About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

After vowing not to underestimate Clinton, Matthews asserted, "[T]he reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around"

January 09, 2008 4:34 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: During MSNBC's coverage of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, Hardball host Chris Matthews stated, "I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again." But Matthews asserted on MSNBC's Morning Joe the next day, "[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."

60 Comments

During MSNBC's coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire Democratic primary, Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- discussed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) victory and said, "I've seen her now address large crowds in the last couple of days -- thousands of people -- under tremendous stress when it looked like she was losing this primary campaign, based upon all the polling. And she stood out there for several hours at a time taking every question." Matthews went on to say, "I give her a lot of personal credit. I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again." But as media critic and blogger Greg Sargent noted, during an appearance on the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews said of Clinton, "Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened."

During MSNBC's January 8 primary coverage, Air America host Rachel Maddow said, "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." After Matthews responded, "My influence in American politics looms over the people. I'm overwhelmed myself," Maddow said, "People feel that the media is piling on Hillary Clinton. They're coming to her defense with their votes." Media Matters for America has written numerous items documenting Matthews' attacks on Clinton (recently here, here, and here), and published a study in December examining every evaluative remark Matthews made about Sen. Clinton or former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani during a three-month period. Media Matters found that, notwithstanding his claim that he had been "just as tough on Bill Clinton and Hillary and Rudy and the whole bunch of them," Matthews was particularly friendly to Giuliani and very hostile toward Clinton.

From the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

MATTHEWS: She's on game now. As I said, I'm not sure she had anything to do with her number last night, except that she was courageous as hell to the end, and her numbers were better than she thought.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Do you think, though -- and Joe's been talking about this, and his mom sent a really interesting email -- that there was a turn maybe at the last minute for some voters, given the really sharp twist in the media in terms of how they went negative?

MATTHEWS: It's not in the polling. I'm just saying it's not in the polling data.

BRZEZINSKI: I know. But, I mean, that's my point. Because people went to the polls throughout the day and maybe changed their mind and maybe were turned off by what they saw, by these nasty headlines.

MATTHEWS: Well, I don't know if they all read The New York Post, but --

BRZEZINSKI: And taking after her for crying.

MATTHEWS: Look, I think that may be true. I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about her mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it.

She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. In 1998 she went to New York and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously, but it was about the humiliation of Bill Clinton.

BRZEZINSKI: No, OK, well, you could take it a step back and say that she put Bill Clinton where he is and that he messed around, and then she was humiliated and people felt sorry for her.

MATTHEWS: That is Old Testament stuff.

BRZEZINSKI: Because she does have more than being a victim.

MATTHEWS: I agree.

BRZEZINSKI: She has more to her than being a victim.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hit me? Hit him, don't hit me.

JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): Mika is very upset. Chris, we'll be right back.

MATTHEWS: I'm sticking to my story.

From the 11 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 8 New Hampshire primary coverage:

MATTHEWS: Well, I've seen her now address large crowds in the last couple of days -- thousands of people -- under tremendous stress when it looked like she was losing this primary campaign, based upon all the polling. And she stood out there for several hours at a time taking every question, just like Bill did back in '92 in this same kind of in-the-round arena, exposing herself to just about every kind of question.

And of course, last night, before a hothouse crowd of thousands of people with the cars lined up for the longest time to get into that arena, she stood there and took the heat under what looked to be a difficult time, in terms of the polling again. And I give her a lot of personal credit. I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Sueelldd (January 09, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
         

      And this is as bad as a fellow MSNBCer saying Hillary played the "al -Qeida Card "?  I find that hard to believe.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by RoberttheP (January 09, 2008 4:42 pm ET)
           

        No it is obvious Olbermann gets a free pass from this site and many posters.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 09, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
           

        Well, who exactly do you think she was talking about if not al Qaeda?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RoberttheP (January 09, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
             

          So it is ok to scare Americans? have we not had enough of that for 8 years?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RoberttheP (January 09, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
               

            Now I do not think that is what she was doing, but I want your opinion.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by atheist (January 09, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
                 

              SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  I don‘t think it was by accident that al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister immediately.  You‘re hiring a president to be there when the chips are down.

              Obviously she was talking about Al Qaeda.  Apparently Olbmermann thinks it's improper for any candidate to mention them at all. 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 09, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
                 

              No it's not ok to needlessly scare people which is exactly what Olbermann was saying.

              I don't think MMFA necessarily disagrees with this and that's why KO's remarks didn't appear here.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by DorisRussell (January 09, 2008 5:07 pm ET)
                   

                I do not think HRC was engaging in that type of smear , nor was she trying to scare people. That Olbermann comment was unacceptable.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 09, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
                     

                  Honestly?

                  Cause to me it sounds a lot like Cheney in'04...

                  "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,"

                  They are fairly similar in their implication IMHO.

                   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tex (January 09, 2008 5:28 pm ET)
                       

                    OLD BEN:

                    I could've SWORN that Cheney statement was from 2000. It's an undeniably TRUE statement, if that's when he said it. Think about it ... 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 09, 2008 5:39 pm ET)
                         

                      No doubt.  Except that the quote is from a Sept. 2004 AP story.

                      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0907-10.htm

                      Of course he may have said similar things in 2000 at the Energy Policy meetings.  But then, we'll never know.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 10:06 am ET)
                           
                        In 2000, the American People DID make the right choice. They voted majority for Al Gore. Their judgment, however, was overruled by the 5 partisan "conservative" justices of the Supreme Court, who awarded the White House to George W. Bush. This was the WRONG choice. And, as Cheney warned, making that WRONG choice DID prove to be devastating to the United States.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 09, 2008 5:39 pm ET)
                       

                    There's a subtle difference between what HRC said and what Cheney said.

                    HRC said terrorist attacks have occurred when a government is transitioning and having the right person in charge during that transision is important.

                    Cheney said the attack occurs because of the choice voters make.

                    There are plenty of examples of terrorist attacks happening when there's no election or transition government so while HRC may have been technically correct in her limited statement, it wasn't the whole story.

                    Karl Rove would approve of both statements.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 09, 2008 5:56 pm ET)
                         

                      I see what you are saying, except the fact the "government" wasn't transitioning, they just changed leaders.  As I understand it "new" Labour is still the government of the day in the UK.

                      I just lump all such scare mongering together without regard to timing or alleged political reasons - they do it to gain or keep power.

                       

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (January 09, 2008 5:13 pm ET)
                     

                  But can you see why he would say it? The al-Qaeda card has been played to DEATH by Bush/Cheney so people are probably going to be leery when they hear the candidates playing it. People are tired of the politics of fear. Sure, what Keith said may have been in poor taste but he was making a valid point IMO.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (January 11, 2008 8:54 am ET)
           
        I heard Matthews on "Morning Joe" this morning (FRI), and he's defending this statement as being "historic FACT." Matthews states, AS FACT, "... the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York." What we have here is Matthews making a statement of FACT that he cannot be SURE is a FACT ... it's his "expert" assessment. His "assessment" is that SYMPATHY is the sole reason Hillary is the Democratic frontrunner today. THE SOLE REASON. So, the question becomes, the other factors Matthews discards ... is it fair to discard them as NOT being the deciding factor? Could it be, Hillary is the Democratic frontrunner today because she is competent? Appealing (to ENOUGH voters)? That her IDEAS are popular, once people see and evaluate her? That she is the BETTER CHOICE, given the field? Could it just be that, absent sympathy (this election, her campaign for NY senator, or her stumping for Schuemer), she could WIN on MERIT ALONE? The answer, of course, is that it certainly COULD be. Absent a "sympathy" factor, she may well have been winning ON HER OWN MERITS. So, is it likely sympathy IS a factor in her popularity? Sure. It's almost certain it is A factor. But to then make the leap that it is the SOLE factor is not a FACT, it is an OPINION. Matthews contends that his opinions are so informed, so steeped in historical knowledge, so tied to his vast experience in politics, that his OPINION becomes FACT. He is WRONG. He has overstated his case in a way that he cannot possibly be proven empirically correct. AND, he has discounted and dismissed factors that MAY WELL be the "deciding" factors, a contention he cannot empirically show to be false. Matthews thus states his OPINIONS as FACTS, and becomes a rightwing MISINFORMER through this arrogance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (January 11, 2008 8:56 am ET)
             
          [The MMFA posting instruction block above the insert copy block says: * Blank lines become paragraph divisions.] No, they don't. Not yet. Call in the TECH, MMFA!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by spooky3 (January 12, 2008 1:19 pm ET)
             
          Bravo, Tex. I would add the following: if Tweety were correct, all over the country, women would be rejoicing that they could get one of those cushy Senate jobs without having to do anything to earn one, let alone have to work harder than their competitors to overcome sexism fostered by the likes of the Tweeties of the world. All they'd have to do is ask their hubbies to do a little cheatin', then ask for forgiveness. Just look at how well it's worked, too; aren't about 51% of the Senators female?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (January 09, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
         

      And I will never underestimate how low Tweety will stoop with his narrow-minded, inane comments.  He needs to get fired by CNBC/MSNBC and go do something that he's more qualified to do - like flipping burgers at McDonald's.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by RABBITLUVR (January 09, 2008 4:39 pm ET)
         

      Wow, Matthews is ready for the rubber room now! He really is unhinged.

      Hey Tweety... I'm calling up St. E's for ya! You better be home tonight cuz the men in the white coats are coming to take you away, ha ha!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (January 09, 2008 4:43 pm ET)
         

      OMFG, SOMEONE TELL MATTHEWS TO STFU !!!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (January 09, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
           

        He can't... he's in full meltdown mode now. He's doing a Rush... I say let him continue. May they all self-destruct.

        This has got to be one of the most laughble things Matthews has ever said. He really CANNOT be that stupid, right? Or is he?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by atheist (January 09, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
             

          You're right.  I just realized that he's fliiping out  because he made a total ass of himself last night and his ego took a big blow.  He can't face the possibility that he's not as smart as he thought he was, so he's concocting every possible excuse.

          WTG Chris, continue to insult the voters and we'll all change the channel when we see your face..

          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (January 09, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
               

            Like I said in another thread... the media isn't deciding this election. New Hampshire proved that for both sides.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by atheist (January 09, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
                 

              I liked NH before, now I LOVE NH !

              (I'm gonna get me a I heart NH bumper sticker.) 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (January 09, 2008 5:00 pm ET)
                   

                Maybe, but we still have a long way to go. There are many more states, many more smears, many more lies, many more surprises in store. Anything is possible.

                AND... We still have to deal with the possibility, remote as it may be, that GWB won't go quietly when his time is up. He sounds more ominous now in light of this Iranian speedboat fiasco so we may have to deal with yet another war in the name of 'freedom' soon. What's to stop him from declaring a hold on this election so he can squeeze in a few more tidbits for his 'legacy'?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (January 09, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
                     

                  You win the conspiracy theory of the day award. :-)

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (January 09, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
                       

                    Anything is possible, AA. Not saying that it WILL happen... simply saying that anything is possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't try and twist it... doesn't work.

                    And even if it WAS a 'conspiracy theory' - which it isn't - it cannot be any more outrageous than the garbage being spewed by Matthews about Hillary and her reasons for being a Senator and winning in NH.

                    Report Abuse
            • Author by Lynn (January 09, 2008 5:07 pm ET)
                 

              Thank God, since the media was so instrumental in influencing the 2000 election when they became smitten with a dumb cowboy from Texas.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (January 09, 2008 5:01 pm ET)
             

          Is anyone monitoring this guy for mind altering drugs? He’s topping himself with stupid comments nearly day by day. I think you're right, RABBITLUVR - I really do think he’s in some sort of meltdown – what else could explain his stupidity? I’m so fed up I actually emailed MSNBC pleading with them to intervene before he goes over the edge (or has he already?).

          Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (January 09, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
         

      Part of the reason for this little tirade [which I saw this morning] & couldn't believe what I was hearing, is poor loser Matthews striking out because his guy Obama didn't win. And part is because Matthews loathes the Clintons.

      Chris I've always stuck up for you here, no more pal. You are a joke.

      Go Hillary!

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (January 09, 2008 5:06 pm ET)
           

        Hey Hey, CM is being a spoiled sport but Obama is my man and I can't hold it against him if a crazy TV political pundit prone to developing man crushes has fallen for my guy, GO OBAMA!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (January 09, 2008 5:21 pm ET)
             

          Hey Lynn,

          My Go Hillary is just my support for her against the idiocy of Matthews. I'm probably not voting for her...though ya never know. I'm giving ALL the candidates a chance to win my vote :-)

          Lynn, you have been telling me what a jerk Matthews is for ages, but I've always stuck up for him or given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't know if he's finally gone over the top, or I finally opened my eyes and ears.

          The guy isn't just a goof. He's an ass.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lynn (January 09, 2008 5:23 pm ET)
               

            He's getting worse. I find it very hard to take him seriously anymore, God I wish they would replace him with Tom Brokaw or something.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 09, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
         

      Yeah, this was a really bad low-blow. It doesn't change the fact that MMfA exagerrates about him sometime, but Matthews won't get any more defense from me.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by spooky3 (January 12, 2008 1:22 pm ET)
           
        How can simply reporting what someone says, and occasionally explaining what facts were left out or contrary to what was said--with full citations of sources--be considered "exaggeration"?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 09, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
         

      I spoke of these comments earlier on another thread.  It seems that everyone more or less concurs that Matthews is a consistent blowhard. But the worst part, now that I keep thinking about it, is that apparently nobody at msnbc ever holds his feet to the fire even though he routinely talks out his *ss.  It's not like his ratings are that great, or that he's some kind of respected journalist, like Brokaw or something.  How the hell does he go unchallenged when he so often makes asinine comments like this?

      And even more than going unchallenged, every other msnbc host invites him on their respective shows, treating him like he's some kind of political wizard. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (January 09, 2008 6:46 pm ET)
         

      Let's predict what Matthews' next outrageous excuse will be.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 09, 2008 7:08 pm ET)
           

        "The Clintons" bought votes by allowing all the googling women waiting in line to service Bill?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (January 09, 2008 7:08 pm ET)
         

      At this point I figure Tweety is just free associating and has given up all pretense of and attempts at making any sense at all.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by representativepress (January 10, 2008 9:19 am ET)
         
      see video: It's Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot
      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 10, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
           
        I can't see the video but I'm going to assume that Gravel's complaints are at least political in nature and not personal attacks against Clinton, complaints about her "crying", or any other inane subjective Hillary-bashing crap.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hm1342 (January 10, 2008 9:52 am ET)
         
      Matthews isn't my favorite commentator but I think his instincts are right on this one. His mistake was saying it in a public forum. And he wasn't the only one whose ego got a drubbing that night. It seemed that a lot of the MSM who lean Democrat were positively gushing and swooning over Senator Obama after the Iowa caucuses. More than one were invoking the "Three Ks": JFK, RFK, and MLK. Senator Clinton's victory really took the wind out of their sails. They all forget that one or two early (and over-hyped) contests does not an election make. Hopefully they got the message...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by What Happened to Gannon (January 10, 2008 10:37 pm ET)
         
      Perhaps Matthews hates Hillary because she uses the same color hair dye he does.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by chhabili (January 11, 2008 12:50 am ET)
         
      I remember that little boy on CNN, the boy with the bow tie, got fired after Jon Stewart took him to task for spreading lies in the media. I think that MSNBC needs to really put Chris Matthews out of business forever. This man is a hack, an egomaniacal know nothing, and a corrupt pundit to begin with. Why do we even have punditry on TV? Can this be outlawed?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gmitchell9824 (January 11, 2008 9:30 am ET)
         
      I wonder if he ever opined that Bush would never have been governor without his daddy, therefore would never have been president. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal. Matthews would never have been anywhere either, ie. had his show, if Clinton hadn't messed around. That's where he gained his "fame" so to speak by stirring that pot of bile
      Report Abuse
    • Author by darmada6903 (January 11, 2008 9:52 am ET)
         
      If Chris Matthews wishes to judge humilliation by a spouse, what does he have to say about the humilliation of Rudy Giuliani's former wife? Mr. Giuliani and his then mistress, Judy Nathan, were photographed holding hands and walking down the streets of NYC while his then wife and children were humilliated by having to see this on TV. Is he judging fairly or does he not give a damn if a man does it and his kids have to pay the price of his indecent actions?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by renata856 (January 11, 2008 11:55 am ET)
         
      Chris Matthews plays into a playbook the Clintons are familiar with and LEVERAGE. I don't like Chris Matthews language or tone. However, some focus needs to be placed on HOW Hillary Clinton, knowingly EXPLOITS playing the VICTIM to motivate (manipulate) and DISTRACT woman from focusing on her RECORD. She did this during the campaign in NY after the debacle in Washington w/Rick Lazio -- and, is now doing it again. She should also playing the WOMAN AS VICTIM card and submit herself to the process. She should stop deflecting and dodging and manipulating the media, herself. We cannot vote for a VICTIM as President of the United States at this time in our history. She always does this when it appears she may lose and it needs to stop. Women, you do not OWE Hillary your vote because of a legacy of historical discrimination. African-Americans are not playing that game this round. Note the absence of Jesse, Al, etc. Hillary was/is Bill Clinton's victim...not ours. We do not have to pay for HIS legacy. Don't fall into the trap we fell into here in NY State, ladies. Don't be used. Hillary, stop it and run on your RECORD...which you must show us immediately. Chris Matthews, stop falling into Hillary's trap...and separate your personal "stuff" from analysis. There is enough to analyze re the Clintons w/out augmenting it w/your bias. Stick to the facts. Dig for the RECORD.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lorelei (January 11, 2008 12:22 pm ET)
           
        Oh holy crap... all the candidates have websites anyone can go look at and see what they HAVE and HAVE NOT done. Hillary Clinton is just as good as the rest of them. They all run on the same topics.....its politics. Hillary has experience over all the others..she was in the whitehouse....none of the others were. She knows first hand how it works...none of the others do. Give me Obama's experience. So if you think you can tell women what to think..go ahead. Obama and Hillary can each try to get my vote with what they say in the run up to election.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nixau (January 11, 2008 12:12 pm ET)
         
      How can you compare a comment about a political tactic to Matthews constant smearing of women in general: if you are a strong woman you must be castrating someone, you must be shrill, calculating, nurse Ratchet, she devil? How is that in any way comperable to Olberman's Al Queda comment? Matthews is the problem, dumping any discussion of the issues in favor of ad hominem and unfounded smears of a woman's apperance, her dress, and some insane fear she's out to cut his balls off. Maybe he's just pissed because she has more balls than him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by virtue001 (January 11, 2008 12:32 pm ET)
         
      Matthews' point was what made Hillary a viable candidate for the senate was the strength and poise she displayed for all America to see through a humiliation that would have broken most women. His exact words were: "I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about her mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merits. She won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened." I find that hard to argue with. Because before her husband's affair, she was simply an arrogant presidential spouse with a failed national healthcare initiative, who claimed (like her husband) that he "did not have sex with that woman." And, in fact, he was being attacked as part of "a vast right wing conspiracy." Then the truth came out and she was humiliated. But it was most definitely the way that she carried herself through that humiliation that changed America's perception of her for the better. I, for one, can't argue with Matthews on this one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by spooky3 (January 12, 2008 1:26 pm ET)
           
        Tweety! Welcome to MMFA. And that's a very interesting username you've chosen for yourself.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by margph (January 11, 2008 1:51 pm ET)
         
      I am getting really tired of Chris Matthews mysoginistic comments about Hillary Clinton and his behavior toward her. Not only does he routinely use quasi-locker room references to her and other political women, he had the audacity to touch her face, tweaking her cheek, as she approached him recently. It was on tape and shown during coverage of New Hampshire. How dare he touch any woman on the face, let alone a US Senator --- especially one whom he regularly bashes. She had the good grace to stroke his cheek in return and greet him warmly. Were I in her shoes, I would have decked him. Somebody needs to get control of this man as he doesn't seem to be able to do it for himself. He is hurtful to all women when he disparages female leaders. I reject him as an objective news person.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by spooky3 (January 12, 2008 1:30 pm ET)
           
        Aww, how can you blame him? He was just following in the footsteps of his manly idol, W, who showed us the appropriate way to treat the Chancellor of Germany.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by handyguyny (January 11, 2008 1:52 pm ET)
         
      This item reads a bit more fairly than the very shrill "Action Alert" e-mail message I just received. It went out under Jamison Foser's name. Is he really responsible for it, with its extremely annoying repetition of "Had enough? Write MSNBC" multiple times? I was indeed prompted to write MSNBC to say I support [not necessarily agree with] Matthews and intensely dislike MM's take on this. I have defended MM many times against rightists who accuse it of one-sided character assassination. I hate to see MM live up to the caricature of its opponents. Matthews has a fast, loud mouth and he should be called on inaccurate and inappropriate statements. But this kind of shrill attack-dog stuff is unworthy of this site. I remain an admirer, just disappointed in this instance.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Shmendrik (January 11, 2008 2:18 pm ET)
         
      I think Matthews makes a reasonable point.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle pipelined88mainstream (January 11, 2008 2:39 pm ET)
         
      I sent this to MSNBC yesterday: I'm commenting on Hardball host, Chris Matthews. He has continued to rant and rail against Hillary Clinton in the most unprofessional manner. His comments have gone beyond fact into total fiction as witnessed by myself on the Wednesday morning January 9 comments he made on Morning Joe. He has such a penetrating voice that no one else could get a word in edgewise although Mika tried. I've heard him take off on Senator Clinton before, but never with the vitriol of this recent attack. He owes her and all Joe's listeners an apology. I am not a Clinton supporter....nor do I oppose her. I love the political process and am willing to wait and see what the next few months bring. About the Clinton win....I believe that her strong showing in New Hampshire was a reaction to all the piling on we've been fed by all the pundits. Shame on all of you. ___________________________________________________ Sent earlier this morning to Morning Joe: (NOTE: Chris Matthews was allowed to return to the show --Friday, January 11---to try to defend what he said on Wednesday, January 9....as if we didn't hear him the first time???....) About Chris Matthews...sorry, Joe, no pass for Mr. Matthews unprofessional attack on Senator Clinton the other day. The attack on Senator Clinton was discussed on The View and -- I only learned that a couple minutes ago on your show--but I already knew he had crossed the line. I heard AND saw Mr. Matthews foaming at the mouth when he talked about Senator Clinton....and that was the AHA moment that gave me a glimpse into what Mr. Matthews REALLY thinks. ______________________________________________ I think MSNBC has a "Don Imus" problem here....and they better address it.....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by virtue001 (January 11, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
         
      Why in the world would I ever listen to what Media Matters has to when comes to getting an unbiased opinion about ANY story regarding Hillary Clinton?

      Not only did Hillary Clinton help start Media Matters with former conservative David Brock in charge, she bragged about at a Daily Kos convention, stating the following:

      "We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely... in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."

      And people actually come to Media Matters looking for the truth? Oh pah-leeze. How dumb do you have to be NOT to figure out what’s going on here?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by meahbottoms (January 11, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
         
      Chris Matthews is just such a jerk towards Hillary Clinton. How does he come up with this stuff? One of the biggest chauvinists in television. He should be one of Keith's Worst Persons in the World every other day, except he works for MSNBC. The guy just hates women, cuts them off, treats the with such disrespect. I hate to see any influence he has on David Schuster, who is just a great reporter, but who is starting to mimic Chris. Chris Matthew's love affair with Giuliani is another thing that is really weird. Chris Matthews is losing his stature by just opening his mouth. His latest that Senator Clinton would not be where she is without her husband's affair is JUST REPREHENSIBLE, and he is just an awful person to say that. Does he think he can say anything and still keep his job? Well I sure don't watch him any more, nor does my husband. And I will never forgive him for what he did to Al Gore.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hm1342 (January 11, 2008 9:17 pm ET)
         
      Matthews isn't my favorite commentator but I think his instincts are right on this one. His mistake was saying it in public.  And he wasn't the only one whose ego got a drubbing.  It seemed that a lot of the MSM who lean Democrat were positively gushing and swooning over Senator Obama after the Iowa caucuses. More than one were invoking  the "Three Ks": JFK, RFK, and MLK.   Senator Clinton's victory really took the wind out of their sails.  They all forget that one or two early (and over-hyped) contests does not an election make.  Hopefully they got the message...
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.