Matthews falsely suggested that health care wasn't discussed at Dem debate
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, guest host Chris Matthews complained that, during the January 21 Democratic presidential debate, too much time was spent on "black/white issues," and too little time was spent discussing the candidates' positions on the Iraq war or on health care. In fact, health care was discussed for more than 13 minutes during the debate, and the Iraq war was discussed for nearly eight minutes. Yet Morning Joe's analysis of the debate, which featured numerous clips from the event, included no video from the exchanges where the candidates "debat[ed] health care" and the current situation in Iraq.
On the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, guest host Chris Matthews complained that, during the previous night's Democratic presidential debate on CNN, too much time was spent on "black/white issues," and too little time was spent discussing the candidates' positions on the Iraq war or on health care. After co-host Mika Brzezinski read aloud a New York Times headline about the debate, "Issues Take Back Stage At Debate," Matthews said, "[T]his is the sad thing in this debate, maybe because I care a lot about the war in Iraq and I've talked about it a lot and been skeptical of it, but why aren't we talking about that?" Matthews continued, "There's a difference between [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton (D-NY)] and [Sen.] Barack [Obama (D-IL)] on the Iraq war, and how they voted on it, how they supported it or didn't. Why aren't we debating that? Why aren't we debating health care, some of the things that -- instead they debated black/white issues. We know there's a race difference, we don't need to get started on that." During the CNN debate, health care was discussed for more than 13 minutes, and the Iraq war was discussed for nearly eight minutes. Yet Morning Joe's analysis of the debate, which featured numerous clips from the event, included no video from the exchanges where the candidates "debat[ed] health care" and the current situation in Iraq.
The CNN debate discussion about health care lasted 13 minutes and 14 seconds, while the discussion about the current situation in Iraq lasted 7 minutes and 46 seconds.
Morning Joe showed only the following clips from the debate:
- Obama's comment about Clinton's serving on the board of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Clinton's response about Obama's ties to his now-indicted campaign contributor Antoin Rezko (aired three times).
- Obama's comment that "sometimes" he "can't tell" whether he's running against Clinton or her husband (aired three times).
- Edwards' comment that "I also want to know on behalf of voters here in South Carolina, this kind of squabbling, how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to be able to go to college because of this?"
- Obama and Edwards' back-and-forth over Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate (aired twice).
- Obama on whether he thought "Bill Clinton was our first black president?" (aired twice).
- Edwards on his ability to defeat McCain "everywhere in America."
From the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: And I love this in the Daily News: "Hillary, Barack in South Carolina Insultathon." And you know what? If you go back to The New York Times, which of course has a more highbrow look at things --
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: Of course. Broadsheet.
BRZEZINSKI: -- but they bring up the same thing we were talking about, when we were getting ready for the show: "Issues Take Back Stage At Debate."
MATTHEWS: You know, this is the sad thing in this debate, and maybe because I care a lot about the war in Iraq and I've talked about it a lot and been skeptical of it, but why aren't we talking about that? Bob Woodward, the great reporter, said the other day on one of my shows, he said this is the backdrop issue. Where are we going to go on foreign policy? There's a difference between Hillary and Barack on the Iraq war, and how they voted on it, how they supported it or didn't. Why aren't we debating that? Why aren't we debating health care, some of the things that -- instead, they debated black/white issues. We know there's a race difference, we don't need to get started on that.
BRZEZINSKI: And they talked a great deal about race, and I feel this is something that's been put out there, quite frankly, by the Clintons and quite brilliantly.
MATTHEWS: Well, the roll of the dice and --
BRZEZINSKI: Fairy tale.
MATTHEWS: -- fairy tale, and the three charges about drugs by three different surrogates. And you have to wonder if they didn't want to place him in the African-American community and almost like [Gen. Norman] Schwarzkopf, put him in there, surround him, and then destroy him.
BRZEZINSKI: Yep.
MATTHEWS: And I wonder about that strategy. It's brilliant, hardball politics --
BRZEZINSKI: It is --
MATTHEWS: -- if that's what they set about to do.
This is the same show where Matthews claimed that during the OJ trial, he never heard any bigotry at all from his white friends (!), and that the L.A. cops actually loved the guy and used to swim at his house (yeah, and Mark Fuhrman used to clean the pool.)
That whole 'Morning Joe' episode was a laugh riot. Matthews is definitely a major kook.
Not only that, Matthews claims that Fonzie never said "Ayyyyy" on "Happy Days", and the people in "Cheers" never yelled "NORM!!" when Norm walked in....
:-)
Good God! Not only do they LIE saying the issues were "not discussed", not only do they run clips which pointedly OMIT (LIE by omission) the subjects they are complaining about, but the CONTENT of the debate, the TONE and SUBJECT MATTER is almost entirely controlled by THE MEDIA ... in this case, Wolf Blitzer and his CNN questioning team.
It was the QUESTIONERS who hammered at the "race" question, because it brings controversy and divisiveness. Now, some might say that conflict makes for a better debate, but a fair and honest observer would note that 'HEAT without LIGHT' is not illuminating at all. But it sure attracts those VIEWERS, and it makes for DAYS' worth of juicy clips to show throughout the MEDIA.
Bottom line, to the extent Matthews had a point ... that the BLACK/WHITE "issue" was overrepresented in the debate (and I actually AGREE), it was NOT the candidates OR their campaigns that made it so. It was the MEDIA ... the very same MEDIA that Matthews represents. And the very same MINDSET that has Matthews, on his OWN show, prioritizing that same conflict over any substantial discussion of the issues.
And Joe and Chris tut-tut that the CANDIDATES are to blame for obsessing on this "race" issue ... when they KNOW (or SHOULD SEE) that the agenda is entirely fueled and controlled by THE FRIGGIN MEDIA!!!!!!!
JOHN:
I suppose it is a truism that "a man sees what he WISHES to see."
I suggest you test your assertion that all you saw was squabbling, and actually evaluate a transcript of the debate. Either measure time (or count words) involved in "personal attacks" as they compare to all other issues content.
I believe you will be surprised that your "impression" is wildly inaccurate. If you then base your VOTING on such inaccurate observation, you're sure to make incorrect choices. Educate yourself, it's not too late.
Now CM wants to talk policy? Maybe he should quit kvetching and do it on his show. Maybe he could bring on real policy experts, not glorified journalist/pundit types like Jon Alter, and discuss the differences. Or he could spend his show gossiping about the Dems and heaping praise on the Republicans. Hmmmn. I wonder which it will be? He can make that choice every day. To inform/discuss intelligently or misinform/blather.
Why do hacks like matthews (and most everyone else too) say "health care" is a political issue, when in fact it's "health insurance" that is an issue of National Policy?
The U.S. Government is not in the business of providing "health care" to regular folks, but is instead a provider of "health insurance" to millions of elderly and needy people, by way of Medicare and Medicaid.
The U.S. Government is not a doctor or a nurse, and therefore does not provide "health care" to the American People, and so "health care" is not what the political issue is here...
The U.S. Government does provide "health insurance" to millions of Americans. And it is the lack of such insurance (or the exorbitant expense of it) that worries so many Americans, so as to make it a matter of National Policy...
Specifically, the question of whether or not Government health insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should be expanded, to include more than just those Americans who are elderly or needy, and to achieve or least work towards, something called "universal health insurance" (universal simply meaning that everyone has it).
The National Policy issue here is about health insurance, not "health care". And the good folks who keep using the word care in place of the word insurance, they either intentionally or unintentionally keep the true focus of the National Policy issue obscured.
Think of your own dealings with insurance companies, the headaches of talking to insurance companies. It's a political loser for libs/progressives to argue from the conservative free market frame of insurance. It's a loser to talk about our nation's health as a commodity to be bought and sold.
Healthcare is apt, healthcare for all is even more apt, it frames the debate on our terms of empathy and responsibility.
Sound public policy needs to be given proper context, it needs to be given explicit voice as a function values in order to resonate with the public.
Sorry to disagree. I think your ideas, in general, are outstanding but I think framing healthcare in business terms simply reinforces the profits first Republican argument.
All's cool, I find your posts sensible and worth reading, so no offense could be taken by me from them.
In the logical A to Z of discussing National Policy (or in making U.S. Law too I guess, or enforcing it in the administration of our Federal Government), I simply meant to point out that the only way I know of that the U.S. Government is in any way in the loop in the matter of healthcare, is by way of insuring it.
If healthcare is a National Policy (political) issue in this presidential campaign, then what is the relationship of that healthcare of the American People, to the administration of the Federal Government and the Laws that guide it?
Is that relationship a Regulatory one? Or one of oversight? Or does it involve building hospitals and clinics, or training doctors and nurses?
Because if the political issue did involve those things, then yes it would be called a "healthcare" issue. But I'm under the impression that that's not what folks are talking about when they talk about "healthcare" in a presidential election... it's health insurance they're talking about (even if they neglect to use the word), it's the relationship of an insurer that the Federal Government has to the People, as in the Medicare and Medicaid programs (and potentially the expansion of those programs to include more of the American People than they already do), when we talk about "healthcare" in a political campaign.
Unless what we're talking about is building hospitals and clinics and staffing them with doctors and nurses? Then in that case, we'd say the issue was "healthcare", and I stand corrected.
But it is as an insurer that the Federal Government is referred to in these matters, and therefore it seems imperative to use the word insurance, in getting logically from A to Z in discussing National Policy, or making or administering U.S. Law in this matter.
Yet the talk is empty and pointless, without mention of the word insurance in it... and I'd note that for certain, that whenever candidates talk about "healthcare", and neglect the word insurance, that the talk they make is about as empty and pointless and devoid of actual National Policy ideas, as any other empty talk they make.
And they do that a lot.
THOMP:
Several points.
First, the "Clinton tactics" have her as frontrunner. Losers can always be expected to complain about how a winner got there.
Second, the "knee jerk" has been replaced, on this site, with an accurate portrayal of the actual words of the Media, compared to THE FACTS as they exist in reality. Reacting to such empirical disposition is not a reflex like a "knee jerk", but instead a rational evaluation of FACT.
Third, you claim to know the MOTIVATION of a "number of old-school Dems", but you don't elaborate. Democrats wish to WIN, but have minds of their own, Some may believe conflict is harmful, so caution against it. Some believe conflict is healthy, and applaud it. Some may also think Obama, or Clinton, have been unfairly attacked (by each other), and that is their motivation. Bottom line is, you use the comments of these DEMS as support of YOUR thesis, and you do so without any factual support ... only by assertions of yours that could only be called "clairvoyant." I do not trust nor believe in your mindreading abilities, sorry.
Fourth, I don't need ANYBODY, even other Dems, to explain to me what is "loose with the truth" and what is FACTUAL. I can evaluate that for myself. I have determined that the Clinton's assertions are factual and true.
Now comes YOUR part: Tell me if YOU believe the Clintons to have played "loose with the truth", and be specific. We can discuss it, and determine if you have a point. Other than that, your blanket (and vague) assertions do not advance the discussion a whit. (And your conclusions based on your false notions ... "eating themselves" and "grown weary" ... are just so much nonsense.)
Steve, Typical Tex........everything is the rightwing and/or the rightwing media's fault. The Democrats do no wrong, EVER.....the Republicans and the EVIL rightwing are ALWAYS wrong, and evil. Never take responsibility for ANYTHING, always blame someone or something, facts mean nothing.....it's all about pushing the narrative OVER and OVER.
The more hysterical and nervous Tex gets, the more his words are CAPITALIZED......but it's always ENTERTAINING, thanks Tex.
THOMP says, "Tex, I'm merely pointing out that you gotta be both deaf and blind (as well as incredibly naive) to think that it's only the "conservative media" perpetuating the rift between the Clinton camp and the Obama camp."
RESPONSE: Obama and Hillary are competing for the same job. They are pointing out to their potential "employers" (voters) what their differences are. OF COURSE there is conflict in campaigns, THAT'S WHAT THEY"RE ALL ABOUT.
Now, DISTORTING what has been said, that's all on the Media. Saying that every conflict is a RACIAL divide, failing to fact-check the various charges, wildly overexaggerating the force/importance of these differences ... these are all MEDIA inventions. And you're damn right I blame them for that.
THOMP says, "There's been a number of dem's who lately have spoken out against what they view as Clintons' unfair attacks against Obama (clyburn, kerry, jackson, brazille . . .). You read the papers and watch the news, right?"
RESPONSE: Right. And the first one I was familiar with was Brazille's comment, which she later corrected by saying she had initially misunderstood what was said. That's fine. But she, nor anyone else, has a monopoly on TRUTH ... I will determine that for myself. (as for what the others have said, if you want, we can tackle them one at a time to determine what importance they deserve. Your call.)
THOMP says, "To blame the personal bickering between the democratic camps on the media is utter nonsense."
RESPONSE: The Media makes every little comment and toss-off phrase into a MAJOR EVENT, and then pontificates endlessly about "what it means", injecting motivations and innuendos (not to mention intentionally misinterpreting what was said) where there was NOTHING. So, yeah, when such things become DEBATE TOPICS, I blame the Media, and rightfully so.
THOMP says, "... and I don't give two sh#ts whether the attacks are healthy or not, and am just pointing out the fallacy of your position -- that of knee-jerk claiming of the poor victim status of the mean, powerful rightwing."
RESPONSE: You need only look to the threads on this site. Here, find the avalanche of Media Misinformation, identified and quoted verbatim, and then what is the FACTUAL truth.
There ARE "victims" of a bad media; all crime HAS a victim. Our current Media VICTIMIZES those it doesn't like every hour of every day. That's a FACT. And it lionizes those it DOES like. That's a FACT. And I don't give three sh#ts what you consider a "fallacy" ... you are WRONG.
Debate 101
One of the sure signs that someone has lost a debate badly is when person A makes a reasonable presentation filled with facts, and person B, instead of addressing anything at all that was just presented, posts some nonsense like "Classic Tex, you just reinforced everything I just said about you.....well done, you make it too easy."
Now, anybody that's been paying attention to these boards for any length of time knows that Tommy is 0-for-whatever in his disputes with Tex. He just doesn't have the capacity for it. Now here, thomp.steve was making a decent argument, and it showed signs of being a good little intellectual exchange. Then Tommy, knowing he can't compete with Tex himself, jumps in to slap thomp.steve on the back, engage in some name-calling, and advance the argument not a single inch.
Well, kids, that was a quick demonstration of how to lose points in a debate. Class dismissed.
And Tommy especially.
Tex, I have to keep my replies brief, and don't have time to address many of your platitudes. But as to the aspects which indirectly address my comments, you're media hypochondria causes you to miss the point.
In terms of clinton v. obama, it's not just the sensationalist media (including MM) that is routinely making too much of so-called unimportant personal attacks. It's many of the media spokesmen and women of the democratic party, as well as many democratic politicians, that are complaining about the purported unfairness of the attacks as well. To ignore this, and cry only about the media harping on the nonsense, is itself nonsense.
As for your last comments, is it your position that it's only democrats who are "victims" of media misrepresentation? And if you come to that position simply from the articles on this site, which exclusively cites only alleged "conservative misinformation," than you are more gullible than I originally thought. MM did a number on you, leading you by the nose to believe that only poor little progressives are the victims of media misrepresentations
Media hypochondria, I love that!
Well said Steve, all around.
Tex,
You've determined that Clinton's assertions are factual and true?, well if that isn't a big surprise - coming from the most partisan talking point spinner on this website, take it to the bank then. Tell me Tex, was Mrs. Clinton accurate when she grossly mischaracterized Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan?
As for your incessant blame the media chorus for everything, you are so off base here that even your ranting diatribes can't change that.......the two Democratic front-runners went after each other from the opening bell, and the CNN questioners had nothing to do with it - maybe you should take off your thick partisan blinders and watch it again, this time with your eyes open.......cleansing yourself of all that heavy partisan muck you're in is good for the soul, try it.
TOMMY has a challenge (to "prove his point"):
"Tell me Tex, was Mrs. Clinton accurate when she grossly mischaracterized Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan?"
RESPONSE: What did she say, specifically? And how was is "grossly mischaractrizing" something Obama said?
See, a loaded assertion out there in the ether is no part of making a factual claim. You have to CITE what you are talking about, and EXPLAIN how it is as YOU characterize it, inaccurate.
It may well be that Hillary said something factually wrong, but we certainly cannot tell from your presentation so far.
With practice, you might actually become competent at this "making a point" thing.
"She claimed that Obama praised Reagan's policies, when he did nothing of the sort. She accused him of something he did not do. Is that specific enough for you?"
Well...I don't know about Tex, but it's not specific enough for me. In fact, it's not specific at all. I couldn't, at all, judge what SHE said about what HE said based on what YOU say they each said - since you only gave your impression from each of them. How about you try again and give the QUOTES in question from BOTH of them?
OBAMA; "Hillary, we just had the tape. You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true"
Above is from the debate, read the rest if you care too......
TOMMY TUTORIAL, Part II:
Obama continues, “I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
NOTE: More praise for Reagan, giving the people POLICY that they want, POLICY that neither Nixon nor Clinton could accomplish. “Dynamism” and “entrepreneurship” were embodied by the policy of “trickle-down” economics. “Clarity,” among other issues, would be on his staunch anti-Communist stance. His “optimism,” translated to POLICY, was “You can make it on your own without government help.”
Obama praises Reagan for tapping into the GOALS that the country was “ready for.” They were not GOALS of hearing pretty words, they were GOALS of action, involving a “trajectory” on a “fundamentally different path.”
NOTE WHAT IS MISSING: Obama does NOT differentiate between Reagan’s appeal, “tapping into what people feel” … which Obama both admires and wishes to emulate … and the POLICIES that made up the “fundamentally different path.” The admiration is there, the criticism or disagreement with policy were NOT there.
Now, what did HILLARY have to say about this? In fact, how was the topic of Ronald Reagan even brought up? Here’s how it went in the debate:
OBAMA: …Now, let's talk about Ronald Reagan. What you just repeated here today is...
CLINTON: Barack...
OBAMA: Wait. No. Hillary, you just spoke.
CLINTON: I did not say anything about Ronald Reagan.
[NOTE: She is correct, she had not mentioned Ronald Reagan.]
OBAMA: You just spoke for two minutes.
CLINTON: You said two things.
OBAMA: You just...
CLINTON: You talked about admiring Ronald Reagan and you talked about the ideas...
[NOTE: The charge she makes here is that Obama was “admiring” Reagan.]
OBAMA: Hillary, I'm sorry. You just...
BLITZER: Senator...
CLINTON: I didn't talk about Reagan.
OBAMA: Hillary, we just had the tape. You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true.
[NOTE: Here, Obama has changed the subject.]
OBAMA: What I said -- and I will provide you with a quote -- what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure [TRUE] because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests [FALSE … he didn’t say that] to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to [FALSE … again, he didn’t say that in the RENO interview].
-----------
TOMMY’S PREMISE WAS: “She claimed that Obama praised Reagan's policies …”
FACT: Not true. She claimed Obama’s interview was “admiring” of Reagan [TRUE], and further that she didn’t mention Reagan in the Debate [also TRUE].
Tommy has been CORRECTED, by the FACTS.
TOMMY TUTORIAL, INTRO
TOMMY says, “She claimed that Obama praised Reagan's policies, when he did nothing of the sort. She accused him of something he did not do. Is that specific enough for you?”
RESPONSE: Sigh. I guess I'll have to demonstrate for you how this works.
Here’s what Obama said to the Reno Gazette-Journal about Ronald Reagan. We are looking for “praise for Reagan’s policies”, which you claim Obama did not do:TOMMY TUTORIAL, Part I-B:
Obama continues, “… the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.”NOTE: Obama is listing the POLICY differences that Reagan supposedly brought to a country that was “ready for it”: government that does not grow (policy), and accountability (policy).
Obama continues, “I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
SORRY FOR THE CHOPPY POSTS.
I kept getting a "profanity" flag, and had no idea what word they were indicating. I tried to narrow it down, but the gist of my post is now there.
I also started getting the small font, bold paragraphs. What a mess.
Anyway, Tommy, you get the idea ... what is called for is the FACTS and QUOTES involved. Once people see them, then they realize who is not speaking the truth.
So, you're calling Obama a liar? Because that is exactly what he said.....in other words, you -a ataunch Democrat - is calling a leader contender for your party's nomination, a liar? You are fueling this fued between Hillary and Obama, you, a DEMOCRAT!!
But, it's the media's fault.
TOMMY:
Yes, in rebutting YOUR claim (indicating YOU are a liar), I posted the FACTS about the exchange, which clearly showed that Hillary's version of events was more factual than Obama's version.
Obama made claims that were not true, about this misunderstanding about Reagan admiration and Republicans having all the ideas. Obama had the opportunity in this exchange to clear the record, which was great.
He OPPOSED all Reagan's policies, and asserted that the Republican's ideas were all BAD ideas.
Thus, even though there was disagreement on which words were said when, it's all cleared up now, and Obama is a sterling candidate for President, as is Hillary. And you were shown to be an unrepentant LIAR, but that's OK because you aren't running for president.
Thanks for playing. NEXT??!
It's just the Tex-as sized double standard rearing its ugly head again, not to worry......when Tex feels threatened or when his rantings aren't being applauded, but challenged, he resorts to calling people he disagrees with liars, and just gets childishly defensive. I am used to it and expect nothing less from our beloved southern spinmeister extraordinaire.
Classic.
THOMP:
Point well taken.
Obama LIED initially, then set the record straight. He hated Reagan's policies, and thinks the Republicans' ideas are all BAD. Obama is forgiven.
Tommy LIES, but never sees it, never admits, never corrects it.
That is the difference. OK?
God you're pathetic. You just got schooled but you're so narrowly focused on winning at all costs that you missed the lesson.
TOMMY:
If only you were as good at rebuttals as you TRY at being insulting.
You'd be awesome, dude!
Joe, you and your show are usually great. Your laughter and positiveness ane contagious.
Today, the fellow on your right (Mr. Gloom) was so negative that you may have lost a good percentage of your audience. Please put him back in the room he escaped from.
Dan