Newsweek's Thomas on Hardball: Clinton is "often hot and angry in a crisis, and I think she can be steely cold in a crisis"
On the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Newsweek editor-at-large Evan Thomas said of Sen. Hillary Clinton: "I think that she's often hot and angry in a crisis, and I think she can be steely cold in a crisis -- and those can be useful. But I think the classic value that you look for in a middle-of-the-night crisis is somebody who's cool and detached." Matthews responded: "Why don't you come over and sit in this chair and you can take the heat for the next three months, and I'll sit over there and disagree with you?"
From the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Suppose -- I always look at my daughter this way, who's 18. If I were in a car wreck and she came up to the car to help me out, get me -- put the things over my head, protect me from shock, deal with the first aid -- she could handle it. She can handle a crisis. Don't you think Hillary Clinton's like that?
ANDREA MITCHELL (NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent): Strange --
MATTHEWS: Doesn't she come across as somebody who's really good in a crisis? That could handle a situation like a car wreck?
THOMAS: No.
MATTHEWS: You don't?
THOMAS: I think that she's often hot and angry in a crisis, and I think she can be steely cold in a crisis -- and those can be useful. But I think the classic value that you look for in a middle-of-the-night crisis is somebody who's cool and detached. I just don't associate --
MATTHEWS: Why don't you come over and sit in this chair and you can take the heat for the next three months, and I'll sit over there and disagree with you?
"leg", not "let"
I’d rather see some world leaders get a good verbal bitc#-slappin’ (excuse my urban slang) from our president than a hand-holding - or looking into their eyes and getting a (FALSE) sense of their soul. Is “steely cold” a bad way for a world leader to project oneself in a crisis? I can’t wait to hear her let out one of those sarcastic cackles in response to some ludicrous comment from a world leader. Thank You, Evan Thomas, for reminding me why Hillary is so qualified for the job.
"Why would a person believe someone who says they should be the one to handle a phone call at 3 a.m. when they never have received a call at 3 a.m.?"
I'm sure she has at some point in her life AChris. ;)
But on a more serious note, what makes McCain ready for a crisis? Or any of them? It's a silly question, and the prejudices one has for their candidate informs their judgment on this issue more than anything. I mean, according to McCain, you can not judge on past decisions. (I would give you a link, but I can't find a good video of it at the moment.)
"Not that I am a McCain supporter although I will probably be one if Clinton gets the nod,...."
Let me get this straight -- you dislike (hate?) Sen. Clinton sooooo much that you would abandon the Democratic Party and progressive principles (including an enlightened and progressive Supreme Court) in favor of "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran McCain" and the same Republican, right-wing, neo-con agenda that has driven this country to the brink of disaster and made it the pariah of the world. Way to go there, sport! Put personal, niggling (on the grand scale of things) dislikes ahead of the welfare of the American people and this country!! When you get ready to pull that lever, or punch that ballot, just consider for a moment: can this country survive another 4-8 years of another Bush/Republican administration?
You're absolutely right Chris.
Rank and file Democrats should be all over Hillary for that fear mongering ad, no better than the ones they have denounced and slammed for years as Rovian slime. To essentially say, vote for me otherwise your kids may be snatched from their beds at 3 am, or vote for me otherwise terrorists will be blowing up your kid's bedroom at 3 am. It is reprehensible.
I realize that DBEDEN. I can see where my post came across as hostile towards your earlier posting. That wasn't my intention and I apologize.
I for one am glad that you have your eyes open. Take a look at the Huffington Post. There are some interesting stories about how Clinton dogged Rick Lazio in New York about his tax returns and now it's no big deal. Also, there is a wonderful article in which a Canadian official has officially stated that Clinton officials called them before Obama's camp and told them that the NAFTA tough talk was just political posturing. She actually used this against Obama when her campaign did it first. She is such a transparent hypocrite. We can only be thankful that the delegate math is in Obama's favor and it should keep this woman from ruining the party.
Chris,
The reason I like Obama and would strongly consider voting for him is not because of issues or policies as much as it is principles and integrity. Those same motivations may propell me to vote for McCain over Clinton if the choice is between them, at this point anyway. (cold feeling erupts over self)
Or opt for a third party candidate.
It's not a warm choice, is it?
I can imagine a 3 AM call to the White House today...
Hello.. What, a nuclear bomb has been detonated in Los Angeles? Call Dick and tell him we want to know what our options are. <hangs up phone>
George...! George, wake up!
Wha..? <groggy> It's 3 o'clock, Laura...? <annoyed>
Steely cold in a crisis? Cool and detached? Yea, I think Laura Bush might fill the bill. ;>)
All I know about "cool and detached in a crisis" is that, in a time of international crisis, I'm confident that neither Hillary nor Barack (nor McCain, to be honest) would spend 7 minutes reading The Pet Goat.
1/20/09 is only 320 days away.
All I know about "cool and detached in a crisis" is that, in a time of international crisis, I'm confident that neither Hillary nor Barack (nor McCain, to be honest) would spend 7 minutes reading The Pet Goat.
Best. Response. Ever. :-)
I watched this exchange tonight. Though not included here by MMFA Evan Thomas went on to say that Barack Obama is "cool and detached" as opposed to Hillary.
File under: One more Obama Media Shill aka Hillary Media Basher
BTW I believe Hillary Clinton could handle a crisis just fine.
J2, I think all of them could handle a crisis just fine, though I think McCain may be a little "hot-headed" for my tastes. I take that from the fact that he's made remarks about not being able to bomb ships he was flying over...
In either case, I think Hillary would be fine in a crisis, as long as she's not asleep ;) (in case you didn't know, their plane had some pretty major turbulence, and she slept through it, reportedly.)
Let's see, when she cries, she's being weak. When she's hard, she's being neurotic.
The gal just can't win for losing, can she?
Is it too much to ask the press corps to talk about, oh, I don't know... the 935 lies told by the Bush administration leading up to the Iraq War? Or, how about the 200+ million dollars PER DAY that we're pissing away in Iraq? Or, how about the DON SIEGELMAN case? Gee, what happened to that story?
No.... I guess that's asking too much. It's much easier to endlessly analyze and re-analyze the delegate count and whether Hillary is being too mean or Obama is really really really a Christian, or how mavericky John McCan't will be.
HOLY CRAP!
Nerzog,
Not to defend these cable networks and the time they waste, but can you really blame them totally? I don't think so. There just aren't enough substantive, evolving, developing straight news stories to fill up 24/7 news coverage, so much of their airtime is filled with this "hard hitting analysis".
Not to diminish the importance of the stories you mention, but we are also in the thick of an election season, that is where the emphasis is now, it's where the people's interest is, apparently - I think many just think they are nearly through with Bush and just riding him out, on to the next, so to speak.
So we are stuck with this if we so to choose to watch it or not. Also, there is some good stuff on cable actually, one just has to seek it out and ignore this fluff.
However, I honestly believe that these talking heads help shape public opinion as well as public interest. How many people were really interested in Whitewater, or Monica Lewinski? They managed to examine those stories to death, whether the public wanted to see it or not. Part of the job of a good newsperson is to create interest in important stories. Remember Watergate? Nobody cared at first.
I agree that the presidential election is important, but I truly believe that, during the course of an hour long show, 15 to 20 minutes would be enough to report what is really going on and relate the important facts. Instead, they eat up endless hours going over the same details over and over and over, asking different "experts" to weigh in, speculating ad nauseum over whether or not Hillary will drop out, or use dirty tactics, etc.
If they really wanted to, they could give the same treatment to any of the stories I've listed, as well as countless others. They just choose not to, for whatever reason.
It's maddening. Time for Gunsmoke.
What you must remember is to opine off the top of your head (or out of your a**), is easy.
Doing actual reporting/investigating is hard and takes actual jounalistic work.
These talking numbskulls are simply just lazy. And that's unforgivable.
Nerzog,
Also, what I find curious is look how the comments and the attention on this website, by the posters, mirrors the irrelevencies and the fluff these cable networks put out.
When there is a serious topic or issue put forth here within the context of misinformation, how much real conversation and policy or issue discussion is there, when compared with this type of thread or when Limbaugh or O'Reilly insult somebody? Look at the number of comments, the level of interest there is on the more serious threads vs. the gravitational pull towards the far less intricate and policy/issue driven ones.
The real substantive threads regarding torture, or immigration, or health care, or other real issues that impact people's lives are far less commented on than some stupid comment from Ann Coulter - I am as absent as anyone from those threads, I admit that.
So, is the media giving the people what they want, or are the people responding to less complicated issues and opting for more personality driven tabloid type stories?
Good question.
Tommy, I think its the mark of a good post when someone else notes that it's a good question ;)
so, good question.
Turning blue now...
I agree. There is a big difference between
(a) a comprehensive discussion of a good sampling of incidents that are relevant to the job of President, especially if the panel is non-partisan or truly balanced with respect to political agendas, versus
(b) some amateur psychologizing about mental states, with little or no evidence (or cherry-picked incidents), and no refutation.
This is another good reason why I don't watch those shows anymore.
While NBC/MSNBC is transparent in its corporate mandate to debase Hillary Clinton, it on occasion attempts moderation of its foot soldier anchors and producers. So, these show producers simply stock their pundit panels with ‘news pundits’ already accustomed to trashing Hillary. These pundits are then recycled throughout various shows of the NBC enterprise. Who would’ve thought that even Keith Olberman would succumb to corporate pressure, but it happened – he’s a ghost of his former, objective self. While Fox News doesn’t hide its agenda politics, CNN practices the same corporate mandate as NBC/MSNBC. Almost daily Jack Cafferty overloads his viewer e-mail segments with trash Hillary responses … he then turns and cajoles with the affable, albeit compliant, Wolf Blitzer.
Corporate America knows it can beat Barack Obama in the general election, but they’ll be most happy with the news outlet that works hardest to oust the serious candidate, Hillary. This was clearly evident in the recent three weeks when Barack Obama seemed the Democratic candidate to go against McCain. Large media had already pivoted to join the right wing to begin a campaign against Obama.