Chris Matthews says something that makes sense
I know, it’s crazy. But it happens sometimes. My theory is that Matthews just talks so damn much that purely on a statistical basis he’s bound to burble out something true once in awhile.
This is a transcript of his remarks on Morning Joe a couple of days ago, forwarded to me on a PUMA mailing list:
“I think the world thinks he is already President. They’ve got to be disabused of that. We have a Presidential campaign ahead of us, it’s not behind us. And they are wrong if they think this guy has been elected. I mean, this guy is not elected by any stretch, this election is up in the air; I mean that, up in the air. And I think that is something that is a false perception. He shouldn’t be probably giving world leadership speeches until he is a world leader…
“I don’t think by any means, does Barack Obama have this deal closed with the Clinton crowd. Their contributors, women, women’s group, they are not together. The Clinton people are not aboard. The Democratic party is not united and anybody that thinks that it is, is confused or deluded. This Democratic Party has got problems on it’s hands. And it’s Barack Obama’s challenge to bring Bill Clinton aboard. When I see their two faces together in the same room, I’ll believe it. I haven’t seen that yet. There is big time problems in the Democratic party. And there is the potential that John McCain will be the tortoise in the battle with the hare…
“Barack Obama has got to identify with the gas pump, with the kitchen table, with the husband and wife talking late at night about how they are going to pay the bills they haven’t been able to pay, when they are out of money. He doesn’t get to those people…that’s why Hillary could play a role. Hillary is a bread and butter candidate…this rock star is so elevated, so wholesale that he’s almost created a need for Hillary Clinton as his running mate…who can talk about gasoline prices, talk about women’s job opportunities, equal pay, basic stuff like minimum wage, getting food on the table, getting gas in the tank. He doesn’t talk like that. And you gotta talk like that if you are a Democrat.”
The natural order was restored immediately following these remarks, however, when Matthews started bloviating inanely about “racial/ethnic issues” and “the Bradley effect.” These media clowns still think the Bradley effect explains New Hampshire; they still can’t grasp the truth. The truth was that Hillary and her supporters were so vilified that many Clinton voters kept mum about their preferences in order to avoid being harassed. I personally know many women who kept their support for Hillary a secret throughout the primaries, even from other members of their family.
That same dynamic continues, with countless Hillary supporters utterly determined not to vote for Obama and reward misogyny. But why talk about it out loud when some nasty Obamabot will just insult you and call you a bitch/ho/c–t/racist/Republican?
This is the video from Morning Joe, but of course if you’re like me you won’t be able to watch it without self-medicating heavily beforehand.
35 Responses to “Chris Matthews says something that makes sense”
-
Ciccina says:
Per Hillary supporters keeping mum because they were vilified – I went up to New Hampshire to volunteer for Hillary the week before the election and that is EXACTLY what I saw! (sorry for shouting but this gets me all riled up).
Ugh, I’ve probably posted a comment here on this previously, but one of the things I did up there was attend a live-blogging debate-watch party sponsored by some company. Plenty of boy college students. A smaller number of older ladies. As the debate progressed the Obama boys got louder and louder in their support for their guy. The older women – not used to treating a debate like a football match – kept quiet. But at a certain point us ladies all started making eye contact and where feasible muttering snide comments to each other. We were quiet but we just got angrier and angrier as things progressed.
And personally, I was really tired by election day, and I went back to the place I was staying in the afternoon thinking I might just sit the rest of the day out. But I watched t.v. news for like 5 seconds and that was enough to motivate me to get back out there and prove those f*ckers wrong. (sorry about the language; still riled up).
No worries about Matthews being right – its just another manifestation of the Stopped Clock principle. Though it would take an elephant tranquilizer to get me to the point where I could watch the video. You’re made of stronger stuff than I, Violet :-)
July 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pm EST -
Violet says:
I know what you mean.
One of the things that drives me craziest about the coverage of this election (in blogs as well as in the MSM) is the notion that racism is the big issue. It’s not. The defining issue is sexism. But just as the Boyz couldn’t even SEE sexism in the primaries, much less take it seriously, they cannot SEE that sexism is one of the biggest reasons (if not THE biggest reason) so many Clinton supporters are repelled by Obama.
I can’t tell you how many women I know who’ve said they will never vote for Obama no matter what. Not after the way he ran his campaign. No fucking way. But why talk about it when nobody takes us seriously?
I thank bog we still have the secret ballot in this country, because that’s the last remaining place that people can register their disgust.
-
Perry Logan says:
Matthews seems unaware of Obama’s dirty campaign, the rigged nomination, and the destruction of the Democratic Party.
-
GRL says:
Chris Matthews flip flops more than Obama when it is convenient…but, Candy Crowley was talking the same way yesterday, also saying that the adulation was over the top…so, when do these shills really stop enabling all this???\
Meanwhile, some more of the British media is showing signs of life…
And, apparently, Obama had a “reality check” The British press comments on how Obama was all smiles going in to meet him, but came out “shattered.” Seems that Brown showed him how you can lose popularity once you’re doing the “leadership” job. Yet, when meeting Cameron, Obama still was talking about having a “bunch” of advisors who know“10X more than we do.” This was after the chat about needing time to “think.” Two nothings chatting about doing nothing, and how THEY will lead…
I’m sure you won’t learn about how Obama reacted to his meeting with Brown in the US media!
“British Commentators: The Chosen One Looks “Shattered” After Meeting Brown….and Did Cameron/Obama Discuss “Conservative Means” to Achieve “Progressive Goals”?”
Preview if preferred:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6eep3c -
tinfoil hattie says:
And it’s Barack Obama’s challenge to bring Bill Clinton aboard.
I’m sorry; I must be confused. I thought Bill Clinton had served two terms as president from 1992-2000, and that HILLARY Clinton was running for president in 2007-2008?
Silly me. I must just be a stupid, PUMA, man-hating, c**t, b***h, racist, dried up, post-sexual FEMINIST!!!
-
gob says:
That is so true about closet Hillarians. I think of myself as a loudmouth, but I didn’t even tell my Hillary-hating parents that I was volunteering for her campaign until I had to give a reason why I couldn’t accept an invitation. I actually stammered when I said I couldn’t come because I was canvassing for Hillary, and my father thought I was making a joke! I had to repeat myself three times before he believed me.
In retrospect I feel like a moral coward, but when people start rolling prerecorded tapes instead of actually talking to you, and what’s on the tape is vitriol channeled from the mass media, and those people are your beloved nuclear family, it’s quite hard to think what to say!
-
apostate says:
Ugh. I disagree that Matthews is saying anything really true here (except for a few smidgens here and there, certainly not the entire quoted excerpt).
I’m sorry, I just can’t divorce Matthews from his context. He has an agenda and that agenda is not woman-friendly, it’s not liberal-friendly, hell, it’s not even Democrat-friendly.
He’s stirring shit up, because he wants Dems to lose. I know Dems have sold women and progressives down the river, but my hackles still rise at the Republican-loving’ shenanigans of the media. They are a disgrace and nothing they do for their slimy ends should be rewarded by progressives (IMO).
Far more former Clinton supporters are on board than not. Obama looks like he’s going to win.
Enter Matthews to help the Republicans.I also resent the hell out of his reference to Bill Clinton. What does Bill Clinton have to do with Obama at this point? But no, Hillary can’t be in the picture without Bill. Enough of this.
He just wants Hillary back so he’ll have someone to attack in easy sexist terms.
If we ever got this type of scrutiny against Repubs that we always get against Dems, I’d be happier. But it’s always Dem bashing. And the fact that it’s a Dem I don’t like doesn’t make it better.
-
MountainSage says:
As you said, statistically speaking he eventually had to get something right.
Speaking up for Hillary at least changed my brother’s mind about her. He’s a sexist from way back unfortunately and even he had to admit she was the smartest candidate and by far the hardest working candidate. I guess you take your little victories where you can get them.
-
donna darko says:
I was wondering what happened to you. You’ve been quiet lately. Glad to see you posting again.
-
Violet says:
Hey Donna. I’ve been really busy. Still am, actually.
-
thebewilderness says:
I think the world thinks he is already President. They’ve got to be disabused of that.”
The first thing he said is so stupid and condescending that it is hard to find the patience to go on reading.
No, the “world” is not as stupid as Tweety persistently, consistently, and in a very loud voice, claims that it is.
He is a sad specimen. He has been honking that you are all stupid and I’m smart so I’ll tell you what to think horn, right along with the rest of the beltway boys, until he sounds like a blithering idiot. Which is what he is. -
RWR says:
Violet, I think you said it with recognizing the key salvation of the secret ballot. Most people I know who are voting against Obama aren’t talking about it. In the case of my close friends, we’re certainly talking to one another, but few are discussing there voting plans at work or making their intentions publicly known. I’ve even heard of cases where women aren’t telling their husbands and families because they’re just too tired of fighting and dismissive comments.
So I think they’ve got a huge surprise coming. I actually suspect it may be big enough as to call for massive recounts. My big concern is what kind of a mess this recount problem will cause, and if it will be a benefit or a harm. That’s why I wish people would be more public with their intent, but I know this isn’t easy.
On the other hand it might at least be entertaining come election day.
-
BG, Florida says:
The media was and is so biased that I can not watch news.Before the primary election..some of the women reporters were every bit as bad as the men. Hearing obama every 30 seconds drives me wild.What on earth has come over so many people? Are we no longer able to see when someone has no substance? Does it no longer matter who was involved in our life and if they had a terrorist nature? When did it become appropriate for members of the candidates family to campaign and make hateful..militant type speeches? Not only do the democratic party officials have to take a look at themselves..the people of this country better have a look also. This country is way to important to me and my family to vote for a flash in the pants. Sad to say…I have been a democrat for 50 years…that just came to an end.
-
zuzu says:
I’m sorry; I must be confused. I thought Bill Clinton had served two terms as president from 1992-2000, and that HILLARY Clinton was running for president in 2007-2008?
As the last Democratic President, Bill’s the de facto head of the Party. And the only way to replace him is to get another Democrat elected to the job. If Obama fails, Bill’s still top dog.
Because Bill is still the de facto head of the Party, he and his people have a lot of influence. If Hillary had been the nominee, those people would have not changed much, because Bill and Hillary are very much collaborative.
That, I’m convinced, is one of the reasons that so many of the kind of bloggers who knew all the campaign staff were were so eager to get Hillary out — if the Clinton people were in charge for another 8 or more years, that would mean they’d never get a chance at the jobs they thought would be handed to them by Obama or Edwards. And it likely explains the shenanigans of the RBC on May 31.
-
roofingbird says:
Having heard you the other night, in the mix with Lynnette and Linda, I wanted let you know how much I agree. The data and the anecdotal info needs to be compiled in a useable untainted depositive way. To run a lawsuit with evidence that can be thrown out will not do the job. The issue IS two pronged- particular irregularities and systemic voter discrimination of caucuses. I’m not a lawyer, just been through a suit once. It needs more brainstorming on a way to sue, and might not include Clinton directly. Can one state party sue another for disenfranchisement? Can a class action suit be brought against the party? In a sense it really isn’t about Clinton, since states and parties determine voting procedures. Where are the lawyers? maybe this is an ACLU thing.
-
kenoshaMarge says:
Much as I loathe Matthews, and I do, I have to agree with him when he said:
“Barack Obama has got to identify with the gas pump, with the kitchen table, with the husband and wife talking late at night about how they are going to pay the bills they haven’t been able to pay, when they are out of money. He doesn’t get to those people…”
But there are times when I find agreement in all kinds of strange places. One thing you can always count on with Tweety though, is if he says something that even remotely resembles common sense he will return to his usual idiocy in the near future.
Perhaps he has one functioning brain cell and every once in a great while it’s a the front of his thought process. Then it retreats to the end of the line and drivel issues forth once again.
-
Gayle says:
‘He’s stirring shit up, because he wants Dems to lose.”
This morning MSNBC devoted a solid 30 minutes of airtime to Obama’s lack of experience.
Suddenly this subject has become worthy of discussion. Like they just found out about it.
-
Gayle says:
I also hate the way they keep bringing up Bill Clinton. As if Bill Clinton’s endorsement would suddenly send every Hillary voter Obama’s way.
It’s not up to Bill Clinton to unite every one at this point and he couldn’t do it even if he tried.
-
ClareA says:
I wonder how many of us silent Hillary supporters there really are. I don’t talk about my intention to not vote for Obama. There’s just too much of the same crap there was in the primary – the demonization of Hillary and the sanctification of Obama.
I did check into the voting rules in my state of Maine. I can leave the presidental choice blank and the rest of my ballot selections will still count. That’s my plan.
Obama may win Maine, but not with my vote. -
Briar says:
Oh, how typical. The challenge is to bring Bill Clinton aboard is it? Into the exclusive men’s locker room that is the power club, no doubt, all macho and sweaty and gun-lovin’. We already know that as far as these people are concerned, political power is gender-coded and it ain’t for uppity womenfolk to presume. Well, it was Hillary Clinton who knocked spots off Obama in the nomination process when it came to judgment, knowledge and experience, let alone debating skills. And the challenge is to bring her aboard. Preferably as nominee with Obama, if we must have an empty brand name taking up space in world politics, as the VP nominee. But that would be a real world solution, and at present all we have is a badly written version of The West Wing without the political grit.
-
Annie Oakley says:
this rock star is so elevated, so wholesale that he’s almost created a need for Hillary Clinton as his running mate…who can talk…
That’s all we need: talk. We can’t expect actual change, i.e., a party that stands up for publicly funded elections as an alternative to the current corrupt system. We just need someone to go blah, blah, blah while the REAL candidate, the “wholesale” one continues to wholesale our interests to those such as Tweety’s employers.
I am angry, not only at the sexism, but at the idea that all our work has been nullified by this presumptuous candidate.
-
sarahfdavis says:
I know a handful of women that have quietly said that there is no way the will vote for Obama. Heck, the vegan yoga instructor in my office building (in san francisco!) is voting for McCain. My sister in law who claims she has never ever voted for a republican is voting for McCain. I do wonder how big this underground group is.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
PUMA PAC has a video about paid off delegates explaining how Bo got the delegates when Hill got the votes. I just put the video on my blog – it explains the comment from the DNC that BO is bringing in the money that Hillary could not increasing the party’s power –you can go get the video here
http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/0.....s-talking/
There is a list of paid off delegates. Speaking of the Bradley effect I noticed this in the list.
Carol Shea-Porter! Congresswoman from New Hampshire! Call 202-225-5456. ($11,500 from Obama. $2,500 from Clinton. Hillary won New Hampshire by 2 points and her district by 14 points.)
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Claire A
Can you write in Hillary? I think the country needs to see howmany people would have voted for her. I lan to write in Hillary and I am hoping that every Hill supporter will o the same. Then, maybe she will form a third party for the working class.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Even better go to the blog of the woman who did the original research on the bought delegates — Lynette Long – she also has the video — I cannot say enough about the video –LL has a big chart on all the sold out delegates
-
Ciccina says:
Zuzu – that is a brilliant insight. I think it is absolutely true. Reading that was like seeing a blurry object in a picture suddenly come into focus.
-
sharmajee says:
apostate:
Far more former Clinton supporters are on board than not.First there are no former Clinton supporters, yet. She is still a candidate, and we are still trying to ensure her name is placed in nomination.
Second, even if more of her current supporters go for Obama than not, that still leaves a big deficit. For to win in Nov. one needs all of Clintons 18 million and more!
Third, if people act like they already won, they risk a bad case of low voter turnout. Beware of the perceptions that turn into a bad reality.
Fourth and final, it’s not too late to set set aside gestures of grandeur and work out a realistic winning ticket: Clinton/Obama
Cheers! -
Anonymous says:
Apologies to the host for the posting miscues above, but my points reamin, Sincerley etc.
-
MountainSage says:
This is off topic and I apologize, but I wanted to let you know I have arranged with Auntie’s Treasures for us to get sterling silver Puma pendants at a 50% discount.
You can get details at my blog.
-
Gayle says:
I’m starting to think the Democratic Party wants to lose this thing.
I heard Mark Green call any Clinton supporting Democrat who wasn’t now for Obama “immature” and “unprofessional” tonight on my TV.
Way to woo us, Mark!
By the way, this comment came right after a segment discussing how people who were pushing for Hillary as VP had given up their cause.
If you want people to do something for you, you give them incentives and praise. You listen to them and address their concerns, their demands. Particularly when you know they are resisting.
The Democratic Party, and their affiliated talking heads, absolutely refuse to court Clinton voters.
This proves, yet again, how much smarter the Clintons are than just about anyone else in their party. During the Primary, when things got heated, Hillary Clinton said we might just see both of them on the ticket. She was smart enough to know the way to get Obama supporters was to invite them in, by bringing their candidate in. Obama and the Democratic party STILL just don’t get it.
Oh, and this all happens as Obama’s bump from his trip abroad vanishes. The two candidates are virtually tied again, nationally. You would think someone would have brains enough to say: damn, we better do something to get the Clinton supporters on-board. You know, something BESIDES harassing and insulting us.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Gayle – very perceptive comment -and this is how they will rule when they take power which will revive the feminist movement; the enemy being now obvious where once it was invisible -ditto for McCain
They always do this just as I am relenting a bit
You are saying exactly what Hillary did — I saw a video of her response to the question — please let us put your name in nomination for president
Hillary on Wanting Her Name to be Placed into Nomination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8gdU_1MM44 -
Ciccina says:
Per Gayle’s comment…
Mark Green’s stupidity reminds me of something that happened to me fairly recently.
I consult for an organization whose former president is a high profile Obama supporter. Many weeks ago I attended a briefing for representatives of more than a dozen groups in my field, most from outside the U.S. The group hosting the briefing also invited a number of their major donors.
The presenters, both of whom are brilliant, mentioned that the situation for our issues would *probably* improve after the election. During the Q&A, I made reference to this and asked how realistic it was to expect our situation to improve given that neither presidential candidate was prioritizing on our issues, and Democrats already control the Congress (and are screwing us). My point was that we can’t take these things for granted, and our non-U.S. friends especially shouldn’t make assumptions about what’s going to happen. I didn’t say McCain. I didn’t say Obama. I didn’t mention any specific policy position or bill. And I even identified myself as speaking on my own behalf, not my client’s, lest someone get the mistaken impression that my client is involved in any way in electoral work (they’re not).
Immediately an older lady, a (formerly) reserved lady with a Boston Brahmin air, jumped up (she didn’t have far to jump) and started calling me a liar. Shouting, in fact. She *knew* Obama was talking about our issues, she *knew* that I was wrong, how *dare* I spread this awful smear about Obama. Ranting.
After my shock wore off I told her, in my best don’t-mess-with-me-old-woman-because-I-*will*-drop-you-to-the-sidewalk voice (think Carol Burnett playing Eunice, facing off with Vicki Lawrence’s Mama) that she was wrong, if you reviewed the record, etc. This just amped her up – and she comes out with “Your boss X is a friend of mine and she is a big supporter of Obama and I am going to call her and tell her what you said!!”
(she didn’t realize her friend wasn’t my boss, that I don’t respond to threats -I agree 100% with Gayle’s comment – and, most importantly, that I didn’t give a rat’s ass.)
I’ve worked around some pretty volatile people, but never before has someone threatened my job because I didn’t personally pay lip service to her preferred candidate.
When I hear someone like Mark Green call Hillary supporters “unprofessional,” the first thing I do is put him or her on my mental checklist of people I’ll never be able to work for once my name shows up on a PUMA PAC donor list and goes online. Next they’ll be demanding loyalty oaths, ala GWB.
Its just easier (and more satisfying) to demonize us than deal with the flaws of their candidate.
To think that they’re trying to purge us, when we’re already gone.
-
Infidel says:
There must have been some real fear when women were given the vote(wrestled the responsibility of participating in the selection of individuals to serve as stewards of a free and fair democratic government, deciding policy, executing the tasks of governing a population, concentrating power to be rid of anarchy and as a nation able to withstand the dictates of other nations, to decide for ourselves)…there must have been some fear that women would form a viable Women’s party, but they got the vote(I say they, ’cause “We” wouldn’t make much sense) and here we are with a Republican and Democratic and well okay a “not Republican/Democratic” party. Almost certainly if the world were able to vote, the United States of America would have an Islamic President, but here in America Women have yet to form their own viable Womens party. Maybe misogyne, being so all encompassing, is like death and people just live with it. Misogyne doesn’t have to be and the sooner it is left, the sooner humanity can go on to a greater future. Please women, vote women into office, defeat the Man parties 12 Women Supreme Court Judges, 522 Women CongressWomen, 100 Women Senators, and A Women President with a Women Cabinet. How strange it was when Men did that.
-
MountainSage says:
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
Ugh.
I’m so not a happy camper.
