Chris Matthews teased segment by asking whether Clinton is a "She Devil"
On the November 18 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews teased a discussion by asking, " 'She Devil?' Republicans are absolutely demonizing [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]." While he spoke, an image of Clinton appeared on screen with the words "She Devil?" below it. Later, an image of Clinton with devil horns appeared on screen while Matthews stated: "We did poll our people and asked 12 of our regular panelists, is it smart politics for Republicans to demonize Hillary Clinton, get real personal about it? Eleven say yes. Just one say, no, it's not smart."
From the November 18 edition of NBC's Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: "She Devil?" Republicans are absolutely demonizing Hillary Clinton. Rudy [Giuliani] openly mocks her, and Mitt [Romney] says she'll run the country into the ground. Are Republicans trying to win by branding a President Hillary as unthinkable?
[...]
MATTHEWS: Howard, of all the things we've ever talked about, you and I, over the years, this is the most complicated, and especially among the women we work with, our colleagues here. It is so -- I listen to it, and I don't get it. I see women who I've always thought were progressive on the issues, certainly feminists, who I would assume would be just taking a swan dive for Hillary, totally in love with her. It would be Thelma & Louise, "Let's go over the cliff together," even. And yet they're going, "You know, there's something I want to think about here."
HOWARD FINEMAN (Newsweek senior Washington correspondent): Well, her candidacy is historic, and it is complicated, and she's being shot at from all directions. She's got to do two things. She's got to show a sense of humor and show that she can live in this new world, in this new situation that she's helped to create. And she also has to counter the notion that she can't unify the country. There's a danger for her here of this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you look at the polls, people want to unify the country. They want a unifying figure to bring change. If it's just a matter of her being attacked and attacked and attacked, and she attacks back, she fulfills the prophecy that she can't unify the country. She needs to take this big stage and embrace it somehow and not just react to it.
KATTY KAY (BBC correspondent): Looking at those debate clips, those moments when she seemed not to be doing well were often moments where she sounded shrill. Well, it's an unfortunate fact of a female voice.
DAN RATHER (anchor of HDNet's Dan Rather Reports): Americans -- male and female -- we pride ourselves as people -- we like fair play. So it's fair to attack her, and people will take it this way, where there's some substance to it, on a policy issue --
KAY: Right.
RATHER: -- or the way even she's handled things like Monica Lewinsky, what have you. But once it gets over that line, I feel very strongly it's to her advantage.
FINEMAN: But she can't get -- but she can't get defensive about it.
KAY: Right.
FINEMAN: It may be unfair, but that's the game she's in.
MICHELE NORRIS (host of NPR's All Things Considered): But --
KAY: And she does better when she uses humor.
FINEMAN: She can't be defensive.
MATTHEWS: Michele.
FINEMAN: Yeah.
NORRIS: She's an attorney, though.
FINEMAN: Yes.
NORRIS: And you know, she should step into the ring expecting that she's going to be attacked. And part of this is turning this around, and it's almost as simple as, you know, "What are you afraid of? Why are you attacking me?"
MATTHEWS: We did poll our people and asked 12 of our regular panelists, is it smart politics for Republicans to demonize Hillary Clinton, get real personal about it? Eleven say yes. Just one say, no, it's not smart.
Howard, you said yes. You know, I was just home a couple of weeks ago watching the local elections. Negative advertisements --
FINEMAN: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: -- piling on TV the weekend before the elections because they work. Does this nastiness against Hillary, saying she's just unacceptable, going to work?
FINEMAN: It'll work if she doesn't figure out a way to surmount it, because they have only one chance to win this election, really. It's to raise fears about the commander in chief in the war on terror and to raise fears about Hillary if she's the nominee. She's got to say, "I can unify the country." She's got to say, "I'm bigger than the attacks against me." But in the meantime, it's working for them because it's the only thing that's unifying the Republican Party. It's really the only thing that they all agree on.
Demonizing = getting personal... got it, Matthews. I thought demonizing = getting petty and childlike...
All I can say about Chris Matthews is that when someone has this type of an obsession.... that person usually ends up with a restraining order against them or they end up in a white padded room.....
Dude! Get over your obsession of the Clinton's before it rots out whats left of your sanity....
Leave the stalking and obsession stuff to O'Reilly and Hannity...... their much better at it anyways........... we already know they're crazy!
http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/images/home/images/chris_03.jpg
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
Worthless?So old Mitt thinks she'll run the country into the ground.
That might be an improvement compared to our position today.
And if we could survive eight years (I'm forever the optimist) of GWB, it's thinkable that we could survive just about anyone siting in the oval office.
Bush is an overachiever. He ran three countries into the ground.
Well, in this instance, Matthews is right I think. The republicans are indeed demonizing Hillary to no end, and so are some of the democrats. Looking at what Matthews said here, and taking it in full context, I don't see the big deal. He was relating what the republicans are doing to Hillary, demonizing her, and turning her into this "she devil" that the republicans want their followers to believe in.
I mean, Mitt talking about Hillary running the country into the ground is laughable. I mean, her husband sure ran it into the ground. Oh no, wait, he didn't. Oops. And I mean, to think, a republican wouldn't run this country into the ground at all. Oh wait, Bush has been doing that for 7+ years now. Hmm... Maybe they ought to re-think their talking points about who does, and who doesn't run a country into the ground.
And don't let them fool you. Bush has ran the country into the ground not because he is an idiot, but because the Republican agenda is a disaster for real live, flesh and bone people.
He has been very successful in getting the Republican agenda set into policy. Except for the failed social security scheme Bush has been victorious. He and his Republican accomplices passed the No Child Left Behind Act and the Clear Skies Act. They got two right wing extremists on the Supreme Court. They have consolidated the media into the hands of fewer and fewer owners and deregulated the housing market to the point of ruin for working people.
The Republicans and good portion of cowed Democrats invaded a country on false pretenses and proceeded to push successfully for torture, domestic spying and suspension of Habeus Corpus. He and his accomplices also lowered the tax rate for wealthy Americans in a time of war. That last one is unheard of and sends the message that only some of us have a stake in the fight. He has been a divider, not a uniter.
Republican wins have translated into disaster for everyday people.
So, Ted Kennedy is one of Bush's "Republican accomplices"? Considering No Child Left Behind is the Massachusetts Senator's baby......better tell Teddy where the next Bush accomplice meeting is, he may not get invited.
Oh, no. Somebody help! My point was utterly destroyed on the strength of the fact that Kennedy co-authored a sorry piece of legislation. That clearly makes the insuperable counter-argument that Bush's destructive Republican agenda is no failure at all.
Well considering you hung that disastrous piece of legislation exclusively on Republican doorsteps, incorrectly - then it stands to reason the rest of your partisan speech is suspect for accuracy as well.
Not really. It's common knowledge that Kennedy help write that POS.
Tommy,
There are plenty that I can say about the NCLB peice of crap law.......
But before Bush became the Governer of Texas...... Texas was 5th or 6th in the nation in education.....
When he left to go live in the White House (after only 6 years in Texas mind you) Texas was 49th in education......
And the NCLB law that was used as his beacon of hope in Texas is a case study for the ages in that we as a nation, with this horrendous notion as law are fast falling behind every other nation on Earth when it comes to education......
Kennedy screwed up co-sponsoring it...... but Bush and his handlers created it! Tested it on Texas and loved the results..... dumber kids!
Their mess! Period!
Whichever Democrat ends up in the White House in 09 better repeal it within the first 48 hours!
If for any other reason, than to save this countries future!
Bush didn't fund it..
so from him it was an empty promise. But you like always just want someone to look at you and care.
The problem with it is this:
Democrats typically want to solve a problem simply by throwing money at it. Sometimes that works, often not.
Republicans think you can solve a problem simply by TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM IT. That NEVER works. And the educational and scolastic disaster that is NCLB is just another example of it.
Ted supported it in a compromise that had Bush PROMISE to fully fund it. Now I blame Teddy for being a fool. Surely he knows Bush is a shameless liar and of course he did NOT fully fund it.
Yes, DLC Bush It supporter. In the pockets of insurance companies, and oil futures.
You missed one accomplishment. Whether through crafty cruelty or criminal incompetence, he's changed the demographics of Louisiana. It's a red state now, or will be in the next election.
Yup. My mistake.
They got two right wing extremists on the Supreme Court.
Better make that three...... Scalia, Thomas, and Alito...... perhaps a forth... Roberts?
This is the most succinct and spot on assessment of the Bush goals and accomplishments I've seen. Bush is an incompetent regarding the exepcted goals of a president and world leader not because he is incompetent, but because he, and his administration, care not about the madding crowd but fight for the special interests of the rich and pwerful who hide their treasonist conduct behind a veil of patriotism and cloud the peoples' minds with excessive fear of the unknown.
It ain't just the RethugliKlans, it's the 50% of the people democrat or Independent that will never vote for another Clinton, because of the F'd up trade policies with no oversite, for the American People.
Other country's poisoning our babies an food supply, that the House has been rubberstamping.
There are oh so many problems that the American People opened their eyes to and found neglect, vet needs and wanting from our citizens.
Vetoes on children's health, this is an all time low, so like my grandma, used to tell us, keep it up ya hear, just keep it up!
This is true, every cotton pickin' moment or term their presidents and representatives held the power, they sank our treasure like a pirate brigade, and we had to sacrifice for eight years to clean it up. Then bang!
Some media candidate backing pr network, puts on right wing Weapons of Mass Distraction, and sells the public up the road again, with sweet nothings and sexual scandals in DC.
The real deal political whores, whose morals go out the door or window, if.........
THE PRICE IS RIGHT!
Mathews, why don't you go home tonight...
And stuff your face in a toilet. Hold until you feel you've been fully cleansed. Do us all a favor.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
Oh man...where to begin with this topic. Do I have to explain that Chris Matthews asking a question that actually was a CRITICISM of the REPUBLICANS? In other words, Chris was asking if the mean Republicans were going to engage in the terrible act of "demonizing" HRC. This assumes that any criticism or challenge to HRC is a 'smear'. And the screen graphic was a challenge to the REPUBLICANS for trying to turn HRC into a devil.
Honestly, put some though into the topic, MMFA, before you guys embarrass yourselves again.
For the record, HRC is NOT a devil. However, I have never been able to see her reflection in any mirror.... (I'm just joking - don't yank the damn post!)
You're confusing your folklore.
Devils do show a reflection in a mirror.
Rudy, on the other hand, would not cast a reflection.
[link to www.movieforum.com]
I don't know which picture in creepier. Your's or "Governor"'s (see above)
Actually, I don't think I explained myself too well here. I don't think that HRC is a "devil" - she's more like a bloodthirsty vampiress.
---"I don't think I explained myself too well here"---
What do you mean, "here"?
You never explain yourself well but you made it plain you are ignorant beyond belief.
the screen graphic was a challenge to the REPUBLICANS for trying to turn HRC into a devil. Nonsense?
No one's going to erase your post...
It's too funny!!
Try to put a little more though into it next time.
How about beginning by just shutting yer trap until you can bring an intelligent thought to the table?
Lets see can I assume that calling her a b^ch, talking about how she laughs and claps is a smear? Yeah being brighter than dryer lint I think its a safe assumption. YOU are on your own. I would tell you to stop embarassing yourself but its so amusing.
"In other words, Chris was asking if the mean Republicans were going to engage in the terrible act of "demonizing" HRC."
Oh, I see. Well. Gee I hope the Republicans never would engage in demonizing HRC. My gosh.
Matthews even explained the "She Devil" rhetorical in the same tease, noting that it was from the Repubs. Sheesh, slay first, ask questions later, huh MMfA?
Come on Dexteritas,
Do you really think Matthews would ever try to humiliate a Re-puke with crap pictures like that?
You know the answer as well as I do.
I seem to remember Matthews proclaiming his distate for the Bush administration during an event that was later rebroadcast nationally.
Matthews isn't the best journalism or punditry has to offer, for sure, but it goes both ways.
Your vague "I seem to remember Matthews" etc., anecdote -even if true- doesn't compare with Matthews showing a Democrat with devil-horns on a national tv show.
It was hyperbole for entertainment purposes. If you're worried someone will be influenced by that picture on election day, I have a bridge to sell you.
You compared devil horns on national tv to some undocumented, vague anecdote you "seem to remember" and then proclaimed "it goes both ways" as if it proved your case.
It didn't.
You made a poor, unconvincing comparison.
I don't have to write an article and I don't have to waste my time trying to change your unchangeable mind that Matthews is no repub-lover. You just give ammunition to the other side when you attack every time someone says/does something you don't like about a Dem/lib/progressive, regardless of whether it's justified and honest or not. Whatever though.
You also claimed above that "Matthews even explained the "She Devil" rhetorical ... noting that it was from the Repubs."
I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim. Where does Matthews "note" that? If you can't back up assertions with facts, maybe you shouldn't be making them.
Oops, my BS detector just went off. You have just proven a tremendous point and the reason for MMFA's existence. It is the accumulation of this bias that does the trick, not this one isolated instance of it.
Also, a picture says a thousand words and usually those words are ignored anyway. It's like putting a BIG sign that says MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and then saying that the mission isn't really accomplished. Problem is, most people ignore the words and just remember the BIG freakin' sign!
That explains the 3 Google News hits you get from searching the terms "She Devil" and "Clinton". Damn Republicans. Lets thank Matthews for exposing them.
"Matthews even explained the "She Devil" rhetorical in the same tease, noting that it was from the Repubs."
Would you please point out where Matthews says that the term "She Devil" comes from Republicans?
While you're at it, show us where the image of Clinton with devil horns came from, if not from Chris Matthews' show.
So people still watch this guy? After he had his wife on to plug his book for forty minutes I turned him off and have not seen him since. This guy gives media whores a bad name.
No need to demonize Hillary. Simple facts will do.
But it's cheap, tawdry smears that work so well with the corporate media.
And the American people.
Let's see some then. I'm sure you can tell us what Hillary has done during her tenure as a Senator that you don't agree with. Heck I'd settle for the media using facts with Hillary, but instead we hear about cackles, cankles, cleavage, tips, and so on and so forth.
Mags,
I don't listen that much that I hear those segments. I don't doubt that they are used, I just don't hear them.
Simple facts might include simply listing what Hillary has accomplished as a Senator. I do believe her record of sponsored bills consists mostly of naming post offices and roads. (Correct me if I am wrong.) She also has to overcome her waffling on Iraq. One only has to provide snippets from different points in time to see how Hillary changes her position. More recently, her obsfucation regarding illegal immigrant licenses show her vacillation once again. Another is her support for the million dollar earmark for the Woodstock museum. Her views on abortion. Her failed health care reform while Bill was prez. Her role at the Rose Law Firm, her unbelievable $100,000 gain on futures. Her Chinese fundraising scandals These are but a few. Her co-presidency with Bill. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. I could care less how she laughs or if her voice seems shrill when she gets excited. (Maybe you need to know my wife in order to understand my view.) Heheheh.. just kidding hun. *gulp* :-)
"I do believe her record of sponsored bills consists mostly of naming post offices and roads. (Correct me if I am wrong.)"
I'm finding out it's very difficult to locate anything but the right-wing slime machine's version of Hillary's record as a Senator.
I was able to find this statement on Gov Track:
"Hillary Clinton has sponsored 337 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 291 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1670 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."
I think this says something about how hard it is to get a bill out of committee and onto the floor.
So far, I am not able to find a list of the legislation that she sponsored during the 109th Congress and earlier, but Gov Track does have a list of what she has sponsored during the 110th.
So if you're going to assert that most of the 337 bills that she has sponsored were for naming post offices and roads, I'd find it difficult to believe, but then I wouldn't be able to factually debunk it, yet.
Otherwise, I wish there were more like you who could care less about her cackle, her voice, her attire, and all the other petty nonsense, but the right-wing cottage industry of lying and smearing is far too profitable and far too ingrained in American culture to be considered irrelevant anymore.
thanks for the research, Pete. I would add that it's the very tactics of the right wing smear machine that brings Clinton under the microscope and often in dishonest ways.
Do most people even know any of the legislation that their senators have sponsored? Do they know what lobbyists they listen to or any financial information at all?
I don't think that Hillary supposedly being a second prez with her husband is valid criticism. I don't really believe that to be true. She has a brain and uses it to influence policy, as did Eleanor Roosevelt.
Long before television, Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke and his wife ran the presidency with Wilson's advisors. The public was unaware of this. It pays to have an intelligent husband and wife in the executive branch.
AA, would any of that qualify her for "She-devil" status? Seems like an odd connection: Doing very little = EVIL... hmmm, nope, doesn't make any sense.
But then again, you rarely do.
Simple facts will do? Be sure to let the Republican candidates know.
So now no one in the media is supposed to even "talk" about how the opposition sees Hillary, because that could lead to an on-screen graphic that when taken out of context may give the appearance of something unflattering about her.........as MMFA is doing here.
Matthews isn't asking anything, the discussion is about Clinton's Republican critics and what their strategy is with regards to her.
I'd like to see you right wing nuts jobs sit still if NBC lead a discussion asking if W is the devil and showing a picture of him with a pitchfork and tail.
After all, some of his critics think he is the devil himself, so that would be fair coverage, right?
"MMfA poster Johnny_NYC mispresented panel discussion on Chris Matthew's show."
mmfa's "tell-it-like-it-is-so-dems-aren't-written-off-as-moonbats" poster Dexteritas contributed to this item.
"Dexteritas Unknowing Getting Rear-End Handed To Him Up-Thread"
Poor effort, worse grammar.
It is supposed to be a headline, those often have bad grammar
I guess we will never know since "W" is not running for anything.
Lets be honest here.
If W was portrayed on NBC with horns, there'd be a resolution coming out of congress today condemning it.
Johnny,
I tend to agree with you. I happen to think Matthews is a mysoginist.
Easily.
I've seen Bush portrayed as a monkey or Alfred E.Neuman. I laughed. Congress didn't get involved.
I'm thinking Matthews chose "She-Devil" not because anyone has actually referred to Hillary that way but because folks [mostly on the Right--BUT not exclusively] have demonized her, & he was looking for a word to describe that.
I do think many in the media might pick up on calling her She-Devil, after this broadcast.
I've seen Bush portrayed as a monkey or Alfred E.Neuman. I laughed. Congress didn't get involved.
But what if it happened on a network NEWS television show like this one with the devil horns? You think the republicans will laugh? Treason will be their word, not laughter.
Absolutley. Their heads would explode if Bush, Cheney, or any other high ranked repig was disrespected on the news in such a manner.
And I think its really sickening how Chris Matthews hates HRC...very unheathly. He should seek theapy to find out the underlying issue for his hatred towards women. Its evendent with his many man-crushes he has.
Middle, it seems the crickets are chirping. None of the clever posters are responding to your post. Methinks you caught them spewing forth garbage and asked them to clean it up, only to have them run away.
I think Hugo Chavez called Bush that once. The devil, or Satan.
Which brings me off topic for a minute. I heard one of the right wing bloviators talking about how evil Hugo Chavez is. Funny thing is, what has Hugo ever done to the US? Nothing, nothing at all. But hey, it sounds good. Chavez hates Bush, NOT the US. Hell, the man gives away free heating oil to folks in the NE of the US in the winter to those who can't afford it. He can't be all bad.
Yeah Mag, Chavez referred to Bush as el diablo during his speech at the U.N.
The Right freaked, the Left shrugged.
Chavez may have only hated Bush at one time, but I'm thinking he's not too fond of any of us these days.
He's telling OPEC to use oil to fight imperialism.
I think he means the USA...don't you?
At $95 bucks a barrel looks like he may be winning. I'm sure the big oil exec's aren't concerned much though. I expect another round of record profits...
"God willing, with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. Imperialism will fall as soon as possible, too"........Chavez said after a two-hour closed meeting with Ahmadineijhad. Nov. 19th.
the best thing we can do is not make a martyr of him as we have with castro. castro always claims he can't have free elections because of the u.s. embargo [which we should drop] chavez needs to be left alone, because he has a tendency to alienate people. last week the king of spain told him to shut up.
Thank You, Johny_NYC...
You just said all that needs to be said on this topic.
Why no picture of Bush with horns and a pitchfork? You know how he likes pitchforks.
Tommy
Why does he need to show dumbass pictures like some 7th-grader if he's having a "discussion."
Hyperbole, along with grab-and-hold graphics, fuels cable political chat shows, people recognize it for what it is, exactly that.
Sure, Tommy, and "Matthews isn't asking anything": "She Devil?" Not a question, just an accessory to a shiny graphic used to mesmerize the viewer through a commercial break. And that question mark is more a like tail, rather than punctuation.
Yeah, and Mrs. Clinton is a milquetoast, non-polarizing figure in politics that stirs no passion in voters as to their feelings, pro or con, about her or her husband. Most people just say "meh" when her name is mentioned. So to assume that some refer to her as "She Devil", or others rank her higher than Mother Theresa, is just flat out over the top.
"So to assume that some refer to her as "She Devil", or others rank her higher than Mother Theresa, is just flat out over the top." Some? [link to news.google.com] /> Oh, yeah, some indeed!
Just as long as you use a question mark, you can say just about anything!
You stay classy San Diego?
Republicans have called HRC lots of things during the past 15 years but "She Devil" isn't one of them.
"She Devil' is purely an invention of Matthews and his producers and the graphic was produced by artists employed by NBC.
Just because nobody can see the horns underneath the grey/blond hair doesn't mean that they are not there. She must have John Edwards stylist.
The above quip by the right-winger "Dave" illustrates how inane it is for Fineman to advise Hillary to defuse the right's demonization of her by saying "I can unify the country".
Because it won't make the slightest difference to the haters like Dave. They will have pure, unadulterated hatred for Hillary Clinton (and Edwards, for that matter-as the above remark shows) no matter what she says or does.
Another bedwetter heard from.
You guys just love holding up someone for the knuckle draggers in your party to be afraid of.
If you don't like her policies, by all means, tell us about it.
Christ, I'm not that crazy about her either, but I'm willing to say why.
All of this crap about haircuts and horns isn't going to do anything for the country.
Worrier,
Of course you have a point, but you also must admit that we have many more debates within the parties than ever before, at this stage. That has to say something about the process not just being about "haircuts and horns", (I like that by the way).
There have been several opportunities for primary voters, and anyone else, to see the candidates and their stances on issues - so it isn't all fluff and image.
I agree.
Hopefully, most voters will see past the devil and dunces imagery the networks seem to think we're fond of.
Fair enough. What are her policies on anything? Since she seems to talk out of both sides of her ass, she appears to take no stands. Expected for sure. She's been my senator for a while now and nothing's changed in NY. Tell me how her being elected C n C would make this country a better place when she can't even straighten out NY.
Dave, no one is going to straighten out New York and no one is going to straighten out America.
The job they're all running for is to be the caretaker for either four or eight years.
Part of the job of caretaker is to reach consensus with the opposition and try to piss off as few people as possible while you're doing it.
The last seven years have been an aberration. Hopefully, the next president whoever he or she is, will be able to see through all of this bullsh_t and rise above the media's caricature's.
Excellent post Worrier. I agree with you in that "disliking her" should be based on policy differences. I would take it a little farther and say that she is the best chance the GOP has to keep the White House. Why some progressives fail to comprehend this I don't know. The drivers license thing just shows how calculating this candidate is. People are buying it and in the end we all lose.
Just how stupid do you wingnuts have to prove you are to enter the hivemind? Do you feel it necessary to demostrate just how ignorant you are at every possible opportunity in order to be a member in good standing? Because its really pretty sad how stupid your posts are.
Solon,
Thanks for another uplifting and constructive post. :-)
He's being honest and there's much to be said for it.
Once again you show what a SHILL you are. I never see you taking the conservatives to task when they do the same. Exactly how uplifting was the post about Hillary's haircut hiding her horns? The one about her not casting a reflection in a mirror. Your criticisms mean NOTHING to me because you are nothing but a shill. You dont care ANYTHING about uplifting dialogue only attacking the left so your criticisms are pure hypocrisy.
I'm imagining Chris Matthews sitting down with his producers and writers last Thursday:
CM: Know what's in the news right now? EVERYONE'S talking about this McCain supporter calling Hillary a "b!tch" and McCain's response to it. So how about asking my panel about it? Let's ask them this:
'B!TCH? Is it smart politics to demonize Hillary?'
PRODUCER: Ok, Chris, but we can't just say 'b!tch' like that.
CM: Well, then, what other word is like b!tch? (thinks for a minute)... I've got it. We'll say 'SHE-DEVIL'!
Yep, that was my take on it to.
No matter how juvenile showing a picture ON NATIONAL TELEVISION with horns on Hill was.
(actually they should have contacted me, I could have pshopped it better, you should see my pics of Bush with horns, and one with the POPE... lol)
McCain no more expects to avoid personal attacks against Hillary than he would expect to quit breathing without fainting. Attacks are part of comparison advertising. While McCain far outshines the other candidates, he also will have to point to stark differences between him and Clinton. He would be more honest if he just admitted that and then proceeded to make those distinction that exist between him and Hillary. Actually I wrote in McCain's name in two different elections but he has been too supportive of the antics of the criminal activities of this administration for any repeat vote from me. He seems to have left his strait talk express persona parked at the train station. Obviously his take-off campaign efforts seem to illustrate that he has joined the part of the grand old party that condones the near criminal (perhaps even criminal) behavior of Bush and his cohorts. Poor thing seemed to have checked his morality when he decided to give it another try to become the Republican nominee. Sorry Mr. McCain, but you have lost a very strong supporter of yourself this go-round. I wish you luck but even more than that, I wish you enough clear vision to understand what has happened to you these last few years. If you did that, you could truly expect a vote from me, even if it is only a write-in vote. - - cause with that caveat, you would be the best!!!!
You just can't walk aroun in rose colored gasses all day and say a gray sky is blu Hillary.
You are not America's sweetheart, your Bill's for better or for worse remember.
You guys embarrass America when the drama rears its ugly head that is of your own doing.
Even to the point of "Sandy Bergman or Bergen stealing public records.
No more thieves in the People's House of Justice!
When it came to trust, you guys "blew it" not the American supporters who voted in both election despite the terms in Arkansas.
Sorry CLINTON'S YOU MADE YOUR BED, NOW "LIE" in.
Americans for change in 08.
I think the 'gasses' have gotten to you, to be perfectly candid...
Chris Matthews is well known to have an anti-Clinton/ Pro Giuliani bias. The fact that this ego-maniacal blowhard even pretends not to, is an insult to his meager audience. Matthews has been a joke for a long time, his show has dismal ratings, and his predictions fall flat most of the time. Why this loser is still on the air is beyond me.