Chris Matthews addresses firestorm
On the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews addressed the firestorm sparked by his comment about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) that "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."
From the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball. Well, we're in a time of a lot of frustration in this country -- Iraq, of course; the lack of health care for people who work every day; gas prices going up; the weakening economy that scares us every day -- and I come on here every night and try to wrestle with these frustrations, and also the changes in our country. We might soon have the first woman president, the first African-American president, or a man older than we've ever elected before. And of course, we always treat things here with hope -- our uniquely American hope that we can actually make things better, that we can make the greatest of countries, not only survive, but as [author] William Faulkner once said, "prevail."
In the midst of talking about all of this -- almost always without a script, and almost always on tricky subjects of gender and race, and right and left, and what's in our country's interest, and who I think is telling the truth, and who I think isn't -- I know I'm dealing with sensitive feelings. I've accepted all of this as part of the business I have chosen. This program, I am proud to say, is tough, fearless, and yes, blunt. I want people to react when I say something. I don't like saying things so carefully, so politically correctly, that no one thinks they even said anything.
What I've always counted on in all the wild, speeded-up conversations on Hardball, and elsewhere on television, is my good heart. I've always felt that no matter how tough I got, how direct, how provocative -- how purposely provocative -- people out there watching would know I was not out against them, that it was them I was rooting for, that while I was tough on individuals who sought to lead the country, I was not against the hopes we all have for a fair shake, in fact, a better deal for people who have been held back before we came along.
Some people whom I respect, politically concerned people like you who watch this show so faithfully every night, people like me who care about this country, think I've been disrespectful to Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. They point to something I said on MSNBC's Morning Joe the morning after the New Hampshire primary, that her election to the U.S. Senate, and all that's come since, was a result of her toughness, but also the sympathy for her because her husband embarrassed her by the conduct that led to his impeachment, because he, in the words I used, "messed around."
The truth of course is finer, smarter, larger than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton won tremendous respect from the country for the way she handled those difficult months in 1998. Her public approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s up to the 70s in one poll I looked at.
Why? Because she stuck to her duty; she performed strongly as first lady. She did such a wow of a job campaigning for Senate candidates, especially Chuck Schumer of New York, that she was urged to run for a Senate seat there herself. She might have well gotten that far by another route and through different circumstances, but this is how it happened.
The rest is history: how Hillary went up to New York, listened to peoples' concerns, and beat the odds, as well as the Republicans, to become a respected member of the U.S. Senate. So, did I say it right? Was it fair to say that Hillary Clinton, like any great politician, took advantage of a crisis to prove herself? Was her conduct in 1998 a key to starting her independent electoral career the following year? Yes.
Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say, in fact, normally like me. As I said, I rely on my heart to guide me in the heated, fast-paced talk we have here on Hardball -- a heart that bears only goodwill toward people trying to make it out there, especially those who haven't before.
If my heart has not always controlled my words, on those occasions when I have not taken the time to say things right, or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I'll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women -- of all people -- the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So, I get it.
On the particular point, if I had said that the only reason [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] has come so far is that he got shot down over North Vietnamese -- by North Vietnam, and captured by the enemy, I'd be brutally ignoring the courage and guts he showed in bearing up under his captivity. Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive.
Finally -- as if anyone doesn't know this -- I love politics. I love politicians. I like and respect people with the guts to put their name, their very being out there for public approval so that they can lead our country. And that goes for Hillary and [Sen.] Barack [Obama (D-IL)] and John and all the rest who are willing to fight to take on the toughest job in the world.
So, let's get on with the show. Whoa.
I was thinking the exact same thing !
I would like to see him apologize directly to Hillary.
He has to prove that his words have meaning...
Because it's not just the one comment. It's dozens of comments. I hope his words have meaning. America will be a better place if his words have meaning.
We'll see.
Exactly. The statement he apologized for was was only the tip of the iceberg as this site so clearly demonstates
His sexism isn't the only problem either. In 2000 he kept attacking Gore unfairly while swooning over the macho Bush. He kept repeating the lie that Gore had said he invented the internet, even after admitting he knew it was not true. He's an egomaniac and is very insecure about his own masculinity.
It will be a big mistake if people let up on him after this one lame apology.
Bush invented the INTERNETS!
Chris did not take Bush to task as he did with Gore.
I'm a forgiver. I give wrongdoers a second chance. So I, for now, accept his apology. Chris, like Imus has a long history of such comments such as the "Bill Messing Around" gave Hillary her success comment. Only Time... Will tell it like it is.
Chris says he has a good heart, speaks without a script and said "So I Get it"?-?-?
To that I say No No & No! Because he does have a script. It's indelibly inscribed in his Heart of Hearts where he hates the Clintons and always will.
Does he "Get it"? I believe what he GETS is that he must start ignoring his "Bad Heart" and speak with guarded words to stop his true feelings from becoming his script again.
Today on "Morning Joe" - On MSNBC - Host: Joe Scarborough and Guest: Patrick Buchanan held a Defend Chris Matthews Party, attacking Media Matters for censorship of the media.
They strongly defended Chris Matthews explaining why he is correct in all that he says. They praised his outrageous comments. Pat and Joe talked about how groups like Media Matters & Move-On are putting unfair pressure on the Media. Joe and Pat both labeled it Unfair Censorship of the Media. Joe also made a comment about Media Matters unfairly taking Media comments out of context.
A "Media Matters for America" TV & Radio Show should be established.
If the MMFA crowd was seriously concerned how MSNBC talk show hosts treat women, they shouldn't worry as much about Tweety as they should about Keith "Chicken n' Waffles" Uberdouche and his serial stalking:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/03/did_keith_olber.php
I urge everybody to take Matthews off your DVR/TIVO and let MSNBC know you are doing this. Hurt him where it hurts ... his ratings. Let's get rid of this Fascist ... once and for all.
The irony...it's dripping all over the place.
Not enough by far - he could barely bring himself to do this. The guy is a jerk and hasn't got enough substance to bring about an intelligent discussion so he hides behind the mantra of "hardball" in order to shout and be rude as hell. His bias has been exposed, acknowledged and does him so service at all.
I won't be tuning in again to hear his crap.
As a longtime viewer of Hardball & admirer of Matthews as a political analyst I had been put off & disgusted by some of his recent behavior including his remarks about Hillary Clinton.
It takes a big person to face his audience & own up to all of this. I accept it as sincere.
Yeah, but all of MSNBC has a big problem with Hillary Clinton. It's not just Matthews. Every night, Olbermann spends at least 20 minutes bashing or making fun of her-- she can't do anything right on Countdown, nor can Bill Clinton either. Every time he criticizes the Press, he's instantly accused of hurting her campaign by one or another of Olbermann's journalist colleagues, with little attention to the validity of his comments.
That's suspect as well. Those guys there-- they all have a problem with women. Tucker, Matthews, Olbermann, even Abrams. It's either Hillary doing wrong or it's Brittany Spears, obsessively.
I am pretty sure that's MMFA's goal everytime. That's "why they are here". They hold up the mirror to the stale rhetoric. Good for them.
Matthews admittedly showed a little hint of class with this apology. He could have attacked the messenger, like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, etc. The people who apparently will never learn a thing about stale rhetoric.
Wow, 20 minutes flat, and that sleazebag of bigotted stupidity already sent all six of his friends to 'accept' his glint-eye mince-mouth 'apology.'
Look, Matthews, as you seem to be reading MMFA closely: you are LOOOOOOZER. As in: go croak.
And for bankrupting the whole propaganda-catapulting enchillada, the continuing mystery is why anyone interested in real-world 'What's happening,' keeps sending any monthly Murdoch murder-money to fund Cable slit-your-throat, terrorize-your-life TV.
Just do cable kaput. (Guarantee: 200% improvement in writing comprehension, like, maybe making Comments Matter 4 U.)
Not even close...
Tweety's unapologetic "apology" was about as lame as they come.
The largest and smelliest plop of BS was his "And that's what it sounded like I was saying..."
Sounded like? Sounded like?! It's what you meant (then and still) and all the back-sliding in the world won't change it.
When Tweety addresses the types of comments MMFA has so thoroughly documented, then and only then should anyone believe he's gotten the message.
I won't hold my breath.
It was only a matter of time before Chris Matthews had to beg for forgiveness. Especially with Media Matters' God Son Keith Olbermann running MSNBC now. Keith doesn't want to upset his show's script provider.
Olbermann has never disgraced himself like Chris Matthews...
Not even close.
The comparison is just not valid.
Don't you think his Brittany Spears obsession is getting a little wierd? Has he ever focused on a MALE the way he focuses on her, almost every night?
He's much more subtle and intelligent than Matthews, but he's got a female problem as well. Think about it.
This is more like it.
Now if Limbaugh et al. will take the same pledge with a straight face.
I've always thought Matthews had something to say and couldn't understand why he went further and further off the rails.
Closing the tag.
I agree Eddy...
The corporate suits started to get nervous. They told Tweety he better get out there and tamp this thing down--NOW!
There's plenty of time to turn on the filth later. ...For now, we've got to get these people to go away. We've got refrigerators to sell.
Matthews - You dont get it!!!!!!! Its not the sexist remarks, stupid...Its just that - well - youre pretty incompetent as a TV commentator...You say that you LOVE politics and think thats a good enough reason for you to have a 1 hour show on cable news...Well the fat guy down the street from me loves football, but it doesnt qualify him to be a running back, QB or do play-by-play on National television...
Every job has responsibilities and boundaries...However, just because your ratings are in the gutter doesnt mean you automatically lose control of your emotions and smear a candidate for President because of your personal bias...
But, its more than that...I know youve seen the ratings - all the people that are watched and appreciated more than you(pssssst I wont tell anyone your show airs twice a day within a few hours to try and catch a few flies)..Lets see - John Gibson(even this ugly loser / awful hair beats you), Sheperd Smith, Lou Dobbs, Larry King, bill O'Reilly, Hannity/Colmes....etc... Except you dont take your anger out on them...But you take it out on...
Bill and Hillary Clinton...Why? Well, you started your career w/ Carter. Brought Tip O'Neill - Doughnuts, Coffee and Whiskey...Saw Carter lose to Reagan, saw Mondale lose, saw Dukakis lose...etc..But Bill Clinton was Governor for 14 years - won 2 terms as President...Hillary won 2 terms as US Senator and is in the top 2 of the Dem nomination.
Simply put - You HATE winners cause youre a LOSER!
You're right Wolfe...
He didn't address much of anything. His history of filth is so overwhelming he didn't dare address it. He wanted to apppease the corporate suits who told him to make some sort of gesture.
Talk about Castrato...........
Actually this obsession is bordering on the psychotic.
Why is Matthews not entitled to his opinions? (That, of course, is rhetorical. It's because you do not like them.) It smacks of Fascism.
Why is Keith "Chicken n' Waffles" Uberdouche allowed to spew the most vile, unreasoned nonsense, and lie after lie..(Here's another whopper that he was caught in http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2008/01/caught_on_tape.php)..but Tweety cannot express his views/ (Again...rhetorical question)
Ain't is something that the Nevada courts smacked down Hill's attempts to disenfranchise minorities there?
Chris Matthews, as a little boy caught breaking a neighbor's window:
"I understand that many people have been brought to believe that I may have been partially responsible for the damage done to a certain window. I accept full responsibility for my part in fostering the perception that I played a role in the breaking of said window. If any of you perceive me to be an agent involved in the damage done here, I am truly sorry for the role I may have played in fostering that perception."
Give me a break (no pun intended.) Typical non-apology Apology. And now back to slobbering over John McCain's "gorgeous" wife or commenting on Hillary's nasal screech.
Back in the first few months of "Hardball," Matthews engaged in gratuitous bashing of Democrats. He said (to paraphrase) he knows all about what they're like from his youth in Philadelphia: party bosses would go around telling people who to vote for, and like drones, Democrats would do what they were told. And, he didn't think anything had changed.
That was a prelude to his blatant pro-neocon Republican, anti-Howard Dean and John Kerry bias before, during and after the 2004 election; his fawning over John McCain and gushing over the mere possibility of Rudy Giuliani running this year, long before Giuliani actually declared his candidacy.
Rarely have I seen a talking-head pundit so egotistically full of himself with less reason. No surprise, then, that his "apology" to Hillary Clinton comes off more like a promo for himself than a mea culpa for putting his foot in his motormouth.
The Sorry Defense
Saying I am sorry reminds me of the honesty defense. Under the virtue of something noble, Chris Matthews is trying to gain forgiveness for his many transgression against Hillary Clinton
Honesty and saying your are sorry is no more acceptable defense then using rationalization, displacement or projection. It is, in the many defenses against anxiety, just another defense to save one self from feeling “bad.”
Maybe Matthews has scene the candidates get away with this line of defense, so he decided to use it for his own problem. Recall Barack Obama disclosed he used drugs as a young adult. Every time other candidates dare use this disclosure against him, there seemed to be this shared agreement, since Obama was being honest, criticism is off limits. It should not be, if everyone is to be held responsible for what they do. We have not heard the last of this issue. In the general elections, the Republicans will let Obama know what his honest brings: Fresh talking points in which to knock him over the head with.
Joseph
Ladies and Gents,
I have a few words for the Crowd.
I have been Blogging since February 2007. I started after I had a falling out with some Church leaders. I choose to write about Politics, because like many of you I was very disappointed in this idiotic Presidential Administration.
I began watching MSNBC after getting fed up with CNN.
I respect Chris Matthews, Here's why. He doesn't take any bullsh!t from anyone, at all. irregardless if it's Right, Left or whatever else. He doesn't let them snowjob the guy. He's isn't far right or far left. He's straight down the middle. and he tells it like it is.
I believe sometimes, Chris says stuff and it doesn't click that it's offensive. He's human, he makes mistakes.
Chris Matthew's is the only person that I've seen on Both MMFA and Madia Research Center and they weren't praising him, that's for sure.
So, as a Right of Center, let's cut Matthew's a little slack eh? He's out there doing what we cannot. and that's getting the facts out there.
I think that he was just as sincere as he could possibly be.
Let's back off and see if he keeps it up.
Chuck
I appreciate your perceived sincerity, but please...
Read the Media Matters report on Chris Matthews for Sep, Oct and Nov--10 times as many negative comments for Hillary as for Rudy. Come on, man--10 times as many!
I respect you Chuck, but filth is filth. Scum is scum. It's sad, but that's what it is. We have to look at it. This is what the corporate media is feeding us.
Chris Matthews will never get that. He thinks he is just telling it like it is. Problem is he is only speaking his own truth which can be summed up in the very telling remark he made some time ago about Hillary Clinton - "I hate her, I hate everything about her".
What a bizzarre, stupid statement.
He thinks that his large heart somehow excuses his history of derogatory statements, his turning discourse into circus? He thinks that calling his show "blunt" will make people forget he yells over people, won't let them finish, frames the debate in a dishonest way, and often gets his facts wrong? He thinks it is okay to make inflamatory statements to get a charge out of people? (He Chris, many dim-witted internet users do the same thing. They are called trolls, don't have their own TV show, and do not get paid millions of dollars.)
He says he loves politicians, but not only is that a stupid statement (some politicians are crooked and are liars), but it is also untrue. He loves *some* politicians. He "hates" Hillary, and has done everything on his show to make her look bad. Now he wants us to forget all this because "he has a good heart."
Last, he wants people to like him. But as a commentator, that is not what he should want. If he wants people to respect him, then maybe he should try doing his job, and actually doing in depth shows rather than conducting dishonest, slanted yelling matches.
Oh, I see. You come in here with a well-reasoned post urging us to "cut Matthews a little slack"- and when a poster doesn't instantly accept your argument and fall in line, you resort to profanity. Way to show your true colors, there, Chuck.
Here's a clue for you: If you want people to take you seriously, keep the language civil. If you want to be labeled just another mindless troll who can be ignored, keep writing posts like that last one.
That was no apology. That was 'I'm a good guy, you all know that, I wasn't really clear enough, I'm for the little guy, etc.'
What a crock.
It's not just his assaults on Hillary Clinton and general treatment of women. It's also his sloppy substance free babbling.
Everytime I've watched him I always end up wanting to throw something through the TV set.
This is a disturbing "apology".
Because Matthews wants "a break" because he always speaks "from his heart" tells us a lot ABOUT his heart, and tells us that being given "a break" won't do the trick.
His long record of misogynistic utterings tells us his HEART is basically anti-woman (at least, as anything other than eye-candy for his leering pleasure). His HEART swoons over McCain and Bush and Romney, and his heart is set against Democrats in general, Hillary in particular.
If the litany of his words over time is truly a reflection of HIS HEART, then a simple apology doesn't allow him a fresh start. Maybe if he announced he was seeking therapy for his views, that MIGHT help to show he is really interested in CHANGING his behavior, and examining what is in his Heart and WHY.
This "apology" is meant to garner apologetic feelings from his audience, who have callously listened to HIS WORDS, without remembering what a good-hearted guy he is, loving everybody in politics, and just saying dismissively, "Oh, that Chris! That big-hearted guy is just being provocative again, he don't MEAN nothin' by it!"
I don't buy it. He has been an important cog in the wheel that has ENABLED the Bush Administration for seven years, and he's working very hard to see that the Republicans retain/regain POWER. That is UNDERSTOOD, and it doesn't follow that he's just a victim, being MISunderstood unfairly.
The most appalling thing I've seen yet is Matthews tweaking HRC's cheek after one of the debates. Would he do that to a male candidate? No, because he knows he'd be slugged if he tried to. Yet it's okay to give a person who may be the next President of the United States the equivalent of a condescending pat on the head.
If I were Hillary Clinton, I'd be quietly letting it be known that I'll be thinking of that tweak of the cheek when I'm setting telecom policy, appointing members of the FCC, etc. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
If I were president of MSNBC, I'd know that this guy is too dangerous to leave on the air. He's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Matthew's apology was NOT a recognition that he is doing a BAD job as a correspondent/analyzer of issues, was NOT a recognition that he has a problem over which he has no power. It was NOT a recognition that he has become an agent of bias and propaganda.
Matthew's apology was a recognition that his bosses are receiving such an avalanche of COMPLAINTS from viewers that his job may be in doubt. He might be FIRED for being a rightwing tool and a bigot/sexist.
So his apology, as delivered, indicates nothing other than he wishes to keep his job. I see nothing in his apology that shows he realizes he has a problem, deep down, of perception and social dysfunction.
I'm a forgiver. I give wrongdoers a second chance. So I, FOR NOW, accept his apology. Chris, like Imus has a long history of such comments such as the "Bill Messing Around" gave Hillary her success comment. Only Time... Will tell it like it is.
Chris says he has a good heart, speaks without a script and said "So I Get it"?-?-?
To that I say No No & No! Because he does have a script. It's indelibly inscribed in his Heart of Hearts where he hates Dems and the Clintons and always will. Chris supports Republicans and always will.
Does he "Get it"? I believe what he GETS is that he must start ignoring his "Bad Heart" and speak with guarded words to stop his true feelings from becoming his script again.
Today on "Morning Joe" - On MSNBC - Host: Joe Scarborough and Guest: Patrick Buchanan held a Defend Chris Matthews Party, attacking Media Matters for censorship of the media.
They strongly defended Chris Matthews explaining why he is correct in all that he says. They praised his outrageous comments. Pat and Joe talked about how groups like Media Matters & Move-On are putting unfair pressure on the Media. Joe and Pat both labeled it Unfair Censorship of the Media. Joe also made a comment about Media Matters unfairly taking Media comments out of context.
A "Media Matters for America" TV & Radio Show should be established.
Thanks for the plug, Joe.
That would be nice Sam. Right now I'd settle for an msm outlet giving a rundown on the sites daily list of threads.
Coments out of context my third testical.
I am a sometimes viewer of Hardball. What offends me about Matthews is his double standard. He has favorites who he handles with kid gloves. Usually Washington insiders whose parties he wishes to attend. By contrast he is the vigorous interogator he maintains he is when questioning a lesser light. An example. the night of the New Hampshire primary before the votes came in he spoke with Tom DeLay and Didi Myers. He never challenged anything DeLay had to say but was all over Myers for her comments and continued his assault after she was off the air.
Concerning Mrs. Clinton. I am not a supporter. She is not my choice for the democratic nomination. But if I had voted in New Hampshire and had heard Matthews I would have cast my ballot for her in response.
DK
Chris Matthew at MSNBC is unfair to Senator Edwards. I have watched Chris Matthew's Hardball show and that is exactly what it is a show. If you watch the show on a regular basis you would almost think that Obama is the only candidate running for President. Now that might be a bit of an over statement on my part. However there is no doubt if you listen to Matthews on a regular basis he is a strong supporter of Obamas.
He seldom has anything positive to say about Hillary and to him, John Edwards does not exsist.
Hillary Clinton would be absolutely NOWHERE if not for her husband. There would be no question of this person running for president if her husband had not been president first.
She can't take the heat. I'm sorry but gender is an issue that needs to be addressed. If Barack Obama or George Bush or Bill Clinton burst into tears over a poor election result, how would they be viewed? It is precisely because she's a woman that she can act this way and win sympathy. And screaming "sexism" is no more than an attempt to destroy debate over her use of gender to win points.
It cuts both ways. If she wants to tout herself as "the first woman president" then she has to accept the criticism. Any other candidate is subject to scrutiny on the basis of personality. One aspect of her personality distinguishing her from the other candidates is her gender. She knows it and uses it. So can anyone else. Deal with it.
This is one of those textbook non-apology apologies. Although he does admit to saying something stupid with that one specific comment about Hillary, he spends the bulk of the apology patting himself on the back for being "provocative," "tough" and "fearless" with his words. He's not apologizing; he's blaming those who are offended for being "sensitive." He's unapologetically "blunt" and "politically incorrect," and it's only because he dares to deal with "tricky subjects" that the "sensitive" members of his audience are offended.
It should be politically independent. It should be on TV, Radio, Print, Internet and have commercials too. It should also cover international news with outlets overseas. That would require a CNN type of worldwide capacity. It should have reporters and CNN style i-Reports from worldwide sources. They would hold the whole world to a higher standard of honesty.
Dream On Sam I Am!
Actually, it seems Matthews was pretty much on target with the Hillary comments. She has nothing but her victimhood to use. She has no accomplishments at all.
This article, which by the way is culled from all sorts of sources-even some of the more liberal writers, should give any rational Hill supporter pause:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/hillarys_oedipal_problem.html
It's a little difficult to take the publication you've linked to seriously when it labels HRC as our next "radical leftist President". She is probably the most conservative of the current crop on Dem hopefuls...
Do you honestly believe the trash written in the article?
I know you probably think your a maverick coming to a this site and giving liberals some hell, but after reviewing what you read and based on your posts I just feel sorry you.
Stranger
I checked out your "story". What an incredible waste of time that was!
Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion, or will it be an endless stream of right wing smears?
And THE STRANGERS WebSite Link gave me PAUSE...
But I pointed my browser to that WebSite and would you believe it... That gave me PAUSE as well.
A related question: Does America have an epidemic problem with SIDS? How many small newspapers out there in America are hustling a line of bull to their subscribers on the subject of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?
The Whitewash on SIDS:
1. That CDC action plans inventory toxins in the home and consumed by infants
(Answer: Not even close.)
2. That county health departments and coroner's offices perform exhaustive forensic screening. (Answer: Nowhere near.)
3. That the etiology of interrupted breathing in infants is specifically screened for pathogenesis. (Answer: They don't even know big words like that.)
4. That the brainstem is the subject of microscopic dissection, tissue staining and expertise on that organ, its vital function and any signs of atrophy or deterioration.
(Answer: Yokel morgues and county health departments would look at you like you were from outer space if they heard anything similar.)
5. That it is safe to consume the cavity preventive ingredient in toothpaste, in any form or amount diluted in whatever you wash it down with. (Answer: read the back of your fluoride toothpaste.)
This has been a message from writingindependence. Retake your language rights, and better keep an eye on pseudo government--it's also the quack health authority.
There is nothing about Chris Mathews of any news worthiness, relevance or importance to Americans anywhere.
Um, then why don't you start your own website dedicated to stories about SIDS? I can't imagine what you thought you might accomplish with your post.
Do you plan to go to the Coca-Cola website next and complain that they should not be posting information about their product, because it has nothing to do with SIDS? Quick, rush to the official AnnaSophia Robb website, I don't think it has anything about SIDS there either!!
I have written several times to MSNBC. It's great to see I was not alone. I find it truly scary to be agreeing more with Pat Buchanan.
My email
Dear Mr Capus, I watch a great deal of MSNBC. I have found myself railing against Chris Matthews. I am not a conservative , however I find Scarborough and Carlson preferable with their conservative views to Matthews because they are honest about their views and loyalties. Comments like "is she going to cry to win in every state" referring to Senator Clinton. Repeatedly, giving indicted criminals like tom delay time to spew his lies and hatred on his show. I would love to see you give David Schuster a show. I will continue to watch Olbermann, Abrams and to a lesser extent Scarborough. Matthews has lost me forever as a viewer.
Yours truly,
Michele McManus
Let's get this straight: MMFA thinks Matthews hates women. OK, whatever. How is a perceived hate or prejudice against women relate to conservative misinformation or conservatism in general? Chris Matthews isn't even close to being a conservative!
Now, MMFA can go after whoever they want, but this current situation with Matthews proves very clearly that MMFA is not so much out to correct conservative misinformation as they are to carry out the commands and agendas of the hands (and ideologies) that feed it (Hillary, Soros, God only knows who else).
The man, Chris, loves sensationalism. I don't belive any thing he said in his so called apology. He needs to speak directly with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain for the outlandish way he talked about them especially those nasty names he called Senator Clinton. Totally Uncalled for! Chris has a gutter mind, mouth and heart and does not belong in the realm of journalism but of smut, pure and and simple!
He thinks he is cute because he loves politics so much but maybe he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does so he could apologize for having a show and then he could go home and write more ridiculous books.
His personality might have passed while in High School but he needs some introspection.
Sorry, Mr. Matthews, but "I get it" is NOT an apology. "...I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive" is merely an expression of awareness—not remorse. You'll have to do better than that.
Now if we could just get Billo on Faux News to apologize to the homeless vets... It's great to see someone acknowledge and realize they messed up and deal with. He may think before he speaks from now on. Maybe, maybe not.
I would call Matthews' comment a non-apology apology. The two major issues were (a) He has made a significant number of documented comments that are chauvinistic, and (b) He has show frequent contempt (also documented) for Hillary Clinton as a person and as a candidate.
Instead of addressing those, he talked about a sub-point of one of them, just the most recent example of him trashing Clinton.
I see Chris Matthews as a role model for teenagers and adults alike--- he's articulate, tenacious, knowledgeable, clear, and has a national stage on which to promote himself and his ideas. I'd like to see him use his power much more responsibly.
I saw it as more sexist than racist. I remember John Lennon & Yoko Ono's full page ad: "Woman is the (N---Word) of the World". It was the truth then. It is the truth now. Women, of every color, were slaves long after black men were declared -not property- & had the right to vote.
Women were still the property of their husbands, not allowed to own property, and not allowed to vote --- until 1920.
Sixty to 70% of those living in poverty are now women & children - not people of color. Sexism is at least as bad a problem in America as racism, but there is little to no discussion or reporting of it in the media.
HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS: "I am sorry. I understand that sweeping Hilary's or any woman's, accomplishments under the rug of her husband's prominence (or misbehavior) is backward and boorish. I realize that the things I have said about Hillary and other women are meanspirited and hurtful. I know that these kinds of statements are corrosive to the aspirations of many good people in our country because it reminds them to "stay in their place", and THAT is un-American. I wont make excuses. I was wrong. I am sorry."
WHO ELSE...? ME JOHN... That's Who Else!
What a tired, old, and phony argument! BUT... If it were true, I would send Hillary and Soros a big THANK YOU letter for funding Media Matters. Hell JOHN, If I was among the super rich I would support this site and be proud of it... But...
No JOHN, I would not command MMFA to do anything. They're doing OK without me ordering them around. "God Only Knows" why JOHN doesn't want to expose the hateful behavior and dishonesty that is so abundantly plentiful on our media outlets.
Don't you want the media to be truthful and honest JOHN?
I don't give Media Matters commands or money but I do sent TIPS when I find hateful or dishonest info being delivered to you and everyone else by any media outlet.
I love the way MMFA drives dishonest media outlets NUTS simply by playing back what was said (In Full Context). You should support the truth too JOHN. Submit your donation today!
In this era of the Greening of America, people are moving toward a more holistic way of living: organic foods and household items free of pesticides and chemicals, more effecient appliances to aid in the cleaning up of greenhouse gases among other things, solar and wind -- clean energy. However, we also want more Efficient and Cleaner Politicians. Ones we can believe in and ones we know are speaking to us, not at us, who are not trying to control and manipulate the us, the masses, for their own personal gains. That's how we get into wars by politicians who go along to get along for their OWN PERSONAL GAIN and not concerned about the degradation of what will happen to You, the Planet, and -- to the PEOPLE!
What the heck? It sounds like the typical "I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt by what I said" faux apology.
Really? That's fair? Isn't it still just Chris Matthews' personal spin of the events? Wouldn't it be more fair to simply acknowledge that Hillary Clinton's approval ratings rose because of how she handled herself during that crisis, and that her behavior wasn't calculatingly trying to "take advantage of a crisis to prove herself"?
As Matthews has just proven, "fair" remains secondary to the "calculating Clintons" storyline with which he is comfortable.