Chris Matthews doesn't appear to know what an ad hominem argument is. Noting that Bush's efforts to beg Saudi Arabia to sell us more cheap oil are "pathetic" doesn't qualify.
« Debate Recap | Main | Let's Be Friends »
Observation
15 Jan 2008 11:29 pm
Comments (40)
Chris Matthews is a strange guy.I have met him. Late Nov.earlyDec there was a book author meeting at the University Club in DC. I was there at a meeting and so I went to see all the authors, may be buy a book, etc.
I saw him. I went to him and said that I watch his show. He said do you want to buy a book. I did not want to buy his book. But, I said. I have a prediction. I said Obama will be the nominee. He looked at me and saying -- we will see. I was sad. A few weeks earlier, I was in DC again and I attend another book meeting. I saw Juan Williams. I told him that I listen to his views on NPR. I told him Obama may be the nominee. He said: That would be great. Would that be good for the country?
I saw two different reporters responding to a viewer's (or listener's) comment in totally different way. One looking down and another curious and welcoming.
Yeah, but Matthews just nailed the Clinton operative, no doubt sent forward to spin for the campaign because he is black, by getting him to admit that he is currently a Washington lobbyist! As Matthews says, HA!
It's amazing that MSNBC, as soon as the debate was over, went right to Chris Matthews' gut reaction of how it went.
It appears that Chris Matthews may need to take a course in public relations. Doubt that makes him "strange." In the titanic Chris Matthews v.s. Juan Williams 'Who's the better guy?' sweepstakes...Chris Matthews, or at least the Chris Matthews we see on TV is hands-down the better guy. He strongly opposed the Iraq War from jump street and was the first (if not the only) TV commentator to have excoriated the neocons machinations in bringing us to War. I watch FOX and I've never heard Juan Williams take a stong stand for or against anything.
It's amazing that MSNBC, as soon as the debate was over, went right to Chris Matthews' gut reaction of how it went.
I changed the channel immediately upon realizing that Matthews was going to thrust his insane conclusions about Hillary's "power play" onto everyone else. I have no idea what he was talking about.
I thought Hillary was overly hectoring, she seemed to be talking louder than everyone else for no good reason, her "question" of Obama was essentially an attempt to make him look like her sidekick or subordinate, and her response to the question about why she made that invocation of terrorism as a potential threat that may face the next president "on day one" (barf) was simply a lie.
Edwards can go off into the sunset back to the "mill villages" that he came from. Seriously, I think it's nice that he somehow "survived" that brutal upbringing but I simply cannot stand how much he uses the word "mill". ENOUGH.
A subtle thing I like about Obama is that he doesn't seem all that vain or self-aware when he's just sitting there and listening to his opponents. He sits quietly, patiently, listening intently but not offering Edwards' vaguely smug defense attorney's pout or Hillary's "power woman" fixed gaze. He's just listening, and he's actually thinking about multiple responses. I mean, he obviously knows he's on camera; he's just not putting on a show. For me, what's inspiring and attractive about this guy is not his oratory but the way he can just sit quietly, somewhat Buddha-like, emoting confidence without it appearing practiced or Clintonian, I guess.
Hillary can go f herself after the b.s. about terrorism and Gordon Brown. I've simply had enough. And the "you DO need to be a C.E.O.!" attempt at making Obama look inept was pure Romney.
Chris Matthews is a freak show - even compared to somebody like Rather, who has behaved strangely on air in the past, or even jerks like Ted Koppel or Mike Wallace.
The guy belongs on the Daily Show - or the Gong Show.
I thought Obama's strongest moment was early in the debate when they brought up the Bankruptcy Bill that Clinton and Edwards both voted for. Obama simply said, "I was against it from the beginning because it was written to help the banking industry not the American people." Perfect answer the underscores his judgment. He always seems to be the only one on stage who sees things for what they are.
Obama simply said, "I was against it from the beginning because it was written to help the banking industry not the American people."
I like the fact that when Obama is asked a direct question he gives a direct answer first, and only then goes on to add the additional context. Russert asked Clinton a direct question about gun control and she went on a whole tour of the various issues and her vatioius positions on them, and it was only at the end when Russert asked for a clarification that he got an answer to the original question.
Obama also did a good job on the question about black male dropout rates, I thought.
Chris Matthews = Uncle Toby.
In spite of the pundit pap, I think that Sen. Clinton struck so many off-key notes that may not serve her well.
good points tinisoli. Yeah, i think Chris was kissing up to HRC after getting slammed last week for frying her ass cause he thought she was finished. Geez, he's so manic.
And, yes, i turned to my gf and asked her if HRC was screaming compared to the other guys. That's what i call shrill.
I thought Obama was more personable than usual. Debates aren't normally his strong suit.
And, yes, the 'mill", "feel it in my soul" stuff from Edwards has to stop, at some point, doesn't it?
Anyways, i'm done with the Clintons. They can go f themselves for all i care. No vote from me in the general, ma'am. No way, no how.
Isn't it more or less implicit by now that any Bush initiative is likely to be terrible just by virtue of being a Bush initiative?
At this point, if it is Clinton vs. Romney, what's really the point of voting for either one? I'll definitely vote for Clinton is she is against McCain, Huckabee, etc. because of Roe v. Wade, but against Romney, there doesn't seem to be much daylight in terms of abortion (he probably is actually still pro-choice), healthcare, foreign policy (she is somewhat more anti-torture, but always has to qualify that), business regulations, etc. Maybe on the environment there is some daylight, but that is just about it.
I have many agreements with dave, but a minor disagreement: Dave wrote "Yeah, i think Chris was kissing up to HRC after getting slammed last week for frying her ass cause he thought she was finished. "
No I think Media Matters campaign against Matthews has probably pulled in a lot of mail and he has to bend over backwards to kiss her ass thinking it'll stop people bothering him. Then he can live to be a sexist ass another day.
Not me, i'm going to the media matters contacts and writing that Matthews can't be objective about her because he hates her so much he has to occasionally over-praise her so he can go on hating on her.
Matthews really is a freak. He's 90 percent id. There's some good that comes from that but it's mostly bad.
He also believes that life is like the movies he likes. And that politics is like the movies he likes--particulary boxing movies. And that politicians are like the actors he likes -- particularly republicans, who are like John Wayne. Democrats, not so much.
He's a horse's ass, and stupid to boot.
Agreeing with dave that I'm not going to vote for HRC in the general either. In my state that probably will not matter but I'm pretty sick of everyhing about Hillary Clinton and she's making me revise my opinion of the Clinton years down even more than before.
"He's 90 percent id."
Plus 5% bad hair and 5% yelling. Really, who is more insightful, Matthews or Darrell Hammond's impression of him?
Why would a Texan like Bush want lower oil prices?
I am being driven to the conclusion that Hillary kind of stinks, but on a day when the Supreme Court just ruled that it was perfectly legal for corporations to commit fraud, I am still voting against the Repubs in the general.
Did it ever occur to you Bozos that just love to hate HRC that maybe, just maybe you've bought the Rethuglican Koolaid? I mean the great right wing noise machine has been at full volume for what?..fifteen years now? Its been all 'evil Clintons' all the time. She may not be the second coming of Eleanor Roosevelt but she has been a pretty effective Senator--if not a particularly progressive one. That's not my point. By sounding all huffy and self-righteous about HRC you are singing the Rethugs song, words and melody. And wash some of the stars out of your eyes when it comes to Obama. The next election is going to be for very hight stakes. We ought to be treating it as something more important than the latest "American Idol" circus.
Did it ever occur to you Bozos that just love to hate HRC that maybe, just maybe you've bought the Rethuglican Koolaid?
Yes it occurs to us, because Clinton's defenders never tire of making this suggestion.
Has it ever occurred to you Clinton defenders that you are obstinately incapable of grasping what's wrong with Hillary Clinton because you have bought into the Clinton machine's PR that everything bad you have ever heard about the Clintons is just Republican Koolaid?
Why would a Texan like Bush want lower oil prices?
He's not going to rest until he singlehandedly opens Midland's Rolls-Royce dealership back up.
You should hire an intern to compile a list of the things Chris Matthews doesn't know. If an inclusive list would be unmanageably long, at least a highlights post.
I already said HRC isn't the second coming of Eleanor Roosevelt. Yes, she has faults and shortcomings. But to prattle on about the evil Mrs. Clinton and then say you would not vote for her IN THE GENERAL ELECTION! Come on now, that's sounds like a hissy fit and shows a lack of awareness of the stakes involved or of the realities of politics. And,for the record, Edward's my man.
Matthews is ADD I think...he's all over the place physically, vocally and philosophically. He loves the horserace more than the war this country is engaged in for it's soul.
Speaking of the war over our collective soul FaceintheCrowd, there are many of us out here that dislike the Clintons intensely because of the damage they have wrought on our collective soul. They are power mongers that will do, say and *believe* whatever they need to to get, maintain and gain power for it's own sake.
I have no idea what kind of people they are individually, but politically they have done great damage to this nation...some good, but the scales are tipped very far to the bad side.
I want to stop living in fear, dread and with my breath held about what move the power brokers in DC will pull without regard to how it will affect the citizens of this great land.
How in the world are we to ever get great leaders back in this country until we rid ourselves of the power structure entrenched in DC? We need to rid ourselves of the slash and burn of BOTH sides and get back to the very important job of rebuilding this nation to the greatness it can be.
Vote hope, not fear.
Delicious Pundit - thank you for bringing up both the Supreme Court and corporate law, two things that have gone completely unnoticed in this Healthcare-Iraq-Globalization election so far. Of all the candidates on the Democratic side, HRC's record, friends and power tactics all indicate that she would be the least able to stem the tide that's quietly leading the US into oligarchical rule by a small number of large banks and multinational corporations, very much at the expense of personal liberties (the federal government is far from the only violator, and maybe not even the most consequential).
Corporate law and civil liberties are also the most imporatant issues on which I almost cannot conceive of trusting any of the Republican candidates simply because they are Republican and therefore beholden to a bunch of other current Republicans. In the long run, if not dramatically turned back, the current trends towards corporate power and away from personal autonomy will be as imporatant in America's downfall (if it should come to pass) as the consequences of Bush's foreign policy (which are themselves huge and still underappreciated).
well the clinton's haven't damaged my soul. in fact, i don't have a collective soul. maybe your collective soul is too fucking sensitve.
i'm not enamored by either clinton, but they are both much better than any republican politician presently on the national scene.
when you say "vote hope, not fear" right after you have just said "They are power mongers that will do, say and *believe* whatever they need to to get, maintain and gain power for it's own sake" it's kind of hard to take you seriously. they are politicians and in this regard are just like all other politicians. in fact, if you think about it, your assertion that they will do what they need to do to "get power" could just as well be construed as "they will listen to people's concerns and act on them to get power", which is what elected officials are supposed to do.
as people have pointed out time and again, obama's supporters sound like they want to bring a bouquet of flowers to a knife fight.
Stewart pegged Matthews with his "recipe for sadness" comment.
Matthews is very depressing when you examine his worldview or read his book.
His bombast is cover noise for a world of limitations and resentment. He has a surface idea of success etc.
His hatred for Hillary is kinda off putting because it's so much about himself.
He is now feeling the heat from his pre NH 'tude toward HRC. Those of us who support Obama should always be war of Matthews.
Hey flowers work.
I kinda wish Matthews just jumped right over everyone and pinched Hillary's cheeks.
Just Karl,
Where the hell was his damn "judgment" when voting in favor of CAFA? My God, even Clinton voted against that blasted piece of legislation.
obama's supporters sound like they want to bring a bouquet of flowers to a knife fight.
I wish Hillary was actually as tough as her supporters claim. Things might have turned out differently on Oct. 11, 2002.
Chris matthews has become the paula abdul of punditry: crazy and must be mixing his medication.
His calling it for Hillary last night was truth mixed with creating a trojan Horse: back to the arrogant image that she has it won.
he is wrong and nuts: can't control himself
Every day, I give thanks to the Naderites who, back in 2000, were so perceptive that they saw how Al Gore was just like George W. Bush, who was really just like Bill Clinton and the evil Clinton machine and how they were all running dogs of the corporate interests who run this country. I give thanks that the 90,000 of the Naderites who voted for Ralph in Florida saved us from the horrors of a Gore Presidency, with all those sighs and that awful tone of voice and that oh-so-superior manner.
Now the neo-Naderites may stay home in 2008, upset that the Democrats didn't nominate someone like, hmmm, Al Gore?, but instead ran someone else with an awful tone of voice.
One would think that the error of Left-wing abstentionism would have been made clear to everyone now. So, love your candidates, work your ass for them, compare and contrast to your hearts content, but don't paint yourself into a corner. In the fall, if you want to stop what is going on in Iraq, on the Supreme Court, on the Gulf Coast, you are going to suck it up and vote for the Democratic Party nominee for President, who may not be your candidate.
If you can't make that commitment now, why should any of the rest of us listen to you when you argue that your candidate is the best for the Democratic Party?
If you can't make that commitment now, why should any of the rest of us listen to you when you argue that your candidate is the best for the Democratic Party?
Because I am from Texas, and my vote for Zombie Ann Richards will do more good for this nation in November than any gesture I could make towards Hillary Clinton.
I have made enough gestures towards Hillary Clinton when she appears on my television to know that this for a fact.
You know, a lot of us who are attacking HRC now used to defend her, including me. If only she were as liberal and as cleverly Machiavellian as the right wing believes she is.
No way Slick Hilly gets this vote in the general. The whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty garbage makes me sick. We need real change, not a return to more partisan bickering and cynical triangulation.
If it's Clinton v Romney, I will just have to hope that Bloomberg comes out of the shadows and gets in the race. Otherwise, I'll vote Green or something.
But no way for Hillary. Not before, but certainly not now after the bogus crying and race-baiting. No freaking way.
Hey, I thought this was the Chris 'crazy uncle Remus' Matthews thread. He reminds me of the kid in class, and I had one in everyone of my classes, sometimes the same kid from the previous grade, sometimes two, who is so average that everyone around him dosen't really shun him, per se, but they just don't really feel any need to pay attention to him and he knows it so he ends up constantly and intermittently splurping up something that his head and his ass had agreed upon at their last 'meeting of the minds' where Matthews was usually found bent over in front of the mirror trying to see and hear what his asshole had to contribute to the meeting.
...My contribution to this very important discourse. Go Huck.
"she has been a pretty effective Senator"
I live in NY and I disagree. Is standing on a stage with the Leiberman decrying violent videogames an example of leadership? Give me a break. They're still living in the past. The 1980's.
Why is all media focused on Boomers??? Their SUV-buying, RV driving, McMansion buying, real estate speculation is responsible for recession, global warming, etc. I have to read the Atlantic to find out older Americans don't want to go to work for less money because then they will know they have reached their earnings peak...
How about try being a young adult trying to raise a family, while at the same time continue having to go back to school to get several graduate degrees just to be able to find ANY decent job within 50 miles, at $3.35/gallon of gas, so you don't have to relocate your whole family around the country....not to mention, thanks to globalization, every worker is now expendable...and then see if I care about how seniors cannot get around, or don't have public transportation, etc...while I know how many young adults are just trying to put food on the table....young adults haven't squandered their resources, like Boomers (such as Bush/Cheney)...
Older Americans STILL support so-called "conservative" issues such as defense without realizing there is not much left to defend....
I understand the "Greatest Generation" lived through a world war, depression, etc...however, the greatest tragedy is right now, all of our current problems are preventable, but our president denies everything, even human rights, but Boomers don't care unless it affects them, and unfortunately as the largest demographic, all politicians pander to Boomers and their needs.....
I agree Chris matthews is an idiot and I stopped watching Hardball.
Question for tinisoli and other Obama supporters after a comment: your support for Obama is great. He is a worthy candidate. So: if Obama wins the nomination do I sit out the election? Can you folks manage to get to the White House without people who now support Hillary and Edwards. I ask this because some of your comments are insulting. I support Edwards, I don't think he will win. So I guess I will stay home.
"I saw Juan Williams. I told him that I listen to his views on NPR. I told him Obama may be the nominee."--eorse
I hate to break it to you, but someone using your name keeps posting comments to the effect that an HRC nomination is inevitable. For what it's worth, I prefer you to the other guy.
Or am I missing the irony?
Comments closed January 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Judging from his immediate post debate remarks, Chris Mathews doesn't seem to know what much of anything is.
Posted by JackD | January 15, 2008 11:32 PM