| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Chris Matthews and Hillary? |
Topic: Chris Matthews and Hillary?
| Author | Message |
| Baile | Posted – 1/4/2008 6:23:31 PM | show profile What is going on with the bias against Hillary that has become part of the everyday talk of Matthews? Did something happen to make this happen or is he just a woman in power hater? |
| crtyree | Posted – 1/4/2008 7:31:20 PM | show profile I was thinking the same thing Matthews kept going on about how 2/3 of the party rejected her...but then 2/3 rejected Obama and Edwards. There is not a clear cut winner or runner-up. There was a 9 point spread between 1st and 2nd for the Repubs., and then 12 points between 2nd and 3rd. New Hampshire will be the big story for the Dems. Matthews should know that and not make stupid remarks. Maddow called him on it last night, that was fun to watch. But of course, he cut her off. |
| Baile | Posted – 1/4/2008 7:51:23 PM | show profile Yes I heard him say that also which makes no sense - they were all rejected by a huge percentage by that logic. Then tonight he comes on looking angry as hell and goes again for her - it feels as if he has developed an enormous bias against her. I was happy to see Obama have that historic win but Matthew's vitriol against Hillary was hard to take. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 1/4/2008 8:09:04 PM | show profile She lost, its really big I do think Matthews does go a little overboard, but its the entire media. There are so many other people who go so much farther than he does in there hatred for her. I think it had to be looked at in a certain way. She lost, she lost really bad, I mean if she lost by a few percent, then no big deal. She lost by 9%, on CBS evening news, she said she has never thought about losing. When you say things like that, the media will be very hard on you. |
| Baile | Posted – 1/4/2008 11:40:16 PM | show profile But is just the point - 65% of those who caucused voted against Obama. Matthews is crazy or knows nothing about Math. This has been going on for some time with him and he was playing with these meaningless figures long before the result came in. Did something happen to make him so bitter against her - did she snub him at some time? It really feels to be personal for him and he was at it again tonight bout Bill being the "comeback kid" - he leaned in to the camera and announced that he was going to stop this spin. He did appear to be confused on tonight's show though. Is he in fact ill? |
| crtyree | Posted – 1/4/2008 11:43:42 PM | show profile Earlier on Thursday, Matthews made the same point, that if she lost, it was some how a huge story and that the majority of the party voted against her. It's insane. There was a piece in the newest GQ about the "Hillary Haters," and I don't think that this is the case, which Matthew's thinks it is. If the party wanted to reject her, they would have. The result would have been somewhere around 10 percent and come behind Richardson and Dodd. It's just not good sense or good observation to make some statement that a majority of people caucused against her, when the same could be said for Edwards and Obama. I'm disappointed that Richardson didn't do better. To me this raises a question, would the results been different had they done more attacking, or at least didn't act like it was some kind of liberal love-in. Then again, the ones who did go on the offense didn't do too well. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 1/4/2008 11:51:38 PM | show profile Richardson failed to enhance his profile. It's really about the best financed and organzied. Hillary factor? I don't get it - never have. Why is there so much animosity for this woman? I can't really say. What I'm reading from this campaign is a candidate that will say anything to win and who's not trustworthy. The nation wants to distance itself from the Bush years and Hillary doesn't seem to have the wheels to evacuate. She seems entrenched. I don't want to witness another Margaret Thatcher. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 1/5/2008 12:16:16 AM | show profile Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama got 38%, which gave him the most votes. Yes, over 60% caucused against, but he wasn't going against one other person, he was going against five other candidates, so it was spread out. I agree the same could be said for Obama or Edwards, but they weren't expected to win. They haven't been handed the nomination before one ballot was cast, she was. That is Matthews point. He has been trying to make people stop all this Clinton is the one thing, because it is ridiculous. He doesn't hate her, he has said when you meet her and talk to her, she is a great person. It has gotten on his nerves, along with so many others. |
| MatureOne | Posted – 1/5/2008 3:44:08 AM | show profile Look, you Dems/Libs out there - especially the Hillary supporters.... I don't know if "Hillary haters" or "Clinton bashers" or whatever cute little terms you use helps you, but you really need to face some hard facts, primarily that Hillary will not be President, now or in the future. It is not a matter of polarization, nor right-wing this or that, but rather that she is a large load of bad - not just in general, but even for you. The so-called experience that she is trying to claim rings hollow for too many people - because it is indeed hollow. She has held one office, US Senator, from neither her home state nor Arkansas, but rather from New York. She barely had enough time as a resident to qualify to run there. If she could have plugged into the same type of machine and political circumstance, she would just as easily moved to MA or CT. She has gone so far out of her way to get attention and appear smart and in charge for so many years, that the re-invention she is trying to pull off just doesn't fly. She has a terrible track record, and has been married to experience rather than acheiving it, married to charisma rather than having it. The things she has been involved in or in charge of have been disasters - education efforts in AR, White Water, law firm records, Bimbo-Eruption efforts, travel office firings - the list goes on and on. Mathews, for better or worse, is an unabashed leftist. I think he truly espouses the liberal doctrine and wants someone to carry that torch that doesn't constantly require him having to spin and cover or make excuses. Maybe he realizes that he is a Democrat, not a Clinton. Maybe he realizes that not espousing Hillary makes him no less a Democrat than not espousing Oral Roberts makes someone less religious. Maybe he realizes that his party and ideals are bigger than the Clintons, and he is anxious to move forward rather than (again) constantly filling up shows discussing their messes. I doubt he is a sleeper agent of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy". |
| crtyree | Posted – 1/5/2008 2:58:21 PM | show profile First off, this was started because of Matthews weird idea that 60% of Dems Caucused against her, when the same could be said about the other 2 big finishers. Second, there are such things as Hillary Haters, there's a whole article in GQ where they interview these people. They're scary. Third, I don't like her, never said I did. I said that while some might think that this conclusion from Matthews could be construed as a Hate Hillary thing, when I don't think it is. Lastly, there is a bias against Hillary, because she came in with this supremely confident, "I'm the winner, everyone else might as well quit," attitude; and that kind of arrogance does not play well. So combined with this vitriol from those on the right and her arrogance, i'm surprised she did as good as she did. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 1/5/2008 3:20:51 PM | show profile Do people really watch him? I think I laugh every time I read someone say Matthews is a leftist or a right winger. He is a true human being. He is liberal on certain things, and he is conservative on other things. He is not someone who comes on TV and says things he doesn't believe in. I really want people to watch a month or Hardball or even the Chris Matthews show. If everyone could take off there respective glasses, they would see he a true moderate. I know its shocking and not even possible, but he is. He slams republican, he slams democrats, even those not named Clinton. The sad thing is no one will ever take up the task of doing that. No one is really open-minded enough to do it. |
| anke__55 | Posted – 1/5/2008 3:38:00 PM | show profile Chris Matthews and Hillary I think Chris has seen through the Clinton spin to see underneath it all there is little to admire and much to fear if these 2(Bill and Hillary) return to power. The considerable ability that these 2 people have is distorted by narcicism and a sense of entitlement that has little regard for the consequences of thier actions. Everybody and sverything is expendable if it get in the way of what they want. They are elitists and want to rule rather than govern. |
| cranberyjlj | Posted – 1/5/2008 5:46:08 PM | show profile | email poster Chris Matthews and Hillary? Maybe his attitude toward Hillary was the reason they (MSNBC) came in third in the ratings for the night! I surely switched to CNN because of Matthews smart mouth. I respect Keith and Maddow, but "Tweety" really is around the bend and just plain does not tell the truth! |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 1/5/2008 6:17:25 PM | show profile Good job Frank! I made a great grammatical error, good call. Anyhow, I do believe you can be a moderate and that he is a moderate. I think if people could actually watch him for a month, you would see that. I mean if he was so liberal, then why in the world does media matters a liberal web site, have all of the conservative things he has said? Seriously, explain that, because I would think if he was that liberal, media matters would love him, and never site anything he says. They only site republicans, right? |
| Baile | Posted – 1/6/2008 10:08:08 PM | show profile Matthews is too angry to be moderate "Anyhow, I do believe you can be a moderate and that he is a moderate." He is too angry to be moderate - he "poses" as being non partisan - not at all the same as being moderate. However, he fails for me in this pose - I had to switch off from MSNBC because of his nasty remarks and jeering manner towards Hilary - and I am not a Hillary supporter. I just could not take it and felt that he was trying to swing things away from her - to influence events and it was far too much emotional involvement for a commentator for me. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 1/7/2008 9:41:59 AM | show profile Well, they showed the video of Matthews and Hilary hugging on MSNBC's Morning Joe, so I guess he must totally want her to die, and just hates the hell out of her. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 1/7/2008 10:06:00 AM | show profile Hey JT... "He is a true human being. He is liberal on certain things, and he is conservative on other things. He is not someone who comes on TV and says things he doesn't believe in." Ummm....Check his Resume...first job...the Ed Muskie campaign, speech writer to Jimmy Carter,aid to Tip O'Neil.....and ran for Congress as a Dem from his home district in Philly and got crushed....sorta looks like s Dem from here Skippy! |
| chucho | Posted – 1/7/2008 12:04:10 PM | show profile >> But is just the point - 65% of those who caucused voted against Obama. << That's not true. In Iowa "Undecided" is often a category in itself -- that's oftena vote of no conidence in any candidate. The people that's didn't vote for Obama didn't vote AGAINST HIM, they vote FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. And nobody expected Hillary to place THIRD. That's the story. IMO, this was a categorical rejection o the status quo. As far as I'm concerned Hillary voted for the Bush foriegn policy agenda -- not just in voting for the war but recently voting to continue funding it without any mention of what Congress wants in Iraq. Hillary abstained from voting on the Bankruptcy reform bill because voting for it would have alienated her constituency (poor black women in Brooklyn) and voting fagainst it woudl have alienated the people who pay her legalized bribes (PAC checks from Citibank). Whatever big Matthews has up his ass, it sound like some Hillary supporters here are really irked that Obama came in first. I love it when mainstream quasi-progressives (that support candidates that support war resolutions and don't have the guts to admit that Congress, not the president, declares war, and candidates that tacitly or overtly -- as in Biden's case -- support predatory lending 32% APR usury rates, for example) get their panties in a wad when they com face to face with more progressive elements within their own party. THANK GOD: for once it appears that the Independents might actually hold real sway among the progressives. Don't forget, warmongering "new liberals": you needs us for any of your candidates to make it. You must listen to us. (I hope, though we may yet still see the Dems shout down anyone who gets pissed when Democrats talk about "reaching across the aisle". We don;t want that. We want true progressive values. We don' want excuses and "experience". |
| jess | Posted – 1/7/2008 12:28:03 PM | show profile | email poster Chris Matthews is no moderate!!! For the person who said you should watch Chris Matthews for a month and you would see what a moderate he is, I beg to differ. I've been watching him for nearly a year and and truly believe he has no moral center...his opinions change with the wind. Basically he's a Republican (admitted to voting for Bush the first time he ran) and his brother is a Republican state senator in PA. Once in a while he'll criticize Republicans but mostly he's more criticall of the Dems...except for recently because of the sorry Republican field. It will be very interesting to watch how he changes his attitude toward Barak if he gets the nomination. Right now he's elevating him because he really despises the Clintons. That's been going on for a long time. Most recently (the last couple of month), I've watched with increasing alarm how he's covered Hillary...many times deriding her personally about the cackle, the laugh, the clapping and it's been very disturbing. Nearly every show I've watched has started out with negative stories about Hillary and ended with negative stories about Hillary. His journalist roundtables are a joke...basically it's just a platform for him to rant about Hillary. And no one challenges him. I always knew he was a loose cannon but it's gone too far and I've stopped watching. |
