
Hillary's horrible Halloween week from hell got worse Sunday when Chris Matthews and his liberal-stocked panel piled on the Junior Senator from New York fortifying the recent media meme that the Clinton in 2008 inevitability has suddenly become a tad less inevitable.
Adding insult to injury, when you're a Democrat candidate, and press members like Norah O'Donnell of MSNBC, Richard Stengel of Time, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker, and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution think you've stumbled, you've stumbled.
In a truly surprising opening segment, Matthews set the almost impossible to believe discussion up:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Turning point? Was this the week Hillary showed her weakness? Or if it doesn't kill her will it make her stronger? Obama time? Will the man from Illinois be the guy that rises after Hillary stumbles?
[...]
First up: The '08 campaign may be veering in a new direction. Hillary Clinton's been playing for the general election next year, but that strategy was hit hard this week by those trying to catch up. It seems the clear front-runner is just not being clear.
After showing a clip of Clinton at Tuesday's debate, Matthews played snippets of candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards going after her that evening, as well as a video of Walter Mondale telling the American people in 1984 that he was going to raise taxes.
Then, Matthews asked Stengel:
MATTHEWS: Richard, I don't know here, this is the toughest question of the campaign for Hillary Clinton and whether rivals benefited from. She's been very careful so far not to stake out positions. Is that smart or should she get more candid on the issues to win this thing?
RICHARD STENGEL, TIME MANAGING EDITOR: Chris, you and I have both been on both sides of this in politics and in the media. And there's a lot of hypocrisy here because we in the media ask for specificity. When you're in politics, specificity is a curse. If you are specific about things, you get attacked by your rivals, you get attacked by the media, it doesn't work. We say we want experience and we want candor, but the more experienced you are, the less candid you are and the more candid you are, the less experienced you are.
Imagine that. But that was only the beginning, for just listen to Matthews' next question, and the astonishing responses:
MATTHEWS: Cynthia, for months now the drum roll question, rather the verdict of the press has been, "What a flawless campaign this person has run. She's a pro. She makes no mistakes." Somehow this week did she cross the line from flawless to slick?
CYNTHIA TUCKER, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: I don't think that was her problem that she didn't give specific answers to questions about the AMT or Social Security. Where she stumbled was at the very end of the debate with her ridiculous answer on whether or not illegal immigrants in New York should be given driver's licenses. It's inexplicable for a woman who's run a campaign such as Senator Clinton has, which has been pitch-perfect until now.
Amazing. Matthews then played a clip of Clinton from the debate Tuesday "straddling both sides of the New York Governor's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses," as well as her opponents attacking the blood visibly in the water as she gaffed.
Matthews continued:
MATTHEWS: Well, not only did she run into trouble trying to define her position - by the way, the next day she did clearly put out a statement saying she goes along with this idea of the governor's to give driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. But that night, her people, right after the debate, Norah, and you know this. You're at NBC. They immediately started blaming the moderators, especially Tim Russert. "It's the moderators that were ganging up on her." What's that about? Why would they do that?
NORAH O'DONNELL, MSNBC CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, sometimes as what's important as what you say is how you spin a story. So, they were trying to blame the men for piling on. They put out a web video which made the cable networks play it over and over again to suggest that they were piling on her because she's a front runner rather than addressing the specifics of the charge that she is unspecific. There are real questions because there might be a narrative now that the opponents of Hillary Clinton are coalescing around. Remember the narrative "flip-flopper" that killed John Kerry? Obama and Edwards have now congealed along this narrative that she's not straight, she's not truthful, she's not honest. And all of those hit to the one weakness that Senator Clinton has had, and that is authenticity. And that's why that's a trouble for the campaign. While most people, the polls have shown, are willing to vote for Senator Clinton, one of her weaknesses is on authenticy.
MATTHEWS: Does everybody agree with that?
RYAN LIZZA, NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I do agree with that. And the great irony of this exchange is that this is the one issue where she was actually being pretty honest. Look, the cheap political thing to do on this issue is just come out against it. She was actually trying to say, "You know what, the best thing is comprehensive immigration reform. Short of that, fine. If the Governor wants to do this, it's not the worst thing in the world." So, she had this sort of muddled but very responsible position, which it was not a cheap political position, but it played into the narrative that Norah was just talking about that Obama and Edwards were pushing.
STENGEL: It's a complex issue, and she dealt with it in a complex manner, and then we chided her for it. But what you're saying, Norah. But it reminds everybody of the Bill Clinton answer on the first Iraq war, "Yes, I was for it but I would have voted against it." That's the problem.
MATTHEWS: Or, "It depends what your definition of ‘is' is." That kind of squirming away from authenticity.
Incredible. But there's more:
TUCKER: But she contradicted herself right there as we just saw. It wasn't just that she tried to blame the moderators. When Chris Dodd called her on it, instead of sticking with a responsible answer, saying, "I'm not going to say anymore than that, I stand by what I said," she said, "No, Chris, I didn't say that."
Remarkable, wouldn't you agree? But, the hit's kept on coming as Matthews posed the following:
MATTHEWS: Well, here's the great question. The most prepared candidate we've seen in history. I mean, she really is prepared. She's so smart. She's so academic. She's so careful. Why wasn't she ready on this one?
O'DONNELL: Remember, her birthday party was Thursday night. She had no public schedule Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Bob Barnett who is doing her debate prep, he spent a lot of time doing debate prep. And what was most remarkable to me was the thought among some her supporters that she didn't study that question or would not have had an answer to that question. Number two, from the very beginning that her tone was off. She immediately appeared that she was playing from the defensive. She had that tone that she's been trying to slough off lately.
LIZZA: Well, she seemed worn down by the time this question came along. I mean, remember, this was late in the debate. Everyone was going after her for the entire debate. And she just seemed like she had had enough and she was worn down.
Yep. And, miraculously, Matthews saw this as a serious problem:
MATTHEWS: Cynthia, this whole thing raises the question about electability. Because if everybody is going to jump on Hillary like they did this week, including the press, including us here, about being consistent or inconsistent or flawed or whatever, doesn't this raise the issue of the electability of this person? If she's going to have a hard time over what was sort of a mediocre week at worst and everybody is going to jump on her like she blew it, is this a sign of things to come?
TUCKER: Well, of course it is. And, in a way, this debate was good practice for Senator Clinton because if in fact she becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans certainly aren't going to play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, Chris. She's going to be roughed up much more by the Republican nominee, whoever he is. So, she needs to get used to being a punching bag, because she has much more of that to come. And it's already true that her negatives are high. So, that's already an issue for her.
MATTHEWS: What's going to hurt her most in Iowa, coming up in that first big test January 3? Is it this sense of trying to have it both ways on the war, have it both ways with the hawks and the doves, have it both ways on Iran, have it both ways on Social Security? Or, is it this problem, this particular problem of illegal immigrants in Iowa? I heard the other day that there's a growing concern among Democrats too many people coming into that state illegally.
LIZZA: Yeah, and the people that are most concerned about immigration in Iowa are the downscale Democrats. That's sort of her base right now. Those people are not with Obama and Edwards. So, I think she's a little bit more safer with those folks because they're her hardest core supporters right now. But it's authenticity. The entire frame that Edwards and Obama have decided on is authenticity. It's re-raising those doubts that she has done a great job of putting to rest all year long.
Maybe even more shocking, Matthews ended the segment with this almost astonishing observation:
I think she made her first general election mistake this week, because I think this illegal immigration issue's gonna hurt her in the general. People don't like the lawmakers bending the law for people that have broken the law to come in this country.
Wow. Do you get the feeling that Hillary and Company might have made a huge mistake blaming the debate moderators - especially Tim Russert - for her poor showing Tuesday evening?
Is this indeed a sign of things to come, or just a temporary bludgeoning by media members a tad bored with a campaign absent any entertaining bloodletting or juicy controversy, as well as defense of one of their own?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
" People don't like the
November 4, 2007 - 15:48 ET by Nortonalec" People don't like the lawmakers bending the law for people that have broken the law to come in this country." They also don't want us to leave Iraq without a stable government in place. It was nice to see Chris make a little sense for once.
Nortonalec
Keeps getting worse
November 4, 2007 - 15:49 ET by JDWSo, they were trying to blame the men for piling on. They put out a web video which made the cable networks play it over and over again to suggest that they were piling on her because she's a front runner rather than addressing the specifics of the charge that she is unspecific.
The gender gap? What makes this response any better than everything she had to say in the dabate?
What a leader!
JDW
Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters
The media had to purge
November 4, 2007 - 15:49 ET by midnight cowboyThe media had to purge their feelings of guilt for rolling out the red carpet and covering up any hint of scandal for queen thunder thighs. Now that that they have cleansed their collective systems they will go back to being Hillary's magic shield. Unless, they really feel she can be trumped in the general, they will begin to pull her down and begin to prop up the other 2 front runners.
My only question, who is media matters going to go after? Tim Russert and the rest of the media. It would be political suicide.
Ignore?
November 4, 2007 - 15:58 ET by JDWThe most significant aspect to everything is the fact that Mrs Clinton fears discussing her true beliefs and will not campaign for them. America now realizes it.
Who is she?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters
Well, the men "piling on"
November 4, 2007 - 16:14 ET by motherbeltWell, the men "piling on" is what the Clinton campaign wanted to be the subject this weekend. It's refreshing that Chris Matthews, of all people, actually swerved into the right story, that of Her Royal Clintoness being less than "authentic."
She learned her lessons well at the Master's knee...didn't her husband say of the first Gulf war, that he would have voted with the majority even though he agreed with the minority?
If I were a Republican candidate...hell, if I were one of the other Democratic candidates, I would be using the clip of her saying it makes sense for Governor Spitzer to give illegals licenses, followed immediately by her saying no, Chris, I didn't say that. That's one of those "I voted for it before I voted against it" moments that live on in infamy.
mb
November 4, 2007 - 16:14 ET by BlondeSomeone else put forth the theory, here, and I'm beginning to agree, that Matthews is pushing for the stealth Al Gore candidacy. I don't believe for one second that Chris Matthews has gone all fair & balanced on his political analysis. He's got an agenda. I'm just not sure what it is, yet.
I heard him on Morning Joe this week (I know, but I'm over F&F & CSPAN hasn't really gotten good yet) . He was actually quite cogent and not showing his usual left-wing bias.
He went after both Clinton and Obama, and said Edwards is toast. He also called Obama's foreign policy positions stupid and naive, and also called him an empty suit.
I think the press will go into a feeding frenzy, for two reasons. One, they're really mad that the Clinton campaign went after Tim Russert, and two, any controversy is good. If it bleeds, it leads, and HRC's slip up in the debate, and the stupidity of the "men piling on" spin (not to mention Bill riding to the rescue wagging his finger about his wife) is showing how shallow and avaricious Hillary truly is.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, I hadn't thought of
November 4, 2007 - 16:23 ET by motherbeltBlonde, I hadn't thought of it that way, and I didn't see Matthews on Morning Joe. You may have a point. Either that or he's trying to buff up his journalistic "bona fides" so that when he goes back to worshipping her it will look more "authentic."
If Algore runs again, what
November 4, 2007 - 20:03 ET by MikeBIf Algore runs again, what will be his platform? Global warming? After the British judge ruled that the film is propaganda and required a rebuttal be read to students before it is shown? After economists have ripped his solutions to the "crisis" to shreds? He couldn't run on the economy. He wouldn't get very far on the war on terror. Manbearpig might run, but I don't think he would get as many votes this time as last, unless he comes down hard against illegal immigration, for border security, for finishing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan, for extending the Bush tax cuts...in other words running to the right of the other Democrats and perhaps even to the right of whoever the Republican candidate is. Alpha Male's head would explode if he tried to do that.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mike
November 4, 2007 - 20:17 ET by BlondeI have no idea what his platform will be.
Probably that he was robbed in 2000 and he deserves the presidency. The one thing I know, is that the dems will push whomever they think can win the big one.
I haven't quite decided what the liberal media dust-up over Hillary's gaffe is all about, yet. Time will tell.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
In any case
November 4, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Cape Conservative"the debate is over" will be his theme song!
Minor Misspelling Note
November 4, 2007 - 16:03 ET by TinianNoel:
I don't know where you got the transcript, but it's the Marquess of Queensberry rules.
Tinian
November 4, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Noel SheppardT,
Thank you. You'd be shocked how often that mistake is made. Shame on me. ns
I'm not sure how the
November 4, 2007 - 20:11 ET by MikeBI'm not sure how the original trascript read, but if it was "Marquis of Queensbury", that is also correct. Marquess and Marquis are synonyms, both refering to a nobleman ranking below a Duke, and above a Count or Earl.
Wiki refers to the "Marquess of Queensbury rules", while this site refers to the rules both ways.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Marcus
November 4, 2007 - 20:20 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Ah! Thank you. "A
November 4, 2007 - 21:54 ET by MikeBAh! Thank you.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
O'DONNELL: Remember, her
November 4, 2007 - 16:09 ET by Senior ChiefO'DONNELL: Remember, her birthday party was Thursday night. She had no public schedule Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday...she didn't study that question or would not have had an answer to that question.
Now they're blaming the birthday party and the lack of preps for Hillary's dismal performance.
And suddendly...Hillary becomes the punching bag of the leftoid media. What happened to "she's eloquent, smart, intelligent, very academic and the most qualified candidate out there for president"?!
Well people, she's REALLY not that smart. And by the way, could someone please tell me what are her qualifications again?
Qualifications? Well, let's
November 4, 2007 - 16:19 ET by motherbeltQualifications? Well, let's see...She's never been President,but she sometimes slept with one....
She's a WOMAN, senior chief!
And it's about damn time we had a woman as President!
'Nuff said!
Hillary by default?
November 4, 2007 - 17:28 ET by ThalpyDo we get Hillary by default or should we actually try voting FOR someone this time rather than against someone?
"Qualifications? Well,
November 4, 2007 - 17:49 ET by saw the light"Qualifications? Well, let's see...She's never been President,but she sometimes slept with one...."
If that is a qualification for being President, I guess JFK and BJ Clinton really populated that list. And are we sure that Hillary is qualified? Not that I really want to know, mind you.
There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
JFK and Bill Clinton slept
November 4, 2007 - 18:16 ET by motherbeltJFK and Bill Clinton slept with Presidents???????
And keep in mind re HRC, I did say "sometimes."
Sleepin' wit da fishes
November 4, 2007 - 18:20 ET by saw the lightNo, no, MB. The number of people who have slept with presidents is large thanks to the "efforts" of BJ and JFK. As I said, the jury may still be out on her royal thighness.
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
who says
November 4, 2007 - 21:34 ET by Cape Conservativeshe "slept with one" - that is open for discussion, I believe ;-)
Matthews is Obama's boy.
November 4, 2007 - 16:10 ET by kgMatthews is Obama's boy.
With Matthews' guests and
November 4, 2007 - 16:14 ET by Senior ChiefWith Matthews' guests and the topic of the discussions, did his show broke above 600K viewers? If it did, he need to continue on the direction he's going...Did you hear me, Chrissy? You might just get an extension with your gig!
Senior Chief
November 4, 2007 - 16:23 ET by BlondeYour comment just reminded me...I saw Chrissy on Morning Joe the other morning.
I had to laugh...he stated that he, Joe, & Keith O were the "future of NBC news", not Brian Williams whose demographics were the oldsters.
Talk about delusional.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
LIZZA: Well, she seemed
November 4, 2007 - 16:27 ET by motherbeltLIZZA: Well, she seemed worn down by the time this question came along.
I mean, remember, this was late in the debate. Everyone was going after
her for the entire debate. And she just seemed like she had had enough
and she was worn down.
Wow, that's just who we need to lead us in a world full of people who want to kill us... someone who gets "worn down" and starts to unravel after a couple of hours.....
What's the difference
November 4, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Chris NormanWhat's the difference between running a "smart" and "careful" campaign and a slickster? The media either covering for you or turning against you. She hasn't changed a bit - the media has, at least, for now. Does anyone doubt that, come the general election campaign, if she has secured the nomination, these media types will, once again, cover and spin for her - against the Republican nominee?
Chris.... Why she will
November 4, 2007 - 17:04 ET by bigtimerChris....
Why she will become the smartest women in the world again with the leftists msm.
Hey, BT. Amazing, isn't it,
November 4, 2007 - 17:16 ET by Chris NormanHey, BT. Amazing, isn't it, that they can go from admiring her "smooth, cautious, and professional" campaign to attacking her for more or less that very same thing? What we have called her "all things to all people" style was oohed and ahhed over by the MSM. Then, one day, they turn on her. Too bad, it's so early on. Plenty of time for them to say, "Hey, we've been tough on her" and then go back to spinning for her. You know they will attack the Republicans for beating up on her, if they dare to criticize her.
PS Her biggest mistake was probably trying to blame Williams and Russert. The media doesn't like that. However, I'm sure they'll get over it with plenty of time to spare.
-
November 4, 2007 - 17:02 ET by dahliatraversShe's been very careful so far not to stake out positions.
But, Chris, how can I stake out any positions if I'm going to be all things to all people?
Hillary
She's been very careful so
November 4, 2007 - 20:21 ET by MikeBShe's been very careful so far not to stake out positions.
So, why in hades should anyone want to vote for her? I mean, other than the 20% or so who would vote for Satan if he ran as a Democrat. I don't know about most folks, but I vote on issues. If someone won't state their position on an issue, I get very nervous about such a one. What is he/she trying to hide? In Hellary's case, she is trying to hide how big a Communist she is, how soft on national security she is, and so forth. Does "I'll take those profits" sound familiar to anyone? The question about Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens was a simple "yes" or "no" question. If she feels she has to go into mental contortions to answer such a question, then how will she answer a question that is not straight forward?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Clinton Spin Machine
November 4, 2007 - 17:40 ET by third eyeI forgot who I heard say it, but someone in the media said something unusually wise -- that the
Clinton spin machine was never really programmed to deal with the
internet.The political debate is completely and forever changed now that
information is available to anyone who wants to check your facts 24/7. So basically things the Clintons used to be able to lie about causally, now become questions they refuse to answer. And the American people have very little tolerance for candidates who wont comment on topics they havent scripted yet.
3-I,You're right, it was
November 4, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Chris Norman3rd,
You're right, it was a sharp observation. They said something like this on The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report on FoxNews yesterday. Bill Clinton could get away with a lot more in 1992 than his wife could now, with the "new media", blogs, cable news (read Fox), etc.
Let's Go Back to 1998
November 4, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Del Dolemonte"As exciting as these new [internet] developments are... there are a number of serious issues. Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function... I mean, it is just beyond imagination what can be dissiminated. So I think we're going to have to really worry about this. ..."
- Hillary Clinton, in response to Sun Microsystems' global cybercast about the Millenium Project
So basically things the
November 4, 2007 - 18:21 ET by motherbeltSo basically things the Clintons used to be able to lie about causally, now become questions they refuse to answer.
Right, and they used to be able to change their tactics or say "I've always said....." or "It's always been my position that...." and it didn't get caught right away.
Now they can get caught right away if they say the wrong thing, so they just clam up.
Absolutely. They cannot
November 4, 2007 - 18:55 ET by CrimsonfistedAbsolutely. They cannot deal with this new media at all, and hopefully, it will be their downfall.
WhatAMaroon
Liberals gaining separation from the beast..
November 4, 2007 - 17:58 ET by HG AbrahamsonI have suspected that there is something to the "major" scandal we keep hearing rumors about. The lefty media jerks are pulling away from the beast. If they really doubted her, there have been hundreds of reasons/opportunities to criticize her in the past. They never did. Now when she looks like a lock, no small thanks to their biased reporting, they're heading south at the speed of light. WHY?
Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.
-
November 4, 2007 - 18:06 ET by dahliatraversthe "major" scandal we keep hearing rumors about
I hadn't heard. Haven't she and her husband been one long scandal? What kind of scandal could now make the msm abandon her?
*
November 4, 2007 - 18:10 ET by dervishI'm curious about that, too. It would take something nearly unimaginable, like Chelsea actually being W's love child.
It's all about Iraq
November 4, 2007 - 20:54 ET by acumenIMHO this Hillary bash-fest by leftist Dems isn't about scandals, social security, being unprepared for the debate or even immigration. It's about payback for not pulling troops out of Iraq.
The US military leaving Iraq with their tails between their legs has replaced even the larger than life issue of abortion as the number one issue for leftist Dems like Matthews. Sure one could make the argument Hillary would have no problem with a US defeat but time has run out for that scenario and Hillary realizes a US defeat is no longer a realistic possibility based in large part on not having the votes to cut off funding for Iraq. Poll driven Senator Clinton further understands the mood of many Americans has changed since the violence in Iraq has dropped. Hillary understands this development means the US will stay in Iraq until at least the 2008 US elections. Hillary will need to win over undecided voters to have any chance of winning the presidency and many of those undecided voters are pulling for victory in Iraq.
Once again, IMHO, that is what has so upset the likes of Matthews who has lusted for an American withdrawal from Iraq from day one. A Bush Administration victory in Iraq means defeat for Matthews and the rest of the demedia who have lived and breathed defeat in Iraq since the war began. Matthews is outraged with Hillary for not continuing to fight for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Say what we will about Matthews, he does not like to lose and his position on Iraq is a losing proposition. Maybe it's ego, maybe it's the influence of the moonbats he parties with but the fact remains Chris has not wanted the Bush Administration to be successful in Iraq and will attack anyone that does not support his leave-Iraq-immediately position including or even particularly Hillary.
That said, when Hillary is coronated as the Dem nominee for Prez (and she will be) I am sure we will see a different take on her thighness by Matthews. If there is one thing Chris hates more than those who won't immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq it's the idea of four more years of a Republican president.
Scandal is not the issue with Hillary
November 4, 2007 - 18:54 ET by Lame CherryI will keep blogging here with the the refrain that Hillary has a major coup going against her as I predicted would come months ago. It does not matter if it is a scandal or this manufactured event........do not think for a moment that this Russert, Williams and boys of the DNC "just happened". THEY ALL signed off on it as the literal cartel master of the Rockefeller group informed them all it was time to start the long knives for Al Gore's return.
I told people that Matthews was working for Al Gore when he used Liz Edwards to hammer Ann Coulter. The rising of Edwards meant the weakening of Clinton.....and they all know Edwards is unelectable and that is why he was chosen.
Dodd and Biden are the strategic character assassins in this showing brilliance to Hillary's ignorance while the fluff boys badmitton Hillary back and forth and make her look like the incompetent she is.
This entire cartel team for Al Gore will continue to let blood from Hillary's campaign. Matthews has been chosen point man with I had concluded was the anchor chair at NBC, but he might be in position to be press secretary in the Gore White House.
I honestly have not seen this whispered attack so planned since Jimmy Carter was left out to dry when the cartel shed him like dirty shorts.
This is only going to continue and it will probably surprise a host of "informed people", because this is rare. What you will see though is akin to the hammering George HW Bush took in December before his election year when the press hammered Bush for a month and got his high Gulf War ratings to drop a dozen points and then screamed the headline "Bush was going down".
Dan Rather was the shill that time. Matthews has been taking the lead this round.
This is rare like a super nova seen at night, but Hillary is going down. Enjoy the show, because it is rare when the globalists take out a high profile one of their own........but Al Gore is their boy and all of the Clinton's dirty laundry is coming home to wave in the breeze.
The Clinton's survived by blackmail........now they have no friends and the big boy has cut Hillary loose and people will see Hillary beat up like you never thought she would ever be.
She will take it as the alternative is prison.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Very close to the truth
November 4, 2007 - 20:55 ET by celatorLame, what you write seems to ring close to the truth for me (we'll never really know until the horse race is over, I suppose).
A very wise friend of mine, one who spent many years in the political swirl of Washington, once told me that the key to understanding what was going on in presidential races was to discover who the folks in the back room were--the influence gangs, he called them. It's not a new idea, but particularly intriguing this election cycle.
The real political magic happens between competing gangs of powerful business and political puppet masters (and they are, sociologically, exactly like street gangs). And through it all, which media powers belong to which gang? Who is really behind each candidate? Chess, anyone?
I like your suggested cast of characters and the roles they might play. We'll see how it all sorts out.
Norah O'Donnell
November 4, 2007 - 19:59 ET by fitzfongA couple of comments:
1) Norah O'Donnell tried to sneak this canard in : "While most people, the polls have shown, are willing to vote for Senator Clinton". The polls have shown no such thing. The polls have actually shown that more than 50% of voters would not vote for Hillary UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Hillary's only hope for winning is to get a third candidate into the general election to cannibalize the Republican vote...whether that be a Dobson acolyte or someone from Ron Paul's camp. She won't beat any Republican head-to-head without a splinter.
2) This Hillary cover by Norah O'Donnell was even more pathetic: "Remember, her birthday party was Thursday night. She had no public schedule Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Bob Barnett who is doing her debate prep, he spent a lot of time doing debate prep. And what was most remarkable to me was the thought among some her supporters that she didn't study that question or would not have had an answer to that question." O'Donnell's comment suggests that since the Hillary camp had time to prepare for the debate yet Hillary failed to properly address the illegal alien driver's license question, it was the fault of the debate preparation. It never occurred to these people that the preparation was fine...only the candidate is inadequate.
More
November 4, 2007 - 20:10 ET by JDWAP- Mrs Clinton rejects secrecy charge
In an effort to vacuum the dust which continues to float in the air, Mrs Clinton defies the truth at every opportunity.
…on Sunday rejected charges she's being secretive about her role as first lady in trying to overhaul the nation's health care system.
"There's been some misunderstanding and some misrepresentation about what the facts are," said Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Reporters asked Clinton about a series of charges that have been made about her since last Tuesday's Democratic debate. She shrugged off the attacks.
"I don't think they piled onto me the other night because I'm a woman, I think they piled on to me because I'm winning," said Clinton. "That's what happens." …
The gender excuses are becoming older than old and now we have the new 'because I am a Clinton excuse'.
The RNC is on the offense and attacking hard. Conservatism has the general public asking questions. Who is Mrs Clinton?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters
Couple of things
November 4, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Right2thePointCouple of things here.
First during the debate Hillary on her response double spoke and also pulled the classic Clinton triangulation and pointed to mean old bush not getting shamnesty pumped through so it's all his fault that put her in this position to start with.
Second the panelist with Chris mostly wanted to talk about tactics used and their pros and cons, without really addressing the substance or the merits of the issue. It's all process the content doesn't make a toot. Besides all of them want amnesty as a given.
Third the press has no vested interest in a primary where Hillary leads buy 3 furlongs going into the stretch. Ratings are better if there is a horse race or at least something like that.
After all is said and done, the next day Hillary said she was for the license position so now she is stuck with that.
If I were cynical I would say she and PotatoHead cooked it up to make the next debate higher rated for viewers to see the blood match when Hillary gets her revenge.
After all the debates on our side have been pulling bigger numbers than on their side.
After all the debates on
November 4, 2007 - 20:58 ET by bigtimerAfter all the debates on our side have been pulling bigger numbers than on their side.
Well the other side might want to get a clue toward what side has an audience...
....FOX.
Hillary is slow stewing her own roast.
I love it.
She is way past done.
MSM Piles on Hillary
November 4, 2007 - 21:05 ET by TinianThis is just a warning shot over Hillary's bow to remind her of who really runs America.
Even the Clintons can't 'dis' the press.
I just read "Day by Day"
November 5, 2007 - 00:09 ET by motherbeltI just read "Day by Day" over on Captain's Quarters and I found a phrase I'm going to steal.
Reporter asks HRC if she regrets using the "Boys picking on the girl" theme. Clinton says not at all, a President has to be tough.
Second panel...reporter sort of blanks out while HRC stares. Third panel....reporter comes back to normal...."Excuse me, I had to do a logic dump."
That's way better than the "willing suspension of disbelief."
I'm stealing that!!
Mrs. Clinton, understanding your position(s) on drivers licenses for illegals requires a "logic dump."
Chris Matthews doesn’t
November 5, 2007 - 00:45 ET by maggieqpublicChris Matthews doesn’t just want to moderate a forum… Matthews intends to influence political opinion and Democratic Party politics.
…I think she made her first general election mistake this week, because I think this illegal immigration issue's gonna hurt her in the general. People don't like the lawmakers bending the law for people that have broken the law to come in this country…
Chris wants a Dem candidate who opposes illegal immigration. Is it too late for Hillary to throw Governor Spitzer under the bus? Is it possible Governor Spitzer ruled by executive fiat without consulting the Hillary campaign? Could Lame Cherry be right about Al Gore? And Midnight Cowboy had a question… who is Media Matters going to go after (answer: Don Imus… he’s back next month)?
Noel, I just don't see your
November 5, 2007 - 01:19 ET by jdhawkNoel, I just don't see your premise that the drive by media is down on billary. While Matthews may have been asking more penetrating questions (gee, doing his job for once in his life), the panel avoided answering them and came up with various excuses or simply went with the tried and true - "she's the smartest . . .," "she's run a perfect campaign . . ."
billiary is the the dimocrat's and the media's (they've proven to be one and the same) candidate, not the "magic Negro" or the "silky pony."
Although your take certainly got a lot of responses! But, wasn't that the point?
Combined names
November 5, 2007 - 08:30 ET by saw the lightOK, we have to dispense with the "billary" name. I cannot remember the poster or the thread, but someone suggested the combined name of "HillBilly" for BJ and HRC. I think it is very apropos.
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
It's all about the horse race
November 5, 2007 - 10:22 ET by djvangThis sudden Hillary-bashing is simply about the media wanting to keep the horse race going. Hillary is threatening to lock up the nomination a full year before the election which would be very bad for the media, especially the cable news channels. They have to come up with 24 hours of stuff every day and removing the Democratic nomination race would be devastating. They're just trying to bring her back to the pack and create the illusion that the outcome is in doubt.