That's politics!
Last night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews rationalized and explained and excused but never apologized for one of his his sexist attacks on Hilary Clinton while never mentioning what an oinker he has been for months. (Transcript here.)
Some people whom I respect, politically concerned people like you who watch this show so faithfully every night, people like me who care about this country, think I've been disrespectful to Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. They point to something I said on MSNBC's Morning Joe the morning after the New Hampshire primary, that her election to the U.S. Senate, and all that's come since, was a result of her toughness, but also the sympathy for her because her husband embarrassed her by the conduct that led to his impeachment, because he, in the words I used, "messed around."
The truth of course is finer, smarter, larger than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton won tremendous respect from the country for the way she handled those difficult months in 1998. Her public approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s up to the 70s in one poll I looked at.
Why? Because she stuck to her duty; she performed strongly as first lady. She did such a wow of a job campaigning for Senate candidates, especially Chuck Schumer of New York, that she was urged to run for a Senate seat there herself. She might have well gotten that far by another route and through different circumstances, but this is how it happened.
The rest is history: how Hillary went up to New York, listened to peoples' concerns, and beat the odds, as well as the Republicans, to become a respected member of the U.S. Senate. So, did I say it right? Was it fair to say that Hillary Clinton, like any great politician, took advantage of a crisis to prove herself? Was her conduct in 1998 a key to starting her independent electoral career the following year? Yes.
Meanwhile, these comments stand:
Using overtly sexist language, he has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has called her "witchy" and likened her voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."





Take about a tempest in a teapot. Part of the real story which isn't being reported.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin074880328sep07,0,5183234.story
[b]In the strange-bedfellows world of Washington, few couplings are odder than the Clinton-Brock alliance. The ideological chameleon has emerged as a reliable defender, while she's quietly nurtured his $8.5-million-a-year nonprofit empire.
"David is immensely valuable to Hillary," says a wealthy Democrat with ties to Brock, speaking anonymously. "It's like having your former prosecutor running around saying you were wrongfully prosecuted. He's living proof the right wing is out to get Hillary. ... I don't think anyone really trusts him. He'll never get a job in the [Hillary Clinton] White House, but he's useful."[/b]
Posted by: Ed01 | January 19, 2008 at 01:22 AM
So I gather you condone his sexist and misogynist remarks and actions, not just against Clinton but against even CNBC's Erin Burnett?
Posted by: Antonia | January 19, 2008 at 01:48 AM
I watch Matthews fairly regularly (mind you, I also watch Fox News Sunday regularly too, not because I like what I am hearing but to know what is being said in the various MSM political shows in NA), and as a regular viewer I must say Antonia you are right on the mark. I find it speaks volumes about his inherent sexism that he doesn't see the inherent sexism/misogyny within things like "castratos in the eunuch chorus", and while he occasionally makes some good points within them the way in which he goes about it is incredibly sexist, especially given how easily he swoons whenever a man is seen as a rough tough and strong politician. The double standard he employs without any apparent conscious thought and the particularly obsession he has with Hillary Clinton (and of course Bill's dick, he often spends a lot of time expecting Bill's dick to get Hillary in trouble, you would think by now he would realize there is more to covering Clintons than simply sniffing in their underwear drawer...sigh) does him no service, and I of one am glad to be seeing it finally looking to be catching up with him. He certainly deserves it IMHO.
Posted by: Scotian | January 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Matthews is a huge lib. I think there will be a consensus on that, among the more informed here. That puts you feminists in a bit of a bind. Are you more loyal to the broader left wing movement, or do your loyalties lie with the more narrow, albeit left wing, feminist movement?
You ladies have been put into a box. *
*Please note that this is a figurative box.
Posted by: johnnykap | January 21, 2008 at 09:12 AM
Yeah, right. A huge liberal.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512230005
Posted by: Antonia | January 21, 2008 at 09:27 AM
MM is a huge Hillary front group that will say anything to prop up their man (Hillary), even if it means destroying one of their own. That's how liberals play nice. Amazing that you would actually deny he's a lib.
Posted by: johnnykap | January 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM
There are liberals, and then there are people the Right think are liberals because they're in the media who aren't liberals at all.
Posted by: sooey | January 21, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Matthews worked directly for Carter and Tip O'Neill. That makes him a lib, MM notwithstanding. A cursory view of his show would also back that up. What does your side have to gain by denying his liberalism? You truly are in a box of your own making. But don't worry, it's one of those invisible mime boxes.
Posted by: johnnykap | January 21, 2008 at 02:11 PM
He works in the MSM now. And if he doesn't sound like a liberal, he's not a liberal. It's pretty basic. A liberal talking head sounds like a liberal. A non-liberal talking head - doesn't.
Posted by: sooey | January 21, 2008 at 02:24 PM
I'm an adult who can decide what is misogynist or sexist.
What AZ construes as misogynist might simply be a simple iteration of the facts about the lack of serious female candidates at gubernatorial and mayoral level in the United States.
Anyway, burn the witch or warlock as you like. You've fallen in love with the corporate lawyer from Rose law firm and Walmart.
Pathetic how low Democratic politics have sank.
Posted by: Ed01 | January 22, 2008 at 04:34 PM