Matthews on Clinton's performance: "good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway"
SUMMARY: During MSNBC's coverage of the New Hampshire Primary, Hardball host Chris Matthews said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's performance during a January 5 Democratic presidential candidates debate: "I wasn't clear at all that she won it. But maybe she was good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway." He further stated that the 2008 presidential election is "a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president."
During MSNBC's coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire Primary, Hardball host Chris Matthews, responding to exit polling regarding women voters, asserted of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (NY) performance in the January 5 Democratic presidential candidates debate at St. Anselm College, "I thought the debate Saturday night, and I was in the room, was a draw. I wasn't clear at all that she won it. But maybe she was good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway." Matthews continued, "By the way, we keep forgetting, this is the first campaign a woman can actually win the presidency in, ever. So it's just as striking as a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president."
After Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown, noted that "there was a survey of girls who thought -- 40 percent of them thought they would not see a woman president in the next 10 years and still some large number, 30-35 percent, thought they would never see a woman president? That's from five years ago," Matthews asserted, "Well, there's only one candidate still. And even one -- there's not even another on the horizon. Where are the governors? Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one." Four of the last five U.S. presidents had previously been governors, and several of the men currently running for president are or have been governors. But Matthews did not mention that several of the states that currently have women governors are comparable in population to the states in which the male candidates serve or have served as governor. A Media Matters for America analysis of 2006 U.S. Census population estimates indicated that:
- Massachusetts, where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney served as governor, had an estimated population of 6,437,193. By comparison, Christine Gregoire (D) serves as governor of Washington, a state with an estimated population of 6,395,798; and Janet Napolitano (D) is governor of Arizona, a state with an estimated population of 6,166,318.
- Arkansas, where Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee served as governor, had an estimated population of 2,810,872. By comparison, M. Jodi Rell (R) is governor of Connecticut, a state with an estimated population of 3,504,809; and Kathleen Sebelius (D) is governor of Kansas, a state with an estimated population of 2,764,075.
- New Mexico, where Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson serves as governor, had an estimated population of 1,954,599.
Matthews mentioned that Jennifer Granholm (D), the current governor of Michigan, a state with an estimated population of 10,095,643, is constitutionally ineligible to run for the presidency since she was not born in the United States. Other incumbent women governors include: Linda Lingle (R), governor of Hawaii, a state with an estimated population of 1,285,498; Ruth Ann Minner (D), governor of Delaware, a state with an estimated population of 853,476; and Sarah Palin (R), governor of Alaska, a state with an estimated population of 670,053.
From the 10 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 8 New Hampshire Primary coverage:
OLBERMANN: Lee Cowan at Obama headquarters and he's right about the women: 47-34, Clinton over Obama. And Chris, in Iowa, of course, that was 35-30 Obama over Clinton. And when you ask where John Edwards was, we're waiting for his comments in a few moments. Obviously he's not going to win this. It will be very interesting to see what he says this night compared to what he said in Iowa after the strong second-place finish there.
MATTHEWS: Well, this was fairly predictable until a week or so ago. The Democratic Party is still driven largely by women, issues like health care, education, child enrichment, parental issues like Social Security and Medicare. The Democratic Party has made those issues its preserve. Those are the ones they're primarily interested in.
OLBERMANN: What was number one in the exit poll for both parties tonight? It was the economy.
MATTHEWS: Right. Well, that's of interest to every family, by definition.
OLBERMANN: All right, fine.
MATTHEWS: But clearly, Hillary Clinton -- well, we're going to know more because we're going to get more anecdotal information over the next couple days of people who saw her on television break down to some extent. She did not break down. She had an emotional --
OLBERMANN: Teared up. Teared up is the easiest way to describe it.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Possibly watered up a bit. But I think that was it. And I have to say that I thought the debate Saturday night, and I was in the room, was a draw. I wasn't clear at all that she won it. But maybe she was good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway.
By the way, we keep forgetting, this is the first campaign a woman can actually win the presidency in, ever. So it's just as striking as a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president.
OLBERMANN: What was the number from just five years ago, six years ago, that there was a survey of girls who thought -- 40 percent of them thought they would not see a woman president in the next 10 years and still some large number, 30-35 percent, thought they would never see a woman president? That's from five years ago.
MATTHEWS: Well, there's only one candidate still. And even one -- there's not even another on the horizon. Where are the governors? Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don't exist. Michigan, she's a Canadian. She can't make it.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, Governor Granholm. That's right, she's ineligible. Unless we change the, you know, Schwarzenegger rule to bring her in as well.
MATTHEWS: That would be the Schwarzenegger-Granholm rule, I think you'd have to call it.
OLBERMANN: All right. We haven't checked in with Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow going head-to-head on the issues in a little while. Let's bring them back in now. Pat, what about this still-too-close-to-call Democratic race and the shift, particularly for women from Iowa and how they voted for Barack Obama handily there, to how they voted for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire?
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC analyst): This is an astonishing development. Look, the pollsters were dead wrong. They were predicting seven, eight to a dozen points for Obama. The press was dead wrong. We had virtually canonized Obama and said he'd been born in Bethlehem, and now you've got a race where Hillary Clinton is running three or four --
MATTHEWS: I don't think you were on that list of apostles.
BUCHANAN: -- three or four points ahead of this fellow. Something has happened. There is a hidden vote here somewhere, or my guess is this: The New Hampshire voters said, look, the press has been telling us Obama's the second coming. We don't think so. The press has been telling us she's gone, and the women came out and said, no, she's not. What New Hampshire did was stand up and body slam the national establishment, the press corps, the pollsters, the whole bunch that came in here, as well as Barack Obama's folks, who must be in a state of shock tonight.
RACHEL MADDOW (Air America host): Pat, I will tell you that on the influential -- influential perhaps on the left -- website Talking Points Memo today, you want to know who they're blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they're blaming for this late showing in a big vote for Hillary Clinton? They're blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing specifically Chris not only for his own views, but also for as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton.
MATTHEWS: Which website is this?
MADDOW: This is talkingpointsmemo.com. And it's -- you're being cited anecdotally, not statistically.
MATTHEWS: My influence in American politics looms over the people. I'm overwhelmed myself.
MADDOW: People feel that the media is piling on Hillary Clinton. They're coming to her defense with their votes.
Matthews disgust toward her was showing all night
I hope you saw his nonsense this morning, on Morning Joe, when he "analyzed" how Hillary came to be where she is now. I'm waiting for MM to cover it, but it was incredible.
I boycott Morning Joe. MSNBC should have had an African American on that show or been named the host after the Imus debacle. Instead they gave the job to that moron Scarborugh, I watch GMA and Today and sigh.
So they should've given someone a job based on their race?
Yes, to reflect the diversity that exists in the audience. (The MSNBC audience, not Scarborough's audience.)
Why does race matter in reporting the news?
That morning slot is not a news report, it's a commentary program. So the host is not a news reader but a commentator and opiner.
I saw it, and I agree. It was truly repulsive.
Then I listened to a few minutes of Air America Radio, which is about as pro-Hillary as Fox NewsChannel. The piling on is coming from both left and right, and it's just sickening.
I agree. DailyKos is anti-Hillary, Michael Moore is too. What the hell, I've never seen this before. I've never seen such a coordinated attack.
And yet she won NH. The people speak.
Matthews disgust and disrespect for women in power has been showing all his career. I think he’s had a few too many ruler cracks across the knuckles from them nuns in grade school.
My disgust with Tweety is more like 24/7.
Matthews did seem obviously annoyed by Clinton's win, boy does he hate the Clintons. I thought Tom Brokaw was right on the money when he said it’s the people that will decide this thing and we will ignore what the paid jabberers say. The pundits got it wrong and they should just fess up and for God sakes I wish they would take the intensity down a notch. I don't support Clinton at this stage of the process, but she is correct when she said this isn't a game for the entertainment of TV political pundits. That said, I was really disappointed that my choice Barak Obama didn't pull that projected victory off last night; nevertheless, the race was extremely close and he's still in it.
I really don't think either comment listed was biased at all. There are polls that show women voters do take at least an interest in the fact that a particular candidate is also a female.
The 2nd comment, how is that not completely true for women likely 65+? Anybody see a rising female star in either party right now? Pelosi has certainly peaked, Boxer has never showed much interest in the presidency and Olympia Snow ain't running anytime soon.
But are women voting for Hillary primarily because she's female ? Because that's what Matthews is implying if not directly stating. And what evidence do we have of that ? I'm a woman and I'm voting for Hillary because I think she's the best candidate. That she's a woman is icing.
So Talking points Memo is saying that Chris Matthews is responsible in part for Hillary's victory in NH?
So does MMFA agree, is the press, specifically Matthews', piling on her actually helping her? If that is the case, as I have asked here before, do they really want him to stop, or not? Hmmm....well, isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?
That's an interesting point. I do think that the likes of Matthews and co. will make people already backing Clinton a little more reluctant to switch to Obama. Nobody wants to feel, no matter how remotely, that they were influenced by the media's, especially matthew's, sycophantic coverage of Obama.
I've been warning Repubs here that the negativity is going to come back to bite them in the ass for months now - so I actually think you make a good point, Tommy.
The problem for the Republicans is, it seems to be in their blood and it's like they can't help theselves - plus, it's all the amo they've got.
Except matthews' coverage has nothing to do with republicans. He's been quite unambiguous in his childish adoration of Obama, thinking of him as the "second-coming." I like Obama too, but Matthews' literally worships him
You really think his Obama thing is anything other than disguised Hillary bashing? Matthews thinks he’s sly as a fox – he knows that by lifting up Obama he pulls down Hillary. In reality his old-school mindset still has him believing that Obama’s race makes him unelectable. So it’s plain to see the reason Matthews would rather see Obama as the candidate rather than Hillary. His real man-crush is, and always has been, Maverick McCain, who he feels has a better chance against the unelectable black guy - who are you kidding?
PJ, I think you may be on to something here about the motive behind Matthews gushing over Obama.
But Rudy is his current man-crush, McCain used to be ;-)
Well it's definitely "Anybody but Hillary".
I'm curious what the basis for that is. I don't think Matthews is a hardcore right-winger, I just think he can be a real idiot when he gets wrapped up in personalities over policies.
It's certain he dislikes Hillary, but I'm not sure that in itself leads to the conclusion that it's the only reason he supports Obama. Is that just a gut feeling, or are there things he's said that lead you to believe that?
Brab,
I know your question was for PJ but I'd like to take a stab at it. I think his motives might be 3 fold.
First, Matthews loathes Hillary [dislike isn't strong enough]. Now he claims he likes her as a person but you'd be hard pressed to buy that considering his nightly bashing of her. So I think he'd be happy with anybody BUT Hillary getting the Dem nomination.
Secondly, Matthews is a political junkie & easily excited-- I think he's caught up in Obamamania.
Thirdly, Matthews is big into political history, & the idea of a Black man who has been compared to as a combination of JFK RFK MLK being elected probably has Chris excited.
Brabantio: I'm curious what the basis for that is.
Basis? Who needs basis? I have as much “basis” for my hypothesis as Matthews has for his off-the-wall Hillary mindreading – and I think mine makes more logical sense, no?
Right, and matthews was the second gunman in 1963 too. This guy's about as clever as a 5 year-old. By his own expressions it's so easily apparent that he never thinks before he speaks. He just blurts out asinine, pointless opinions. Don't give him too much credit.
Well I have to agree with you here. It just seems that perhaps he pauses a second thinking, “Now what’s the most obnoxious thing I can say here”, before he opens his mouth – or maybe he’s just been overtaken by some frickin’ demon.
"Matthews' literally worships him"
Does that make Matthews a Muslim, too? Or a Heretic?
I'm thinking a hairy tic, but thats just me.
TOMMY:
It's not about "wanting them to stop."
Through Whitewater to impeachment to Al Gore's "sighs" and "exaggerations" to the "swift boats" and a thousand points in between, the rightwing have practiced attack politics, refined it, reveled in it.
To their minds, and through the results of elections, they have determined that going negative WORKS, that smearing sticks enough to be effective, and that character assassinations will continue apace.
What has HAPPENED is that the American People have actually gotten sick of it. They're seeing through the lies, they're paying attention to the TRUTH and recognizing distortions, and they are today REJECTING the rightwing spin on things.
It's about time.
This calls for the rightwing to make a choice; either continue more of the same, or to stop doing what's actually doing their cause harm. Once they have determined that their attack politics is HELPING their targets and HARMING their own side, they will quit on their own. Probably.
MMFA's role in this is to document the trend, put the TRUTH side-by-side with the various rightwing claims and tactics, and this has aided in the education process that is waking the American People up.
So, NOW the rightwing's negative attack campaigning is causing more harm than good. Should they STOP? That's up to them. We Liberals HATED it when the "Swift Boat" style lies seemed to matter to voters, and now of course we're delighted that the tactics are backfiring.
If they DO quit, it will make for a much more civil political process, and that will be a relief.
But I see no sign of the rightwing curtailing their attack strategy ... just listened to an hour of Limbaugh, and the misinformation, lies, distortions, and insults were flying a dozen a minute.
So, instead of HELPING their side, they are now HURTING. That's fine. They will continue, as long as they don't wise up to the reality that the time for negative campaigning has passed.
And MMFA will continue with the service of documenting and correcting all Rightwing misinformation. Works for me.
So Tex, do you want Matthews to stop his anti-Clinton skewering, or do you want him to keep at it, or do you not care one way or the other? I mean you, personally?
How about this: Matthews can comment on the stuff that's REALLY important, like Hillary's policies and plans, her performance as a Senator, her ability to act (as in "take action"), lead, and motivate others. Why is he never talking about this stuff and always subjectively interpreting personal trivialities ?
I'm here with you again ATHIEST. If I wanted gossip, I'd watch The View.
I think The View offers more facts than Matthews !
So, do you want Matthews to stop or not?
Or are you and the others just afraid to say No, you want him to keep at it, not only because you probably know it helps Hillary - but if you admitted as much, that would invalidate your criticism of him day in and day out here, so it's a darn pickle to be in, isn't it?
In other words, be careful what you wish for............
Fickle, anyone?
I don't think it helps her at all. I put myself in her position and honestly I don't know how she keeps it together. I've never hit anyone in my entire life but enduring what she's endured I would have surely punched Matthews' face.
I watch news channels to get news FACTS. I want Matthews to grow up and address real issues that voting adults are concerned with. There are plenty of political facts that he has thus far ignored in order to pursue his obsessive attacks on Hillary. If I want to watch gossip and dirt-dishing, I'll watch E!
He further stated that the 2008 presidential election is "a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president."
Its hard to disagree with Matthews about this and the numbers from NH show it was the female vote that gave HRC her close victory.
HI and AK may have women governors but they don't have the stature or support to mount a national campaign.
Sometimes Matthews is lucid, even poignant, but you really have to listen to a lot of crap to get to those moments.
Exactly. I know it's not up to MMfA to report his mistakes when talking about both sides of the aisle, but it seems like neither side likes this guy. Any conservative blog will say "Matthews is a liberal!!!" before their heads explode thinking about McCain being the nominee.
Exactly, Matthews blabs for hours and hours every week, and on these election night editions he goes on endlessly and shoots from the hip all night speaking so fast and furiously, going on about whatever is on his mind and doesn't edit much before it comes out of his mouth.
For his every word to be vetted for political correctness is flat out ridiculous, he gives it to everybody, his heroes are few.
This has nothing to do with political correctness.
Matthews isn't Chris Rock or Howard Stern, he makes a pretty good living as an influential opinion maker.
Those who disagree with his opinions or the way he expresses them should say so.
I think even Matthews would agree this is the way America works.
Those who disagree with absolutely should say so, but to hold his feet to the fire for every word he utters in hopes of marginalizing him into some hateful rightwinger, aka Misinformer of the Year, as he was here, I believe, is absurd.
Who would you have named Misinformer of the Year if not Matthews?
Gee, I'd have to really think about that.....?
The point is Matthews may be the Opinionator of the Year, but he is all over the political map when it comes to sticking it to all sides. He may have his favorites, and ones he doesn't like - but he is a commentator, not some robotic entrenched partisan hack who doesn't dare criticize one side or the other, much like Limbaugh and others.
Don't you find that a tad refreshing?
Clinton being a woman may very well be a positive attribute in the minds of women voters, but I hardly think, and utterly hope, that that' wasn't the determining factor in the large women support for hillary last night.
Speaking anecdotally, I know a few "elderly" women who support Clinton, much to my dismay, and none ever mention the fact that she's a women. She is a liberal candidate who has long had the support of the party base.
Frankly, I think it's just an insult for that jackass Matthews to feign to know what's in the minds of voters. Like this morning, when he said new yorkers elected HC senator singularly because they felt bad about her marriage situation. He does much of the same when he speaks of Obama supporters, but this time in terms of race
Does he make analogous comments about elderly black voters, voting for Obama simplye because he's (half) black ? Probably not, because his target is Hillary and Hillary only.
I think Matthews and the other Hilary-hating blowhards revel in their egotistical presumptions that they can sway the voters. They were proven wrong last night and now they are grasping for excuses, which invariably portray the voters as idiots.
To add my two cents to this article, it's interesting to see the break-down of those who supported each of the Democratic front-runners. Obama seems to be preferred by independents, and it's interesting to see how women will continue to choose between him and Hillary. He enjoyed their support in Iowa, but they switched back to Hillary in New Hampshire. Check [link to www.projectweightloss.com] for an interesting and somewhat unusual survey of the characteristics of each of the Democratic candidates' supporters.
Why did you lead me to a weight loss web site ? Are you saying I'm fat ????
Yeah, Pelin, what was that about. I was just getting a positive body image.
Chris Matthews has become the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC. The democrats have a fine lineup of candidates and we deserve more facts and less personal ranting and raving. Reporters aren't there to pit one good candidate against another. No wonder we get confused and simply turn off...
I think you're off base with the BillO comparison. Matthews is often wildly wrong about both liberals and conservatives, and BillO is basically naive about life at best and a liar at worst.
I will question Matthew's assertion that women picked Hillary because for some its their last chance to see a woman elected.
A. We have just witnessed pundits trying to predict something and failing
B. As far as I know Matthews has yet to show any telepathic powers. Therefore how does he know why these women voted the way they did? Maybe they liked what Hillary said?
C. His dismissive tone, like he was saying, "they only voted that way because they felt they were required to vote for Hillary." It seemed to me he might have just come out and said, "women are stupid and can't be trusted to vote intelligently."
D. His long term dislike of Hillary and the Clintons in general.
Except that, according to the quote provided by MMfA, Matthews didn't say that the older women were voting FOR HILLARY because it was their last chance to see a woman elected in their lifetimes, he just said it would be the last opportunity for that to happen in older women's lifetimes.
I disagree. I think he WAS saying that some women will vote for Hillary because it's their last chance to see a woman President:
So it's just as striking as a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president.
Notice that he's making a subjective statement from the women's point of view, about what they might be thinking, he's not making a generic factual statement.
Well, I never said he wasn't being subjective =->
I dunno, it is the most likely opportunity for a woman to be elected president so far in this country's history. I think we're all in a PC catch-22 here: We don't want to assume women will be more likely to vote for a female candidate, but it seems a farce to outrightly deny the strong possibility.
I may be in a minority, but I’m all for Affirmative Action. I would vote for Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich. Of these, only 3 have a chance of actually being elected. If the 3 remaining were equally qualified (and I think they are) I would vote for either the woman or the black guy just because neither “minority” has previously had the opportunity to be elected president of The United States. Just my 2c – and I bet there’s a few other like-minded voters to make that worth at least a couple bucks. -J
The basis of Matthews theory is pretty stupid to begin with. If a voter "wants to root for somebody", that would be their favored candidate.They don't have to look for an excuse to vote for that person.
The implication is that women are "rooting" for HC based solely on her sex, but she is obviously so unqualified that these voters need some sort of reinforcement.
With Clinton leading by four points, with sixty percent of the vote in, Matthews was telling Olbermann that the Clinton's were going to spin this as a "Victory" when she eventually loses by eight points. He then went on to say, "That's what they do, they're all spin." Basically, when everybody else was talking about Clinton pulling off a major political upset (including Fox), this turkey was still in denial to the facts and his own exit polling (which showed that Clinton got the majority of women voters and women voters amounted to 57% of all voters) and talking about a major Obama victory in New Hampshire.
Good catch Edgar, which opening did Matthews use to spew that little gem out?
At least he got one thing right, Clinton DID spin it as a victory. :-)
Edgar is right, when it became obvious that the race was much closer than anyone thought it would be, Matthews went into a sneering "watch the Clintons spin this into a moral victory now" mode which lasted all the way up to the moment his network had to call the race for Hillary.
This morning, Air America and the Clinton haters on the Left (everyone on that network LOATHES Hillary) are smirking "hey, Clinton was ahead by twenty points in NH two weeks ago, she wins by two points and calls it a victory, haha what a load of bull blah blah blah..." not just sour grapes, but dishonesty thrown in too- totally ignoring that NH was close for weeks before the primary and then their favorite, Obama, seemed to surge way ahead.
The media is clearly pissed that they aren't being allowed to dig Hillary's grave yet, and that they were so wrong last night, I fully expect them to continue to take out their frustration on her. I could barely listen to news channels this morning, they were all the same- Hillary Still Sucks.
Truth is, Hillary won, kudos to her, and her campaign for winning NH after being way down in the polls (I wonder who those folks polled anyway???).
The other truth is that both Clinton and Obama received the same number of delegates last night from NH, they both received 9. So even though Clinton "won", in the delegate race, they came out even.
Just something else to think about.
Oh, and Matthews is a blathering baboon.
If the women that CM is discussing were going to vote for her anyway, why is he making a big deal of this? It would only be a big deal if she changed minds, right?