Jameel Jaffer and David Rivkin Discuss FOIA Lawsuit

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Schadenfreude

This is painful/hilarious to watch. It also reminded me of the time Matthews called out an Obama supporter who wasn't even aware of his legislative accomplishments. The two main lessons you can take from this are: (1) the appeasement argument pushed by Bush, McCain and Lieberman lately is just plain silly, and (2) don't shoot your mouth off on television unless you know what you're talking about.

UPDATE: I still don't like Chris Matthews, though.

UPDATE II: It looks like Matthews made his own historical mistake in the same interview.

Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews and Orange Juice

Chris Matthews (who makes $5 million a year) recently led the following segment, where he remarked upon Sen. Obama's "elitism."

On Hardball, while remarking on Sen. Barack Obama's reported request for orange juice after being offered coffee at an Indiana diner, David Shuster asserted: "[I]t's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, 'Here, have some coffee,' you say, 'Yes, thank you,' and, 'Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?' You don't just say, 'No, I'll take orange juice,' and then turn away and start shaking hands." Host Chris Matthews agreed, "You don't ask for a substitute on the menu."

Yes, that really happened. Matthews also argued that Obama "is not that good at that - shaking hands at a diner," and that he's not a "regular guy." He even revisited Obama's bowling skills. Read the MSNBC transcript yourself.

As Brendanh Nyhan points out:

This kind of coverage is all too reminiscent of the way Matthews and other members of the press made up bizarre narratives about the color of Al Gore's clothing, his choice of shoes, the way he claps, and the number of buttons on his suit (among many other things).

Going forward, the important question is whether this will be the third presidential race in a row in which the Democratic presidential candidate is treated as an elitist stiff and endlessly psychoanalyzed. I haven't heard anyone talk like this about how John McCain orders orange juice...

What is particularly maddening about this Obama-as-elitist argument is that McCain is the millionaire born into privilege (his father was an Admiral, with the highest pay grade in the entire Navy), who married a millionaire heiress and who has spent the past 20 years as a politician. Obama is the son of a goat herder and a single mother who made his way to an elite school on scholarship and only broke the $1 million mark when the royalties for his best-selling books began to pour in. The born-with-a-silver-spoon argument just doesn't work this time around, and looks particularly ridiculous when you step back and look at the rest of the field.

But when the press corps attends John McCain's birthday parties (seriously) and goes to informal barbecues at his house (watch the video), you can probably count on them to treat this as another trivial "who would you like to have a beer with" election.

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part IX

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"
Part IV: "Our big number is the number five"
Part V: "Nurse Ratched"
Part VI: "Being for Hillary makes you feel subservient"
Part VII: "Castratos in the eunuch chorus"
Part VIII: "Female editors"

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part VIII

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

This is what Chris Matthews has to say today about the Des Moines Register's endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

MATTHEWS: The biggest news of this week, it's all weekend -- it's all we've been talking about, it went again this morning. The worst week of last week was Hillary Clinton. She may have gotten The Des Moines Register's endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher, but voters have spotted the dagger, and they don't like what it looks like. Hillary's loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition right now.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"
Part IV: "Our big number is the number five"
Part V: "Nurse Ratched"
Part VI: "Being for Hillary makes you feel subservient"
Part VII: "Castratos in the eunuch chorus"

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part VII

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

This is what Chris Matthews has to say today about Tom Vilsack, Ted Strickland, and Evan Bayh, who have all chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton:

MATTHEWS: I'm talking about the moral weight. I'm talking about the moral weight on these people who are willing to do anything now. You got [former Iowa Gov. Tom] Vilsack out there, [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland, [Sen.] Evan Bayh [D-IN]. Every day I pick up a paper, there's another quote out there from somebody who's a wannabe, saying whatever the Clinton people told them to say, apparently.

CILLIZZA: Politics is politics, Chris.

MATTHEWS: These lines look like they're being fed -- well, let me find some outrage here. Can I get some from Chrystia? I'm not getting any from you. Chrystia, do you -- aren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are? What do you call them? I don't know what they are. What do you think of these people?

FREELAND: Well, I'm not going to comment on whether they have been castrated or not, but what I do think is interesting is whether these stings are really going to work.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"
Part IV: "Our big number is the number five"
Part V: "Nurse Ratched"
Part VI: "Being for Hillary makes you feel subservient"

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part VI

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

Today:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. Well, let me give you my theory.

RICH: Go ahead.

MATTHEWS: I think—I think that, for, rightly or wrongly, when people think about Hillary Clinton and their emotions are exposed, they feel that she thinks she’s better than us, morally as well as intellectually.

I think, when people think and feel about Obama, they feel that he makes us better than us. He makes us feel better than we thought we were. He makes us feel generous, tolerant, upbeat, fearless, future-oriented. Just to be for Obama makes you feel better. Being for Hillary makes you feel subservient to her, because she’s perfect. She has had to deal, as she put it, with “evil men.” She’s had to deal with people who are inferior to her, morally, all her life.

That’s my hunch. You like the feel of being for Obama. You don’t like the feel of being for Hillary. That’s my hunch.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"
Part IV: "Our big number is the number five"
Part V: "Nurse Ratched"

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part V

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

From 1999:

On the August 3, 1999, edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "[Hillary Clinton is] now saying, 'I kept this emotional basket case going all these years, because I'm a good Nurse Ratched, and this is a cuckoo's nest at the White House. But now I'm ready to be off on my own, so elect me as the nurse.'"

On the August 2, 1999, edition of Hardball, Matthews asked The New York Observer's Tish Durkin, "[D]o you want to be so disciplined as to propose yourself as the new Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Does [Clinton] really want to play herself as this tough nurse that looked out for this guy who has psychological problems like -- like the Jack Nicholson gu -- character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Nurse Ratched, 'I'm a nurse. I stuck with him because he needed therapy.' " Later, in an interview with Gennifer Flowers on the same episode of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "[N]ow it seems like she's offering herself in a new role, as a kind of a person who's had a therapeutic role in life. Sh -- her job is to take care of a -- a delinquent, someone with psychological problems that she's had to fix or deal with or accept or maintain, or whatever you will, not as particularly a political partner, which was a role she offered up before. You know, for -- you get two for the price of one. Now you get a nurse for the price of the patient, all right? What do you think about her offering herself as Nurse Ratched to -- to the cuckoo's nest here?"

Today:

MATTHEWS: But then he did. He quoted her back to her, which was the best shot. So does her attack on him for having had ambition as a teeny-bopper -- not a teeny-bopper, a kindergartner, does she look like Nurse Ratched here?

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"
Part IV: "Our big number is the number five"

Mitt Romney's Religion Speech

Mitt Romney is set to give a speech about his Mormon religion, and has released excerpts to the press. Here is one sample:

"Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."

It seems strange to see Romney invoke the civil rights movement here to make an argument for the inherent goodness of religious solidarity. This is somewhat besides his point (which appears to be carefully worded), but Romney's Mormon religion has a somewhat checkered history with regards to the civil rights movement.

From the April 13, 1959 edition of Time magazine:

Whatever they may do or leave undone about their Negro brethren, most U.S. churches hold that all men are equal before God. One notable exception: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches that the colored races are descendants of the evil children of Laman and Lemuel, who impiously warred against the good children of Nephi and received their pigmented skin as punishment. Last week a Utah State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights drew on this Mormon scripture in a scathing report on the state of the tiny nonwhite minority in Utah.

This is what Brigham Young taught his followers:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

Additionally, people of the African race were not permitted into the priesthood until 1978. From the June 19, 1978 edition of Time magazine:

It was a historic moment for Mormons, who believe that the prohibition against blacks as priests goes back as far as the sons of Adam. It is taught in the Book of Abraham, one of three scriptures revealed to Prophet Joseph Smith and accepted as holy writ only by Mormons. According to the key verse, descendants of Cain (identified elsewhere in Mormon scripture as blacks) are "cursed as pertaining to the priesthood." Because of this the racial bar could only be lifted by a "revelation" direct from God. The church leaders said they had spent many hours in the Upper Room of the Salt Lake City Temple. Eventually God "confirmed that the long-promised day has come."

Of course, the church has since come around, and every Mormon I've ever met has been super-nice, and not at all racist in any perceivable way. It's also worth noting that Romney's father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights movement. I don't intend on casting aspersions on the Mormon people collectively. But I think that it's important to point out that it was not exactly a leading light in the move for equality, and that it finally came around despite traditional church doctrine.

Nor was Jerry Falwell quite on board with the civil rights movement. In fact, he called it the "civil wrongs" movement.

Romney's point in the quote I cited at the beginning appears to be merely that social justice causes need to get religious people on board in order to succeed. I just wanted to point out that sometimes, they also have to run counter to those religious establishments, doctrines, and leaders who resist and retard progress.

Likewise, the Christian bible has passages sanctioning slavery, ordering the execution of homosexuals, and making parental disobedience a death-penalty offense. Nonetheless, these very specific and very absurd passages (like the very absurd Mormon passages relating to black people) have been superseded by vague "love your neighbor" passages. That is a very good thing (for everyone but the biblical literalists). However, "love your neighbor" is not a specifically religious concept.

I think that this is a very important distinction to draw. That's why it bothers me when people like Mitt Romney and Dinesh D'Souza try to claim religion as the exclusive or primary source of these values. That's also why it bothers me so much when Mitt Romney draws his moral circle specifically to exclude the non-religious, as he did here: "One of the great things about this land is that we have people of different faiths and different religions, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."

The "love your neighbor rule" of ethics is one shared by all of us, religious and non-religious alike. It is this that has overridden the awful, discriminatory and wrong practices of the past (even those codified in Church doctrine).

UPDATE: The speech has been made. It is available here.

I disagree very much with this:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Seriously. As a non-religious person, I find it highly absurd (and offensive) that Mitt Romney thinks my beliefs are incompatible with freedom.

Also, is anybody else bothered by the fact that this Mitt Romney quote:

"A person should not be elected because of his faith"

DIRECTLY contradicts this Mitt Romney quote?

"One of the great things about this land is that we have people of different faiths and different religions, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."

Because they undoubtedly say exactly opposite things. They are 100% in conflict with each other. He talks big about religious tolerance when it comes to Mormonism, but doesn't seem to apply the same standard to atheism and agnosticism.

I also don't care for this:

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.

Seriously? Every faith? Even the Westboro Baptist Church, the Raelians, and Heaven's Gate? Because some faiths are seriously crazy.

Romney also quotes the passage I used to kick off this blog:

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

There's more inanity to the speech (much more), but I'll leave it here, at the same place I started.

UPDATE II: Here is Chris Matthews's reaction:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to say if he wins the presidency, it started here . . . For the first time in this campaign, and it's been a long campaign, I heard greatness this morning.

No surprises here. According to Matthews, "He has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, he looks right."

UPDATE III: Andrew Sullivan responds here:

By insisting on faith - any faith - as the proper criterion for public office, Romney draws the line, oh-so-conveniently, so as to include Mormonism but exclude atheism and agnosticism. And so he side-steps the critical issue in the debates over religion in public life: what if there is no unifying faith for a nation? What if faith itself cannot unify a nation - and, in fact, can divide it more deeply than any other subject? That is our reality. An intelligent and wise conservative would try to find a path to a common discourse that does not rest on religious foundations.

The second flaw is that he simply cannot elide the profound theological differences between the LDS church and mainstream Christianity. Since I'm a secularist - a Christian secularist - this doesn't make a difference to me. But if you are appealing to religious people, especially fundamentalists, on the basis of faith, you cannot logically then ask them to ignore the content of the faith. The religious right have tried to do this with the absurd neologism, the "Judeo-Christian tradition," as if the truth-claims of Christianity and Judaism are not, at bottom, contradictory. But the "Mormon-Judeo-Christian tradition" is a step too far even for those who have almost no principles in using religion for political purposes.

UPDATE IV: Jonathan Rowe reacts here:

I agree with Andrew Sullivan. The biggest problem I have with his speech is Romney seems to try and form an alliance with other religious conservatives, mainly orthodox Christians — find common ground between them — and gang up on secularists, atheists, and agnostics, in an us versus them mentality. America belongs to everyone, not just religious folks.

UPDATE V: Rev. Barry Lynn's reaction:

“I think it is telling that Romney quoted John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison,” Lynn continued. “Jefferson and Madison are the towering figures who gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.

“I was also disappointed that Romney doesn’t seem to recognize that many Americans are non-believers,” Lynn continued. “Polls repeatedly show that millions of people have chosen to follow no spiritual path at all. They’re good Americans too, and Romney ought to have recognized that fact.

UPDATE VI: Mitt Romney frames the separation of church and state like this: "They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Don Byrd points out the absurdity of this straw-man argument:

We are a nation full of religious individuals and communities, but not a religious nation. Church-state separation is necessary to preserve religious freedom - both the freedom to believe and the equally important freedom not to believe. It is not an effort to remove God or religion, nor to "separate us from God." It is simply the requirement that agents of government refrain - in their official capacity - from promoting or preferring, criticizing or harassing religious believers and non-believers. When the official institutions of the state are free of the enactment of religion, then and only then can the business of religious liberty really begin.

The kind of fear-mongering we see from candidates today - contorting the institutional separation of church and state into a supposedly serious threat to the place of God in our lives - preys on many Americans' most solemnly held beliefs. It is the height of cynicism and exploitation.

UPDATE VII: Townhall.com's Hugh Hewitt thinks that the speech was "simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."

UPDATE VIII: Constitutional law professor Jack Balkin's analysis:

Although this may lose any remaining respect Hugh has for my opinions, I beg to differ. The speech is chock full of (how can I put this delicately?) rhetorical tensions. On the one hand, "[A] presidential candidate [should not have to] describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution." On the other hand, two paragraphs later Romney emphasizes that "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." Having announced that it would be wrong to go into details about his beliefs, why does he emphasize that one single issue, an issue which separates his beliefs from many religions, but says nothing that might separate him from conservative Christians? Why does he rush to emphasize Jesus's divinity but not other aspects of Mormonism that are just as important and perhaps more distinctive? The answer is that despite his statements to the contrary, he knows there is a religious test for public office, and the people grading the exams are the Republican base.

Again, on the one hand, "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith." On the other hand, "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. . . .Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'" These remarks strongly identify Americans and Americanism with belief in God. Romney does nothing to suggest otherwise. Indeed, his central point is that the religious share "a common creed of moral convictions." Note carefully his list of religions that form this common creed, all Western and monotheist
[...]
It is not a call for religious tolerance, unless tolerance means scrambling to identify yourself with majority religions and lumping together every other belief system as alien to American values and outside the "common creed of moral convictions" that all true Americans share.

UPDATE IX: David Brooks reacts:

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

UPDATE X: The National Review's Ranesh Ponnuru:

It would have been nice if Romney, while making room for people of all faiths in this country, could have also made some room for people with none.

UPDATE XI: Pat Buchanan has a predictably awful take on this speech:

He moved up to that higher common ground on which we all can stand. The ground on which all Americans stand is the dignity of the individual as a child of God.

No. That's not common ground at all. It leaves out millions of Americans who believe no such thing. All he's doing is broadening the circle of acceptance to include Mormons (notice how he says he won't explain Church doctrine, then goes on to conveniently mention just the Mormon doctrine that overlaps with that of traditional Christians) and specifically exclude nonbelievers.

UPDATE XII: Well maybe George Romney didn't quite march with Martin Luther King, Jr. after all:

A defensive Romney was peppered with questions today on exactly what he meant when he said -- most recently on Meet the Press -- that he "saw" his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. Recent articles have indicated that his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, didn't march with the civil-rights leader.

Admitting that he didn't see the march with his own eyes, he said, "I 'saw' him in the figurative sense."

"The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights," he said, "and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership."

"I've tried to be as accurate as I can be," he continued, smiling firmly. "If you look at the literature or look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of -- in the sense I've described."

The questioning did not relent. "I'm an English literature major," he insisted at one point. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there." (He meant the Super Bowl, of course.)

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part IV

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

The polls of late have consistently showed Hillary Clinton leading all of the Republican candidates in head-to-head match-ups. Here are all the poll results from Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Newsweek, FOX, CNN, etc. Nonetheless, Zogby recently conducted an online poll with dubious methodology that gave the opposite result of all the legitimate polls (including this Gallup poll conducted the same day).

It's an online poll. It's unreliable. It's a clear outlier. Got it?

Now, let's see how Chris Matthews covers this issue:

MATTHEWS (11/27/07): Time for the Hardball “Big Number,” that tells a big story. Tonight, our “Big Number” is the number five. That’s the number of Republican presidential candidates that Hillary Clinton trails in the November match-ups, according to a new Zogby poll—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and, believe it or not, Mike Huckabee. That’s five, count them, five Republicans all now beating, yes, Hillary Clinton in the match-up for next November. It’s tonight’s “Big Number.”

This guy really wants to see Hillary Clinton lose.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"

UPDATE:

FOX News Alert: "Clinton Loses to All Top GOP Candidates in Direct Match-Up"

I wonder if these people realize how ridiculous they are.

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part III

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

Today:

Matthews: Let's go back to women with needs. Women with needs are Hillary's great strength. Women who don't have a college degree, women who don't have a lot of things going for them. May not have a husband, may have kids, have all kinds of needs with day care, education, minimum wage. Will Oprah help with them to move to Barack Obama?

Julie Mason Houston Chronicle: Well, they're looking more for issues than they are for a celebrity endorsement. I don't think it's a celebrity endorsement from Oprah or from Bill Clinton, not that he's a celebrity, but you know what I'm saying. I don't think they move votes. I think they bring attention, I think they bring TV cameras, but those particular women are more concerned with health care and other issues than they are with what Oprah says ...

Matthews : (angry, nasty) OK let's get straight. Don't ever say Bill Clinton doesn't bring votes. If it weren't for Bill there wouldn't be a Hill. The idea that he doesn't give her star quality is INSANE

Julie Mason: (startled) I'm not saying he ...

Matthews: He IS her star quality.

Julie Mason: I'm not saying, he doesn't bring votes but if you were undecided...

Matthews:(abrupt) Ok. ... Thank you Matt.

Julie Mason:... I don't think Hillary..er Bill Clinton ...

Matthews: I know I caught you off guard there.

Julie mason: ...would bring you in.

Matthews: I was too tough on you there, but I know I'm right. Anyway, Matt ... just like Hillary I know I'm going to win.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"

Chris Matthews on Al Gore - Part II

Chris Matthews on Al Gore in 2001 and before:

He doesn’t look like one of us. He doesn’t seem very American, even.

He's taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. I always—my joke is, “I'm Albert, I'll—I'll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don't know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons? ... Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don't know, I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don't know what it means.

Chris Matthews on Al Gore today (via Digby):

Michael, Michael, there's a big difference between what happened to Al Gore and John Kerry. John Kerry got hit unfairly by the Swift Boats attacking his service to his country. They conflated his opposition to the war when he came back which we can all argue about, and his service to his country which is not really arguable. They trashed him.

But in terms of Al Gore, he's the one who said he created the internet, he's the one who put out the word that he's the subject or the role model for Love Story, that he pointed the country's attention to Love Canal. He stuck himself into that story.

And when Marty Peretz's daughter wrote that story in Vanity Fair a couple of months ago, I'm sorry, she didn't make the case. Gore got himself in those problem areas by vanity and showing off an trying to make himself cool. But John Kerry got unfair treatment. I think it's a big difference guys.

Crowley: that may be so, but it's not how many Democrats feel.

CM: Well, why would expect a partisan to think anything more than partisan? That's what partisans think? Of course they think they were rooked. Everyone who loses an election thinks they were rooked and they blame it on the umpire.

Crowley: That's the audience they're speaking to.

CM: Yeah, well how about getting into the land of truth and understanding?

Wow. Let's take a look at those three examples Matthews just used right there.

1. "he's the one who said he created the Internet": Wow, this meme will never die as long as we have "journalists" like Chris Matthews. Al Gore did not claim that he personally created the Internet. He was talking about his initiatives in the Senate that helped enable the growth of the Internet: "when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)." Although his phrasing was awkward at the time, anyone with a brain could tell what he was actually saying.
2. "he's the one who put out the word that he's the subject or the role model for Love Story": This meme was dead-wrong 10 years ago, and it's dead-wrong today. Here's what happened. On a 1997 plane ride, Al Gore was in the press section, "swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums" to the reporters. Gore's "old chums" included Eric Segal (the author of Love Story) and actor Tommy Lee Jones. Gore told one of these reporters that Segal had told some Tennessee reporters that the characters in Love Story were based on him and his wife. It turns out that the Tennesse paper itself did say that, but it was later retracted as a misquote. What Segal actually told the reporter (but which got garbled by the reporter) was that one of the characters in Love Story was based upon both Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones. All Al Gore did was accurately remember what was reported in the Nashville Tennessean. "Journalists" like Chris Matthews, however, have endless mangled this and beaten it into some twisted narrative of Al-Gore-the-liar.
   
3. "that he pointed the country's attention to Love Canal": Once again, Chris Matthews is wrong. This entire story stemmed from a misquote of Al Gore, which was later corrected. What Al Gore said was that he had spoken to a girl from Toone, Tennessee in the 1970s about a problem with toxic waste in Toone. Afterwards, he called for a congressional hearing and investigations, looking "for other sites like that." He then became aware of the situation in Love Canal. Gore then said that Toone "was the one that started it all." The Washington Post misquoted him as saying "I was the one who started it all," when the transcript shows he said "that was the one that started it all" (clearly referring to Toone, which prompted the congressional investigation and hearings). The Washington Post later corrected this misquote, but not before the meme of Al-Gore-the-liar had spread like wildfire.
   

So there you have it. Chris Matthews is a shitty journalist. But what really got me was how he got all puffed up at the end, as if people who report on the facts are "partisans," while he rules "the land of truth and understanding."

This is the kind of horseshit journalism we can all look forward to in 2008 unless people start calling Matthews out.

BONUS: More "truth and understanding" from Chris Matthews


UPDATE: Michael Crowley, who weakly agreed with Chris Matthews in the above exchange, was apparently just as bad as Matthews (eh, maybe not that bad) in the 2000 election.

UPDATE II: Media Matters just put out a story about this awful Chris Matthews segment, and provides some examples of how Chris Matthews pushed these awful memes back in 1999 and 2000 (and beyond, up to this very day).

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part II

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

This really explains so much.

Also, just for good measure, here are his thoughts on Al Gore:

He doesn’t look like one of us. He doesn’t seem very American, even.

Here We Go Again

Back in 1999-2000, the media created a narrative of Al Gore the liar. Things such as his non-existent claim of having invented the Internet took over the major news networks as a major focal point of their presidential politics discussions. It became the "conventional wisdom."

Hillary Clinton recently spoke at her alma mater Wellesley, and made the following comments:

The world class faculty and staff who push you and challenge you, those late nights and long lunches where you challenge each other and learn from each other, the camaraderie that develops when smart, ambitious young women come together in a community of learning. In so many ways, this all women's college prepared me to compete on the all boys' club of presidential politics.

(APPLAUSE)

This was a place where you could try out all different kinds of leadership styles, where you could ask for critique and support from your friends and the faculty with whom you had an ongoing relationship. It was a place that truly did prepare women to make the best choices that we thought were right for our own lives.

Nothing sensational here. She absolutely did not say that people were picking on her because she is a woman. Nor did she say that people should vote for her because she is a woman (in fact, she's explicitly said the opposite). All she said was that the "all women's college" (it is) gave her the leadership skills to compete on the "all boys' club of presidential politics" (she is the only female among 17 contenders, and the first really serious female contender ever - this statement is simply an accurate description).

Nonetheless, there is a new narrative about how Hillary Clinton is playing "the gender card." The implication is that she's either a wimp, or unfairly using her gender as a shield.

According to MSNBC's Chris Matthews, this is an "anti-male thing," and "she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine."

According to MSNBC's Tucker Carlson:

TUCKER CARLSON: She clearly is playing the gender card -- "You can't hit a girl."

[...]

Women are angry at men in a lot of ways. They don't say much about it, but they are.

BUCHANAN: Holy smokes.

CARLSON: And she's pandering to that resentment and anger, and it's wrong.

PRESS: I think men have a reason to be angry at women based on what Lorena Bobbitt did.

CARLSON: Well, I couldn't agree with you more. No man would ever defend the corollary. But women are like, "Oh, I understand why Lorena did that." I mean, they're really mad. And she's taking advantage of it.

According to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, "Sometimes when Hillary takes heat, she gets paranoid and controlling. But this time she took the heat by getting into the kitchen."

According to FOX News' Mort Kondrake:

This idea of using this gang of theme and the gender card that she is playing may work in the Iowa caucuses. And her staff says this is all about Iowa, and something like 55 percent of the Iowa caucus goers are, apparently women. So if she can get the lion's share of them and split up the guy vote, then she obviously wins.

But I think it is very unattractive for a general election candidate, who wants to be the Commander in Chief of the free world, to be saying 'They're ganging up on me!' I mean, this is the NFL. This is not Wellesley versus Smith in field hockey.

However, the most egregious and ridiculous distortion came from ABC News. After Nancy Pelosi explicitly disagreed with this narrative, ABC ran the horrible headline "Pelosi: Clinton Camp Played Gender Card." Even though that was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Pelosi said (go ahead and read the article itself if you don't believe me). To highlight their shitty journalism, ABC included the following graphic:


When did the retards take over network news?

Moreover, who will point out the seriously flawed narrative at play here? At MSNBC, it seems unlikely that any of their talking heads or newsmen will say anything. If anything, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and Chris Matthews have proven that they will do the opposite. The only liberal talking-head over there is Keith Olberman (despite Bill O'Reilly's claims that NBC is "in the Democratic party's pocket"). He might say something, but he has a limited audience. Over at FOX, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for such coverage. Sean Hannity, etc. are gonna hit the "I'm a girl" meme pretty hard, and the only hope over there is that an invited guest will point out the insanity at play here. Over at CNN, I don't suspect you'll see much coverage, either. Instead, they might (at best) cover it with their usual he-said-she-said reporting ("Some say Clinton is playing the gender card... others disagree"). You can probably expect the same from major newspapers, if anything at all (it's also worth noting that they probably have less influence on these narratives than the television shows). Although they're already proving themselves to be awful at covering this.

The Wall Street Journal pushes the "gender card" meme:

According to The Politico, a "debate" is "churning in feminist circles, where some women's activists said she had every right to invoke sexism and gender stereotypes as a defense on the campaign trail--and predicted that this tactic will prove effective against fellow Democrats and against a Republican, if she is the general election nominee"

The New York Times:

Shortly after the Democratic debate, when Mrs. Clinton came under attack, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign posted a video on her Web site called “The Politics of Pile On” that showed short clips of the men at the debate.

On Thursday, Mrs. Clinton went to her alma mater, Wellesley, and said, “In so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”

The same day, her campaign sent out a fund-raising appeal condemning the men’s actions at the debate and saying, “Hillary’s going to need your help.”

Mrs. Clinton was swiftly criticized on the Internet and by some female columnists for wanting to have it both ways, projecting herself as a strong leader but then complaining of mistreatment by men.

This was one of the more maddening treatments. First, the NYT describes the video as showing "short clips of the men at the debate." That is an absolutely horrible description of the video, transparently intended to create the impression that the video is about gender. It's not. You can watch it here.

The thing is that it's so obviously not about gender. Nowhere does the word "man," "woman," "gender," "male," or "female" appear. Her point was simply that her opponents had recognized her as the frontrunner (she is) and started to go after her (they did - as anyone who watched the debate realizes). This was not about gender, but about making her opponents look like they're playing catch-up. Her opponents just all happen to be men.

Second, her remarks at Wellesley (as I've repeatedly said) obviously do not amount to "playing the gender card."

Third, I haven't seen this fund-raising letter, but if all the New York Times can cite in support of its narrative is that it condemned "the men's" (read: her opponents, who all happen to be men) actions, then it seems like a pretty thin branch on which to hang one's coat.

Finally, it's not "some female columnists" "on the Internet." It's horrible articles like this one that reinforce and spread these horrible narratives. It's not "some people" and it's not "the conservative media." It's awful, lazy, careless journalists like this one.

UPDATE: Has anyone seen any coverage of Hillary Clinton's newly released climate and energy plan? I haven't (not outside the world of blogs, at least). This seems like the kind of substantive issue that people should be writing and arguing about (rather than her "gender card," her "Chinese" clapping, or how much she tips at a restaurant). If you see any serious coverage, please pass it along.

UPDATE II: A recent Marist poll indicates that these empty narratives might be taking their toll in New Hampshire.

Chris Matthews on Al Gore - Part I

More shitty journalism from Chris Matthews, this time from back in 1999 (via Daily Howler):

MATTHEWS (11/12/99): You know, there's been a lot of talk about the new costuming of Al Gore. You know, he used to wear blue suits like I do—or gray suits. Now he's wearing these new olive suits. He's taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. I always—my joke is, “I'm Albert, I'll—I'll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don't know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons?

DIMITRIUS: Well, I—I think that—

MATTHEWS: Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don't know, I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don't know what it means. Go ahead.

DIMITRIUS: No, I—I—I think actually that Al's probably read the—our second book that's about to come out that talks about the different colors, that, particularly males can wear in their suits. We talk about how olive green, dark green is—is much more approachable, whereas, your dark blue and your black—

MATTHEWS: Right. Is that why Peter Pan wore green?

DIMITRIUS: Could be. Could be.

MATTHEWS: How does my mind work that way?

DIMITRIUS: But you know, the, the three-button image is something that—you know, if I were working with Al—

MATTHEWS: Right.

DIMITRIUS: I'd say, “You know, that's got to go because that is something that—that we know doesn't work very well.”

MATTHEWS: What's that?

DIMITRIUS: Just the—the three-button down, you know, the—the wider—the wider coat that's not as—as form-fitting. You know, I think he's attempting to look perhaps less intimidating to women than he did in the darker suits.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

DIMITRIUS: Certainly, that's the way it's come across.

[...]

MATTHEWS: What do you think? Does it work for you? Which Al do you like? The old Al, the new Al, the private Al, the public Al? What do you want—what do you like here?

DIMITRIUS: Well, I tell you, look-wise, the new Al—the new Al, I think is going to make a lot of points with women. In that one interview that they had—

MATTHEWS: Right. We're looking at him now with the golf shirt here. Yeah.

DIMITRIUS: Right. With Bryant Gumbel, I thought was fascinating because he did look like he was right out of central casting—

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

DIMITRIUS: —like he had just come off of a movie set. He's got a very—

MATTHEWS: He looks like he just got a new movie out. In fact, now all he needs is that designer stubble, you know, like George Stephanopoulos puts on every Sunday, you know, about two days' growth of beard. Maybe with George, it's a half a day's growth, but it's two days with most people. What—what do you make of that. Is this part of the Hollywood scene to look more Michael Douglas?

DIMITRIUS: I—oh, I think so. If you look, too, it looks as though he's lost a little bit of weight.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's—

DIMITRIUS: He's got a much more chiseled face.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know what? I don't need any advice to do that. But thank you for joining us. Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, I want to thank you.

As the Daily Howler points out, "For the record, Matthews wasn’t kidding when he suggested that he 'always' tells his waiter joke. He told the hilarious joke on Hardball on November 2, 4, 10, 12 and 24, as the mocking of Gore rumbled on." I weep for the future. It seems like Chris Matthews is going to be covering Hillary Clinton like he did Al Gore.

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part I

Chris Matthews is a perfect example of what's wrong with talking head journalism today. Instead of talking about the substance of any of these issues, Matthews devolves into discussions of Clinton's "Chinese" (???) clapping (more on Matthews's clapping coverage here and here).

For example, Matthews looks at Clinton's position on limited licenses for illegal aliens (which I wrote about here), and all he sees is this: "when you read the text here, it's like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

Matthews has also been pushing the "gender card" meme pretty hard. When Clinton spoke to her alma mater Wellesley, she made the following comments:

The world class faculty and staff who push you and challenge you, those late nights and long lunches where you challenge each other and learn from each other, the camaraderie that develops when smart, ambitious young women come together in a community of learning.

In so many ways, this all women's college prepared me to compete on the all boys' club of presidential politics.

(APPLAUSE)

This was a place where you could try out all different kinds of leadership styles, where you could ask for critique and support from your friends and the faculty with whom you had an ongoing relationship. It was a place that truly did prepare women to make the best choices that we thought were right for our own lives.

Nothing sensational here. She absolutely did not say that people were picking on her because she is a woman. Nor did she say that people should vote for her because she is a woman (in fact, she's explicitly said the opposite). All she said was that the "all women's college" (it is) gave her the leadership skills to compete on the"all boys' club of presidential politics" (she is the only female among 17 contenders, and the first really serious female contender ever - this statement is simply an accurate description). However, when you pass that through the Chris Matthews filter, it turns into an "anti-male thing." According to Matthews (who may or may not have read the original transcript), "she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine."

Matthews has also tackled such issues as the way she laughs, and the way she talks. He's even devoted a segment to speculating about the candidates' Halloween costumes, and another criticizing Mitt Romney's burger-flipping skills.

UPDATE: More shitty journalism from Chris Matthews (here), who just won't quit with this "Chinese" clapping crap.

Chris Matthews on the Democratic Debate

I just watched the Democratic debate on MSNBC tonight, and Chris Matthews's post-debate coverage makes me weep for the future:


Matthews just went on and on about his height for way too long...

Anyway, here is a clip from a more substantive moment of the debate.