CHRIS MATTHEWS, FULLY REINVENTED! We thought wed probably heard it all. Then we heard Chris, Wednesday night: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2009
Chris Matthews, fully reinvented: Chris Matthews has reinvented himself to fit his networks new pro-Dem slant. But the analysts simply had to laugh at what he said Wednesday night. You see, Hillary Clinton works for Obama nowand for this reason, respect must be paid. Clownishly, Matthews gushed as he honored her with the Hardball Awardthe first to go to a woman, he clownishly said. But he brought the analysts out of their chairs as he closed with a failed recollection:
As weve noted in the past, Matthews is paid $5 million per yearand people like Matthews will do and say anything to qualify for that kind of payment. That said, his recollection of Clintons run for the senate represents Extremely High Clownish Conduct even by his own rank standards. I never gave Hillary Clinton credit for the guts it took for her to run for the Senate? Matthews had already played the fool as he announced that Hardball Award. But as he made this last remark, apple juice involuntarily spurted from all the analysts noses.
Matthews never gave Clinton credit? Good lord almightytoo funny! In fact, he trashed her remorselessly during that period, starting in late 1999, when her plan to run began clear. During this same period, he was relentlessly trashing Candidate Gore as a gender-confused liar and crackpot; no criticism was too stupid or inaccurate to voice on that front. At the time, of course, the career liberal worlda gang of cowardssat back and let him engage in this conduct. Today, the career liberal world sits back again and let him reinvent in this way.
Cyndi Lauper once claimed that girls wanna have fun. We have no formal view about that. But career liberals wanna play Hardball.
Matthews never gave Hillary Clinton credit for the guts it took for her to run for the Senate? In fact, he trashed her within an inch of her life, engaging in some of the most heinous conduct ever displayed on cable. Consider December 1999, when it became clear that Clinton would run. Matthews had just spent a disgraceful month sliming Gore in every way possible; now, he seamlessly turned his sights on the ambitions of deeply vile Clinton. For a small taste of the tone of his work, heres how he opened a crackpot segment with Clinton biographer Gail Sheehy:
His stupidity was matched by his undisguised venom when he learned that Clinton was running. To review a few larger chunks of his work, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/27/08; for a taste of the trashing he was dishing to Gore, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/26/08. It would be hard to overstate the uglinessand the sheer stupidityof his spittle-flecked nightly endeavors. Clinton escapedbut Gore went down. No one worked harder, or more dishonestly, to put George Bush in the White House.
(More good times: During this period, Matthews was obsessed with the thought that Hillary Clinton was just too ambitious. To recall how far he would carry this notion during this era, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/20/06.)
Clinton survived these astonishing onslaughts; in our closest election, Gore didnt. But remember one thing: Your career liberal world just sat and stared while this disgraceful conduct played out, month after month, all through this campaign. Even today, the career liberal world has made an agreementwe wont discuss what occurred in this era. This inane, clownish crackpot remains on the airreinvented as a gushing Dem-lover. That $5 million still spends pretty goodand he simply luvvs Hillary now.
I never gave Hillary Clinton credit for the guts it took for her to run for the Senate? Thats rightand Hitler never gave the Jews full credit for all their good works around Europe. The fact that Matthews remains on the air is a tribute to career liberal lethargy. But regarding that particular commentwell, we thought wed heard it all. Until we heard Matthews say that.
People will do any say almost anything for five million bucks, to be paid every year. Matthews has proven this truth many times, never more than he did Wednesday night. Clinton faced possible humiliation at the hands of her critics when she ran for the senate? He forgot to say that he worked harder than anyone else to produce this humiliation. Indeed: He was still in this mode in January 2008, when the liberal world finally complainedand he was finally stopped.
Matthews praised Wonderful Clinton this week for a willingness to serve our country over self! Too funny! During the time when Jack Welchs Lost Boys hunted down Bill Clinton, then Gore, Matthews undermined all your countrys values. But you wont hear this said in the meek preserves peopled by our sage career liberals. (Rachel Maddow called him the greatest, one week before the network hired her.) You see, people like this just want to play Hardball! Jack Welch is gone, and his network has flipped. And Chris Matthews? Hes a whole new man now!
Try not to gag: Try not to gag as you read what follows. For brevity, weve omitted the clips of the brilliant speeches the now-brilliant, award-winning woman has given. Yes, Chris Matthews network has flipped. But Matthews remains a real harlequin:
The Hardball Awardtoo funny! Even morethe first to go to a woman! This remains the network of Archie Bunkerof hopeless gender-throwbacks, people who cant hide their gender kookiness no matter how hard they try.
The Hardball Awardhow grand! Any chance that Gore might win one too? To go with the Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize he won, despite the fact that he didnt seem very American even? That quote, accepted by the career liberal world, came from Matthews back in the daybefore his network flipped its tilt, before he began to praise Clinton. Its long overdue, this cosmic fake said. But then, Matthews has always served one purpose: He helps us see what people will do for five million bucks, every year.
By the way, KeithO gets paid five million bucks too. Watching his show, have you noticed?
Speaking of KeithO: Last night, he wanted to understand the views and motivations of Republican governors. So who did he ask about this? Howard Dean! The conduct of the Republican governors was just political, Dean thoughtfully said.
Is there anywhere else on cable TV where you can get played like such fools?
In our view, Keith did his usual hack-like job reporting what these governors have said. Offhand, we could think of five million reasons why he was dishing such piffle. Though to tell the truth, you wont find much better around the liberal web.
For what its worth, this short news report in this mornings Times makes a modest attempt to analyze the question of GOP hypocrisy with regard to the stimulus package. Quick question, quoting from the report: Is it possible to oppose the entire [stimulus] bill on principle and favor certain sections of it? Duh! Of course it isand no, it isnt hypocritical to accept money from a bill you opposed. But to dwellers in our wild tribal lands, the other tribes leaders are always big hypocrites. This impulse dates to prehistoric times, when tribal thinking was perhaps a survival skill. Today, its mainly a source of blather on our cable news channels.
But people do love to yell hypocrite! (Sometimes the charge is true, of course.) We remember when Candidate Gore was a big major hypocrite because, even though he favored public financing of elections, he was still out there raising money! No, that didnt make any sense either. But the New York Times just wouldnt stop pimping it; see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/15/06 and 3/20/02. And yes, this explains how Candidate Bush ended up where he did. In those days, before the Bush era, Matthews wasnt the only crackpot working to take out Vile Gore.
You still dont hear career liberals discuss this. Anyone know why that is?
A worthwhile complaint: We got an e-mail yesterday, making a perfectly worthwhile complaint. The mailer missed the point of our tone. But we thoroughly respect his objection:
First off, who wouldnt feel superior to gender-trashers like the egregious pair named in his mail?
That said: We went out of our way, and off normal paths, for an actual reason. The language to which the reader objects shows you where Flanders and Olbermann take you. On Tuesday night, Flanders couldnt open her mouth without directing an instant, gender-based insult at Palin. Weve criticized this sort of thing politely for years. (In the case of Matthews, this goes back to early 1999.) But polite criticism just doesnt work. People like Flanders and Olbermann dont give a fig. Neither do high-minded liberals.
Go ahead! Look around the liberal web and count how many high-minded liberals complained about Flanders conduct that night. A guess: Youll find exactly none. After all, your side accepted this kind of gender-trashing for years, when it was aimed at liberals and Dems. Do you think these high-minded beings will start complaining now, when its offered by progressive icons, aimed at a Republican pol?
We couldnt voice sufficient disgust with the high-minded progressive phonies who inhabit this realm. By the way, take one more census: How many progressive women complained about what Flanders said? No, go ahead! Just name them!
Objecting politely doesnt work; that has been proven down through the years. But the language we used reflects the thinking of gender-trashers like the two named. Our reader was quite right to object. But we do think he missed our drift.
Sarah Palin opposes legal abortion; we dont. What kind of progressive cant argue this point without instantly churning a rude gender insult? Without offering the worlds most truncated quote? Without the clowning Olbermann staged as he ran him some rubes Tuesday night? We dont use that language ourselves. But it told you where Flanders hoped you would go as she insulted the deeply vile Palin. We dont know why Flanders would want to go there. But it shouldnt be done on TV.
By our count, Olbermann has five million reasons for selling this crap. Our reasons for buying arewhat?