Matthews still falsely suggesting Clinton did not become Yankees fan until Senate run
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews stated of Sen. Hillary Clinton, "When she went to New York, she quickly became a New Yorker with the Yankees hat and the upstate listening tour." Matthews has repeatedly suggested that Clinton's assertion during her first Senate campaign that she has "always been" a Yankees fan is false, despite photographic and other evidence showing that her allegiance to the Yankees long precedes her Senate run.
On the April 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted: "It seems to me Hillary Clinton has been very effective in becoming an Arkansan -- back when her husband was governor all those years, she developed a Southern accent. When she went to New York, she quickly became a New Yorker with the Yankees hat and the upstate listening tour. In Pennsylvania, it seems it me, she's been very effective in making herself a hometown girl from Scranton, with the beer and the shots and the beers and the guns and everything -- raised with a gun." Earlier that same day on MSNBC Live, Matthews asserted: "Hillary Clinton, having gone with that Southern accent down to Arkansas and the Yankees hat in New York, has now morphed herself, to some extent, into a Pennsylvanian for the purpose of this primary season." However, Matthews' suggestion that Clinton did not don a New York Yankees baseball cap until she ran for Senate in New York is false. Indeed, Matthews has repeatedly suggested that Clinton's assertion during her first Senate campaign that she has "always been" a Yankees fan is false, despite photographic evidence showing that her allegiance to the Yankees long precedes her Senate run. Further, The Washington Post reported on September 12, 1994, that "Mrs. Clinton ... as a kid was a 'big-time' fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and 'understudied' Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle."
Still Matthews has continued to suggest that Clinton was not telling the truth, even after Politico reporter John Harris -- who has written a book about Bill Clinton -- told Matthews that the attacks on Clinton over her history of being a Yankees fan were false. Harris said, on the April 6, 2007, edition of Hardball: "Hillary Clinton got hazed over saying she was a New York Yankees fan. It turned out, actually, that was right. She had been a lifelong Yankees fan. But people were all over [her] for supposedly embroidering her past."
Nonetheless:
- On the October 26, 2007, edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted: "She went to the Yankees so that she could run for senator from New York. It's so obvious. Why is she -- doesn't she know she looks like a fraud?" During that broadcast, after airing a clip of Clinton's remarks during an October 25, 2007, presidential campaign fundraiser in which she stated, "I have been a fan and I remain a fan of the New York Yankees. No changes. No looking to curry favor with anybody else," MSNBC correspondent David Shuster asserted: "Never mind that Hillary Clinton was a Chicago Cubs fan until she moved to New York to run for the U.S. Senate." While Shuster was making that statement, he aired a photo of Clinton wearing a Cubs cap, followed by one of Clinton wearing a Yankees cap. Shuster suggested that this was an example of what he called Clinton's "inconsistencies of style."
- On the September 23, 2007, broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Matthews claimed that when Clinton first ran for the Senate "she tried hard to prove she was a Noo Yawker," and aired footage of a June 10, 1999, interview with Katie Couric, then co-anchor of NBC's Today, in which Clinton said that she has "always been" a fan of the New York Yankees. Following the clip, Matthews said: "I just love the way Katie Couric went at her there. 'Come on, how many hats you wearing, babe?' I just think that was great."
From Hillary Clinton's 2003 autobiography, Living History:
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on April 21:
MATTHEWS: What that's up against is this sense that Hillary Clinton's been able to develop in this state effectively, in places like Scranton and northeast Philly, is the girl next door, that she's very familiar. She's not a Wellesley, Yale Law grad. She's now a very regular person -- almost like a Marcy Kaptur [D-OH], U.S. congresswoman from around the corner -- very successfully has groomed herself into being the local girl, and that is a very effective campaign tactic.
I remember Ted Kennedy running against Jimmy Carter back in 1980, very effectively coming to Philly, going to see the cardinal, eating the soft pretzels, hanging around. If you make yourself a Pennsylvanian, then you have a very good time beating anybody else, and Barack Obama has not been able to make himself a Pennsylvanian. Hillary Clinton, having gone with that Southern accent down to Arkansas and the Yankees hat in New York, has now morphed herself, to some extent, into a Pennsylvanian for the purpose of this primary season, and I think it might work well to give her a double-digit victory.
From the April 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: It seems to me Hillary Clinton has been very effective in becoming an Arkansan -- back when her husband was governor all those years, she developed a Southern accent. When she went to New York, she quickly became a New Yorker with the Yankees hat and the upstate listening tour. In Pennsylvania, it seems it me, she's been very effective in making herself a hometown girl from Scranton, with the beer and the shots and the beers and the guns and everything -- raised with a gun. It seems like it's worked, even to the point where she's walking around northeast Philly the other day and she's getting the treatment of the hometown girl.
I just got an idea for a real "Must See TV" program. Hook Chris Matthews up to a lie detector. Every time he tells a lie, administer an electric shock. A laugh a minute......
Sorry, that can't happen here. As the Bush administration always reminds us - "torture is illegal".
This is the Press for which the Founding Fathers established a special Constitutional protection . How sad.
Yes, the long documented trait of having a favorite baseball team from each league is simply not plausible, especially for the cold, calculating, and ambiguous Hillary Clinton.
</sarc>
Since the Cubs and Yankees are in two different leagues they would not be playing each other unless it was the World Series. The Cubs in the world series is one of the signs of the apocolypse. We would probably have other things to worry about if that happened.
Oh wait we already have other things to worry about other than which sports team Ms. Clinton supports.
Zoinks
"...despite photographic and other evidence..."
Honestly, when it comes to Matthews, doesn't that say it all?
In addition, I think the "accent" angle is disingenuous, too. I'm from New York state and when I joined the military in the early 1980s I shared a barracks room with Soldiers from the Florida panhandle, Georgia, Alabama, and southern Virginia. In less than three weeks I had unconsciously started speaking with a noticeable southern accent. The speech patterns of those around me had simply started to affect my own.
By the way, how many times has Matthews pointed out that George W. Bush was from Connecticut, yet speaks with a Texas accent? I'm sure that if I take "zero," no one else will bet against me.
By the way, how many times has Matthews pointed out that George W. Bush was from Connecticut, yet speaks with a Texas accent? I'm sure that if I take "zero," no one else will bet against me.
Not only that, there's a film clip in Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" of George W. Bush being interviewed toward the end of Poppy Bush's term in office (somewhere around 1992). In that clip, George W. speaks very coherently and with NO DISCERNABLE ACCENT WHATSOEVER.
I think his accent is either a fake, or he sufferred brain damage from all the liquor and drugs he injested over the years.
YANKEE FAN ?!
Okay, now I've made up my mind--GO OBAMA!!!
This item has been run though, maybe a half a dozen tiimes in the last year. She likes them both, deal with it.
Vote for McCain instead? I'd hate to think that something such as this could be the straw that broke that camel's back. The political death by a thousand cuts? How would you pace something like that?
Another pretty puny defense of Hillary by mmfa about being a yankees fan. Lately mmfa has been using a lot of words...to hide a weak defense of Hillary.
In this case...they cite an author who wrote a book about Hillary...inferring his evidence as gospel. There have been a lot of books written about Hillary...with many conflicting opinions and "facts".
But I understand and it's ok...it's mmfa's job to defend Hillary.
Wesley wrote:
>>In this case...they cite an author who wrote a book about Hillary...inferring his evidence as gospel. There have been a lot of books written about Hillary...with many conflicting opinions and "facts".
Really, are you serious? Do you think making a bunch of unfounded assertions separated by ellipses equals an argument? Here, let's try this out:
The article quoted a book written about McCain stating that he withstood torture in Vietnam and was loyal to his fellow soldiers...implying the book is gospel..but there have been many books written about McCain...with many conflicting opinions as "facts."
OR
The article quoted a book written about dragaons stating that he dragons are a myth...implying the book is gospel..but there have been many books written about dragons...with many conflicting opinions as "facts."
Wow! Arguing the Wesley way is easy! Anything can be argued by vague references to books.
Further, The Washington Post reported on September 12, 1994, that "Mrs. Clinton ... as a kid was a 'big-time' fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and 'understudied' Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle."
Thin evidence and a weak case -- rrrriiiiggghhhhhttttt.
How dare MMFA rely on true descriptions of actual events to prove their claims?
Wesley wrote:
>>In this case...they cite an author who wrote a book about Hillary...inferring his evidence as gospel. There have been a lot of books written about Hillary...with many conflicting opinions and "facts".
Oh, and there is that inconvenient 1992 picture of Hilary wearing a Yankees baseball cap. What a weak defense on Hillary's part! She is so calculating that she invented a time machine to go back to 1992 and have her picture taken with a Yankees cap.
Oh, by the way. Before you continue with the self-righteous grammer and spelling lessons to Solon and others, you may want to actually understand your own diction misusage:
"Ululator" is not a word. Ululate is. Ululate is a verb, not a noun. It would have been appropriate to say; "those who ululate. . ." It's the equivolent of saying; "I'm the decider!" Perhaps you went to the same school as our retarded cowboy President.
It could be embarrassing to attempt to correct others whaile making mistakes that are even more rediculous--sort of like trying to convince intelligent people that Hitler was a Liberal. You might consider sticking to sports or other such things which require minute brain activity.
Hilary may be a lifelong Yankee fan for all I know, but showing a photo of her wearing a Yankee cap doesn't prove that. I'm a Twins fan and don't own a Twins cap but do own an Indians cap, a Rockies cap and an Orioles cap because I've been to those stadiums. It means zip.
The Clintonian Justice System: You are guilty of any baseless accusation until you can prove your innocence beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Go Twins!
"Understudied" was the reporter's term, not Clinton's.
Clearly it was meant to mean that she followed Banks and Mantle in the box scores, memorized their career statistics and so on.
No mystery here.
Investigative Journalism is the best Journalism (witness David Barstow's piece in the NYTimes about the Pentagon's "message force multipliers"), and the hard-hitting expose is tops.
Screw such childish stuff as whether or not those "military experts" on cable television are conflicted of interest... the muck that We the People really want raked, is stuff like whether or not politicians are true fans of the local sports team!
We hear them say they're "big fans", and they say "GO TEAM!"... but do they really mean it?
We the People are presently a very cynical bunch, having been burned so badly by False or Falsified pre-Iraq invasion intelligence reports... We can't be lied to anymore, We want the Truth!
Are our politicians sincere fans of the local sports team, or not?
I have a suggestion: Now that Mr. David Barstow has completed his expose of the Pentagon's manipulation of the American People by using conflicted of interest "military experts", maybe he can uncover the Truth for us, about politicians and sports teams...
Also, I want to know: When politicians kiss babies, do they sincerely like babies, enough to maybe change a dirty diaper? Or are they just faking it?
Inquiring Minds Want To Know.
Also, when Neil Diamond appears at a concert in Denver, and tells the audience that "Denver is the greatest!", does he really mean that?
And if so, then why does he say "San Antonio is the greatest!" when he appears there?
Maybe chris matthews can do one of those hard-hitting exposes on that issue, and report the Truth of it to us.
We need good Investigative Journalists (like David Barstow), now more than ever.
I've resigned myself to the probable election of Gramps McCan't in November. With the help of the Media jackals, the Democrats will probably be crippled by Summer, drowning in bogus, petty, manufactured controversies which mean absolutely NOTHING to the governing of the country. This is chickensh*t politics at its worst, and these Media douchebags share a big part of the blame.
Yup about murdoch, a man who does nothing for the American People and has not the least good intention for anybody in this country except him and his own, but because of his wealth, is somehow allowed to not only influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People, but is Licensed to do it, by way of using (abusing) those People's own PUBLIC AIRWAVES... Licensed by the FCC.
Here's the present situation you refer to, as I understand it:
murdoch, hell-bent on grabbing as much of the American "media" as he can, so as to make as much power as he can, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People, has long skirted/pushed the FCC's "media owndership rule", which limits the (political) influence/manipulation that any privately-owned "media" company can have over the American People, by limiting FCC License holders from also owning newspapers in the broadcast market of their License...
But murdoch's powers of influence/manipulation extend to many individuals among the American People, specifically to the chairman of the FCC, a punk named kevin j. martin.
This punk named kevin j. martin pushed through the FCC a rule change, allowing his lord and master murdoch to own a newspaper in the market for which he is also FCC Licensed to broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (and I here note, that this "media ownership rule" affects primarily murdoch, and no one else: because other big FCC License holders, such as Disney-ABC and CBS and NBC, do not "cross-own" newspapers... it's murdoch we're primarily talking about, when we talk "media cross-ownership")...
Anyway, so this punk named kevin j. martin drafts a new rule for murdoch's benefit, and pushes it past the American People and through the FCC...
But wait, the U.S. Congress, as agents for the American People, intervene, and pick up their legal authority in this matter (an authority over the FCC and all it does), and they oppose this punk named kevin j. martin's new murdoch-benefiting rule... the new rule going into effect this past February, and the Senate then moving to "disapprove" the new rule, by way of S.J.Res.28, which states "Disapproving the rule submitted by the FCC with respect to broadcast media ownership. Resolved, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the FCC relating to broadcast media... received by Congress on February 22, 2008, and such rule shall have no force or effect."
And S.J.Res.28 is now before the Senate's Commerce Committee (which has jurisdiction over the FCC).
But wait again: murdoch has done more than design to to have "cross-ownership" in a broadcast market, he designs to flood that market with his political influence and manipulation... he owns (even in violation of the new rule) 3 newspapers and 2 television broadcasters in the same market!
In a broadcast market (New York) where he "owns" FCC Licenses for WNYW and WWOR, he also owns the newspapers The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal and now (it seems) he's about to own Newsday!
In violation of the new rule from that punk named kevin j. martin, which would allow an FCC License holder to also own a newspaper in the market of their FCC License, murdoch owns 2 soon to be (maybe) 3 newspapers! And has 2 FCC Licenses in that market also!
The guy (murdoch) is brazen to say the least... maybe he's even "connected" too.
How does this brazen guy own 2 (maybe 3) newspapers in the same market that he holds an FCC License (2 FCC Licenses)?
He's seeking a waiver to the rule he's breaking, that's how. A rule made just for him, so that he can "cross-own media", and he's breaking it and seeking a waiver to do so.
Who is he seeking that waiver from?
Why, from that punk named kevin j. martin, that's who.
But wait. Guess what? Neither that punk named kevin j. martin, nor an evil dude named murdoch, own any part of our Public Property, that Public Resource known as the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
It's our PUBLIC AIRWAVES, not theirs... they have no Rights whatsoever to that Public Resource, outside of what we License them, as a privilege, a really powerful privilege, to broadcast to the American People (and perhaps influence and manipulate their political opinions).
And We the American People can pick up our Title to this Public Resource, and take it back, by way of our agents in Congress, anytime we wish...
And if it were up to me, then S.J.Res.28 would be simply the first peep from a horn in the orchestra, signalling the beginning of a thunderous symphony...
...that makes a CRESCENDO with an Executive Order from our next President, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine to the FCC's Regulations, and putting at least a partial stop, to the wicked inluence and manipulation of the American People's political opinions, by way of an FCC License to use their very own Public Resource, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES...
An Executive Order, or an Act of Congress, either will do.
That's what's going on in the matter, as far as I know.
Add this one to the long list of manufactured controversies.
This is all getting to be redundantly dumb on these petty issues. For once I wish the media would concentrate on issues that matter to Americans not such minutae as to what team a candidate supports or doesn't support. Cripes!
I mean come on I wear a Dale Earnhardt hat (yes he's dead but he's still my favorite driver) does that mean that I can't support his son during races? Does that also mean I can't support my son's favorite driver if Earnhardt Jr. is out of the running at a race? Since when is any person limited to one and only one team or driver?
First off. Chris Matthews is a putz and a hack as are most of the so-called "journalists" that appear on MSNBC. If they were "journalists" and did some actual reporting, they would know that in Chicago you are either a White Sox fan or a Cub fan. Period.White Sox fans hate the Cubs and Cub fans hate the White Sox.If you are a Cubs fan and want to cheer an American League team, the last ream that you would choose would be the White Sox. As the Yankees were the dominant American League team when Senator Clinton was growing up,her choosing the Yankees for her A.L. team makes sense.If you are a White Sox fan you have two favorite teams:the White Sox and who ever is playing the Cubs.Any one who says that they cheer for both teams is either a liar or from out of town.