Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 09, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Bozell: It's 'Hilarious' CNN Suspended Roland Martin for Inoffensive Tweet; Maybe 'Lefty Loons at MSNBC' Can 'Scoop Him Up' Now
  • CNN Responds to Bozell Letter Demanding Coverage of Catholic Outrage at Obama; We Reply
  • Barbara Walters: It's 'Heartbreaking' to Force Women to View an Ultrasound Before an Abortion
  • MRC Study: ABC and NBC Anything But Fast and Furious On Gunwalking Scandal
  • Bozell Column: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
  • Even Chris Matthews Questions Obama's 'Frightening,' Birth Control Decision
  • CBS, ABC Highlight Obama 'Flip-Flop' on Super PACs; NBC Punts
  • Media Thrilled Over 8.3% Unemployment in 2012, Despondent With 5.6% in 2004

Chris Matthews Slams John McCain for ‘Contempt’ Towards Obama

By Scott Whitlock | September 27, 2008 | 00:30

Change font size:  A |  A
Scott Whitlock's picture

During late night coverage of Friday's presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, “Hardball” host Chris Matthews attacked the Republican for showing both “contempt” and an “inferiority complex” towards his Democratic opponent. The MSNBC host asked liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, “What do you make of what I take as contempt? And I’m not sure contempt is an admirable trait when you’re up against an opponent who has every right to be there against you, in fact has equal footing.”

Before Robinson could answer, Matthews revised the question, asking if this indicated some sort of “inferiority complex” on McCain’s part: “He never looked at his opponent. What is that about? Is that an inferiority complex? Is that embarrassment? Is that guilt? Or is it contempt? What is it? It’s something.” Robinson eagerly agreed, asserting that “this is part of John McCain’s style that he, he has to make an opponent into an enemy” and adding that the GOP candidate “almost has to demonize the enemy in order to get into that, that, that fighting stance.”

About five minutes later, Matthews returned to the topic. He interviewed Mississippi Congressman Chip Pickering and complained, “Congressman, it may be a small point to some, but anyone who has ever engaged in debating knows that you must address your opponent. If you’re an attorney, a prosecutor, you must point to the defendant. You must do it. You can’t ignore them physically. John McCain did not look at his opponent tonight. How do you explain that?” Pickering responded by claiming McCain simply was focusing on the questions and the substance. Fixating on the subject, Matthews followed up and fretted, “Every time a question came up, they were told to talk to each other, have a debate between each other. Why couldn’t John McCain do that? Why did he choose not to do that?”

A transcript of the exchanges, which occurred around 12:20am on September 27, follows:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me ask Gene, why, before I lose you tonight: What do you make of what I take as contempt? And I’m not sure contempt is an admirable trait when you’re up against an opponent who has every right to be there against you, in fact has equal footing. He won the nomination of the other party, to treat your opponent with such contempt that not once throughout the evening do you give him the courtesy of looking at him? He was supposed to, as part of the format of this debate, five minutes with each exchange, to exchange a discussion with his opponent, to share thoughts, to challenge the opponent. He never looked at his opponent. What is that about? Is that an inferiority complex? Is that embarrassment? Is that guilt? Or is it contempt? What is it? It’s something.

EUGENE ROBINSON (Washington Post): Well, you know, look- It’s up to- Only John McCain knows whether it’s genuine contempt. Here’s my theory, is that, is that this is part of John McCain’s style that he, he has to make an opponent into an enemy, you know, in his mind, to kind of, you know, to kind of get up for this. He personalizes conflict as we all know and tends to put himself at the center of it. And, and, you know, it’s a window into his style. He almost has to demonize the enemy in order to get into that, that, that fighting stance.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

ROBINSON: You know, I think it came right through the screen. It looked like contempt and anger and that usually does not play well in these debates.

12:25am

MATTHEWS TO CONGRESSMAN CHIP PICKERING: Congressman, it may be a small point to some, but anyone who has ever engaged in debating knows that you must address your opponent. If you’re an attorney, a prosecutor, you must point to the defendant. You must do it. You can’t ignore them physically. John McCain did not look at his opponent tonight. How do you explain that?

…

MATTHEWS TO CONGRESSMAN CHIP PICKERING: Well, what do you make about the format? The format was supposed to be five minutes on each topic. Every time a question came up, they were told to talk to each other, have a debate between each other. Why couldn’t John McCain do that? Why did he choose not to do that?

Share this

About the Author

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Scott Whitlock on Twitter.
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • 2008 Presidential
  • Barack Obama
  • Chris Matthews
  • Eugene Robinson
  • John McCain
  • Hardball
  • MSNBC
  • Campaign Watch
  • Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 

  • CNN suspends Roland Martin (Big Journalism)
  • Birth control mandate is unconstitutional (National Center)
  • Obama's Catholic 'problem' (S.E. Cupp)
  • Debt crisis not inevitable for America (Williams)
  • Catholic 'Obamacan' says he may have to reconsider in 2012 (CNA)
  • Occupy DC plans to 'occupy' conservative conference (Foundry blog/Heritage)
  • Eastwood ad was bad history (Lowry @ NRO)
  • Newt's ties to Fannie, Freddie deeper than suspected (Hot Air)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • Coco
    3 min 1 sec ago
  • Wrathful
    4 min 27 sec ago
  • Obamas face
    5 min 50 sec ago
  • Several reasons
    11 min ago
  • Why now?
    12 min 40 sec ago
More >

Obama's Bully-the-Catholic-Church Pulpit
more cartoons
  • Dan Savage Says FRC Leader 'Dances a Jig' at Teen Suicides
  • Cornel West Scolds Al Sharpton: 'Tell the Truth About the White House'
  • Politico: Is Nancy Pelosi A 2012 Asset, or Not?
  • CNN Demeans Republicans as Drag Queens
  • Democrat: Fox News Is 'The Enemy,' Hates 'Working Men and Women'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.