Comments on: Matthews: Hillary’s succeeding because Bill ‘messed around.’

By: haily

haily — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:45:29 +0000

Tarazan says, “Mathews spent more talking time about Hillary more than any other on television.
Mathews 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 :â€ who is backing you, who is paying you?..The televsion likes this Mathewâ€™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 Obamaâ€¦Suddnely she wonâ€¦
The variance is too highâ€¦It is normally plus or minus 4%to 5%.
It did not happen on the other Republicans sideâ€¦
What went wrong? !
Thatâ€™s what Mathews should be talking aboutâ€¦” 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.

By: JoshDest

JoshDest — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:29:31 +0000

Oh yea, bilbobaggins…don’t forget DailyKos, and posters on Crooksandliars.com

I’ve stopped reading DailyKos..can’t stand the pretentious cocky arrogance.

By: JoshDest

JoshDest — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:27:46 +0000

BilboBaggins, 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 â€” 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 â€” January 9, 2008 @ 1:28 pm”

you’re far from alone…

By: David Swyer

David Swyer — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:59:46 +0000

Matthews 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.

By: bob84108

bob84108 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:34:50 +0000

Oops I meant Chris, lol

By: bob84108

bob84108 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:34:12 +0000

I thought Bill was a progressive, what happenend?

By: republicanSScareme

republicanSScareme — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:08:22 +0000

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.

By: loretta

loretta — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:24:26 +0000

You know, NONE of us would have to think about the Clintons’ sex lives if they hadn’t shoved it in our faces!
Hillary 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.

By: judyinnm

judyinnm — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:51:20 +0000

#40 – Elizabeth got the sympathy vote for Bob no longer being ABLE to mess around, without Viagra.

By: bilbobaggins

bilbobaggins — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:10:59 +0000

I 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?

By: johnfyounger

johnfyounger — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:03:48 +0000

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.

By: JosephW

JosephW — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:59:04 +0000

So, 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.
As 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.

By: AmandaBlow

AmandaBlow — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:41:23 +0000

jerkoff junkie Matt

By: Ms_Joanne

Ms_Joanne — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:37:10 +0000

Don, 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.

By: Don in Texas

Don in Texas — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:27:44 +0000

I want Obermann to name Matthews todayâ€™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.

By: NoOneYouKnow

NoOneYouKnow — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:10:23 +0000

Diebold 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.
BTW, 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?

By: Ms_Joanne

Ms_Joanne — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:54:29 +0000

Fluffball 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.

By: TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong

TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:44:07 +0000

Hey 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!

By: doro

doro — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:34:40 +0000

Chris 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.

By: doro

doro — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:33:57 +0000

Chris Matthews is beneath contempt, but Hillary Clinton has had it for me.