educate ourselves and others and not fall for the conservative BS of a liberal media bias. Also as more people move to the left the medias defence of the status quo shows just how bought out, sold out whores to corporatocracy they are, and the people will demand change, or turn to other sources of information that represent their interest. Happy New Year ! The fight continues!
This is a little off subject but did anyone catch the Democractic debate last night on ABC and the curious exchange between Charles Gibson and the canidates concerning the surge?
It was really funny. Gibson actually thought he would put the dems on the spot because they all opposed the surge and now that it is working what do they have to say. Every candidate scoffed at him. It's amazing that a national network announcer is so clueless.
Pimply faced teenagers on the web show more comprehension of reality than this announcer.
Based on what I've seen of Matthews and Yes, I do watch his show, I don't think he meant anything by it. He was being funny. You all need to just get off the dumb crap and report more serious stuff.
-Chuck
Ooops... just realized I had not updated my info here...
it's fixed now!
What is the more serious stuff?
It's not just Vince Foster. There are dozens of people associated with the Clinton Crime Family who died under extremely suspicious circumstances:
http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html
Stranger, and getting stranger.
I just died of boredom from your wingnut talking point.
Oh my gosh you have just posted a list that has been repeatedly debunked as bogus email spam. Go to www.snopes.com.
I would expect better than this from the usual quality of posters found here at MMFA.
The Stranger demonstrates far less than the usual quality of posters at MMFA.
Hey Stranger, get back under that bed otherwise I'll be forced to call the Clinton Crime Family on you.
More from Matthews is less: if he loses his show, what will they do with the booby?
“Et Tu Tweety”: Chris Matthews, Barack Obama and the Art of the Backhanded Compliment.
Did anyone catch this? On the January 3rd edition of Morning Joe and
several times later that day, on MSNBC, Matthews stated the biggest news story, worldwide, would be a win by Obama in Iowa.
He implied that Obama’s victory would be viewed by people all over the world as a repudiation of the Bush Administration’s militaristic foreign policy.
He alluded to to Obama;s campaign as the hunger for Hope: of national unity, problem-solving and new renewed confidence in popular government. In his remarks about the Peace Corp, he toughed on something Senator Obama's supporters believe that an Obama Presidency could mean, a History changing event which would be evidence of America’s commitment to its cardinal moral principle and our preeminent political ideal, Equality, both here at home and throughout the World.
Yet, he later called him, a continued during the day, a “Son of Kenya” and that Kenya was “a nation in amazing turmoil”. He was born in Hawaii. Why would he want to draw a connection with Obama political success to ongoing genocidal massacres and ethnic rioting in East Africa?
Later, during the caucus reporting for MSNBC, he did a segment with Andrea Mitchell. Matthews used the political cliché in talking about someone else’s relationship to a special interest group as “Who they go to bed with”, but then he did a rapid seque into the fact that Obama’s parents are bi-racial (his mother is white and I believe she was born in Iowa).
I could not believe he was reaching for those connections. It was like watching Kevin Nealon’s SNL character “Subliminal Man”, celebrating Obama’s as a historic transformational figure and then, during the day, giving subtle hints at some of the worst and most destructive fears of our American collective unconscious - race riots and miscegenation.
I thought this man was well known for being one of Tip O’Neil’s lieutenants, but now he seems like a speechwriter for the Jesse Helms campaign against Harvey Gant. Perhaps Tweety is channeling the spirit of a reminiscing Lee Atwater pining away for his glory days of planning the “Willie Horton” ad campaign?
Speaking as a Democrat, these and similar comments by Bob Kerry, Bill Clinton, and the noise made by the usual and nauseating suspects on Right-Winger Radio, can prepare us for what will be the inevitably more prejudiced and more vicious attacks by the “Bigots-R-Us” factions of the Republican Party and Corporate Media against our best candidate, Senator Obama.
widlewis-Indianapolis
January 8, 2008