Joe Scarborough: "[I]t's outrageous that Chris Matthews has to apologize" for Hillary Clinton comments
SUMMARY: On January 18, Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough said it was "outrageous that Chris Matthews ha[d] to apologize" following his January 9 comment, documented by Media Matters, in which he said that "the reason" Hillary Clinton is "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." By "apologize," Scarborough was referring to a statement Matthews made at the start of his January 17 show addressing the firestorm sparked by his earlier comments.
During the January 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough asserted that it was "outrageous that Chris Matthews has to apologize" for his January 9 comment, highlighted by Media Matters for America, in which Matthews said that "the reason" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is "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." Scarborough, in a discussion with co-host Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster, and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, was referring to Chris Matthews' statement on the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball responding to the firestorm sparked by his January 9 comment.
Matthews' original comment about Clinton was not aired during the discussion.
During the discussion, Brzezinski asserted:
BRZEZINSKI: I'm probably going to say something that's wildly unpopular with women, but what bothers me about this is that the websites isolated one portion of what he said and that was a conversation, and I was a part of that conversation, and I actually remember saying to him that of course if Laura Bush or if someone else was humiliated by their husband, they wouldn't win for Senate because they didn't have the qualifications, and Hillary Clinton had worked all of her life getting experience. But what Chris was saying --
SCARBOROUGH: And Chris agreed with you.
BRZEZINSKI: He agreed with me, and that was the conversation. But what he was saying, like in New Hampshire, there was a confluence of events including sympathy --
BUCHANAN: Right.
BRZEZINSKI: -- that led to her success, and there was nothing wrong with pointing that out. There was nothing wrong with it.
Brzezinski was apparently referring to her statement that "if Laura Bush was humiliated by her husband and then ran for Senate two years later, she would not win. Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork before she was victimized, before she was humiliated." However, she did not make that statement during the conversation in which Matthews first made his remarks on January 9, but rather two days later, on the January 11 edition of Morning Joe, during a telephone interview in which Matthews expanded on his original comment. While Matthews acknowledged on the January 11 Morning Joe that "[y]ou can argue a lot of factors" might have led to Clinton's election to the Senate, on January 9, Matthews said:
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.
In response to Brzezinski's January 9 statement that Clinton "does have more than being a victim," Matthews did say "I agree," as Media Matters documented in the transcript of the original item.
Also on the January 18 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough asserted that it was "outrageous" that "Chris Matthews has to apologize for saying something, inartfully perhaps, so many years later that op-ed writers were talking about in '99 and 2000 because Gloria Steinem, who wrote an op-ed supporting Hillary Clinton before New Hampshire, Media Matters, who many people have called a front group for Hillary Clinton, just because they're attacking Chris Matthews, who has obviously been critical of Hillary Clinton." In fact, while conservative commentators have asserted that Media Matters is a "front group for Hillary Clinton," Media Matters has repeatedly noted that it is an independent, nonprofit, progressive organization unaffiliated with any candidate or political party.
From the January 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Hey Pat, I want to play you a clip of Chris Matthews last night. He talked at the top of Hardball. He's had NOW, Gloria Steinem, Media Matters, a lot of groups going after him, picketing him because of something he said on our show. I want to play you a quick clip of Chris from last night.
[begin video clip]
MATTHEWS: 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.
[end video clip]
SCARBOROUGH: Pat, I suppose I should guard my words here. I am not going to do it. This is offensive to me, that Chris Matthews said something that op-ed writers wrote about in '98, in '99, in 2000. That Bill Clinton scandal with Monica Lewinsky clearly helped Hillary Clinton politically because she showed enormous grace under fire, she showed just how strong she was, she continued doing her job. It was a very good moment for her. It was a bit like -- let's just say New Hampshire was a microcosm of that time, when she was getting abused last week. And we saw her the night before, when she thought she was going to lose by 15 points, she still showed an enormous strength -- and I've said this on the air before -- an enormous strength that I hope may be an example to my daughter, who -- or any woman who goes through so much -- so many problems but stays that strong.
Now, I've said all of that just to say, I think it's outrageous that Chris Matthews has to apologize for saying something, inartfully perhaps, so many years later that op-ed writers were talking about in '99 and 2000 because Gloria Steinem, who wrote an op-ed supporting Hillary Clinton before New Hampshire, Media Matters, who many people have called a front group for Hillary Clinton, just because they're attacking Chris Matthews, who has obviously been critical of Hillary Clinton. What's your take?
BUCHANAN: Well, let me say, look, I think you're exactly right. Hillary Rodham Clinton became for the American people for the first time a deeply sympathetic figure, not the sort of radical liberal she was perceived as being, when she stood up with grace under pressure under all that humiliation and frankly all that disgrace that was visited upon the presidency and upon her husband, and she handled herself exceedingly well, and that made her a sympathetic figure and was clearly an enormous boost to her when she decided to run for the Senate.
And frankly, I hope Chris was not forced to make any kind of statement like that or coerced. I do think what Chris said was very gracious in this sense: He seemed to say the only reason that she did well was because her husband was messing around. And I think Hillary Clinton -- frankly, I was astounded at how well she did running for the Senate, and she did go up to northern New York, that listening tour and talking to those people and taking the beating, and she did run a fine campaign, and she's been a fine United States senator from her standpoint, and those things have made her a prospective presidential candidate as well.
So what Chris said last night, I think was accurate. There were both things, were factors. But I do hope -- and I do agree with you. I hope nobody forced him to do that. And simply because Gloria Steinem or Media Matters or somebody else like that comes after you is no reason for anybody to apologize. It could be a badge of honor.
BRZEZINSKI. Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, it certainly has a chilling effect on what we do.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm probably going to say something that's wildly unpopular with women, but what bothers me about this is that the websites isolated one portion of what he said and that was a conversation, and I was a part of that conversation, and I actually remember saying to him that of course if Laura Bush or if someone else was humiliated by their husband, they wouldn't win for Senate because they didn't have the qualifications, and Hillary Clinton had worked all of her life getting experience. But what Chris was saying --
SCARBOROUGH: And Chris agreed with you.
BRZEZINSKI: He agreed with me, and that was the conversation. But what he was saying, like in New Hampshire, there was a confluence of events including sympathy --
BUCHANAN: Right.
BRZEZINSKI: -- that led to her success, and there was nothing wrong with pointing that out. There was nothing wrong with it.
SCARBOROUGH: And let me say, Pat, the reason I felt sorry for her personally -- personally, not as a reporter, but personally -- was because of some of the horrible things I thought her husband was saying about her on the campaign trail, and I've talked to a lot of men and a lot of women that felt the same way.
BRZEZINSKI: And she doesn't --
SCARBOROUGH: And we were like -- and we all said, "She deserves so much better than this."
BRZEZINSKI: She doesn't play the victim, but she happens to in some cases in time to have been one. It doesn't take away from her other qualities and her intellectual experience.
SCARBOROUGH: Pat?
BUCHANAN: You know, Joe, on the morning of New Hampshire, I came on before John Edwards came on your show, and you played that clip of Edwards saying, "You've got to be tough to be president," you know, about her sort of emotional moment, and I said it was graceless. And behind that was the sentiment that she had been beaten up in the debate, and she had gotten emotional at the end of a campaign. It looked like everything was slipping away.
And I think, just like I did and others did who are not Clintonites, felt a sympathy for her. The women of New Hampshire came to her rescue there. And there's no doubt about it: It was again a deeply sympathetic moment for her. And just as the 1988 -- I mean, '98-'99, so in those 48 hours before New Hampshire, I think that emotion came to her, and I think it was the winning factor. And to the degree that Chris reflected on that, I think he was accurate.
BRZEZINSKI: Mm-hmm.
SHUSTER: Just one comment about Chris Matthews. I've worked with him for five and a half years. I've been alongside him, on camera, off, good times and bad. Nobody is more gracious and has a bigger heart, and has contributed more in a positive way to our political discourse than Chris Matthews.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, let me say, let me say --
SHUSTER: And to see him have to go through this is absolutely infuriating, to see the way these groups used him for pure political gain is absolutely infuriating.
SCARBOROUGH: And let me say this also about Chris: He says things that drive me crazy. Some of the things he said on the war, on the president, on the vice president has made my face turn beet red, but you know what? I remembered what he said about the Democratic president 10 years earlier.
And again, it is so frightening. And I'll tell you what, Chris is hosting this show on Tuesday, and we're damn proud that he's doing that. The thing is, Pat, it seems that we live now in this media age, in this campaign where you've got groups like NOW, Gloria Steinem, Media Matters. They can take one clip out of a three-hour show and start putting pressure on journalistic operations, and this is what happens. It's terrible, isn't it?
BUCHANAN: The real danger, Joe, is not Chris Matthews, it is censorship.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, that's the bottom line.
SCARBOROUGH: It is censorship, and it's frightening.
BRZEZINSKI: And then at some point during the show, we do have to talk about Hillary on Tyra. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Very good. And I know Pat will agree with me, there is nothing wrong with a political campaign using third parties to try to beat up, to try to push back reporters that are tough on them. I -- Buchanan and I, we tried to do the same thing before. That's fine. That's what they do. It is up to the news agencies to show backbone. Right, Chris -- right, Pat?
BUCHANAN: I agree 100 percent, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. This ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign.
BRZEZINSKI: No, it's not.
SCARBOROUGH: This is about censorship. We'll be right back. Thank you, Pat. We'll be right back with Willie Geist and some news that you just can't use.















Joe's outraged... but, in his fake toughguy way... this is a boon to these jokers. Gives them stuff to whine about, act outraged and waste time. Some (Tommy) would say, this is the counterproductive side-effect of pointing out this nonsense... They (he) may be right.
It is comical though. Like anyone's squelching their free speech. Please.
It's worse than outrageous...it's Stalinist.
Why is there no outcry regarding the smears, lies, racial slurs, and distortions by Keith "Chicken 'n Waffles" Uberdouche?
Yet another lie by the Uberdouche:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2008/01/caught_on_tape.php
Are you running a hot dog stand out of "Olbermann Watch"?
Or are you just in love with Keith?
Krome,
I appreciate your comments, thank you. And I don't ask for any slack cut my way here, if I don't like the way I am responded to, I am more than free to take a hike........it's all good, passionate opinions often lead to abrupt posts, by all of us. It's a lot better than many people out there who don't give a damn.
Appreciate your kind words.
"Leave it be, everyone. Get on with it."
In other words:
Stop hugging, you two. Get a room.
Krome,
Thank you for your kind words. In the 3 plus years I've been here I've found that a good percentage of posters have been fair & reasonable when dealing with Tommy & myself. A few just dislike us because they can't accept our views when they don't match their own. But no biggie there, like Tommy says "it's all good".
As far as Matthews goes, I'm glad he addressed this, though I don't think he apologized, nor do I think he had to. While his opinion of Hillary's election to the Senate was rather crudely put, it was after all...his opinion. I happen to believe that like others before her, her relationship to another politician was what was most helpful. Perhaps some voted out of sympathy for her situation. Just as some may have voted against her for staying with a straying spouse.
I'm a longtime viewer of Hardball & admire Matthews as a political analyst. His conduct, especially the past few weeks has been over the top & troublesome. Hopefully he'll continue to give his opinions, but tone them down.
Kromecom, I agree.
Both Tommy and Jeter are examples of conservatives with a brain. I for one would much rather argue with Tommy and Jeter as opposed to The Stranger, Philb, Ripper76 or John numbers123445.
Plus no one can be mean to Jeter, it's Friday and he delivers my box of wine. ;-)
OFFTOPIC: Where is HBL
Pearlene you're like my Guardian Angel :-)
Here's your box of wine darling, enjoy!
Yeah where is Beach?
And I haven't seen Open_Mind lately either :-/
I was also wondering where HBL was. This place has gotten much too serious the last week or so since he's been gone.
Come back HB, we need you!
And her famous "Holly Chips". I loved her humor and her entertaining comments.
Thanks for the update, Worrierking.
I can beat a dead horse with the best of them though.
(If that's not a challenge for HBL to return, I don't know what is).
I agree, Krome and Pearl, if only more conservatives could be like Jeter and Tommy! And this is not to say I like the both of them because I think they're secretly liberal (they're not, Tommy's a libertarian, Jeter's more of an Eisenhower Republican), I say this because even when I disagree with them I at least get a sense where they're coming from. Not many people are capable of doing that.
Tommy, Jeter, Bruce, Wesley (who hasn't posted in awhile), etc., make the conversations here lively. I don't think Media Matters would be the same without them. :)
"I for one would much rather argue with Tommy and Jeter as opposed to The Stranger, Philb, Ripper76 or John numbers123445. "
:(
Ya'll are Correct!
The many times I've referred to excellent posts by Conservatives here at this "Far Left Swamp Pit" they are who I'm referring to. Tom, J2 and others are very thoughtful and vitally important to allow a wider spectrum of viewpoints.
-Sam I Am-
Which one?
Hilary because she got public sympathy/fame when her husband got caught cheating on her? Or, Bill because he's a cheating/womanizing bum? Or, should he apologize to both because he has an opinion that some disagree with?
I think his apology went far enough. As long as it satisfies the sponsors, it doesn't really matter what Hilary or Bill or even mmfa thinks.
IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP!
This is NOT a free speech issue. Why do these toolbags keeping going back to censorship and freedom of speech as why Matthews should shut his pie hole and stop being so misogynistic?
Joe: Telling someone "stop being a dick" is not the same thing as censorship. Surely you know the difference.
What are these people blathering about? I know it's ridiculous to expect anything even approaching thought from them, but jeez. Censorship? An apology? This whole Matthews stupidity has nothing to do with censorship (which must be done by the government) or an apology. He didn't apologize! He just weaseled around. And I bet he did that just because he realized how stupid he looked saying that sympathy resulting from President Clinton's philandering was "the" (not "a") reason for Sen. Clinton's political success. What a bunch of bull.
And of course, Media Matters, as it almost always does, is quoting people accurately and at length. The right-wing charges of MM's taking things out of context are almost always incredibly weak -- sort of like the blowhards' "arguments."
Olbermann and Shuster are great.
In other words, let's get rid of those voices we disagree with and keep on those we agree with.
Ya gotta love the tolerance of some liberals and the faith they have in their opinions under scrutiny.
One can advocate for whatever they'd like, more power to them. However, calling them fascists is ridiculous, but you didn't address that, ok.
I still find it so interesting how there are some out there who are so threatened by opposing opinions that they would encourage others to help get them off the air, why is that? Why not just make your case, strong case, and if it resonates and is so much better than the oppositions, then what is the big whoop? But whatever floats your boat, if you or Wolf want to picket outside MSNBC's studio calling people to stop watching the "less than liberal" shows, go for it.
Sound familiar?
"Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. "
Yes, it sounds a lot like the theories that a very left wing follower would highly favor. You've got the "one national group", contempt for democracy (which is demonstrated with the constant badgering of conservatives in/by mmfa), the insistence on obedience and the ever popular "demagogic approach"- which has left wing ideals written all over it.
"Yes, it sounds a lot like the theories that a very left wing follower would highly favor. You've got the "one national group", contempt for democracy (which is demonstrated with the constant badgering of conservatives in/by mmfa), the insistence on obedience and the ever popular "demagogic approach"- which has left wing ideals written all over it."
1)What "one national group" are you talking about? Your argument seems to be that the existence of a political party in and of itself is fascist.
2)"Badgering" of conservatives is not contempt for democracy. By that standard nobody could ever criticize anyone in the other party and support democracy at the same time.
3)What insistence on obedience?
4)"Demogogic" is a style, it says nothing about ideals. That would be playing to people's emotions and prejudices to gain power, which is much more consistent with messages of fear. At best, that's something that happens across the board.
You bemoan the fact that someone doesn't want to argue with you, then you vomit this tripe. You don't like liberals, we get it, but make some substantive and genuine arguments instead of logical fallacies and misrepresentations, please.
I don't think that he, or myself for that matter, are threatened by opposing opinions. I'm threatened by the fact that some folks on the airwaves these days are not just spouting opinions, they're espousing downright lies, and that's dangerous sometimes. If someone says something I disagree with, my immediate reaction is to not ask for them to be removed from the airwaves, but I might send off a letter or 2, or 3 to their network, maybe their major advertisers. Do I think my letters do anything? Probably not, but alas, I can make myself heard that way, because I don't have a radio show, or a TV show with which to voice my opinions, and I find that my opinions, and thoughts on a lot of things, are not being voiced in the world today, or the media for example.
I disagree with you a lot on here. That doesn't mean I want you banned from here. That would be a shame really. There are lots of people I disagree with, on an almost daily basis, and that's OK as well. I don't want their viewpoints shut down. What Matthews has done lately has gone beyond the scope of opinion, and went down the path of tirade, and all out hatred for a certain candidate, and his views have been increasingly misogynistic. His opinions are fine, but Matthews should try to express them in a more coherent way, and in a way that could further his arguments, instead of talking in a sexist manner.
Censoring the outrage of "We The People" is BY FAR more threatening to our Country than the exposing of hatred and lies that Media Matters provides. Media Matter hasn't censored anyone!
Thank You Media Matters for shinning a bright light on the Media. WE in turn, decide what is true or false and we have the RIGHT To Take ACTION.
Censorship of (The People Speaking Out), will destroy our democratic ideals. That would be a Dictatorship! By speaking out against the lies, the deception, the false reporting and the hatred we are simple exercising our rights.
Today the so called "Free Marketplace of Ideas" has overstepped the boundaries of respectable behavior that must be demanded of professional journalists. Today Ratings and Shock Jocks Rule! I'm sick of it and I'm not going to take it anymore! Imus was just one correction. Now, we must call out for more corrections.
We must never stop working to improve our Media Outlets!
"Leave it be, everyone. Get on with it." -Tommy
Oh yes great OB1, everyone submit to the master!
Hey MMFA it's says there are 18 posts here [mine will be #19] & yet none are displayed...
Help!
Hey thanks for checking this out :-)
I can see it now too. There are still some threads here where there is still a problem.
"improved conservative"
Ah ha ha ha, yeah... right! ;)
When are conservatives going to stop using the "somebody else said it first" excuse and let every single member of the media take personal responsibility for what they say or write?
are your non-profane comments from mu? That is an ancient land, now under the ocean.
However, yes, I've had comments that were auto-judged "profane" for whatever reason. It is just the way the computer crumples, not censorship.
Some of what was said on the show is correct. If Chris apologized only because the higher-ups forced him too, then he's a gutless swine. I've long thought that CM routinely makes wildly ridiculous statements, but that's on msnbc. CM doesn't have to say nice things about HC if he doesn't believe them to be true. He's considered a political analyst, and should call it as he see's it. If he truly thinks HC is a what he asserted her to be, then that's just one of his opinions regarding a presidential candidate, and he apparently gets paid to express his opinions.
If msnbc thinks his analysis if foolish, then they should fire him, not encourage him to say things contrary to what he believes. Again, maybe he was sincere, but Joe and the gang apparently don't see it that way.
Thom,
I agree Matthews should be able to voice his opinion, even if it offends some folks. However, he needs to tone it down IMO & try not to make what comes off as personal attacks. He's good at what he does, he doesn't need to go over the top.
As I just wrote to Snoop, I doubt MSNBC/NBC gave him an ultimatum forcing him to make this statement. IF they had I really doubt Scarborough would have said a word.
Jeter: You and I mostly agree, and I think you like CM more than I. CM does seem to have a problem with women and routinely patronizes women who are in the public sphere. However, in my opinion, if CM apologized only because he faced an ultimatum, then that's wrong on many levels. If msnbc feels CM is biased or sexist in his opinions, then get someone in there more fitting, but don't blackmail him into issuing apologies. (Again, this is all assuming he was insincere). And all the same, these cable shows all vie for the big-mouth commentators, and pay these guys to have provocative opinions
The problem is that the broadcast news media has blurred the lines between commentary and reporting.
Why on earth should Matthews or Hannity or any other talking head be anchoring election nights? The fusion the networks and cables promote between infotainment and straight news only harms the overall credibility of he medium.
My guess is it some suit trying to leverage actual news events to these shows that are so cheap to produce. But the suits don't seem to care or are to ignorant to notice. My guess is they don't care. They are all trying to grab bigger percentages of the shrinking advertising pie.
Thom I don't necessarily disagree with what you say. I respect his right to arrive at an opinion that is different from my own.
However, I would ask you and others to consider that his rapier-like wit is often applied unequally. That is where I take issue. If he sees hidden meaning in the words and actions of those he doesn't like (Hillary Clinton), why does he not also see the same kind of hidden meaning in those he likes and calls "my guy" (John McCain) on the same kind of evidence? Why not give his pals' actions the same questioning perspective as Sen. Clinton??
At that point it is not his intellectual viewpoint in question, it is his visceral response expressed in a very public setting to someone he admittedly detests. Let us not forget he is quoted on Media Matters as saying "I hate her. I hate everything she stands for".
Not a good basis for reasoned analysis.
Joe and Gang...
It's about censorship, you have got to be kidding me. Do you actually believe that MM can censor anyone? No, it cannot. The real censorship will come from the advertisers and thier pocketbooks. PURE AND SIMPLE. If they starting have problems with the product, Matthews in this case, then they will invoke "corporate censorship" which means, the $$$$$$ will speak out and close down Matthews. And you, Morning Joe know that you face the same bottom line.
The mega-mouths sit behind the microphones, for which they are highly-paid, and believe themselves invincible if the rantings are good. At this point, they become businessmen with thier agents, looking for more pay. That is the way it should work. But to claim CENSORSHIP when dissenters raise points against you, it is the cowards way out.
That was pointless and stupid. But thanks so much for giving him more ammo to fuel his opinion that all liberals are name callers that can't argue intelligently.
Seriously, hemmorhoid a**-head jokes? That's the best you could come up with? I can see using that for Finfar, Copious or Strenger, but Tommy really does try to engage in discussion, as infuriating as it might be at times.
tommy,
what you need to 'get on with it' is your tube of preparation h ......... that would solve your problem right there..put in on your 'head' where it belongs
Totally Uncalled For !
Absolutely! Everybody knows Hydrocortisone is far superior for treating hemmoroids!
I used my outside voice again, didn't I?
Tommy, just joking!
I see why you don't like argueing with me, you are so good at denagrating someone with a differing opinion and I am good at pointing it out.
It's fairly clear you don't like his opinion, how about doing something out of the norm and tell WHY. Didn't someone use 'demogogue' to describe fascism, earlier?
Barbantio Nice defense of Tommy ;)
Stormskies, stupid and not even funny.
Stormskies - I gotta say I admire your in-your-face brutal honesty, say exactly what you feel, no hiding behind cute little backdoor insults disguised as backhanded compliments. Stand up guys and gals operate exactly the way you did, even if we disagree.
And, .................never mind.
Yeah but take heart.. they haven't called him a Maverick ;-)
Seems Rudy gets a pass from everyone even though I think even Thomson is ahead of him now.
Twisting facts to support opinions seems to be the way news is brought to us. Why don't they just report factual data and say goodbye. The distraction these entertainment reporters provide is not entertaining at all! I had sent comments to CNN, Anderson 360, who in my opinion can do a 180. They used my words that I used in support of my candidate against my candidate, How original MR Cooper (You Jerk). Why not hire some new writers for originality instead of using comments from viewers. Pathetic! People need to stop sending comments that they truly believe in. They will be displeased once they here how their voice is twisted and use for journalist biased comments. You guys are talking yourselves out of your jobs. Ratings will drop. We are discussed, and we are not watching, and, your sponsors are wasting money!
Being an educated woman, and having had listened to Morning Joe and the way he talks down to Mika, I've decided that he's either ignorant or arrogant.
Why MSNBC doesn't pull HIM into the office like it did Chris, is beyond me. I laughed when I saw Andrea Mitchell across the desk from Matthews today. Of course, that was to calm the women down. PLEASE!! A leopard (Chris) won't change his spots. (old Irish saying) lol.
Well, as one would suspect, Scarborough with his less than pristine mouth, is supporting Chris Matthews whine. I am not of the chattering class but a mere woman of vintage years who has been sickened by Matthew's misogynistic words and annoyed by Scarboro's sexism which he passes off as cutness. If I recall, and I can't remember it well, I believe Scarbrough and Matthews supported Don Imus' continuation on the air, worrying only about the racism of his remarks, not the sexism.
My question is how does the expression of an opinion by one other than the chattering class become censorship. Don't we, the non chattering class, have aright to express an opinion.
Matthews whines around about not being PC. Avoidng political correctness in his denigrating statements about women is not the issue. Matthews doesn't know the difference. He is one of the privileged with an old white man's brain. You of the chattering class, mostly old white men, resent anything or any word which does not excuse what you say.
By the by, I watched Matthews briefly thanking all of those in the chattering class for supporting him. What a whine and certainly not a mature adult. He needs to move on after having been in the principal's office.
Joe Scarborough needs to stop crying and whining. Matthews was forced to apologize because he SHOULD have done it long ago. Matthews has been a sexist and a foll for years, now he is finally getting humbled.
Joe needs to realize that he was a failure as a Congressman, and he is a failure as a media pundit...he needs to shut up, and go back to sucking his thumb.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in Joe defending "free speech" here? If he really believes that people should be able to say whatever they want on tv, then maybe he should give his air time back to Don Imus. Shut the F up Joe, what Chris Matthews said was horrible, and was obvious he was trying to be hurtful because his boy just got beat in New Hampshire. He had just been "spanked" by Tom Brokaw and looked so foolish for all his ranting how Hillary was finished. That comment was just the last straw for alot of people, he had been berating her campaign for the last month or so.
Hello all. This is my first post. I felt it necessary to register in order to respond to this witch hunt. FYI I've always considered myself a liberal.
Chris Matthews is being railroaded here. Very troubling. Chris is one of the most respected political journalists today. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
The Clintons play filthy politics. Face it, it's a fact. Chris is merely reacting to it. Any Clinton supporters out there who feel comfortable with the tone of their campaign thus far?
Having said this, I WILL vote for Hillary in November if she gets the nomination. The issues we face as a nation and the planet desperately need to be addressed.
I may have a bring a puke bag in the booth with me though...
I THIRD that motion. The many times I've referred to excellent posts by Conservatives here at this "Far Left Swamp Pit" they are who I'm referring to. Tom, J2 and others are very thoughtful and vitally important to allow a wider spectrum of viewpoints.
-Sam I Am-
Scarborough is simply the mouth piece for the MSNBC brass who want to attack Clinton.
They make/let Matthews apologies so the channel can say, oh we are "neutral" things just got a little out-of-hand in this instance could happen to anyone. But just look at their record they may have more commentators and former commentators called to the darpet on their statements than FOX, which is scary.
The heads of MSNBC sought to make it know that they will continue to support the spew of Matthes through the spew of Scarborough on this issue.
Censoring the outrage of "We The People" is BY FAR more threatening to our Country than the exposing of hatred and lies that Media Matters provides. Media Matter hasn't censored anyone!
Thank You Media Matters for shinning a bright light on the Media. WE in turn, decide what is true or false and we have the RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT.
Censorship of (The People Speaking Out), will destroy our democratic ideals. That would be a Dictatorship! By speaking out against the lies, the deception, the false reporting and the hatred we are simple exercising our rights. If a correction is made because of it, That's a Good Thing! Not a Bad Thing!
Today the so called "Free Marketplace of Ideas" has overstepped the boundaries of respectable behavior that must be demanded of professional journalists. Today Ratings, Liars, Haters and Shock Jocks Rule! I'm sick of it and I'm not going to take it anymore! Imus was just one correction and... Now, we must all call out for more corrections.
We must never stop working to improve our Media Outlets!
Joe Scarborough befits the spineless, whiny coward he epitomizes all too well. From within his constant, shallow & caustic vituperative nay sayings, Scarborough spinelessly attacks incessantly, any & all who might disagree with the misdirected hyperbole he crudely champions. Joe is always bereft of any logical content as surely a Pat Buchanan covertly upholds any Jew’s, as well as Israel’s, right to continued existence. Both of their daily puerile, smokily doltish obfuscations reinforce the omnipresent banality smirked, from behind any podium or rostrum, alluding to the covertly brain-dead, stupidly avaricious covetousness by which these undeserving simpletons deceive a slacked public. The aforementioned, bludgeoned incessantly by a thoroughly intimidated, cowering media more concerned with style rather than substance. If only the obvious concerns were for honest, forthright truth rather than the slack-jawed mispronunciations of disaffected yokels arrogantly attuned to sophist puffery & contrived wheezings, in an anemic attempt at professional popularity. Scarborough can only meekly dream of any furtive hope of attainment in that, affectedly waved, general direction.
Give me a break Joe. Chris gets so wrapped up in politics as a sport that he forgets flesh and blood people are running for office. ☼