Playing hardball
January 10, 2008 11:58 AM   Subscribe

Chris Matthews has been openly critical of Hilary Clinton. Still, he's certainly not the only one to suggest her recent tears were nothing more than a performance. So when does criticism cross the line into obsession? Note: For those of you sick of American politics, consider this: when was the last time you saw a potential leader pinched on the cheek?
posted by misha (149 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
Which cheek?
posted by mds35 at 12:01 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


For those of you sick of American politics, consider this: when was the last time you saw a potential leader pinched on the cheek?

DO YOUR RESEARCH. Google Ron Paul!
posted by billysumday at 12:05 PM on January 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


Well, there was that time that George W. Bush gave German Chancellor Angela Merkel an impromptu backrub at the G8 summit.
posted by turaho at 12:07 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Remember when Gandhi dry-humped Golda Meir? That was awesome.
posted by Mister_A at 12:09 PM on January 10, 2008 [12 favorites]


There is nothing wrong with a female president and eventually we will have one, but any president male or female who cries in public and gets their cheek pinched like a child, makes me have doubts. That being said GW has never cried in public or had his cheek pinched like a child and is a total failure as a president.
posted by hexxed at 12:09 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Today, protesters interrupted a Hillary Clinton rally with yells of "iron my shirt."

Fucking sad and disgusting. Attack her on Policy points, fine, but why fall into that bullshit?
posted by piratebowling at 12:09 PM on January 10, 2008 [8 favorites]


A lot of people are blaming the MSM, and Chris Matthews in particular for screwing up Obama's win. One reader wrote in saying they would have voted for Hillary, just because of the way she was being treated in the press. There was a great video of someone actually explaining this to Matthews on his show.

I think people are struggling trying to figure why the polls were so off. In fact, they were not off so much as that everyone who self-reported as undecided broke for Hillary. The estimates for Obama and Edwards were very accurate.

Personally, I think those few Democrats who voted for Hillary voted for her for the same reason they voted for Kerry in '04. They're beaten down and have bought the line that they have to vote for someone who epitomizes the powers that be. I don't think these supposed slips and gaffes really have much impact on the race. Certainly much less then the media would like to think.

The media obsession with tiny details, like whether or not she teared up or whatever is really just obnoxious. They feel like they have to report something.
posted by delmoi at 12:10 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Do we need this here? I mean I am a politics junkie, seriously; I read and refresh (and RSS) a dozen political blogs a day, literally. Which is exactly why I don't want it in my blue.
posted by The Bellman at 12:10 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh come on, anyone can see they were real tears. But she wasn't crying because she cares about America and the rest of that bullshit she was talking about. She was crying because she was losing what was once a lock and things were spinning out of her control. But she kept doing her speech through the tears, so a lot of people bought it. Fuck it, I'm voting for Bill and Opus.
posted by poppo at 12:12 PM on January 10, 2008 [9 favorites]


but any president male or female who cries in public and gets their cheek pinched like a child

Hillary didn't ask to get her Cheek pulled. That was just Matthews being a misogynistic asshole. If you follow politics much, Matthew's male chauvinism is really obvious.
posted by delmoi at 12:13 PM on January 10, 2008 [8 favorites]


Yeah delmoi, which is why I was pretty irate when I discovered Kerry endorsing Obama and then Obama going along with it. Whatever you have to say about his politics, Kerry is an absolute lost cause when it comes to presidential stuff.. why on earth would you accept that stone to wear around your neck? Meh.

Bellman: And here I am refreshing the blue for my politics... it's selfish, but I value the discourse on MeFi as opposed to pretty much anywhere else and so when it's politics time.. make my politics MeFi blue!
posted by cavalier at 12:13 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]



Do we need this here? I mean I am a politics junkie, seriously; I read and refresh (and RSS) a dozen political blogs a day, literally. Which is exactly why I don't want it in my blue.
posted by The Bellman at 3:10 PM on January 10 [+] [!]







Yeah. What he said.
posted by mds35 at 12:13 PM on January 10, 2008


On the serious tip, hexxed, the cheek pinch says a lot more about Matthews than it does about Hillary. I haven't seen the video but I suspect she was probably completely surprised by this bizarre, disrespectful, patronizing behavior. I also suspect that she avoided dignifying it with a strong response. If he did that to me or my wife, I would kick the shit out of him, because I have a temper and an enthusiasm for fisticuffs, and very little chance of being elected president. Anyway, if Hillary wins the general election, I will encourage her to use one of her three free kills on Matthews.
posted by Mister_A at 12:14 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Do we need this here? I mean I am a politics junkie, seriously; I read and refresh (and RSS) a dozen political blogs a day, literally. Which is exactly why I don't want it in my blue.

I don't do any of that. So I'm fine with this in the blue.
posted by juiceCake at 12:14 PM on January 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


cavalier writes "Yeah delmoi, which is why I was pretty irate when I discovered Kerry endorsing Obama and then Obama going along with it. Whatever you have to say about his politics, Kerry is an absolute lost cause when it comes to presidential stuff.. why on earth would you accept that stone to wear around your neck? Meh."

Kerry got Obama the keynote at the 04 convention, which has a lot to do with Obama being a contender right now. He kinda owes him.
posted by mullingitover at 12:16 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


hexxed writes "That being said GW has never cried in public...."

Wrong! Do your research!

Sorry; that'll keep cracking me up for at least another week
posted by mr_roboto at 12:16 PM on January 10, 2008


Kerry got Obama the keynote at the 04 convention, which has a lot to do with Obama being a contender right now. He kinda owes him.

I stand corrected, educated, and better for it. Thank you!
posted by cavalier at 12:17 PM on January 10, 2008


Wait...he really did pinch her cheek? I thought that was an exaggeration. WTFMSNBC
posted by DU at 12:18 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


I have a temper and an enthusiasm for fisticuffs, and very little chance of being elected president stole the presidency twice.

Fixed that for you Dubyah.
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:19 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


I am actually really heartened by how little of the debate about Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama is about ZOMG A CHICK AND A BLACK DUDE.

So every time some pundit tries to get me all outraged about how people something something were talking about if Obama was black enough, or hey, did you see that Clinton got weepy and emo over a baby??? or something like that, I feel like it's a snow job. Like these aren't so much things real people are concerned with as they are things Big Media would like us to be concerned with, because they make juicy filler stories: "Hilary gets pinched on the cheek! What that means for your weekend, at 11."

I grew up hoping that there would be a female president in my lifetime, but not particularly thinking that it was very realistic. It is immensely cheering to me that here we are, with a very serious female candidate. She doesn't actually have my vote in the primaries as I am lamely interested in Edwards' anti-poverty platform but this has all helped me feel pretty optimistic about the future of our society.

Feel free to all scream at me, hiply-cynical MeFites. I can take it.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 12:20 PM on January 10, 2008 [9 favorites]


Yeah, the video of Matthews turning to Hillary and then reaching out and pinching her cheek is vomit inducing. She handled it pretty well, though, and responded by patting him on the cheek like he was a child who didn't know any better.
posted by Justinian at 12:22 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


I don't think HRC wanted to have that done but she didn't do much to stop it and then legitmized it by doing the same in return. I know Matthews is generally a dick and he pulled a dick move I didn't like what I saw on both sides of that exchange. The crying though was a bit much for my taste. I always had this image of HRC as a tough as nails ball buster that is just as tough if not tougher then any of the boys in the primary dance. I guess I don't care that much though I prefer Obama but anybody who is willing end the war (except ron paul) is the one I am voting for in november.
posted by hexxed at 12:23 PM on January 10, 2008


Is Chris Matthews the same one who loves how Fred Thompson smells? I know he's definitely the one that got torn apart by Jon Stewart.
posted by DU at 12:24 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


The guys with the "Iron my shirt" sign turned out to be working for a local radio station.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:27 PM on January 10, 2008


I have to admit that I'm more than a little troubled by the idea that her recent outbursts of emotion have led to a rise in the polls. I mean, where's the feminist narrative in that?

Of course, you could also ask where the feminist narrative is in a woman riding her husband's coattails into office, as someone on Slate did yesterday.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:30 PM on January 10, 2008


I keep seeing that video of Hillary getting choked up, and I can't help but be reminded of that opening scene in Primary Colors.

BIG GIRLS DON'T CRY!
posted by Hollow at 12:31 PM on January 10, 2008


How is pulling a "stunt" for a local radio station a mitigating factor? Seems if you want to make a point about something (and what exactly was the point?) you would hype it to the max what you where doing after the fact.
posted by edgeways at 12:34 PM on January 10, 2008


I don't see how them working for a radio station makes them any less sexist. The story you just linked to doesn't say they aren't sexist. Don Imus and Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh are all sexist and work for radio stations.
posted by hydropsyche at 12:35 PM on January 10, 2008


Chris Matthews has nothing on failed sit down comic turned columnist Maureen Dowd who dares to ask "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?"
posted by munchingzombie at 12:36 PM on January 10, 2008


Eeyew, I followed Steven's link and now I feel all slimy - and confused. The fact that the shirt guys were from a radio station means - what, exactly? That it wasn't a Hillary plant after all, even though it could have been because she lies so much?
posted by yhbc at 12:36 PM on January 10, 2008


Wow, treja-vu.
posted by yhbc at 12:36 PM on January 10, 2008


you could also ask where the feminist narrative is in a woman riding her husband's coattails into office

Hillary wasn't even my second choice, let alone my first, but the "feminist narrative" here is HOLY CRAP A WOMAN PRESIDENT. Period.

As I was telling my wife last night, if she wins she's going to have to endure a LOT, but once the glass ceiling is broken the next one has a much easier time. She's a trailblazer and trailblazers don't usually have time for niceties like crafting the perfect narrative.
posted by DU at 12:36 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Speaking of Kerry's Obama endorsement, this is reminiscent of something... Big Boost for ______!
posted by anthill at 12:37 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Some are saying that the inaccuracy of the polls for an Obama win is the Bradley Effect, alive and well, in 2008.

I love Crooks and Liars website, they hate the heck out of Matthews, whom they call "Tweety" because of his big yellow head.

Ah. American politics.
posted by willmize at 12:38 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


She's a trailblazer and trailblazers don't usually have time for niceties like crafting the perfect narrative.

I dunno, Obama's is pretty flawless.
posted by Hollow at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I don't think this event, or its fallout has anything to do regarding the authenticity of expression on Clinton's part, or provoking a shallow emotional emotional reaction on the part of people influenced by it. What I think it did, is make some people pause and consider just how much of her life Clinton has committed to this moment and the slings and arrows she has endured, etc. I think that if anyone was influenced by her "moment" it would be for that reason, not some maudlin sentimentality. Having said that...Go Obama.
posted by rhizome23 at 12:43 PM on January 10, 2008


Fucking sad and disgusting. Attack her on Policy points, fine, but why fall into that bullshit?
posted by piratebowling at 3:09 PM on January 10


The 'iron my shirt' thing was a dopey morning zoo type radio stunt.

I am actually really heartened by how little of the debate about Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama is about ZOMG A CHICK AND A BLACK DUDE.

Wait until the general election, my friend. If Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans will have half the country believing he is a practicing muslim. No, I'm not kidding.

If Hillary wins, we will be entertained with "jokes" about her period, menopause, who she's smitten with, etc. They will simultaneously cast her has a 14-yr old girl and an old crone. Then we will hear "serious" questions fielded about whether the leaders of middle eastern countries that we have to negotiate with will take a woman president seriously. This criticism is "legitimate" because it addresses their sexism, not that of the jowly slob behind the mic.

At that point America will discover two things: First, that the glass ceiling is not only alive and well but is in fact made of 15-foot thick transparent aluminum through which no one can hear you scream; and second, that it isn't so much old white men that want to keep women in their place as much as fat white men in their 30's and 40's who blindly follow fatter 50 and 60 year old men.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:44 PM on January 10, 2008 [37 favorites]


I have to admit that I'm more than a little troubled by the idea that her recent outbursts of emotion have led to a rise in the polls. I mean, where's the feminist narrative in that?

See previous comment:

I always had this image of HRC as a tough as nails ball buster that is just as tough if not tougher then any of the boys in the primary dance.
posted by zebra3 at 12:49 PM on January 10, 2008


This may just be me being emotional (haha), and I know it's not going to be the most popular opinion, but here goes.

Every time someone says something along the lines of "boo hoo!" or "presidential candidates shouldn't cry" I die a little inside.

Okay. It could be a manipulative PR stunt. I wouldn't put it past her, but I don't really think so this time. Okay, she's benefitting off of a lot of voters electing her just to get Bill back in office. Okay, there are a lot of things about her strategy, her issues, her political machine to hate. I hear all of those arguments.

Still, what the fuck is wrong with a presidential candidate showing some emotion? Being in her situation is hard. She is human, you know. Why do we expect our leadership to be stoic? And doesn't that reek of a gender-imposed norm of behavior? I mean, honestly, women are encouraged in this society to show emotion, to not be afraid of asking for help. Men generally aren't. Why is it so bad that she reacted that way? Why is it so bad that she reacted - honestly - to a question asking her not about her politics but about how she was doing?

Automatically dismissing all of those voters who connected to Hillary after the incident as being stupid, or weak, or easily swayed seems really problematic to me. Then again, so does assuming that she won in New Hampshire solely because of this incident.
posted by lunit at 12:50 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


hmsbeagle, we could be twins. I feel just as you do, including the Edwards endorsement.

And so to say "her recent tears" in the FPP is just wrong, as is any mention of "crying."

You know, I also feel that 'tears' is a stretch, but I referred to it as the press did, hyperbole and all.

I am not going to vote for Hilary just because she is a woman; I don't agree with her on everything. At the same time, though, I don't want her treated differently because she's a woman, either, and that's why I posted this.

When Dean got excited and whooped, he was drummed out of the last race for getting out of control, while Hilary's emotional moment seemed to garner support. Chris Matthews thinks it is okay to reach out and pinch her cheek because, hey, she's just a woman. That kind of stuff bothers me.

My take is that Hilary did really well in the debate before New Hampshire. Maybe it's just optimistic of me, but I like to think that's why she won over some undecideds.

And I like that Hilary handled CM in the way he should have been handled. He acted like an inappropriate child, and she had this maternal, "It's okay, let's move on," attitude.

I actually like her more now for the grace under pressure she has shown.
posted by misha at 12:50 PM on January 10, 2008


Of course, you could also ask where the feminist populist narrative is in a womanman riding her husband'shis father's coattails into office, as someone on Slate did not do yesterday in 2000.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:30 PM on January 10


Note that in 2000, that applied to both candidates. You don't want there to be a feminist narrative, because the jowly men will hear "feminist" and fear for their penises that they cannot see for their enormous soft bellies.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:51 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


While I only have a sample group of one woman (mah wife), I found her reaction to Hillary's "choking up" on Monday with extreme empathy and admiration. Where she was only "Wow, Hillary's running huh? Interesting" several months ago, and last weekend she was pretty excited about Iowa, Monday's event brought out a surge of compassion and a desire? to vote HRC.

She also said immediately that women love to tear other women down, and that HRC is experiencing some of that, but when it's all done they'll still root for her.

Feminism? Fourth Wave? Freeeowwww.
posted by cavalier at 12:52 PM on January 10, 2008


How is this news? It's been going on for years. Why, William Randolph Hearst once pinched Grover Cleveland's cheeks on two non-consecutive occasions.
posted by gompa at 12:53 PM on January 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


Still, what the fuck is wrong with a presidential candidate showing some emotion? Being in her situation is hard. She is human, you know.

Genuine Question of fact: did Margaret Thatcher ever cry in office? It doesn't matter really, but I'm curious from a Brit vs. U.S. cultural perspective, i.e. stiff upper lip, etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:53 PM on January 10, 2008


I always had this image of HRC as a tough as nails ball buster that is just as tough if not tougher then any of the boys in the primary dance.

Too bad she's still completely inept.
posted by secret about box at 12:58 PM on January 10, 2008


If there are weak and emotional voters I would say that those who voted for Bush in 2004 fit the type. And as that was the majority (presumably) then I have no hesitation in saying that the MAJORITY of American voters are either/and weak and emotional.
posted by edgeways at 12:59 PM on January 10, 2008


I have no problems with a woman being president, but I can't deal with another republican in the white house.
posted by mullingitover at 1:01 PM on January 10, 2008


Being in her situation is hard. She is human, you know.

What do you know, Hilary's got the Chris Crocker endorsement. If that doesn't balance Kerry I don't know what will.

That said, I have a question: does anyone, in the entire world, watch MSNBC because of Matthews? Do you think they'd lose even one single viewer if they just dumped him without cause and replaced him temporarily with a Fox-type newsmodel until they could line up someone else with a shred of journalistic cred? Why keep him? Does he, personally, attract even one viewer?
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:01 PM on January 10, 2008


Hillary won not because of her tears. She won because she pulled together an effective campaign, she has a loyal contingent of supports, and she continually kicks Obama's ass at the debates. The vast majority of people who care about the tears are either clinton-haters or are members of the Obama Cheerleading Squad who are having a hard time coming to terms that there might actually be people who believe that Clinton is the better candidate.

Clinton handle Chris Matthews the right way. She handled herself in the debates the right way. And she handled herself in New Hampshire the right way. She's learning and Obama better follow suit or he's going to fall fast.
posted by Stynxno at 1:03 PM on January 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


He wouldn't have dared pinch a male candidate on the cheek.
posted by agregoli at 1:12 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Then there was the time when Winston Churchill massaged the atrophied calves of an ailing Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta.
posted by Dave Faris at 1:15 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


"... Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported in June 2001 that Matthews told an MSNBC colleague, 'I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.'"*
posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


The sad thing is, if I were American I'd be sorely tempted to vote against Hillary Clinton* simply because I'm sick to fucking death of listening to/reading about people complain about her.

* in the primaries...under no circumstances whatsoever would I vote for a Republican president
posted by you just lost the game at 1:18 PM on January 10, 2008




So... in a general election you would vote for someone because they complain and incite others to complain about a candidate irregardless of that candidates positions and views?
posted by edgeways at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2008


Salon's Traister: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong
"The glee with which Matthews and other angry male pundits prematurely danced on Hillary's grave made me -- for one night only -- a Clinton supporter."
posted by ericb at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


strike that.. make it read.. "in the primaries", reading defectiveness on my part
posted by edgeways at 1:21 PM on January 10, 2008


Chris Matthews:
Negative remarks about Hillary Clinton (82) | Positive remarks about Hillary Clinton (10)

Negative remarks about Rudy Giuliani (8) | Positive remarks about Rudy Giuliani (28)
Scroll down for analysis and chart of comments made by Matthews.
posted by ericb at 1:24 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


If I was elected president of the steaming pile of shit that 8 years of Bush has made of America I wouldn't STOP crying.

As for Mathews. My wife and I were watching that. Both of had one of those Scooby Do "WTF RAGGY!?" moments. She looked at me and said:

"So if Chris Mathews walked up to you, a presidential Candidate, and pinched your cheek — what would YOU do?"

I said "Well. Before or AFTER I gouged out his motherfucking eyes?"

"Yeah. That's what I thought. Why do you think he did that to Hillary and not say... McCain?"

"Because he knows McCain might do the same thing I would. So he thought he could throw his ample weight around with woman half his size and demean the shit out of her." I answered.

"I hope she does a Vince Foster on that mother fucker." She said. "Only with out the mystery."
posted by tkchrist at 1:24 PM on January 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


No, I wouldn't. That's why I said I wouldn't vote Republican. Plus, I said I'd be "sorely tempted," not "I would".
posted by you just lost the game at 1:24 PM on January 10, 2008


My esteem for HRC went up quite a bit when I saw how she dealt with Matthews. She's certainly not my ideal candidate, but I'd sooner vote for an actual hamster than a Republican right now.
posted by lordrunningclam at 1:26 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sorry, edgeways, I should have previewed. Our bad.
posted by you just lost the game at 1:26 PM on January 10, 2008


So the campaign is about Chris Matthews now?
posted by 3.2.3 at 1:29 PM on January 10, 2008


About the only thing positive about Giuliani anybody can say is that he has tons of executive experience quietly accepting the credit he doesn't deserve.
posted by tkchrist at 1:34 PM on January 10, 2008


Hillary nearly cried (but she did not shed tears)

1. it was real
2. it was fake
3. it showed she wilts under pressure
4. it shows she is human
5. women got upset by her being dumped on and voted in her favor because of it
6. the polls were dead wrong about what would happen in New Hampshire
7. The Iron shirts sign turned women in favor of Hillary
8. women came out to support their own gender

I have seen each one of these as explanations for New Hampshire and am satisfied with one thing: Hillary won in New Hampshire.
posted by Postroad at 1:37 PM on January 10, 2008


Here's a list I put together for pundits.

Bad Stuff About Hillary.

Did you know that in her first marriage Hillary Clinton was married to a man who was once twice her age?

Fact: Hillary Rodham was born October 26, 1947. Her first husband, Bill Clinton, was born August 19, 1946. When Hillary was 13 months old, Bill was 26 months.

Did you know that Hillary was never cleared of wrongdoing for her involvement in Watergate?

Fact: In 1974 Hilllary Rodham worked for the House Committee on the Judiciary researching the impeachment of Richard Nixon. She was never cleared of wrongdoing.

Did you know that she referred to herself as First Lady even though this was in contradiction with the Bible?

Fact: The Bible says Eve was the First Lady.

Did you know that even though she claims to be an advocate for children, she has never had children?

Fact: She has only had one child.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton continued to sleep in the White House even after she became a Senator?

Fact: Hillary shamelessly twisted together two branches of government. She was sworn in as US Senator on January 3, 2001. Her last day as First Lady was January 20, 2001.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:41 PM on January 10, 2008 [10 favorites]


I have seen each one of these as explanations for New Hampshire and am satisfied with one thing: Hillary won in New Hampshire.

Popular vote, yes; in terms of delegates, she and Obama tied. My questions, then, are these:

1. Why is this being spun as HRC handing Obama his ass when it was victory by a nose (and one that doesn't, points-wise, even count as a victory)?

2. What happens when Edwards (inevitably) bows out? Because he got a pretty huge chunk of the vote too, and I don't see many supporters of his policies throwing in with HRC, the most conservative democrat on the ballot...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:45 PM on January 10, 2008


I wonder if Edwards draws off more votes from Obama or Clinton? If he decides he's a spoiler for the wrong candidate, he should get out before the convention.

On preview, what kittens for breakfast said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:47 PM on January 10, 2008


quietly accepting the credit

you are correct, except there's nothing quiet about his credit-taking.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:49 PM on January 10, 2008


Here's a list I put together for pundits.

That cuts both ways. I have it on good authority that Obama fathered not one, but two black children.
posted by felix betachat at 1:50 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


who gives a shit if another Republican media tool bashes Hillary? is it supposed to be surprising?

are we supposed to pretend to be surprised because the GOP has a pathological Clinton obsession (bashing Bill 1993-2001, and Hillary since 2001?). wtf? the GOP, armed with subpoena power, went after the Clintons finances for six years until they found some evidence of marital infidelity and they impeached Clinton for it -- am I the only one who remembers that?

Matthews is just a marginally thinner Limbaugh with a weird Philly accent -- he used to bash Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s, now it's Clinton's wife's turn. that's what tools do. he's just following his masters' wishes. the real problem is not that he's a tool, the problem is that he's been cheerleading for the war like the was no tomorrow and then he had the balls to scream that he was always against the war, AND his career didn't end because of that. actually, the more shamefully wrong the American media's windbags have been, the better for their careers.

Matthews is just part -- an especially shrill, creepy part -- of a massive PR machine put together by the GOP over the years. he's certainly no journalist, not even for the USA's rapidly decaying journalistic standards. so, again, who gives a shit.
posted by matteo at 1:50 PM on January 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


I'm with Matteo. I don't give a shit what this guy says.
posted by agregoli at 1:52 PM on January 10, 2008


As much as I might enjoy watching Chris Matthews making a total ass of himself for my amusement, I do cringe at the collective MSM projection of "Wow, HRC really is a human and not a man-eating cyborg." Also, I already liked Keith Olberman, but seeing him perform so well next to Matthews only boosted my respect for him. When will MSNBC let him go and release him to Fox & Friends where he belongs? And while I'm here: boo hiss and a slap on the wrist to Stephen Colbert for helping Mike Huckabee appear all harmless and cuddly-wuvvable last night....
/end complaints
posted by wowbobwow at 1:57 PM on January 10, 2008


The fact that some other guy who doesn’t like her doesn’t change the fact that I don’t particularly like her positions.
I mean that seems to be their schtick. At least the unstated schtick, of the Clinton campaign. “Look how much these people (who you think are assholes) hate us!”
It’s an appeal to trolling.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:00 PM on January 10, 2008


The fact that some other guy who doesn’t like her - is a jerk - that is - doesn't etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:01 PM on January 10, 2008


Tweety's hatred of Clinton has been sickeningly misogynistic. Just horrible, insane. He went from just trashing her every day to claiming she won only because a.she broke down (she didn't), and even that might have been fake. b. the voters of New Hampshire are racists and liars because they said they'd vote for Obama and then didn't.

Of course, analysis of the polls showed that a.they stopped a little too soon b.the undecideds broke for her. c.Obama got precisely the share of votes people thought he would get. It was Edwards' percentage that declined.

And I'd buy the argument that she won her Senate seat because who she was married to but she has served well and won over rabid, really rabid, upstate NY Republican voters as well as NYC area Democrats. People in NY like her. She's served longer as a senator than Obama has, so if he's qualified, in terms of experience, so is she.

And no, I'm not a supporter; I like Edwards and really want him to stay in and compete. I will vote for him in NY. But after watching that little bigheaded shit on MSNBC, I wished I lived in New Hampshire for the day so I could have voted for her.
posted by etaoin at 2:05 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


the real problem is not that he's a tool, the problem is that he's been cheerleading for the war like the was no tomorrow and then he had the balls to scream that he was always against the war, AND his career didn't end because of that.

When has Matthews cheerlead the war? What on earth are you talking about? I've seen lots of examples of him bashing it, including an op-ed opposing the war before it started. I've not seen any evidence of him being pro-war, but I've seen lots of evidence of him being a misogynist.

It's not like I watch his show, however.
posted by delmoi at 2:08 PM on January 10, 2008


I have to admit I was toitally wrong about the tears: I thought they would finish her, as if she emerged as teh candidate they'd be on loop on every TV channel till the election as proof of "weakness". As it happens fopr that moment they were genius, and probably did win the thing for her.

It does leave me wondering if that's a repeatable trick.
posted by Artw at 2:09 PM on January 10, 2008


She's served longer as a senator than Obama has, so if he's qualified, in terms of experience, so is she.

4 more years a senator (2000 vs. 2004). And Obama has many more years experience as a legislator in Illinois.
posted by delmoi at 2:11 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Because god knows no male president (or presidential candidate) would ever cry in public.

That last article was written before the Hilary hoopla. Fairly prescient, don't you think?

The Female factor
"Guys have been tearing up all along and people think it's marvelous," Schroeder said, pointing to episodes stretching back to Ronald Reagan.

But for female candidates, crying clearly is still in the no-fly zone.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not allowed to cry.

At least not in public.

She is allowed to weep privately, though.

And maybe even tell us about it.

In her memoir, "Living History," Clinton wrote about the moment her husband admitted his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.

"I could hardly breathe," she wrote. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?'"

But Clinton may shed no tears on the campaign trail. The same people who complain that she is cold and unemotional would seize on it as a sign of weakness and vulnerability, says Schroeder.

"For some reason," she says, "we still are a little nervous for women."

posted by granted at 2:13 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Jeez, all these news moderators are blowhard douchebag hacks. Except for Jon Stewart. He's a fake blowhard douchebag hack.
posted by chillmost at 2:16 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Getting emotional is OK if you're a Republican man. Think Progress has examples of Republican men's manly tears being cited as "poignant" and "genuine." "The pictures were just what the White House wanted: A teary-eyed President Bush..."

Chris Matthews also said "the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around."

There was a great video of someone actually explaining this to Matthews on his show.

Maybe Rachel Maddow?

it isn't so much old white men that want to keep women in their place as much as fat white men in their 30's and 40's who blindly follow fatter 50 and 60 year old men.

Men aren't the only people who can be sexist.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:17 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


There is nothing wrong with a female president and eventually we will have one, but any president male or female who cries in public and gets their cheek pinched like a child, makes me have doubts.

If you have doubts based on the video that we saw, you're a disgrace.

I saw the video, it was so overblown as to be completely retarded. The only shameful thing I saw was a media that is so hungry for any sort of negative Hillary story that they'll jump on *anything* at all.

And I say that as somebody who despises Hillary.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:20 PM on January 10, 2008


1. Why is this being spun as HRC handing Obama his ass when it was victory by a nose (and one that doesn't, points-wise, even count as a victory)?

The media barons own a large piece of Hillary and want her installed, so any victory (however small) should be spun up as much as possible.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:21 PM on January 10, 2008


On the republican side Kos endorses Mitt Romney in the Michigan Primary. Michigan won't have a democratic primary this year (Only Hillary appears on the ballot), and Kos thinks Romney would be the worse candidate. I think that's accurate

(And I actually think Romney would be the 'least bad' president out of the top three republicans)
posted by delmoi at 2:24 PM on January 10, 2008


I wish I saw it as starkly as you do, Blazecock, but I think it's just the media acting like frenzied lemmings, without any particular ideological rationale.

After all, they were all eager to stick a fork in Hillary after Iowa.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:27 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


After all, they were all eager to stick a fork in Hillary after Iowa.

True, I am probably wrong. The media does seem to love setting up A vs. B dramas in politics. Soap operas sell, maybe.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:31 PM on January 10, 2008


I wish I saw it as starkly as you do, Blazecock, but I think it's just the media acting like frenzied lemmings, without any particular ideological rationale.

Actually, the press hates Hillary. Most of 'em anyway. This just a popularity contest for them, with no real-world consequences beyond personal access. That's why they love McCain so much. They like Obama, probably for the same reason everyone else likes him (inspiring, great speeches, etc) They're annoyed with Edwards for making things more complicated.

They're more interested in compelling narratives then they are in political outcomes, the fall of Hillary was a great story. Her return is kind of ambiguous.
posted by delmoi at 2:34 PM on January 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


(the above is all IMO, of course)
posted by delmoi at 2:35 PM on January 10, 2008


I think most of these "the media wants X" stories are plain wrong.

The media is lazy and dumb. It's easy to report horse races, so they report horse races. It's easy to report on the top candidates, so they do that.

It's hard for them to change direction not because of some vast conspiracy, but rather because they're shitty at their jobs.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:36 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, that said she is a states(person?) and running for the presidency. . .

(Yeah, the video of Matthews turning to Hillary and then reaching out and pinching her cheek is vomit inducing. She handled it pretty well, though, and responded by patting him on the cheek like he was a child who didn't know any better.
posted by Justinian a
)


I don't follow Matthews and don't have a good handle on who or what he is, but that is some balls. Pinching a public offical's cheek? What balls, what condecention. Most of the time when women talk about discrimination based on gender I just don't see it, till something like this happens and then I get a glimps of how little I really understand about what it's like to be a woman.
posted by nola at 2:38 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


The reason Tweety doesn't like Hills is because he can't have a man-crush (or are they just crushes, period?) on a woman.

I'm an Edwards supporter but am starting to lean toward Hillary in part because of how she's being treated as well as how she's handling herself in return. For instance, I also cite her performance in the Saturday New Hampshire debate and, by contrast, Obama's smug, condescending attitude toward her.

Plus, as a middle-aged woman, the more I think about it, the more impatient I am to finally see a female president.

Of course, I'm in MI, so the Dems don't care about me anyway.

"So if Chris Mathews walked up to you, a presidential Candidate, and pinched your cheek — what would YOU do?"
The Secret Service should've wrestled his ass to the ground.
posted by NorthernLite at 2:43 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Michigan won't have a democratic primary this year (Only Hillary appears on the ballot)

It's my understanding Clinton and several "minor" candidates are on it, including Kucinich. I was going to write Edwards in until I found out that would make it an invalid ballot.
posted by NorthernLite at 2:45 PM on January 10, 2008


I found the crying reaction interesting. Because the first news reports I saw were all going on and on about how her showing emotion was clearly a female weakness and by crying it was clear that she isn't right or strong enough to be president. They went on & on about it... boo hoo hoo presidents don't cry kinda junk. Be a man. Whatever.

Then when women responded to it and it was clear that it had actually humanized her? Suddenly it was "ohhhh, she did that on purpose. she was acting to manipulate the public." As though she pretended to cry, all the time knowing it would raise her numbers. Which is an odd accusation since that would make her sound like some kind of brilliant political mastermind actress (or sociopath). But still, wouldn't it be a selling point to have a president that's smart like a fox for a change?

Anyhow, moral of the story... pick a complaint and stick with it, people.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:49 PM on January 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


Today, protesters interrupted a Hillary Clinton rally with yells of "iron my shirt."

Fucking sad and disgusting. Attack her on Policy points, fine, but why fall into that bullshit?


As others have said, radio stunt or not, if the hecklers had turned up to shout "pass the watermelon" or "shine my shoes" at Obama this would be a huge issue. But racism still > sexism, I guess.
posted by Rumple at 2:52 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


(all this being said, I STILL think a Clinton/Obama, or Obama/Clinton ticket would be very hard to beat in the General. I've a feeling the VP slot will be taken by a white guy however.)
posted by edgeways at 2:58 PM on January 10, 2008


I am always a little shocked when I see that some people will bend over backwards into positions that even lifelong yoga enthusiasts could not replicate to assign negative motives to Hillary Clinton. I mean, the idea that she faked choking up to improve her poll numbers just seems so silly, especially when traditional wisdom suggests that it is irrevocable political suicide for a female politician to show emotion -- and when it is so much more rational to understand her temporary loss of composure as the result of exhaustion and dissappointment over the Iowa loss.

But some people seem to need to believe this in order to avoid processing the fact that she is a real human being with actual emotions, who can get tired or angry or sad without political calculation. Whatever. I know that every public figure gets this ubercriticism to some degree, but the tone of some of the Hillary bashing seems remarkably savage at times. ("Testicle lock box" and "iron my shirts" and the website "Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Run for President, She Should Just Run the Dishes" are stupid and really shouldn't we be past that crap by now?) In Clinton's case there is this weird Catch-22 going on, because when she complains about her media treatment to the public we dislike the tone of entitlement that it implies, but on the other hand the complaint itself does seem basically grounded in fact.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:01 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


[S]howing emotion was clearly a female weakness and by crying it was clear that she isn't right or strong enough to be president.

I didn't read or hear that at all. The press I saw used it to promote her campaign, I thought, saying the tears "humanized her".

But still, wouldn't it be a selling point to have a president that's smart like a fox for a change?

On NPR the other afternoon, I heard a group of women interviewed in New Hampshire about why they voted for HRC. And basically it was about putting a woman in office to quote "clean up the mess men have left".

So, fake or real, the tears — along with her veiled speech about how important it is to have a woman in charge ("I've had so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards") — worked on a target demographic.

IMO it was clearly crass manipulation on her part, but it worked, so I guess that's a sign she has what it takes to be a great leader. Maybe we need another four years of sociopathy, to do the dirty work needed to clean up the mess left by our previous sociopath.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:03 PM on January 10, 2008


Speaking about Kerry via Andrew Sullivan (quoting an emailer)
Maybe Kerry himself isn't that helpful, but I know one thing the Obama people are thrilled with today: the voter file. Obama now has access to the largest, most recent presidential campaign voter file. The millions of email addresses, phone numbers, addresses and invaluable as Obama starts to go national. I imagine the information Kerry has from 2004 could easily double the size of Obama's voter file in states like South Carolina and Nevada and maybe even triple the size in states like California and New York. Also, Obama now has access to activists and supports of Clinton who - in all likelihood - where in Kerry's general election voter file. So while the man himself probably won't give him that big of a boost, the fact that Kerry just pinned his email list is pretty significant in terms of data and list building.
Also, I'm surprised to see people write off Kerry's endorsement. Kerry is exactly the kind of guy who the types of people who follow Hillary would look up to. Someone who supposedly knows what he's doing. Or maybe they would if he hadn't lost. Either way, you just don't turn down endorsements, unless they're from David Duke or someone like that.

Also, I don't exactly remember Hillary out there supporting Kerry too much in '04. Obama definitely was, from what I remember.
"So if Chris Mathews walked up to you, a presidential Candidate, and pinched your cheek — what would YOU do?"
The Secret Service should've wrestled his ass to the ground.


Hillary walked up to him. She called him "Obsessed" and then apparently was going to walk over and Hug him in a sort of sarcastic way. It makes sense if you watch the video, but sounds really weird when you type it :P
lean toward Hillary in part because of how she's being treated as well as how she's handling herself in return. For instance, I also cite her performance in the Saturday New Hampshire debate and, by contrast, Obama's smug, condescending attitude toward her.
I don't think Obama was that smug. The "You're likable enough Hillary," bit seems like it just came out wrong. You can't expect people to never slip up or say something imperfect. Doing so is no less reasonable then the media flipping out about Hillary's "tears."

Anyway, voting for someone because you feel sorry for her is idiotic. This is a person who is going to have an enormous impact in people's lives over the next 4-8 years. People thought George W. would a great beer-drinking buddy, and now hundreds of thousands of people are dead in Iraq.

If you wouldn't vote for her if people weren't attacking her, don't vote for her because they are.
posted by delmoi at 3:04 PM on January 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


"this is very personal for me, it's not just political; it's not just public."

Crying? I want to know how she kept from laughing. Seriously though, the treatment of this little non-episode doesn't seem too different than Dean's scream in 2004.
posted by klarck at 3:06 PM on January 10, 2008


Please explain this for me; Crying? I want to know how she kept from laughing.
I really don't get it. I just watched it for the first time, and I really thought she seemed genuine. I'm not a credulous dolt, so what am I missing?
posted by nola at 3:11 PM on January 10, 2008


I really don't get it. I just watched it for the first time, and I really thought she seemed genuine. I'm not a credulous dolt, so what am I missing?

Nothing. You're missing nothing.

If most of us got less than four or five hours of sleep for months on end and had the kind of schedules these candidates have and were exposed to the media pressure and savagery they are exposed to — most of us would have some raw emotions. Add to that the fact that HRC has been hounded, smeared, and shit on (let's see; she was accused of murder; of being a lesbian; or embezelment, drug trafficking, of being sexually impotent...on and on) since 1994. I think it's easy to see why she might let it slip once in a while.
posted by tkchrist at 3:20 PM on January 10, 2008 [8 favorites]


I have been wondering all year why Matthews hates the Clintons so much. As for the Iron My Shirts guy, he's lucky she's a Democrat: if he tried that shit on GW he'd get tased and trussed and locked up.
posted by RussHy at 3:26 PM on January 10, 2008


If HRC's win in NH was a backlash against the media's constant attacks, and
If it's true that the GOP would prefer to run against HRC (and I think it is)
Then it seems to me the rightwing elements in the media have a tool to help derail Obama and ensure that HRC secures the nomination. I'm not sure if it actually is worse than the more tradional forms of media manipulation, but it freaks me out all the same.
posted by Failure31 at 3:30 PM on January 10, 2008


One thing that has been interesting to me is the relatively different ways that the surge of support Clinton got from the tearing-up incident have been framed. delmoi's response to NorthernLite is an interesting example of this--saying that you're leaning towards to voting for someone you hadn't considered before based on how they've handled their unfair treatment in the media is a pretty far cry from saying that you are voting for someone because you feel sorry for them.

Not at all the same thing, needless to say. One way of framing it definitely smacks a bit of shaking one's head the silly voters who would vote for someone they know is the wrong choice for purely sentimental reasons. But I think NorthernLite's reaction to the media coverage is pretty understandable. A lot of people have a view of Clinton as very cold, very calculating--obviously in it for raw ambition, power, or money, because she's certainly not in it for selfless reasons. Perhaps some people are starting to see how transparently sexist a lot of the coverage of her has been, and questioning their pre-conceived notions about whether she really is as unlikeable or untrustworthy as they had assumed. Realizing that those perceptions may have been formed based on sexist media coverage rather than on anything the candidate herself had done, and respecting the way that she's handling herself under an unfair media barrage, seems like not terrible reasons to consider voting for her.
posted by iminurmefi at 3:34 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


It was only a matter of time before she did something feminine and attention-getting. I'm surprised it was now, and I think nothing like it will happen again until she loses.

There were only about 560,000 votes cast in NH. It's farcical, this system that takes tea leaves and conjures a fairy story in which we are all asked to believe.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:38 PM on January 10, 2008


New Hampshire only has a population of 1.3 million or so, so I'm not sure what you were expecting.
posted by smackfu at 3:43 PM on January 10, 2008


NorthernLite: some Democrats recommend voting for Mitt in Michigan.

As a Democrat, I think the easiest-to-hardest Republicans to beat are Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney/McCain, so I'm not sure I buy the rationale at that link. But food for thought, anyway.

In my view, the media has been so atrocious at reporting the news that casting a vote with the intention of knocking them down a peg isn't irrational at all.
posted by ibmcginty at 4:08 PM on January 10, 2008


Crying? I want to know how she kept from laughing. Seriously though, the treatment of this little non-episode doesn't seem too different than Dean's scream in 2004.

it's not like these people just spend a few hours doing a couple campaign stops. It's really a huge, huge effort. None of 'em are getting much sleep. It's not surprising Hillary would be tearing up.

saying that you're leaning towards to voting for someone you hadn't considered before based on how they've handled their unfair treatment in the media is a pretty far cry from saying that you are voting for someone because you feel sorry for them.

They're slightly different. Either voting for someone because of the way they react to attacks, or voting for someone because they are attacked, way, you're voting based on the attacks, voting based on the media narrative, etc. It's an awful way to pick a president.

There were only about 560,000 votes cast in NH. It's farcical, this system that takes tea leaves and conjures a fairy story in which we are all asked to believe.

Pretty much. And Obama and Hillary actually tied in terms of the number of delegates, apparently.
posted by delmoi at 4:10 PM on January 10, 2008


Actually, the press hates Hillary. Most of 'em anyway. This just a popularity contest for them, with no real-world consequences beyond personal access. That's why they love McCain so much.

I agree 100%, delmoi. Writing about "character" and "authenticity" frees them from having to do any work, and allows them to project their own (entirely showbiz-based) opinions about the candidates onto "the American people."
posted by ibmcginty at 4:10 PM on January 10, 2008


America will discover two things: First, that the glass ceiling is not only alive and well but is in fact made of 15-foot thick transparent aluminum through which no one can hear you scream; and second, that it isn't so much old white men that want to keep women in their place as much as fat white men in their 30's and 40's who blindly follow fatter 50 and 60 year old men.

It will be difficult for Obama or Hillary to win the general election not because of their race/gender but because of their issues. Both are advocating some form of nationalized health care as their core issue. This may be popular among the liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is the largest and most vocal section of the party), but to most Americans - including me - it remains a hugely controversial issue.

It's just going to be annoying and insulting to hear for 4-8 years the only reason I voted against someone is because I'm a sexist (or racist) pig.
posted by b_thinky at 4:31 PM on January 10, 2008


It's just going to be annoying and insulting to hear for 4-8 years the only reason I voted against someone is because I'm a sexist (or racist) pig.

As opposed to: because you don't give a shit about poor people?
posted by felix betachat at 5:00 PM on January 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that your assessment of what "most Americans" want is off, b_thinky. Do you have more recent polling data than that cited in my link?

Also, you're incorrect to claim that the Democratic candidates want "nationalized health care." None of their plans involve government provision of health care; rather, they involve expanding the number of people with health insurance.
posted by ibmcginty at 5:02 PM on January 10, 2008


Both are advocating some form of nationalized health care as their core issue. This may be popular among the liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is the largest and most vocal section of the party), but to most Americans - including me - it remains a hugely controversial issue.

It's just going to be annoying and insulting to hear for 4-8 years the only reason I voted against someone is because I'm a sexist (or racist) pig.


Don't worry, once you explain that you actually voted against someone because you don't care about the 137,000 people who died in the past six years due to lack of health insurance, all will be forgiven.

(sorry for the thread-hijack. scheduled programming can resume.)
posted by granted at 5:05 PM on January 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


So NPR's commentary from Andrew Kohut was speculation that polls didn't reach lower economic classes, and therefore created a pseudo-Bradley effect.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:07 PM on January 10, 2008


Both are advocating some form of nationalized health care as their core issue. This may be popular among the liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is the largest and most vocal section of the party), but to most Americans - including me - it remains a hugely controversial issue.

In the event b_thinky doesn't click through to your link, ibmcginty, I'll post an excerpt here:
"As an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed in 2003, the majority of Americans support a single-payer, government-sponsored health care system, even when they hear the right-wing's alarmist arguments.

Here are the key findings:

- Question 48 in the poll shows that 79% of Americans say they support 'providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes' over 'holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage.'

- Question 49 shows 62% say they support a universal health care system 'run by the government and financed by taxpayers' over the current system.

- Question 50 shows 57% say they would support this program even 'if it limited your own choice of doctors' (which doesn't necessarily have to be a side-effect of a single-payer system).

- Similarly, question 51 shows 62% say they would support this program even 'if it meant there were waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments' (again, not necessarily a side-effect)."
b_thinky, any data to support your claim?
posted by ericb at 5:08 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey, this Pew report is interesting, too. Also from 2003, so maybe America has been swept by pro-tax cut, anti-health insurance fever since that time:
Most Favor Raising Taxes for Health Care

Two-thirds of the public (67%) favors the government guaranteeing health care for all citizens even if it means repealing most of the recent tax cuts. Significantly, just as many Americans say they want the government to provide universal health coverage even if it means raising taxes.

Half of respondents were asked if the government should guarantee health insurance for all even if it means repealing "most of the recent tax cuts," while the other half was asked a different version of the question that mentioned "raising taxes." The virtually identical results indicate that most people do not make a distinction between providing health insurance by rolling back tax cuts or by actually raising taxes.

Partisanship influences attitudes on both measures, with Democrats more supportive of scrapping tax cuts and raising taxes than are Republicans. Still, half of Republicans favor repealing tax cuts to provide health insurance for all Americans and somewhat more (60%) back raising taxes to achieve that goal. By comparison, more Democrats prefer repealing tax cuts than raising taxes to provide universal health coverage.
posted by ibmcginty at 5:15 PM on January 10, 2008


Both are advocating some form of nationalized health care as their core issue. This may be popular among the liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is the largest and most vocal section of the party), but to most Americans - including me - it remains a hugely controversial issue.

Oh, really?

Gallup Poll | Nov. 11-14, 2007
"Thinking again about health care in the country as a whole: Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in this country?" -- 81% - Dissatisfied.

"Which of these statements do you think best describes the U.S. health care system today? -- 56% - "It has major problems."

"Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage?" -- 64% - Yes.
Quinnipiac University Poll | Oct. 23-29, 2007
"Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care." - 57% (All Registered Voters) - Yes.

"Do you think it's the government's responsibility to provide health insurance for those who can't afford it? -- 60% - Yes.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll | Sept. 27-30, 2007
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling health care?" -- 63% - Disapprove.

"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling health care?" -- 56% - Democrats.
CBS News Poll | Sept. 14-16, 2007
"How serious a problem is it for the United States that many Americans do not have health insurance." -- 76% - Very Serious.

Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?" -- 55 % - One Program For All.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll | May 4-6, 2007
"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?" -- 64% - Yes.*
posted by ericb at 5:37 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


...but to most Americans - including me - it remains a hugely controversial issue.

b_thinky, I thinky that your definition of "most" differs from most!
posted by ericb at 5:51 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Of course Hillary crying was a performance. Nothing could be more obvious; only an idiot would think otherwise.

However, before anyone jumps down my throat (though at 118 comments, I doubt anyone is even reading this far at this point), I should clarify. It was absolutely a performance, but it was also genuine emotion. Seriously, does anyone think that someone as tightly controlled as Hillary would even be capable of breaking into uncontrolled tears? No. Had she wanted to not cry, she would not have cried. It was an intentional display of emotion.

However, it was also a display of real emotion. Again, be serious. Does anyone think that Miz Hizzle has the acting chops to fake crying? Especially to fake crying like she did the other night? I mean, she wasn't bawling or anything, but they were definitely real tears stemming from real emotion. The trick was that she had to actually let herself unwind enough to cry in public. She was probably supposed to have loosened up long before this; I'd bet that privately her advisers have been screaming at her to show some actual emotion for weeks, if not months.

Of course, I think that calling Hillary "Miz Hizzle" is hilarious, so it may be that I'm too out of touch from reality to know what the hell I'm talking about.
posted by Caduceus at 5:56 PM on January 10, 2008


though at 118 comments, I doubt anyone is even reading this far at this point

Honey, you think wrong. Heck just take a look at the GiveWell threads -- people are still reading.
posted by ericb at 5:57 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Spring chicken, this'n.
posted by cortex at 5:59 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Back to Chris v Hillary: I don't get the fuss. Genuinely would like someone to explain. Hillary departed from a serious question on getting troops out of Iraq and started the --um, jokey? flirtatious?-- banter with the bit about men who were obsessed with her. Followed by her advancing on Matthews saying "Ohhh, Christopher, ba-beee." The cheek-pinching/patting that followed was mutual.

Would anyone here who was appalled by this be okay with a male presidential candidate saying "Ohhh, Katie, baby..."? Or fault Couric, in this hypothetical, if she responded the way Matthews did?

My guess is that the joking "men who are obsessed with me" bit was more of the humanize-Hillary campaign. It worked pretty well, but you can't turn around and stomp on the foot of the guy who plays along. Not that Clinton did that, but it seems to be the general reaction here. How come?

Note: I don't watch TV and, while I associate the name "Chris Matthews" with "Hardball," that's the extent of my knowledge of either.
posted by torticat at 6:00 PM on January 10, 2008


I can't see Chris Matthews pinching the cheek of any other candidate, and I find his behavior pretty demeaning. No male candidate would have to deal with that, nor with the "iron my shirt" idiots for that matter.

I find it extremely interesting that in pretty much any discussion, the only person whose first name is consistently used is Hillary Clinton's. A lot of people talk about "Hillary and Obama", rather than using first/last names for both. In the previous comments, not a single person used his first name to refer to Barack Obama, while Hillary is used quite a few times.

I'm not sure exactly what it means. It's a common thing, though, in news stories in general to do that, so it goes beyond being a sign of our general familiarity with her. I guess people tend to have a different personal relationship with female public figures than with male ones, which could explain what happened in New Hampshire after the choking up moment. Or it's the inherent sexism of the mainstream media machine, if you prefer to see it like that...
posted by gemmy at 6:11 PM on January 10, 2008


I'm not sure exactly what it means. It's a common thing, though, in news stories in general to do that, so it goes beyond being a sign of our general familiarity with her.

It's a branding strategy on her part. Seriously, as I've said before, go check out her website: Hillary for President. Come to think of it now, after her performance in NH (which was, of course, staged. Listen to how polished her "emotional" moment is. Her eyes mist up but she hits every goddamn talking point), I wouldn't put it past her to have called herself "Hillary" in part to rouse women of a certain age to come to her "defense."
posted by felix betachat at 6:19 PM on January 10, 2008


I wouldn't put it past her to have called herself "Hillary" in part to rouse women of a certain age to come to her "defense."

Nah. The thing is, to most people, "Clinton" means "Bill." Hence, "Hillary." Sorry, but I don't think there's many beans on this plate.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:23 PM on January 10, 2008


Giuliani puts "Rudy!" on his signs. Lamar Alexander, mysteriously, did the same with his first name. And, as kittens points out, Hillary has all the more incentive to go by her first name, what with the other famous guy with the same last name. The first name thing doesn't have anything to do with her being genitaliacally challenged, I don't think.

It is pretty astonishing how little she has to do to get people to accuse her of "playing the gender card," which is apparently the most appalling thing a candidate could ever do. Interestingly, Huckabee wasn't accused of playing the gender card when he got a bunch of photographers to follow him around when he was in his hunting costume.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:33 PM on January 10, 2008


American politics (A) never stops, it's the only thing the news focuses on other than missing white women; (B) never stops on MeFi, dammit, especially pissant, stupid shit like this.

Gods sakes, folks, please give the rest of us a break from your never-ending election cycle.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:46 PM on January 10, 2008


No, five fresh fish. I will personally continue to force you to read and participate in threads you don't care about.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:52 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


She handled it pretty well, though, and responded by patting him on the cheek like he was a child who didn't know any better.

In my opinion, she should've hauled off and smacked that smug fuck. Enough with sucking it up and acting like there isn't a double standard for women in this country, enough with being the goddamn grownup. Reading this is somehow simultaneously making me both furiously angry (the punch-the-couch kind of angry) and horrifyingly depressed. This is a situation where she should've told him off, politics be damned. I would've sent every penny in my bank account to the campaign tomorrow if she'd just said "Seriously, Chris Matthews, WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT ABOUT?"!
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:24 PM on January 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


No male candidate would have to deal with that, nor with the 'iron my shirt' idiots for that matter.

Unture. Mitt Romney is excellent at ironing.

Interestingly, Huckabee wasn't accused of playing the gender card when he got a bunch of photographers to follow him around when he was in his hunting costume.

That was playing the Elmer Fudd card. "Sssh! Be vewy qwiet! I'm hunting wiberals!"
posted by kirkaracha at 7:40 PM on January 10, 2008


I have to laugh when people go on and on about how "the folks in New Hampshire blah blah blah" like they know exactly what's in the minds of the voters here. Well, I live in New Hampshire, and I'm one of those "women who went for Hillary" - and I'll tell you why those goddamn polls were so wrong. It's because we lie all the time when people call us. From early morning to late at night, there are so many goddamn people calling and asking who you're voting for, that after months of relentless calls, you decide to have some fun and give a different name every time someone calls. It's 6:00 pm and I'm eating dinner - I'll say Edwards. So there.

The truth is, until you live in NH, you don't really understand the access that we get to the candidates here. For months (a full year in the case of Hillary and Obama) before the voting day, there are multiple opportunities to meet all of them in very small settings. So when you see the results from NH, it's a safe bet that many of those votes are based not merely on emotion, but on long-considered opinions. Hillary spent an enormous amount of time patiently asking question after question in every event that I attended. She's smart, and has an enormously detailed grasp of public policy issues. Obama? Not so much. Most Obama events were impassioned speeches by the candidate with little substance, and they started to sound all the same after awhile.

The women who I know that voted for Hillary were wowed by her brains, her competence, her warmth, and her humor. She's managed to bring up a great daughter (what woman doesn't know the challenge in that accomplishment?), weathered public humiliation by her husband with grace, and performed well as a Senator. Who cares about the tears?
posted by Flakypastry at 8:23 PM on January 10, 2008 [7 favorites]


Tears? Isn't that a sign of feelings or emotion? Heaven forbid we have a politician that resembles a human being. Heaven forbid.
posted by jcterminal at 9:01 PM on January 10, 2008


George_Spiggott writes "That said, I have a question: does anyone, in the entire world, watch MSNBC because of Matthews? Do you think they'd lose even one single viewer if they just dumped him without cause and replaced him temporarily with a Fox-type newsmodel until they could line up someone else with a shred of journalistic cred? Why keep him? Does he, personally, attract even one viewer?"

He knows a lot of people. He was Carter's one-time speechwriter, as well as being an aide for Tip O'Neill. He's sort of like Imus. They keep him around because he can get important people on his show, and occasionally he makes some waves for something idiotic he did. He probably rates better than at least some of MSNBC's fare. He's obnoxious, but so is Bill O'Reilly, who incidentally gets spectacular ratings. Unlike O'Reilly, Matthews has some tangible background in politics, but neither of them are journalists.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:06 PM on January 10, 2008


In my opinion, she should've hauled off and smacked that smug fuck.

Thank you for saying that; I would've said it myslef, but would've then been accused of playing the "rescue the damsel in distress" card, or worse, not being equally sensitive to my brotheren.

Also, what tkchrist said.
posted by hadjiboy at 9:11 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm no fan of Matthews, but he's about on par with Tim Russert, who hosts the longest running television show, ever. Neither of them is any good at getting difficult subjects to reveal anything, nor do they try very hard.

But I don't think Russert would have tried to pinch Clinton's cheek. That's incredibly condescending.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:12 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


The truth is, until you live in NH, you don't really understand the access that we get to the candidates here. For months (a full year in the case of Hillary and Obama) before the voting day, there are multiple opportunities to meet all of them in very small settings. So when you see the results from NH, it's a safe bet that many of those votes are based not merely on emotion, but on long-considered opinions. Hillary spent an enormous amount of time patiently asking question after question in every event that I attended. She's smart, and has an enormously detailed grasp of public policy issues. Obama? Not so much. Most Obama events were impassioned speeches by the candidate with little substance, and they started to sound all the same after awhile.

Thanks for some actual perspective. I'm from Iowa, so I had that opportunity too (but I only went too two events, Obama's first official campaign speech, and a sit-down with Elizabeth Edwards).
posted by delmoi at 9:22 PM on January 10, 2008


No, five fresh fish. I will personally continue to force you to read and participate in threads you don't care about.

Touché. My apologies.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:41 PM on January 10, 2008


I'm not a Hillary fan but Tweety Bird's hatred of Hillary is pretty disgusting. The other establishment candidate, McCain, he loves.
posted by nelsonjs at 10:26 PM on January 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hadjiboy, you're welcome. It's not damsel-in-distress-rescuing so much as WTFF? Seriously. I suspect that, were the cameras not on and the Secret Service off visiting the restroom, that Hillary Clinton could fully hold her own against that ridiculous asshat in the throat-punching department.

I also agree with tkchrist here. I said "Well. Before or AFTER I gouged out his motherfucking eyes?" -- EXACTLY. 'Cept you're phrasing it much more nicely than I would.

My boyfriend and I, during a "would you have a firearm in the house?" discussion, once agreed that a rifle loaded with rock salt would be the best out of all possible options. Disablingly painful, but not immediately lethal.

We agreed, that is, until I told him any guy breaking in with thoughts of raping me would end up with a very, very well-seasoned scrotum. After my boyfriend stopped cringing, he said that was brutal and unnecessarily cruel. You know what I said?

"That's the point."

Hillary needs to cut it out with the Professional Politician stuff when someone disrespects her like that. Patting on the cheek is not an appropriate reaction to Matthews unless by "cheek" you mean "buttocks," and by "patting" you mean "SPANK."

Hell, Dick Cheney's probably shot people for less.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:28 PM on January 10, 2008


Clinton Insider: 'Iron My Shirt' Taunt Rallied Women Voters
"One source inside the Clinton camp said the 'iron my shirts' comment appeared to anger and energize women in particular, boosting Hillary Clinton's share of the women's vote and pushing her to a narrow upset victory over Barack Obama.

The Clinton source said Hillary Clinton's tearing up at another Monday event seemed to play better with men who suddenly saw her as more vulnerable and appealing. The two incidents together were viewed by Clinton insiders as helping to explain how Clinton succeeded in righting her foundering campaign at the last minute."
posted by ericb at 11:20 PM on January 10, 2008


I saw the Matthews-Hillary exchange. To me it seemed like a two-way street, with Hillary starting the teasing. I could be wrong.

I watch Hardball semi-regularly, and I've never thought that Matthews was sexist, or that he hates Hillary. He actually seems like a pretty nice guy. (Ducks.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:21 PM on January 10, 2008


ClaudiaCenter, whether it was teasing or not, it wasn't appropriate. If you're running for president, you should be treated as if you actually could be the president. This is the respect given to the office that keeps the national media from running editorials with titles like "Seriously, Dennis Kucinich, What The Fuck?" and "Joe Biden: So Boring We'd Rather Watch American Idol."

Even if Matthews is a complete troll, he should at least act in a polite and civilized manner around all the candidates, which in part includes the traditional parental order "keep your hands to yourself."

The most awesome thing I read in this thread:

As many reservations as i have about Hillary, i want to vote for her just to make Chris Matthews cry.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:34 PM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pastabagel: Genuine Question of fact: did Margaret Thatcher ever cry in office? It doesn't matter really, but I'm curious from a Brit vs. U.S. cultural perspective, i.e. stiff upper lip, etc.

Maggie Thatcher cried in public while she was in office, twice. The first was when her son went missing in the Sahara during the Paris-Dakar Rally (he was found alive by search plane after a week)

The second time was during her resignation speech outside 10 Downing Street, shortly after being told by her cabinet that they expected her to lose the 2nd round of the party leadership election.

"Iron Lady" Thatcher was notorious for being more stoic than the men around her, so it's not particularly surprising she didn't show 'weak' emotions often.

Tony Blair got teary during his speech after the death of Princess Diana, and during his resignation speech at the Sedgefield Labour Club if I remember correctly.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:38 AM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


(he was found alive by search plane after a week)
Clearly there is no god.

It was all an act anyway, Thatcher actually cries tears of milk.
posted by demagnetized at 4:12 AM on January 11, 2008


When Dean got excited and whooped, he was drummed out of the last race for getting out of control, while Hilary's emotional moment seemed to garner support. Chris Matthews thinks it is okay to reach out and pinch her cheek because, hey, she's just a woman. That kind of stuff bothers me.


Thanks for putting it in that context for me, misha-- you've helped me realize what made me so angry with Matthews. That pinch was an attempted assassination, not of a candidate, but of a candidacy.
posted by jamjam at 12:22 PM on January 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hillary wasn't teasing. When she said "men who are obsessed with me" looking at Mathews that was podium code for "Back the fuck off with personal attacks and the attacks related to my gender."

When she approached him, he reached out to her first.

Ask your self when John McCain approaches Chris Mathews does he reach out to McCain's FACE? No. He might clap McCain on the shoulder. MIGHT. More likely they would shake ands and with that fake "Watch out mother fucker" looks on their faces.

You do know that when men who are not friends with each other touch - like shake hands and clap each others shoulders - it also a form of a subconscious ritual challenge. We are sizing each other up. It's a very primate animal thing to do.

Note the way you do it to friends and friends of friends is very, very, different than how you approach strangers. Next time you approach a strange male pay attention. You will feel a difference.

The way Clinton approached Mathews was very much "I am not your friend." Him reach out to touch her FIRST is a deliberate violation of her space. Plus. Touching her face was a demeaning gesture to a "lower ranking female" not his friend.

Maybe I spend to much time around physically violent alpha males and am reading too much into it. But I don't think so.
posted by tkchrist at 2:51 PM on January 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


it isn't so much old white men that want to keep women in their place as much as fat white men in their 30's and 40's who blindly follow fatter 50 and 60 year old men.

Thank you for that. Fat white males are the root of all evil. That's why I'm going biking right now.
posted by cell divide at 3:16 PM on January 11, 2008


So freaky...I wrote on this in my tiny Vox blog the weekend before the primary.

So... can anyone tell me just what the hell problem Chris Matthews has with Hillary Clinton? Did they happen to say, attend the same high school where Hillary turned down Chris' advances in the middle of the cafeteria in front of the entire school body while giving him a de-pantsing wedgie at the same time?

The vitriol he has for the woman is beyond excessive, easy to spot, and unmatched by any other subject. Here's a few snippets; "Nurse Ratched", "Shrill", "She Devil", her "anti-male thing", "looks like a fraud", the "Cackle" when it is no such thing. It just goes on daily, and has, for over a year now.

I'm of the Democratic Party and am completely happy with any and all of its candidates. I'm a Texan in a red state where on super Tuesday my vote won't be noticed much. But I am now thinking of voting for her JUST TO PISS OFF CHRIS MATTHEWS.

Seriously, when you think of the word 'Shrill', does not that word more readily apply to nobody BUT Chris?

posted by Zangal at 3:42 PM on January 11, 2008 [3 favorites]


« Older How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry   |   Where do they all belong? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments