Matthews: "I personally don't see how" Clinton "loses at all running as the woman candidate"
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews -- who previously claimed that "the reason" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "may be a front-runner" in the Democratic presidential primaries "is her husband messed around" -- appeared to offer another reason when he said: "I personally don't see how she loses at all running as the woman candidate." He added, "Most Democratic voters are women."
On the January 13 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews appeared to offer another reason for his view of where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) stands in the Democratic primary when he said: "I personally don't see how she loses at all running as the woman candidate." He added, "Most Democratic voters are women." Several days earlier, on the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews said of Clinton: "Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened."
Matthews' comment that "I personally don't see how she loses at all running as the woman candidate" came in response to panelist and National Public Radio host Michele Norris' statement that Clinton may be able to reach out to voters "[w]hen she talks about breaking those glass ceilings and starts trying to connect with other women, who have felt that, who have, you know, butted their head and their shoulders up against those glass ceilings." Norris continued: "[T]hat may be a real opportunity to say, 'You know what, I understand what it's like.' "
From the January 13 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
NORRIS: She has an opportunity right now, if you look at the way that so many women said that they responded to that moment where she showed some emotion and they saw something different. When she talks about breaking those glass ceilings and starts trying to connect with other women, who have felt that, who have, you know, butted their head and their shoulders up against those glass ceilings, that may be a real opportunity to say, "You know what, I understand what it's like."
MATTHEWS: I personally don't see how she loses at all running as the woman candidate. Most Democratic voters are women.
GLORIA BORGER (CNN senior political analyst): Well, she's now talking it about being a woman, and in that last debate she said, "Look, guys, I embody change. I'm a woman. He's not the only person who looks like change. I look like change." But I think Hillary Clinton has a really difficult problem here because as a woman candidate, she bent over backwards to show us how tough she was. Don't forget, this is a woman we've been watching for more than a decade. We think we know who she is already. OK? So she bent over backwards to show us how tough she is, and now she's going the other way to show us how likable she is. "Oh, you hurt my feelings." That was a brilliant line.
MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Are you suggesting contrivance?
BORGER: Oh, you think? A little bit.
MATTHEWS: No, I'm wondering. I don't think it was contrived. Do you?
BORGER: I think the tearing up was absolutely real, but now I think we're at a point where this is contrivance, because it works for her, and I'm not saying that in a bad way.
"Most Democratic voters..."
...are whatever Tweety imagines them to be on any given day.
Chris, when you pull your facts outta your ass, you better watch out for paper cuts.
In 2000, he said Al Gore, “would lick the bathroom floor to be president” and “doesn’t look like one of us. He doesn’t seem very American, even.” By 2004 he was buying into the whole “gay marriage” (non)issue, and that alone was enough to have him against the Democratic ticket - and now the thought of a women as president has him near the edge. We might see him back again as a Democrat if Obama gets elected.
He now claims to be an “independent” voter – but I have a better word, “confused”. The man has been riding a political roller coaster all his life, has some sort of psychosis regarding “powerful women” and “militant gays”, and yet thinks he is somehow qualified to lead Americans on the straight and narrow politically.
He recently wrote a book on success that John Steward called "a recipe for sadness" in which his main message as a prescription for success is, kiss a lot of ass. After 10 years of his own show (for which success must have his lips blistered by now), his head has swollen to the point that last week he challenged Barbara Walters to a showdown of knowledge of political history on the game show Jeopardy (really).
I suppose it’s all just part of the American political pundit legacy – From Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck to Michael Savage to Don Imus to Bill O’Reilly to…. There’s not many of them who you can’t help scratchin’ your head thinking, “how did he get there”?
So Hillary runs as a girl
Chrissy says with a courtsey and twirl
Her pearls are to die for!
Her Jimmy Choos to sigh for!
So for Prez, women'll give her a whirl?
He's got issues with a woman named Clinton.
He hems and he haws
about if she's got balls
and when she shows them he commences to spittin'
Thoughts of Clintons just made him real pissy
He made comments so rude,
snarky, weird, vile and crude
That his show should be named Oddball Sissy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/stewart-vs-matthews-roun_n_80941.html
"The woman candidate"
Is that her new campaign slogan?
This is OT, but too damn true to ignore! Got this off of a poster named zimzam at thinkprogress.org:
Rightoric: The same inane message with new words inserted daily to convey thoughts and actions the speaker has no intention of practicing.
#1. Mathews is correct when he states most Dems are women. His comments relate to the nomination and not the general election.
#2. If you read his explanation for the remarks regarding HRC's being where she is because of Bill's outside activities, Mathews is simpling placing her in a proper historical context.
#3. I have done a substantial amount of polling for the Dems., and the most common reason women gave for supporting HRC was "it's time for a woman to be president."
#4. Back in Iowa, HRC said, "you have to question his (Obama's) character and integrity." This from a woman whose husband "didn't inhale", never "had sex" with that woman, had numerous questions raised regarding his campaign finances, and WAS IMPEACHED! Can you spell "audacity"?
Umm... last time I checked she IS the woman candidate. I understand Matthew's wink-wink nonsense...but, come on! This is the level? This is the discourse?
Do these guys EVER talk about what the candidates stand for??? Ever?? That would be too difficult. Especially in comparison to the Republicans, who have basically no political platform to speak of... That is, except "more of the same". That's worked out very well for all of us (well, the bottom 99.9% of us). I've said it all along... but, Matthews is a real chump.
I can't wait to see who accepts Bush's endorsement... any takers?? Anyone? Bueller?
When I read the moronic, ego-driven posts defending HRC and her lying, cheating spouse I am reminded that America also voted for Bush twice. Talk about give me a break!
If Hillary wins the nomination (she WILL LOSE the general election by the way) I am planning to move my wife and five children out of this country. Many will say good ridance and call me unpatriotic, but unlike Slick Willy, I fought for my country in Vietnam. Our nation used to have a soul, but now it's just corporate greed and fear-mongering and divisiveness - not what I want for my children.
Don't get me wrong, Matthews is really getting carried away with the Hillary-bashing and is really tarnishing an already questionable journalistic reputation.
My only question is, why is Media Matters, the self-proclaimed "progressive research and information center" so concerned with how Hillary Clinton is treated in the media? MMFA has 39 pieces on Hillary Clinton since December 20, 2007. Am I missing something? Did Hillary become a progressive while I wasn't looking?
I understand some people out there like Hillary and want to defend her against unjust attacks. I have no problem with that. But Hillary is really no more of a progressive than Mike Huckabee or John McCain, but you don't see MMFA defending those guys. I just think it's getting tiresome to see MMFA repeatedly come to the aid of a candidate that doesn't share their progressive ideals.
Now if MMFA wants to call themselves a "moderate research and information center," then that's fine with me. Then they can defend Hillary to infinity for all I care.
They don't need your permission. You are disputing an adjective and possibly confusing it with the mission.
"dedicated to ......correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
It matters not who is defended. It could be a liberal, moderate, progressive, or independent,.... Those attacked most by conservative misinformation will inherently be helped more often.
Frankly I think the MMFA sensitivities are fairly progressive, even though Hillary isn't.