Matthews: Hillary’s succeeding because Bill ‘messed around.’
Matthews: Hillary’s succeeding because Bill ‘messed around.’
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Chris Matthews baselessly claimed that the only reason Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is running for President is because of her husband’s affairs:
Matthews: I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around. [...]
That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened.
Watch it:
As ThinkProgress has tracked in the past, Matthews has consistently been obsessed with Clinton’s sex life.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Matthews needs to check into re-hab or needs some serious counseling.
I don’t know if he was molested by a nun or something but this mans hang-ups against women are so glaringly apparent.
Chris, take a vacation and then get a new therapist.
-GSD
January 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pmChris Matthews = putz, with a lower case p. It’s really as simple as that.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pmgood comments about tweety’s “reporting” on C&L also…
this guy is an embarrassment… most everything he says is projection, plain and simple…
and THIS topic is pure trash talk…
for shame.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pmMatthews has consistently been obsessed with Clinton’s sex life
Along with most Righties for at least 12 years.
Maybe it’s because Tweety doesn’t have a sex life?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pmHush Chris Matthews…hush.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:33 pmWhat astounds me is that the other ‘experts’ just let him continue to spout off without throwing the BS Flag and penalizing him 15 yards for unjournalistic conduct
January 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pmAnd the reason Mathews has his job is because he brought brand new knee pads to his interview.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:35 pmMy guess is Hillary said no to Chris’s request to visit his show because his ratings are so low now. I agree
Chris is a sick man and needs help but what is really sad is NBC allows him to continue. Now with that make up story I guess Chris isn’t doing to well at home himself as his wife is a strong career professional.
Don’t look for Senator Obama to go on Chris or O’Reilly’s show either. As Obama sees how these guys treat a woman, he could be walking into the attacks such as their friend Rush has been giving.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pmWise people stay away from ignorant racist and let them stay with the trash their use to.
raynman – brokaw didn’t let him get away with it…
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/09/tom-brokaw-lectures-chris-matthews-over-nh-election-coverage-we-have-a-lot-of-explaining-to-do/
January 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pmTweety’s got issues. He needs to make an appt. with Dr. Ruth. I’m not sure that he has the man-love for Bill or Hillary. And I have to agree that Tweety has been obsessed with the Clintons sex life.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pmRemember when Matthews was eviscerated by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show? CM was pushing his idiotic book Life’s a Campaign and he was talking about Clinton during his interview, about how he got all the girls in college. It was horrifying to have yet another glimpse into CM’s weird inner life, and Stewart justly and elegantly carved him to ribbons. CM is the Maureen Dowd of TV: he can’t leave the Clintons alone.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pmJebus. What a blithering idiot.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pmHe’s not only obsessed, he’s so completely implausible that he should be laughed at openly and loudly whenever he opens his stupid mouth. The people of New York elected Clinton Senator because they felt sorry for her? How utterly moronic is that?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pmUnfortunately, there are quite a few Hillary haters on the left as well.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pmOily bigot
January 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pmMatthews hatred of the Clintons has been so apparent for so long I’m surprised he didn’t have an aneurysm on the spot after hearing Hillary won New Hampshire. His resentment at having to share an Election Night seat with Olberman is only slightly less obvious. BTW, did anybody notice the Iran war is back on? Bush had his “significant quantities of uranium” face on today at a press meet with Olmert , a sure sign of impending destruction. He can’t even be bothered to lie convincingly anymore.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pmIt’s called reaction formation.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pmIf that’s the standard, than she should be really, really successful.
Comment by good_golly — January 9, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
More Clenis envy from goon_golly?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pmRe: Hillary’s “amazing comeback†in the New Hampshire primary election; was it her tears? I don’t think so. Was it “hordes of women voters?“ I don’t think so. Was it the “Bradley effect?†I don’t think so. It was plain old electronic election theft and fraud.
Senator Obama was robbed of his election victory in New Hampshire by electronic election rigging in favor of Hillary. The most corporate candidates almost always seem to “win†when private corporations “count†the votes. I would suggest that Obama was robbed of victory in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election on 8 January 2008 by the criminal electronic flipping of several thousand votes from Obama to Hillary. The so-called “amazing comeback†of Hillary was based on computerized electronic election fraud.
This is just like the Bush/GOP electronic theft of Presidential Election in November 2004 when about seven million Kerry votes were electronically flipped into Bush votes on Election night.
Hillary “won” with the help of Republican corporations “counting” the votes. Certainly the pre-election polls did not indicate that her victory was even remotely possible… Could the right-wing neocon corporatists still be rigging elections in 2008? Hillary is corporate America’s best good chance to continue Bush wars and unchallenged corporate greed…
I have zero faith in any election that does not employ the hand-counting of paper ballots. Anything with a “electronic†computerized voting system can be very easily and undetectably rigged…
Most of the “unexpected†and “amazing†Republican election “victories†in the 21st century were the direct result of GOP operatives hacking, rigging and stealing elections electronically…
Below are Brisa’s comments to http://www.theleftcoaster.com on 8 January 2008 re: electronic vote “counting†by Diebold in New Hampshire:
“Repost from earlier thread…sorry, but I feel very strongly about this issue…largely ignored by both parties.
Hate to be the skunk at the garden party but…quoting Nancy Tobi of the Democracy for New Hampshire website, “81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as “Premier”). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots.”
These are the same machines that were tested in the HBO documentary “Hacking Democracy” in which a computer programmer was able to alter vote totals by introducing computer code through the memory cards. Using an optical scanning machine from a county in Florida, they demonstrated how these machines first attempt to read instructions from the memory card before accepting any votes. The audit log can then be wiped clean to remove any evidence of tampering.
Has this obvious security flaw been changed? There is no way of knowing as the source code is proprietary and not reviewable by anyone outside of the manufacturer.
How can anyone have confidence that the total reported actually represent the votes cast? No random audits are done to verify them. Even when recounts are done, as in the Ohio 2004 presidential election, hanky panky has been practiced as revealed by the recent conviction of two election workers who rigged the recount.
And if the vote totals were accurate in ‘04…why cheat on the recount?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4266.
Posted by brisa at January 8, 2008 09:00 PM.
Cheers.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pmWhy is this jerk still on television? I have watched him interact with Keith Olbermann on the primaries and Keith constantly looks so embarrassed that he is sharing a stage with Matthews.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pmI suspect Hill’reh’s influence of the MSM was used to get Obama Independents over confident, so that enough of them felt comfortable enough to try to be a spoiler in the Rep race, instead of ensuring their candidate had a solid win.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pmUmm…. Hillary won in NY because Giuilini dropped out of the race and they replaced him with a complete twit.
She is still a carpetbagger.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pmIf that’s the standard, than she should be really, really successful.
Comment by good_golly
You call this discussion?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pmplease gg give us truth…..we await your wisdom…we are lost without your knowledge…please enlighten us….sarcasm on
Unfortunately, there are quite a few Hillary haters on the left as well.
Comment by delafield
I disagree. There are quite a few people on the left who don’t want Senator Clinton to be our next President, but that doesn’t mean that we hate her. I personally admire her as a human being and as a Senator for what she has been through and for what she has done as a Senator. I just don’t want her to be President because she is to DLC for my taste and she still hasn’t apologized for her Iraq invasion vote.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:59 pmMatthews has definite hang ups over Hillary and it appears over women in general. His sexist remarks are unprofessional and should not be tolerated by MSNBC. Perhaps Matthews should consider a show on FOX News. He would fit in better over there, him and O’Reily – or better yet Hannity – he has a definite obsession with Hillary.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pmUmm…. Hillary won in NY because Giuilini dropped out of the race and they replaced him with a complete twit.
She is still a carpetbagger.
Comment by deebaser — January 9, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
You may not have noticed, but she’s been elected twice. Second time around, she won 58 out of 62 counties. If the citizens of New York didn’t want her in office, don’t you think she’d be gone?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pmI disagree. There are quite a few people on the left who don’t want Senator Clinton to be our next President, but that doesn’t mean that we hate her. I personally admire her as a human being and as a Senator for what she has been through and for what she has done as a Senator. I just don’t want her to be President because she is to DLC for my taste and she still hasn’t apologized for her Iraq invasion vote.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 9, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
What Bilbo said.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pmdelafield
Those of us who object to her on the left take objection to her stances on censorship, war and foreign policy.
When the rightwing object to her it is usually her surname, her genitalia and her party.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pmShe is still a carpetbagger.
Comment by deebaser
this nit doen’s even know what a carpetbagger is……if you want to discuss…..you have to make sense.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pmYou are an idiot Chris, I don’t believe I have to say anything else about it, IDIOT sums it up nicely.
Buck Fush
January 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pmI don’t think that Hillary won New Hampshire due to tampering with the electronic voting machines. I think there are two reasons why she won and why it was a surprise. Both reasons have to do with the fact that 45% of the people in New Hampshire are Independents and can vote in either primary they like. So, here are the reasons why I think she won when the polls said she wouldn’t:
1) I think that a lot of right leaning Independents voted for her because they think she is the easiest Democrat to beat and they are afraid of Obama.
2) I think she won, when the prediction was Obama because a lot of the “undecided” (around 8% on Saturday) in the poll voted for Hillary.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pmTweety and Hillary should face off, mano a mano in a tiger pit with knives. I really don’t care who comes out alive.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pmYet another sex fixated Repub talking about other people’s sex lives due to problems with their own. Please don’t put this crap on TP. Please!
January 9th, 2008 at 1:09 pmShe didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,†right? That’s what happened.
I only hope Matthews wears a hat when he goes to the toilet. So he knows which end to wipe.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:15 pmOne of these days, Chris Matthews is going to spontaneously combust during one of his anti-Clinton tirades, and it’ll be interesting to see if he continues to manufacture enough spittle to put out the fire.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pmTweety and Joe….have to go..
January 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pmdelafield
Those of us who object to her on the left take objection to her stances on censorship, war and foreign policy.
When the rightwing object to her it is usually her surname, her genitalia and her party.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 9, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hillary haters on the left and on the right sound the same to me. They attacked President Clinton as well, with the help of right wing extremists, for the past 15 years.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pmshe won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,†right? That’s what happened.
And what basis does Matthews have to make this assertion?
None, of course, like the good prevaricator that he is…
January 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pmI listened to Matthews last night. He’s such a wussy. He always goes with what seems to be the most powerful in his eyes. He whines and avoids unbiased reporting. Olbermann made him look like a little kid.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pmLast night Rachel Maddow pointed out TPM was ragging on Mathews, and
January 9th, 2008 at 1:37 pmTweety cut her off, and never went back. It was one of many funny moments. I just hope Maddow isn’t on the blacklist now.
“That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,†right? That’s what happened.” — Chris Matthews
——————————————
OK, so how does Matthews explain the senior senator from my state, Elizabeth Dole? Did Tar Heels vote for her en masse because Bob Dole has been fooling around with other women?
Both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole are intelligent, competent women who happen to be married to men who have held high political office before they did. I disagree with both women on certain issues, but I will support that they can win races on their own, despite Matthews’ disbelief.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:38 pmMercy votes, huh?
If what Tweety says is true, John Edwards ought to doing a lot better — since his wife’s cancer has metastasized.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pmI want Obermann to name Matthews today’s Worst Person
January 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pmIt is surely fun to watch how Clinton owned Thinkprogress plays the primaries. You provide limited to no coverage outside of Hillary.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pmThat’s bizzare since I always considered Hillary’s “stand by your man” approach to Bill’s immature p*ssy-chasing ways a HUGE detriment to her character, especially in the eyes of women.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pmHillary haters on the left and on the right sound the same to me. They attacked President Clinton as well, with the help of right wing extremists, for the past 15 years.
Comment by delafield
Since you seem obsessed with the thinking that people on the left “hate” Senator Clinton the same as the people on the right, how about showing us some proof. Links to posts by people on this blog will suffice. But they must be links showing disdain for Senator Clinton for reasons other than her stands on issues.
If you can’t do this, why don’t you just STFU about Senator Clinton.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI want Obermann to name Matthews today’s Worst Person
Comment by Kate Stone
That would be great, but don’t count on it. There is only so much Keith can do on Countdown and dissing one of his MSNBC cohorts is not going to be something his handlers will allow him to do.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pmPlease no one call this guy a journalist.
A journalist is in Rwanda, Iraq, Lebanon, with a camera and a mic, telling us what is really going on.
This guy is a pundit.
Pundit = blowhard.
Please do not dignify these blowhards (tweety, o’reilly, others we know and “love”) with the term journalist.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pmYou provide limited to no coverage outside of Hillary.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 9, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Roger*2, this is a political blog.
You do understand the difference between a blog and a news outlet, don’t you?
January 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pmwhy don’t you just STFU
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 9, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Well Bilbo, that sure sounds like hatred to me.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pmI want Obermann to name Matthews today’s Worst Person
Comment by Kate Stone
That would be great, but don’t count on it. There is only so much Keith can do on Countdown and dissing one of his MSNBC cohorts is not going to be something his handlers will allow him to do.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 9, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Worst Person in the world comments are reserved for Fox Noise personalities.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pmwhy don’t you just STFU
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 9, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Well Bilbo, that sure sounds like hatred to me.
Comment by delafield
Is it directed towards Senator Clinton? I thought not. It was directed at you. Why don’t you take your “Hillary hatred” elsewhere. People here don’t “hate” Senator Clinton, they mostly disagree with her positions on issues. The haters are the Republiscums who become rabid and foam at the mouth about Senator Clinton because her last name is “Clinton” and for no other reason.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pmWorst Person in the world comments are reserved for Fox Noise personalities.
Comment by trickster92
I guess you don’t watch Countdown very often. I will agree that a lot of his “Worst” are from Faux Noise, but not all. I have even seen him choose Democrats as the “Worst” so it isn’t always political either.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:30 pmWhy don’t you take your “Hillary hatred†elsewhere.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 9, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, it feels as though I’m the only person on this web site who supports Hillary. It seems as though the right wing media has brain washed too many people on the left, especially some of the people who post here. I have supported the Clintons for over 15 years, financially and in the ballot box.
If you think that’s a reason to kick me off this web site then flag me for abuse.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pmSo I guess no one listened to what he ACTUALLY said, not TP’s feeble spin here? Matthews is only stating the obvious. The only reason people know who Hillary IS is because Bill messed around. He was famous, and got caught cheating. Therefore, the spotlight of fame fell upon her as well. Does anyone actually think if she was Hillary McDuffie, who’s unknown(in the political world) husband Mr. McDuffie cheated on her, she would have this kind of a push to be President?
January 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pmHya Zooey!!!
January 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pmLet us say that it is true that Clinton won because people felt sorry for her being beat up on by the media.
If so, wouldn’t all the Hillary bashing that is certain to go on in the next few months be a guarantee to get her more votes ?
January 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pmIf you think that’s a reason to kick me off this web site then flag me for abuse.
Comment by delafield
What I think is that if you are going to accuse the left (including bloggers here) of “hating” Senator Clinton, then I think you need to back up that accusation with proof. There is a lot of hatred for Senator Clinton on the right. I just don’t see “hatred” on the left and I’m not sure why you are trying to manufacture this so-called “hatred”.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:50 pmDoes anyone actually think if she was Hillary McDuffie, who’s unknown(in the political world) husband Mr. McDuffie cheated on her, she would have this kind of a push to be President?
Comment by whiteyfresh
Hillary Clinton was the first lady for 8 years and before that she was involved in a lot of political organizations. She did a lot for this country during that 8 years as our First Lady. Based on that she ran for the Senate and was overwhelmingly rewarded with her seat. It had nothing to do with Bill cheating on her and everything to do with her experience and the fact that she was our First Lady for 8 years.
You don’t think much about the intelligence of the New York voters, do you.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pmIt seems as though the right wing media has brain washed too many people on the left, especially some of the people who post here. I have supported the Clintons for over 15 years, financially and in the ballot box.
If you think that’s a reason to kick me off this web site then flag me for abuse.
Comment by delafield
Personally, I don’t think you should be kicked off the website for supporting Hillary. But I think you are showing great disrepect towards others by suggesting that those who do not support her have been brain washed by the right wing. If you pay any attention to political blogs, you will know there are plenty of reasons that progressives might have for supporting other Democratic candidates besides Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t mean there’s blind hatred; it means there are specific reasons based primarily on her Senate votes. I don’t want to hijack this thread by listing them and starting a war here. But I think you should show some respect towards the opinion of like-minded progressives who disagree with your choice of candidate.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:01 pmI think he might be leaning more towards Bill than Hill.
He wishes he could have been Monica.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:01 pmMathews spent more talking time about Hillary more than any other on television.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pmMathews need to do his job and tell us where all these candidates getting their money..I like to see that.
In the debates nobody asked a candidate :” who is backing you, who is paying you?..The televsion likes this Mathew’s fluff talk.
We are at war,we have huge deficits and people voting for Hillary because her husband messed up..
Why did she win anyway..?
when all polls were between 8.5-13.5 % favoring Obama…Suddnely she won…
The variance is too high…It is normally plus or minus 4%to 5%.
It did not happen on the other Republicans side…
What went wrong? !
That’s what Mathews should be talking about…
Chris Matthews is beneath contempt, but Hillary Clinton has had it for me.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pmChris Matthews is beneath contempt, but Hillary Clinton has had it for me. She’s practically bragging about how she turned things around with her crocodile’s tears.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pmHey Chris, Faux Noise called. They said either stop stealing their act or you’ll have to go work for them and they want you to bring that jackass Tucker with you!
January 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pmFluffball do his job? Please. His job is apparently that of a misogynistic bore. He is so wrapped up in sex that it is like a cancer on his brain.
That said, Tucker is much worse on every imaginable level and that clown is still there (I wish they would cancel him already…the rumors abound but he’s still there. UGH!!)
But watching Fulffball is just painful. His overt sexism is disgusting to me. Watching him and the others last night had me spitting fire I was so pissed. It made me want to vote for HRC just because she is a woman. I am getting tired of the good old boys club. F()ck all of them!!
Zooey, has Elizabeth Edwards gotten worse? I saw your comment above.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pmDiebold counted the votes? I think anything done by Diebold is automatically suspect, and I wouldn’t put it past the Clintons to use Diebold to win the election. It’s galling to me that Diebold is involved in American voting in any capacity; it should be out of business and its principals on trial.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pmBTW, I can’t say I hate Hillary, but I don’t like her a lot. Voting for war on Iraq? Voting to give W. the okay on Iran? Voting for the Military Commissions Act? Are those supposed to be principled acts?
I want Obermann to name Matthews today’s Worst Person
Comment by Kate Stone
Olbermann fell substantially in my estimation because of his attacks on Senator Clinton in Tuesday’s “Countdown” broadcast. He was all over her, charging that her brief show of emotion was a Karl Rove-type move.
It stinks to label Mrs. Clinton — or any other Democrat — as using Rovian tactics.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:27 pmDon, actually I liked Olbermann doing that. It shows that he takes both parties to task, not just the goopers. It shows that he’s truly fair and balanced vs. FOX’s total crap branding. I may not agree with him but I applauded him for doing it.
I don’t want left or right wing news. I want all of it. Let me make my own opinions.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pmjerkoff junkie Matt
January 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pmSo, how exactly does Chrissy-boy explain Hillary’s being RE-elected as a Senator in 2006? Sure, she “only” won in 2000 because “Bill cheated on her”, but (unlike NEORepubliCONs) the average voter isn’t going to re-elect someone because of something that happened more than 6 years earlier.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pmAs for her running for President “only” because “Bill cheated on her”, it seems that Chrissy-boy is offering the explanation for why HE intends to vote for Hillary.
I respect and admire Chris Matthews. I enjoy the brash style, brilliant insights, and political courage that he exhibits his show. But his Hillary Clinton comments in general and especially over the past two days have been unfair and more than a little creepy. I hope someone close to him can get him to do some thorough reflection, because the whole thing is making me think less of him at the moment. I write this as someone who does not plan to vote for Senator Clinton.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pmI just read Brad Blog about the voting in New Hampshire and the possibility that a Dibold counting machine was hacked and that’s what caused the great discrepancy between the voting for Obama and Clinton. They have a point in that the polling for every candidate except for the Obama/Clinton race were dead on. Then I got to thinking. It very possibly could have been the Republicans who hacked the machine to throw the primary to Clinton. We all know that they are frothing at the mouth with the prospect of having Clinton as the presidential candidate. They think they can beat her by swiftboating her. Could that be it? Or was it just a great big anomaly?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm#40 – Elizabeth got the sympathy vote for Bob no longer being ABLE to mess around, without Viagra.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pmYou know, NONE of us would have to think about the Clintons’ sex lives if they hadn’t shoved it in our faces!
January 9th, 2008 at 7:24 pmHillary took this treatment from him for years, and I’m quite certain that she was well aware of the risk that it would happen again.
The fact that she denied it all initially to SAVE FACE is what we should be looking at here. Would she lie to the nation, to save herself embarrassment? The risk is certainly there.
Tweety Bird has been working hard to get himself in the Bill O’Reilly/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity IDIOT CLUB. It’s obvious that Keith Olbermann feels real uncomfortable working with this rude, ignorant chatterbox. Poor guy must feel like he’s on ‘The View’. I think Tweety feels uncomfortable too, sitting next to a guy who’s his emotional, visual, intellectual, ethical, and likeablity superior.
I think Tweety would feel more comfortable working for FauxNews.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:08 amI thought Bill was a progressive, what happenend?
January 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pmOops I meant Chris, lol
January 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pmMatthews was against the War before any other talking ahead. And, he consistently excoriated the neocons after 9/11. The fact is he’s an asset in ways that a conventional beetweed “leftist” like Keith Olberman could never be. His appeal is broader and he has good relations with Republican pols. As far as his disdain for the triangulating, Marc Rich-pardoning Clintons – good for him! So, he’s not PC and makes cutting remarks abou Hillary. That automatically makes him a sexist pig? Puh-leeze. Hillary and her misty-eyed ‘Checkers Speech is a contemptible fraud. The comments here demonstrate exactly why “the Left” is such a no-account, feckless contingent of juvenile losers.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pmBilboBaggins, you must be out of your head…”no evidence of the left hating Hillary”
What websites are you reading?
http://www.rawstory.com
http://www.bradblog.com
http://www.salon.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Read some of their damn “hitlery” comments.
And, delafield, you’re not the only one who supports Hillary…and now I’m currently in Ohio; there many people who will vote for her.
“Those of us who object to her on the left take objection to her stances on censorship, war and foreign policy.
When the rightwing object to her it is usually her surname, her genitalia and her party.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 9, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hillary haters on the left and on the right sound the same to me. They attacked President Clinton as well, with the help of right wing extremists, for the past 15 years.
Comment by delafield — January 9, 2008 @ 1:28 pm”
you’re far from alone…
January 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pmOh yea, bilbobaggins…don’t forget DailyKos, and posters on Crooksandliars.com
I’ve stopped reading DailyKos..can’t stand the pretentious cocky arrogance.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pmTarazan says, “Mathews spent more talking time about Hillary more than any other on television.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:45 amMathews need to do his job and tell us where all these candidates getting their money..I like to see that.
In the debates nobody asked a candidate :†who is backing you, who is paying you?..The televsion likes this Mathew’s fluff talk.
We are at war,we have huge deficits and people voting for Hillary because her husband messed up..
Why did she win anyway..?
when all polls were between 8.5-13.5 % favoring Obama…Suddnely she won…
The variance is too high…It is normally plus or minus 4%to 5%.
It did not happen on the other Republicans side…
What went wrong? !
That’s what Mathews should be talking about…” tarazan
~~~~~~~~
What went wrong, Tarazan, was not the polling but the pundits and the so called analysts. They didn’t look closely and didn’t report at all the fact that 40% of Democrats in NH were undecided at the time of the last polling. From beginning to end Hillary Clinton was in the lead all night. She won because, frankly, she got more votes than Obama. Deal with it. BTW, all the information you want about who each candidates financial backers are is available on line. They are all backed by lobby money and/or corporations. Regarless of what Edwards says. I support Clinton because I feel she would be the best president. She simply has more experience than Obama. We need more than pretty words to affect real change. Obama’s a dreamer. Hillary’s a doer. But, regardless of who the pary nominates in the end, it should be the voters who decides, not the talking head out of D.C. and NY. I for one and sick of the lot of them. Most especially Matthews. He’s nauseating on sooooo many levels. His gushing all over Ann Coulter several months back was the last straw to any credibility he may have ever had. I will support the pary nominee whomever it ultimately ends up being.