A truly shocking discussion transpired on Sunday’s “The Chris Matthews Show” that conceivably has grave implications for the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton.
Before getting to the guts, the gist of this surprising conversation between host Chris Matthews and former CBS anchorman Dan Rather was how farcical the current move by Senate Democrats to “repeal the 2002 resolution for war” is. Furthermore, though it is a dangerous tactic for the left, the person most negatively impacted could be Sen. Clinton who “has to be careful to not come across as a chickenhawk.”
Adding to the surprising nature of this segment, Matthews actually began the discussion by comically mocking Democrats for this new strategy (Hot Air has video available here):
The Senate Democrats want to repeal the 2002 resolution for war. Late this week they made it clear they want a new resolution that will limit the mission. Dan, they want to be able to go back to 2002, have a redo like you do on exams, “I was not feeling good that day, I got a low SAT score. I was sick, give me another redo.” Does this give Hillary a chance to register a vote that gets all that argument behind her about how she voted before?
It must be noted that as Matthews was making these remarks, all of the panel members were laughing like they quite agreed with his sentiments. Then, Rather astoundingly answered:
It gives her a chance, I don’t think it will work. This is very dangerous for the Democrats. In the end it may be the best thing for them. No one should make any mistake cause it’s very dangerous for them because there is a part of the public, a large part of it hates the war, hates what’s going on, but within their gut say we don’t want to undercut troops in the field and that’s the danger for Democrats…And, there’s danger for Hillary because, this argument of, well, is she a hawk, is she a dove – she has to be careful to not come across as a chickenhawk.
Matthews then asked Rather to explain. Rather answered, “Well, what that means is trying to have it both ways.”
Amazing. Now, in fairness, Rather seemed to be playing a bit footloose and fancy-free with this unflattering epithet. As most are aware, the term “chickenhawk” has typically been defined as a political figure that supports a war or military action, but never served in the armed forces. This is especially the case for those who dodged the draft when it was still in force by getting a college deferment or using political influence to avoid service.
Regardless of the distinction, it was still amazing to see a liberal like Rather use such a descriptor for Sen. Clinton, and, maybe more astonishing, that Matthews didn’t challenge him or refute this claim.
What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
Chris Matthews: The Senate Democrats want to repeal the 2002 resolution for war. Late this week they made it clear they want a new resolution that will limit the mission. Dan, they want to be able to go back to 2002, have a redo like you do on exams, “I was not feeling good that day, I got a low SAT score. I was sick, give me another redo.” Does this give Hillary a chance to register a vote that gets all that argument behind her about how she voted before?
Dan Rather: It gives her a chance, I don’t think it will work. This is very dangerous for the Democrats. In the end it may be the best thing for them. No one should make any mistake cause it’s very dangerous for them because there is a part of the public, a large part of it hates the war, hates what’s going on, but within their gut say we don’t want to undercut troops in the field and that’s the danger for Democrats.
Matthews: Any vote that changes the commission of these guys.
Rather: Exactly. And, there’s danger for Hillary because, this argument of, well, is she a hawk, is she a dove – she has to be careful to not come across as a chickenhawk.
Matthews: Well, what does that mean?
Rather: Well, what that means is trying to have it both ways.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Shrillary trying to have it b
February 25, 2007 - 15:36 ET by bigtimerShrillary trying to have it both ways...
OH-NO!
Say it isn't so!
Come on oh brilliant minds on the Matthews show, when did you discover this?
LMAO!
Although Dan Blather's commen
February 25, 2007 - 15:46 ET by ThisnThatAlthough Dan Blather's comments may be surprising, let's not forget the context -- he's just pointing out that somehow the Dems have to be careful to pull this off without jeapordizing their position. In no way is he disagreeing with the Dims statement or position. As far as I can tell, he's for it, and he's not saying that this is a bad thing to do -- just do it carefully. What a blockhead; and, it shows we can't trust these people to actually be critical of the actual attempt.
On the other hand (and a different subject) -- PBS ran a special today called "Marines". I was suspicious at first, but decided to watch it anyway -- and SURPRISE -- it was a great presentation that absolutely showed the Marines in as positive a light as could be imagined. I would recommend viewing it for everyone -- very sobering, very uplifting. For once, a PBS program worth watching. Who'd a thunk it possible?!
Dunno, ThisnThat. Sounds to
February 25, 2007 - 17:31 ET by dahliatraversDunno, ThisnThat. Sounds to me like both Rather and Matthews are throwing cold water on the Dems' resolution. And on Hillary's failed attempt to flip-flop without being noticed. The other thing is, because it's them - it is they (don't want to sound illeducated) - that said it, the Dems cannot as quickly dismiss it as if, say, Brit Hume said it on Fox & Friends.
Thanks for reporting about the PBS "Marines" special. We'll ease up on our lobbying to cancel PBS's taxpayer funding.
We'll ease up on our lobbying
February 25, 2007 - 17:52 ET by ThisnThatWe'll ease up on our lobbying to cancel PBS's taxpayer funding...
Naw, don't do that! Watch the program, then cancel. Seriously, I don't know who actually created the special. I just know it was on PBS today.
TnT,Thanks for the message ab
February 25, 2007 - 17:45 ET by bigtimerTnT,
Thanks for the message about the show Marines on PBS....will try to catch that...if I ever get the television....lol!
she has to be careful to no
February 25, 2007 - 15:48 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsshe has to be careful to not come across as a chickenhawk.
C'mon now!! We all know there are no chickenhawks in the democrat party! I mean they got their fair share of chickens, but chickenhawks?!
Puhleeeeez!
Cluck, cluck.
D
Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.
You can also send faxes to your reps about immigration from
Chickenhawk ...but, what does that mean ?
February 26, 2007 - 00:29 ET by SportPolitics"Chickenhawk ...but, what does that mean ?" roflmoa
It means dear Chrissy, that he's talking about you, and Hillary, who have now had it both ways, and the third way is the convenient bailing for bspoints.
It also means you get instant amnesia, since you loved calling Cheney a chickenhawk just a bit ago.
For the life of me, I've neve
February 25, 2007 - 17:14 ET by Del DolemonteFor the life of me, I've never been able to figure out what "logic" prompted the Dems to use the word "chickenhawk" as a slur on their opponents.
For those of us who live in rural areas, chickenhawks are widely feared raptors (that's another word for "hawk" for you city dwellers). I've seen a chickenhawk take out a smaller bird, and it ain't pretty.
Secondly, there are easy-to-find examples of "chickenhawks" successfully running wars-Franklin Roosevelt comes to mind.
On the other hand, there are also examples of wars being run by highly decorated war heroes that have turned out to be disasters. PT-109 hero John F. Kennedy, for example, tried to take out Castro at the Bay of Pigs, and later started our wider involvement in Vietnam. And Clinton's man General Wesley Clarke almost started a 3rd World War when he was running the undeclared, non-UN-sanctioned war in Kosovo.
And you'll note that when Clinton started said war, no one called *him* a chickenhawk. That's because he had one thing going for him: despite going to Oxford to dodge the draft, he belonged to the correct political party. Orwell was right-some animals ARE more equal than others.
Didn't Animal Farm feature p
February 25, 2007 - 17:36 ET by dahliatraversDidn't Animal Farm feature pigs? Not sure why your last paragraph made me think of that ...
Yes, in "Animal Farm&quo
February 25, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Del DolemonteYes, in "Animal Farm" the pigs were in charge. The line I was referring to was the last and most important of their original "Seven Commandments", which was that "All animals are equal".
By the end of the story, the Seven Commandments had been reduced to a single phrase: "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others."
I'd imagine that "Animal
February 25, 2007 - 19:32 ET by BlondeI'd imagine that "Animal Farm" is not a fave of the islamofacists.....
Some pigs being more equal than others, and all that.
To their credit, on this topi
February 25, 2007 - 22:55 ET by Del DolemonteTo their credit, on this topic Wiki is relatively balanced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
LMAO! They want to do this
February 25, 2007 - 17:15 ET by motherbeltLMAO! They want to do this like a marriage annulment. Due to circumstances at the time: being fooled by the President (who, in their estimation, is a moron) their vote was never really valid. So they never really agreed.
Hilarious. Except that now Hillary will have to go back and sanitize out of existence those speeches in which she claimed she did her own research and talked to people whose judgment she valued, before voting for the resolution.
And she will get them sanitiz
February 25, 2007 - 17:56 ET by ThisnThatAnd she will get them sanitized. via MSM compliance, and typical Clinton strong-arm tactics, any and all references will either be brief and die instantly (including all MSM non-reporting of republican reminders), or simply not come up under any circumstances.
I also believe Dan and Crissy will get a behind-the-scenes talking-to.
Face it, the MSM's biggest we
February 25, 2007 - 19:37 ET by Del DolemonteFace it, the MSM's biggest wet dream at the moment is to get her elected President. I mean, it would be a dream come true for them. Just imagine all of those State Dinners with the "beautiful people", and hubby Bill taking over her NY Senate seat. Talk about Shangri-La!
Dan Rather...reduced to a guest on Chris Matthews...
February 25, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasAh yes, the man who wants to be taken seriously...Dan Rather...reduced to being a guest on Chris Matthews...kind of like going from making movies to a role on a Saturday morning kids show...maybe not even that good. Buh-bye Dan.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Pee Wee Dan's Play House! ARR
February 25, 2007 - 17:57 ET by NortonalecPee Wee Dan's Play House! ARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
Nortonalec
In my neck of the woods, Chri
February 25, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Del DolemonteIn my neck of the woods, Chrissy's show is on in the middle of the night-Sunday at 12:30 AM, usually. That's where it belongs.
Chrissy knows something big.....
February 25, 2007 - 18:09 ET by scoopaI watch Chris quite a bit (a guilty pleasure!), and he has alluded a few times lately to some 'big' scandal out there in the ether about Bill and his extra-curicular activites. Not sure what could possibly blow us all away at this point about Bill and his personal life, but I think Chris thinks it enough to kill Shrillary's chances. He really wants a dem in '08, so I think that's why he's appearing so anti-Hillary of late.
scoopa,I heard the same infer
February 25, 2007 - 18:21 ET by bigtimerscoopa,
I heard the same inferences today on some show, may have been McGlaughlin(sp) or some CNN show...something must be going on that the msm knows and is keeping mum about...for now.
Come on Drudge...dig it up and get 'er posted.
I do wonder though if it won't be used to her advantage if possible, like she has before hand in hand with the media...the poor me victim....it worked before.
Jeepers, how many times can y
February 25, 2007 - 18:39 ET by dahliatraversJeepers, how many times can you convincingly claim to be a "victim"? Won't a lot of Dem women say, "Sweetie, I love you but you need to dump this guy. You're embarrassing us."?
By the way, this would explain Matthews' repeated admonitions last week for Bill C. to behave.
Democrat women gave Bill Clin
February 25, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Del DolemonteDemocrat women gave Bill Clinton a pass on all of the following:
1. Cheating on his wife.
2. Cheating on his wife and asking the other woman to lie about it under oath.
3. Cheating on his wife and asking others in his staff to lie about it. Said staff members included personal staff like Betty Currie, but also Cabinet Officers.
4. Being accused of rape (Paula Jones) as well as sexual harassment (Kathleen Willey).
And if that's not enough...one reporter gained everlasting notoriety by saying she would happily give Mr. Clinton oral sex whenever he wanted. Why? The A word (ABORTION)
The Affair
February 25, 2007 - 20:52 ET by pbthinkerI don't know if this is what they're talking about but I found this link on the WashPost webpage:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=578&p=2
Hillary is toast.Either way.S
February 25, 2007 - 19:25 ET by BlondeHillary is toast.
Either way.
She can support the war, or not. Before she voted for it, or not.
Before she researched it for herself, or not.
I am just waiting for her to melt down, a la the Wicked Witch of the West.
She's such a mean and nasty person that there is absolutely no way she can maintain any sort of equilibrium.
Anyone care to place a bet? I'm thinking May 15th, or thereabouts.
I disagree. She's been mean a
February 25, 2007 - 19:32 ET by Del DolemonteI disagree. She's been mean and nasty her entire life, and has never faced any negative repercussions for her behavior. Anything she did as First Lady in Arkansas was covered up by the Clinton Machine, and the same goes for her 8 years as co-President.
She then managed to con an entire state into electing her Senator, primarily by being aided by a compliant news media that never asked her the tough questions and never will. She could be caught issuing a racist slur against a certain ethnic group and it would never see the light of day.
Del,It is going to catch up
February 25, 2007 - 19:40 ET by BlondeDel,
It is going to catch up with her, eventually.
For exactly the reasons you cited above.
She has been pitching her loathesome brand of hatred and hypocricy for so long that she totally believes she is immune from criticism.
Guess what? It is going to rise up and bite her in the face so horribly that she will absolutely melt down while going ballistic that someone has had the audacity to confront her highness. It will be delicious. And I can't wait to see it.
HRC is an evil, self-serving, harriden of the first order. She can take her ugly pantsuits and smarmy self-serving blather (not to mention her skanky husband) and run back to whatever hole she and her protection society slinked out of.
Meltdown is imminent. There is absolutely no way in the universe that this avaricious harpy will be elected President of these United States.
<edit> I think I used up an entire year's worth of adjectives with that post!
The mainstream media is in he
February 25, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Del DolemonteThe mainstream media is in her pocket. It's that simple.
Let's see, for a wager I will put up the equivalent of 3 pounds of the Florida delicacy known as Joe's Stone Crabs?
Hillary Clinton
February 26, 2007 - 12:29 ET by pbanks7Camille Paglia had a nice link (last week?) on her re-debut at Salon.com showing Shrillary being Hitlery. Fast forward until the last 30-40 seconds.
Here's one of my faves from her first State of the Union address as a Senator. I can't seem to make pics show up on NB, but google Hillary State of the Union and you can find a pic of the real Hitlery.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Chris Matthews
February 25, 2007 - 19:32 ET by pbthinkerAs much as I'd like to think these people are pointing out the hypocrisy of this for some higher reason, I believe they're sending a subtle message to the Dems that this won't play with the media so they'd better cool it.
Let's face it, except for us political junkies, who watches Matthews on Sunday anyway.
Bwahahahahahaaa!!
February 25, 2007 - 20:10 ET by blackrain4xmasClassic! Next thing ya know Matthews will be asking the Democrats if they have plans to succeed in ANY foreign policy gig
She wants to have it both w
February 25, 2007 - 20:50 ET by ChriswelLShe wants to have it both ways just like her hubby!
Clinton
February 26, 2007 - 01:19 ET by scoopapb - thanks, very interesting. Do you think Belinda is enough? Hubby and I were laughing that maybe there is a baby somewhere? Or....a baby on the way, which would be better and absolutely 'delish'! This is too much fun.
OT - I think Obama won last week's little skirmish. Wasn't he way cool when he said "it's not clear to me why I should apoligize for someone else's comments", just perfect. Too bad he's such a big lib..... it would be nice to have a democrat that I could live with being president if it came to that. However, I'm a Rudy girl all the way.