'They're Blaming Chris Matthews'

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
January 9, 2008 - 09:18 ET

See Bonus Coverage at foot: "Clinton campaign spent 24 hours slicing and dicing each other."

Could the great irony be that the strong woman won because . . . people felt sorry for her? That's not just some right-wing media critic talking. It's a view emerging from left-wing circles. Apparently the libs are angry that the MSM was too biased towards Obama, so much so that it drove people to Hillary out of spite or sympathy.

Take the comments of Air America host Rachel Maddow during last night's MSNBC election coverage, in a remarkable exchange with Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews. Who has been singled out for blame by the lefty blogosphere? None other than Matthews himself, who regularly waxed euphoric about Obama, going so far as to claim a week ago that an Obama victory in Iowa would be the greatest story of the century.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

PAT BUCHANAN: The press was dead wrong. We had virtually canonized Obama and said he'd been born in Bethlehem. And now you've got a race where Hillary Clinton is running --

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don't think you were on the list of apostles!

BUCHANAN: Three or four points ahead of this fellow [NB: the exchange occurred at about 10:15 PM ET last night before final results were in]. Something has happened, there's a hidden vote here somewhere, or my guess is this: the New Hampshire voters said look, the press has been telling us Obama's the Second Coming. We don't think so. The press has been telling us she's gone, and the women came out and said no she's not. What New Hampshire did was stand up and body slam [at this point, 39 seconds into the video clip, you'll note that rarest of moments: Maddow nodding her head in agreement with Buchanan] the national establishment, the press corps, the pollsters, the whole bunch that came in here, as well as Barack Obama's folks who must be in a state of shock tonight.

RACHEL MADDOW: Pat, I will tell you that on the influential -- influential perhaps on the left -- website Talking Points Memo today, you want to know who they're blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they're blaming for this late showing and a big vote for Hillary Clinton? They're blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing specifically Chris, not only for his own views but as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton.

MATTHEWS: Which website is this?

MADDOW: This is Talking Points Memo dot com. And you're being cited, anecdotally, not statistically ---

MATTHEWS: My influence in American politics looms over the people! I'm overwhelmed myself.

MADDOW: People feel that the media's piling on Hillary Clinton; they're coming to her defense with their votes.

KEITH OLBERMANN [cutting to Edwards statement]: Rachel, we're going to have to interrupt you, and Pat we're going to have to interrupt you, and Chris, I'm even going to have to interrupt you, even though you decide how American politics plays out.

Here are a couple reader postings from Talking Points exemplifying the phenomenon Maddow mentioned [emphasis added]:

I almost wonder if more Dems didn't vote for Hillary to counter the BS media narrative about rejecting the Clintons once and for all. I say this as someone who has given 1500 bucks to Obama, gone to several of his events out here in CA, met him, and plan to vote for him. Part of me, however, was so pissed about this media narrative about Hillary and the Clintons in general that I had in the back of my mind that I would consider voting for her just to piss the media off. That's not going to happen now as it appears we have a real race, but still . . . do you see what I am saying? I mean this whole weekend we see people like Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews salivating over how the Democrats "rejected the Clintons" and want to puke. I am for Obama not because I am against Clinton (either one), but because I am for Obama. That's it. I think he is the best of the big 3 dem candidates. Would I be happy to vote for Hillary or Edwards in the general? Hell yeah. Did I think Bill Clinton was a great President? Yes. And I think Hillary would probably be pretty good too. This whole media narrative sickened me.

I have always had somewhat lukewarm feelings about Hillary Clinton. It took me years to forgive her for her "baking cookies" comment. At the time I had just given birth to my first child and decided to leave my job as an attorney to stay home and take care of my baby. I have been on the fence throughout this campaign, liking John Edwards more than the others. The media coverage of Sen. Clinton has caused my blood to boil. I can not bear to witness blatant misogyny. Gloria Steinheim's article in the NYT this morning was so on the mark. If I lived in New Hampshire, I would have voted for Sen. Clinton today. I would not allow the talking heads to tell me who to vote for or declare this race over. And I certainly was not going to participate in the sexist bs that has been spewing out the mouths of the likes of Chris Matthews.

H/t FReeper SE Mom

Update | 1-09 9:42 AM: If Obama's problem is indeed excessive MSM sycophancy, he better get a message to the Morning Joe crew to tone it down. They were waxing ectastic over Obama's concession speech of last night, David Shuster mentioning, for example, how it "sent chills down your spine." Mika Brzezinski rejected what has been written "on the blogs and stuff" that the MSM is not being objective. "You can't help being caught up in it . . . These speeches are great."

Bonus Coverage -- "Clinton Campaign Spent Last 24 Hours Slicing and Dicing Each Other on Background"

NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, on today's Morning Joe, pulled back the curtain on the Clinton campaign, and it wasn't pretty.

CHUCK TODD: The thing that I wonder this morning is how much trust is left inside the Clinton campaign? They spent about 24 hours slicing and dicing each other on background to reporters all over New Hampshire and Washington. Then all of a sudden they put the knives away. "Oh look, we won!" Everybody's happy. And yet you just wonder are the eyes darting left and right and looking behind them? So, the Clintons have a challenge on their hands to trust each other again. It will be interesting to see how the weekend goes.

 

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Piling on Clinton?

January 9, 2008 - 09:27 ET by Six String Spiff

What piling on? What hard questions? What questions at ALL? SHe has had the epitome of 'free rides' and her and her husband are out there pissing and moaning about it, along with the rest of the lefty wackaloons. Why are the loudest people always claiming to be silenced? Hillary has had 'Town hall meeting' after Twon Hall Meeting, and HOURS of free publicity by the MSM. WHAT PILING ON IS THERE? This is maddening.

We all know that Hillary

January 9, 2008 - 09:40 ET by msh1973

We all know that Hillary will be the choice for the Dems, the Clinton's wouldn't have it any other way. Obama had better just get out of the way.

Right SSS....and don't

January 9, 2008 - 10:10 ET by motherbelt

Right SSS....and don't forget, every time she has hit a rough patch, all three major networks have given her completely unopposed air time to pull herself back up.

So much for "piling on."

mb, That's strange that

January 9, 2008 - 10:13 ET by Leon

mb,

That's strange that you all keep saying Hillary gets a free pass in the media, when just last week Tom Blumer posted a study (whose findings many of you of embraced) that found Hillary was the hardest hit by the media of all the candidates.

So which is it?  Does she have a free pass or does she not?  The Newsbusters have argued both sides.

Cosmetic hits

January 9, 2008 - 11:11 ET by KC Mulville

Leon,

You have to make the distinction between criticism about her policies and personal criticisms. Hillary gets a lot of criticism, but it's all personal, not substantive. Think of the whole crying thing. The media jumped all over that, and we had 24 hours of speculation on whether she was such a manipulator. But when she comes out with the statement that she's going to pull the troops out in two months, no one challenges her on what to do with the disaster that's going to follow. Whether you agree about the disaster makes no difference here -- the point is that no one ever asks about it.

  • Russert, during one debate, came the closest. He called her on a flip-flop about the drivers' license thing. There was an explosion of resentment against Russert, and the rest of the conversation was about how men were picking on the poor woman, and the backlash against the Clinton reaction, etc. When was the last time you heard anyone ask her about flip-flopping?
  • By the way, when Hillary comes on Meet the Press, Russert asks the tough questions, but he doesn't press her about her answers like he does with Giuliani or McCain. That's a personal opinion, probably colored against Hillary because when I'm watching the show, I'm asking the logical followup question myself, shouting at the TV screen, but Russert just moves on. But even that isn't good enough -- apparently Hillary is boycotting Russert's show, according to Russert. She won't face the tough questions.

So the answer to your question is "both." She does get a tide of criticism against her, but little of it is really substantive. Most of the other candidates get a dose of personal crap, but they all get called on their policies in a way that Hillary never gets.

That's true, KC....how many

January 9, 2008 - 11:18 ET by motherbelt

That's true, KC....how many times has she said "35 years of experience" or "35 years of providing change" or used the term "a proven leader" and no one asks her to expand or provide examples?

And that's just one area!

Experience

January 9, 2008 - 11:37 ET by KC Mulville

Agreed, mb. Of course, another question is how being first lady translates into executive "experience."

  • Gloria Steinem had an article over the weekend about how Hillary had "unprecedented experience" as first lady. Well, yes, I guess unprecendented would be a lawyer's way of making it sound legitimate ...

I'd love to ask her this question: why do you claim that you had executive experience when we didn't vote for you as the executive? Executive experience is not a "commodity" that can be shared among people who don't actually hold the job. By that same measure, Bill's secretary (Betty Currie?) was "there" for all the major decisions. Did she also qualify as an experienced president? (If so, I'd rather vote for Betty ... she's much less complicated and has less baggage to deal with ...)

Joe Gibbs has retired....but His Wife can Coach

January 9, 2008 - 13:31 ET by JayTee

Joe Gibbs has retired from the Redskins, but hey, His Wife has 30 years NFL experience as his Wife.....she can take over as Coach.

I read the Steinem

January 9, 2008 - 13:59 ET by motherbelt

I read the Steinem column...it was hoot. She also said how she admired HRC for "breaking the 'no tears' rule" (Oh please!)

And that she was going to vote for Hillary because she's the best AND because she's a woman.

Shouldn't she vote for someone because she's the best, NOT because she's a woman???

KC, Great post and I can

January 9, 2008 - 14:42 ET by Leon

KC,

Great post and I can see where you are coming from, however, I haven't really seen ANY candidates getting grilled on substantive matters.

The debates were fluff, all interviews are puff.  Nobody has been grilled on their platform on either side of the aisle as far as I can tell, so the personal grilling is really all we can use to measure this presidential race as far as I'm concerned.  And as you've noted, Hillary has taken on the lion's share of that.

Russert

January 9, 2008 - 16:36 ET by KC Mulville

Well, that's where Russert is different, and why we get so disappointed in him when he doesn't carry things through. Russert will go after people, and often on substance. Russert's rhythm is always the same: he quotes something, frames the question for the guest ("you said that, didn't you?"), but then he allows the guest to respond. It's like watching the hunter fix the deer in the crosshairs. That part, I enjoy. I love to see the prima donnas squirm. Russert is fair up to that point. But although he puts both Republicans and Democrats in the crosshairs, he only pulls the trigger on Republicans.

Compare the transcript for Hillary versus McCain.

  • In Hillary's case, I'm thinking of the discussion about Petraeus and the MoveOn.org ad. Remember, this was after Petraeus' testimony, where Hillary said that believing him required a suspension of disbelief. Here's what Russert asked: "Do you believe that General David Petraeus has betrayed the American people?" Hillary then launched into a diatribe against the war that included broadsides against Bush, Republicans, and even the SwiftBoaters. It dodged his question, but Russert allowed her to say whatever she wanted. I was literally shouting at the TV for him to ask about "suspension of disbelief," but Russert sat quietly. Then he moved onto healthcare. He never pulled the trigger.
  • With McCain, he pulled the trigger. When McCain said that he didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts because they didn't include spending cuts, Russert called him on it. Russert pointed out that when the tax cuts came up for the third time without any cuts, McCain went along with them. Also, Russert quoted Bob Novak about McCain saying privately that his vote was a mistake. McCain tried to dodge, but Russert nailed him.

I admit, if Russert wasn't so good otherwise, I wouldn't be upset about his obvious preferences for Democrats. I'd just chalk him up as just another liberal hack. It's precisely because Russert does his job so well -otherwise- that his biases are so infuriating.

KC, Great examples. 

January 10, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Leon

KC,

Great examples.  Thanks for pulling those out for me. 

After reading your post, I understand where you're coming from and I'm going to have to agree with you.

Since you believe that Russert is a good interviewer, I can see why you have trouble accepting his obvious bias.

 

Thanks

January 10, 2008 - 11:59 ET by KC Mulville

Leon:

By the way, I'm just adding on to your point, which I completely agree with. Comparatively, none of the candidates are getting truly hard questions. The media is focusing on flammable sound bytes, instead of genuine analysis.

Robert Samuelson had an article this week in the WaPost, in which he outlined several issues that we have to address. What are we going to do with the deteriorating infrastructure? What are we going to do about entitlements? It's a scary article, and Samuelson is no wild liberal. In fact, he mentions that for all the sunny optimism from Obama, he is doing his supporters a huge disservice by not addressing that reality.

You're right, Leon. These are hard questions, and no one is asking them.

Kc, Thanks for the

January 10, 2008 - 13:50 ET by Leon

Kc,

Thanks for the link.  When I have some time, I'm going to read it.

 I'm tired of all this bs.  All people seem to want to hear about are these hot button issues that in the grand scheme of things don't mean a damn thing, i.e. gay marriage.

Deteriorating infrastructure is number one priority in my mind.  We're throwing billions away in Iraq on a half-hearted, grossly mismanaged reconstruction job, when we should be spending that money on our own country.  I forget where I read it and I will try to find it, but I heard someone saying that the roads and bridges in America are going to reach a critical stage soon when they will begin to fail.  The bridge collapse last year was just the start.

Thanks for the link.  I'm all over it when I have a minute.

Leon, does anything you've

January 9, 2008 - 11:15 ET by motherbelt

Leon, does anything you've said contradict my comment above? Has she not gotten 2 or 3 rounds of all the morning shows without rebuttal?

And if it's "you all keep saying"....why are you addressing it to me? I don't answer for everyone on Newsbusters.

MB, Yes it contradicts

January 9, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Leon

MB,

Yes it contradicts your usage of quotes around piling on.

 

 

Leon...it contradicts MY usage of "piling on"????

January 9, 2008 - 21:16 ET by motherbelt

Contradicts MY usage, Leon?

I had quotes around "piling on" because that's the phrase that Rachel Maddow used; I was quoting her.

MADDOW: People feel that the media's piling on Hillary Clinton;

(emphasis added for you, Leon).

Quotation marks ARE occasionally used when repeating someone's exact words, you know.

And once again, why are you holding ME responsible for "you all" at Newsbusters??? (that's a direct quote from you there, between the marks).

 

Leon

January 9, 2008 - 14:33 ET by Six String Spiff

Can you remember any Liberal Presidential Candidate prior to Hillary, getting a hard question by the MSM? Or following up on a blatant flip flop DURING a debate? Neither can I. When Hillary actually does get a question, never mind one that isn't dripping with honey, she claims the MSM is 'Piling on'. She expects everyone to take her for something she ISN'T. She thinks she is inevitable, and therefore balks at virtually ANY opposition the MSM even thought of having. Hillary Clinton is the first liberal Presidential Candidate to get any questioning as far as I'm concerned. So, if asking a few not so easy questions is 'piling on', then I suggest she take it like the tough woman she all wants us to believe she is.

Not fooling me.

Spiff, I can't remember a

January 9, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Leon

Spiff,

I can't remember a single PRESIDENTIAL candidate from either side of the aisle in the 2K8 race getting a hard question.  Not a single one. 

Both sets of debates were a joke. 

You act as if it's only Hillary that's getting softballed.  They all are.

Leon

January 9, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Six String Spiff

Good point. However, Hillary is actually being asked some not so nice questions and she is claiming to be piled on in contrast to the usual "How much do you care about the homeless..." etc. Yes, both debates were ajoke. ESPECIALLY the You Tube ones... embarrassing

Leon...Hillary does not get

January 10, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Jer

Leon...Hillary does not get a free pass.  One of the enduring myths here at NewsBusters and throughout Republicanland is the notion that the media has always had a "love affair" with the Clintons...do their bidding...are in their pocket...are their shills, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

And I am a left-leaning Democrat who agrees that the media leans to the left!

But the Clintons have never enjoyed a discernable, reliable base of media support...particularly during Bill Clinton's presidency.  The "left" media [periodicals such as The Nation, The Progressive, etc.] thought he was much too conservative and accomodative of Republicans, the New York Times--initiator of Whitewater-- regularly pounded him [Howell Raines, the editor, publicly stated his dislike for Bill Clinton], the Washington Post was only slightly less critical, liberal talk radio didn't exist nor did any significant liberal websites, conservative talk radio trashed him relentlessly,  the Washinton press corps held him in contempt, the Sunday political talk shows on PBS from Ben Wattenburg, to Bill Buckley, to John McLaughlin, to Louis Ruykeyser was one long Clinton slamfest.  Fox News torched him daily.  This Week with David Brinkley was overwhelmingly anti-Clinton.  Chris Matthews then [as now] was unremittingly negative.  There's more, but suffice to say, the only "news" person who consistently supported him was Geraldo Rivera.  Whoopee! 

Maybe I need to read Tim and Brent's book.  I just haven't witnessed--other than some occasional uncompelling anecdotal "evidence"--this putative media bias toward the Clintons.

Jer

All I can say is this

January 9, 2008 - 09:52 ET by motherbelt

All I can say is this country, or at least this state, New Hampshire, is really pathetic if people vote on how the candidates are treated by the media.  The scariest thing about that theory is that the MSM really can influence elections.. more than we even thought.

If this is true, there's no hope.  We might as well elect a President "American Idol" style. 

The press was dead wrong

January 9, 2008 - 10:02 ET by JayTee

The press was dead wrong, but unfortunately they're still alive and trying to predict the Future and influence Elections.

Count the votes......how many are there between Hillary and Hussein ?   Not that many ?  Less than Edwards ?  Gee, give me some un-bias reporting...it's like watching a Redskins Sports talk show in DC.  

I did learn one thing........I've been looking for someone, anyone, who supports Hillary....and now I learn from New Hampshire they are a bunch of little ole ladies in the suburbs living alone or wanting one last fling before they go.....put Hillary in the Whitehouse to get even with their ex-Husbands.   No wonder I can't find them.

I disagree!!! No one

January 9, 2008 - 10:07 ET by charlietexas

I disagree!!! No one watches Chrisy. And if they are one of the few, they can't be very informed can they??

Chris doesn't have that kind of power, not like O Rielly or Rush.

Drudge had the rating posted yesterday and Hardball still hasn't broken half a million viewers.

It's a Clinton set up

January 9, 2008 - 10:34 ET by mattm

Does anyone not know they had their own numbers and new they'd do well?  Does anyone doubt that Clinton played the press like a violin? 

Her campaign knows how to manipulate the media.  First of all they know the media is on her side philosophically.  Secondly, she has insiders working in the media.  Thirdly, she has a very savvy team of politicos working behind the scenes for her.

This was set up to be a "surprise."  Anyone who was truly surprised by this doesn't know the Clinton-machine very well.

Next time someone tells you Hillary's done, demand to see the dental records.

I was thinking the same thing

January 9, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Prester John

How convenient that when "everyone" in the MSM is writing her off, rumors abound of Carville and Begala returning to do their magic, Hillary all but breaks down in tears, but somehow miraculously pulls victory from the jaws of defeat.

So now the MSM starts to second guess itself and its pollsters, and will no doubt promise never to get carried away like that again thereby providing Hillary cover as Clinton Inc uses them to take down Obama.

What a machine.

Prester J...you may be on to something

January 9, 2008 - 11:04 ET by JayTee

If Hillary doesn't WIN, then Hillary doesn't get equal billing on the BIG Comeback Kid McCain.  You can't say Comeback, without mentioning Hillary.....She only cameback from the POLLS, I'm not sure she was ever Behind, except in Iowa.

Fox News Website give McCain and Hillary equal billing and both get the "Comeback" label.  The Obama Tsunami broke on the beach, and Hillary's is headed offshore in the opposite direction.  

Meanwhile, RELAX, it's only New Hampshire and the Independents.  The South will Rise again....WHEN oh WHEN do we get to the BIG states ?   Feb 5th, where are you ?

I blame global

January 9, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Jack Bauer

I blame global warming.

And anyone who disagrees with me is worse than Hitler.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Hillary

January 9, 2008 - 14:44 ET by Fred Gregory

Rachel Mad Cow, Air America . I thought that outfit went belly up.

Hillary

January 9, 2008 - 14:44 ET by Fred Gregory

Rachel Mad Cow, Air America . I thought that outfit went belly up.