Yes, well, complaining and all that isn't going to have any effect unless there are real consequences for Matthews behavior.

And by agreeing to debate on NBC, the Clinton campaign has just removed any teeth from the complaints.

It's simple behaviorism. Matthews isn't going to change his until MSNBC gets on his case. MSNBC sees no reason to do that because there aren't real, tangible consequences if it doesn't.

I use to watch Hardball nightly but it seemed like a couple of months before Iowa he decided to make it his mission to run Hillary into the ground at every opportunity. His comments and tone were so negative towards her I finally decided to stop watching his show. In fact it was so bad that despite the fact I'm an Obama supporter and Chris takes every chance he can get to gush about Barack it still turned my stomach.

I'm not sure if he has something against the Clintons or just Hillary or the idea of a woman in power bothers him but he as some personal issue with her.

Matthews and Russert have damaged the NBC brand. When you have Tom Brokaw woodshedding Matthews on national television for "stampeding" the electorate, the problem has gotten out of hand. Russert's "interview" of Hillary on MTP a few weeks ago was an abomination, with quotes being taken out of context with no opportunity for rebuttal (i.e., the clip about Sen. Obama's shifting position of Iraq being a "fantasy"). Its not just Matthews, its also Russert. (And David Shuster's remark, while mistaken, is the least of the netork's problems). Sen. Obama does not need NBC to tilt the playing field for his campaign.

Michael A.

You might have a point about the "victim" card -- I think the Shuster debate was too protracted and distracting. But, as this site correctly pointed out, it really was not about Shuster.

Russert's conduct has been an absolute disgrace. Here is an example, that I find galling:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130003

That Russert's low blow was directed against
President Clinton -- who was not being interviewed, and had no chance to rebut in real time -- shows just how distorted and unprofessional the "interview" process has become on MTP.

Greg, I'm not following your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that just because Clinton was already upset with Matthew's unhinged commentary, she wasn't upest with Shuster -- she just used his comments as a means of venting over Matthews. I think a simpler and more accurate explanation of her reaction to Shuster's comments is she found it offensive to be accused of "pimping out" her daughter. Simply because Clinton was already upset with Chris Matthews doesn't mean that she is not legitimately upset with the next MSNBC knucklehead to spew sexist bile. Seems to me Clinton can be upset with both Matthews and Shuster. and the next time Tucker Carlson makes an idiotic comment about her castrating men she'll likely, and rightly, be upset with that also.

I saw it, and it was weird.

I'm an Obama supporter, mostly, but at that moment I thought "Damn! Maybe Hillary just put Matthews in his place for once and for all", and I was hoping that the whole embarassing thing might serve as a check on his behavior.

Because he really looked like a total loser, to me.

Sadly enough, it hasn't affected his subsequent behavior in any way.

When it's election night, I just turn on CNN. I'm an Obama supporter, but I think Tweetie is an abomination before the journalism gods and listening to him makes my ovaries want to go punch him in the nose.

On the other hand, you don't take your anger out on someone else just because they're weaker. That's wrong. She was mad at Tweetie but didn't have the guts to take him on so she went after his little brother. That says volumes.

Exactly why I said from the beginning that Shuster did not deserve to take the fall for the whole network. The suspension was deserved, but his firing would not have been.

Matthews has been MUCH better in the last few weeks, from what I've seen. Ever since his own apology, but even more after Shuster's suspension.

On MSNBC, the juxtaposition of Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan is delightful.

Chris Mathews just delivered another valentine to Obama, painting the Clintons in an unflattering light as usual and extoling the virtues of the abilty to give a good speech. Apparantly this is Obama's only claim to fame, but its good enough for Mathews who actually compared him to Winston Churchill, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagin.

When the governor of Wisc. was asked to list Obama's achievments, anything... the governor couldn't really list anything except vague statements. Nothing of a tangible nature. So what did Chris Mathews do with that? Went back to saying how great it is that Obama is a better speech giver than Hillary.

Its laughable. This is the same guy (Mathews) who voted for Bush! Yeah, he's got a lot of good judgment right?

Rae

So are we going to get an admission from Josh Marshall that Hillary's letter was NOT demanding that Shuster be fired, and that he, Josh Marshall, was demonstrating an inexcusable failure in journalistic objectivity by stating in a headline as fact that Hillary WAS making that demand?

I didn't think so.

Because then people would start to notice how he pushes his biases on this site just about everywhere he can where he thinks he can get away with it. Which is not a good thing for someone who wants to pretend to be leading a fair news organization appealing to all Democrats.

The whole things was very weird, rather icky ..... He'd asked a question (nothing particularly out of the way that I recall) and she made the comment about some men just being obsessed with her. He was, I believe, in the process of denying that when she started strolling slowly toward him saying with a real drawl "Chrisss -- to -- furrr" Very odd and awfully, awfully uncomfortable. Actually that approach and drawled name was the most uncomfortable part, in my opinion.

He was beet red as I recall (tho that doesn't show up in this clip). Then he did the offensive cheek-pinch and she did the offensive cheek-rub and a big hug. ---- All in all, it would have been MUCH more comfortable if they'd stayed on opposite sides of the room, nodded cooly and formally,and said "Hello, how are you?" or some other meaningless phrase. Much!

As far as being stereotypically inappropriate -- I think it was about a draw. Hillary was *most definitely* the one to move things from a typical reporter/candidate conversation to ... well, whatever that was. That's the problem with out-of-context quotations and, apparently, video clips.

Re: Matthews in general. I'm astonished. If I found someone so repulsive or offensive, I simply wouldn't watch them. Life is too short.

Anyone who read a good newspaper could tell Saddam was not a threat. Anyone who is a good lawyer could tell he was not a threat. What evidence was there that he was a threat? There were almost zero facts to support the proposition that he was a threat to the only superpower on earth.

As to Mathews, he's purely a sexist, but he always opposed the war in Iraq. He was one of the few not taken in by the neocon spin and if he has contempt for Clinton for her surrender to them, well so do I.

Matthews is a very old-fashioned Catholic guy on matters of sex - anyway that's my take on the guy. My family is full of these types! But he's also the kind of old-fashioned Catholic guy who joined the Peace Corps. I'm more worried about disgusting war than I am about Matthews rather harmless form of sexism. Hillary playing the victim on this does her no good. Matthews thinks like old Catholic guys in Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Hillary as victim won't play with that group and their wives probably already know how to handle these guys. After all, Matthews wife has a professional job. He's not keeping her locked up in the kitchen.

Yeah right Bird. First Shuster is not a street kid. He is 41 years old. Second, the "vernacular" defense is pretty much nonsense. He is a professional journalist, not a rapper. Young people are also much more free in the use of the terms "bitches" and "ho's". Would it be just fine for Shuster to call Chelsea a bitch, or Michelle Obama a 'ho? I hear young people of all races using the term "nigga" now. So it would be just fine for Shuster to call Obama nigga? You know, just being young and hip.

As to the Catholic men are sexist defense -- wow. Call me crazy, or anti-catholic, but I don't think catholic men of a certain age have a license to be sexist on the public airways. I know a lot of southern babptist of a certain age who are racist. I don't want to hear them spout their racist bile on my TV set. I'll keep it simple, Chris Matthews can be right on the war, on abortion, school choice -- whatever issue you choose -- that doesn't excuse sexism. The so-called reverend and disgusting anti-gay bigot Fred Phelps opposed the Iraq war also. Needless to say that does not excuse his "fags must die" bigotry. Chris Matthews is constantly demeaning to women and he should be called on it.

I'm not denying Matthews is a sexist but I think he's a throwback to a generation older than his own. It would bother me more if I felt that was Hillary's problem but I think with her it's much more complex than generic sexism. She has this soap opera relationship with Bill. If every married guy hasn't had an affair surely most have fantasized about having one and their nightmare is waking up to the "forgiving" wife who holds the "affair card" over their heads till death or divorce do they part. It's the Bill owes Hillary thing that's just too weird. And her trying to be the iron lady one minute and play victim the next is way the heck too complicated. It's a turn off for too many people. Bill may owe Hillary but no one else does.

Wasabi, "You think it is perfectly acceptable to throw around sexist mysogynist statements on a national political news program?"

Get off the PC soap box. If you are talking about Shuster, "pimping" Is not a "sexist mysogynist" statement. Where have you been for the last decade? While it might be inapprorpiate slang for a journalist, trying to make it more than that is dishonest.

If you are speaking of Chris Matthews, check out the Washington Post article today by Howard Kurtz "Hardbrawl: "Political Talker Chris Matthews Pulls No Punches"

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303418.html

Irritating and even infuriating, Chris Matthews is not a sexist mysoginist either. He speaks his unchecked thoughts. Evidently, he recently said something to the effect that Hillary's policial career is the result of her husband's infidelity, Clinton went balistic, and he apologized under pressure. So harsh, but so true! Many women like to portray Hillary as the paragon of strong, independent feminine virtue. She isn't. She's Mrs. Bill Clinton, enabler, "victim" and saavy opportunist. Sorry, but its true.

When the Clintons go balistic, it's usually because the TRUTH has been spoken. Classic Rove: attack your opponents on their strength and your weakness.

"Matthews is not a sexist misogynist either."

Good lord, Matthews is the definition of a sexist misogynist. I am not go through the litany of terms he has for Hillary Clinton, (such as Nurse Ratchet, Madame Defarde, etc.), but I do ask that folks just take a look at the work that Media Matters has compiled -- it is Chris Matthews, in his own words:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801160006

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801170001

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801180013

I don't know, but maybe the problem is overly complicated remote control units. Some people can't seem to figure out how to change the channel or turn the television off.

After hearing some of what Obama has been preaching to the empty masses who are in need of something to fill the hole left by the last 8 years of the Bush whitehouse, its a little easier to understand why these Obama cult followers are so crazed.

To try to get them to listen to something as boring and mundane as logic, policies, programs, etc., is like trying to teach disciples of Christ, calculus. They don't care. They're mesmerized and they're loving it. They don't even care if it means taking our country down with their swoon in mass.

Like those who followed Jim Jones to that little island and drank the Kool aid, these people are mesmerized by such slogans as:

"We are the ones we've been waiting for." (Cheers, applause.) "We are the change that we seek." These people actually buy into this empty rhetoric. Facts? When they keep bathing in such a nice warm sudsy bubble bath such as that, who wants to be bothered with mere facts?

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama as written by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

How do you top that with mere truth or fact??

As Krauthammer wrote: "Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. "

So what do you do with these people? The same thing that has to be done with Rev. Moon followers and any cult victim, DE-PROGRAM them. The problem is, when you have such masses that have fallen victim to such mass hysteria, you can't really do that. The last time we had such a phenomena was in the days of Hitler. Hitler too, enthralled his followers with such a passion that they marched in mass to follow him right off the cliff.

Hillary needs to show the emptiness and folly of this approach by Obama and to reach people BEFORE they are programmed by this empty rhetoric. Catch them BEFORE they innocently drink the Kool Aid and its too late. Our country is at stake!

As for Chris Mathews and MNBC's coverage, as Krauthammer pointed out, even Mathews has come under the Obama swoon. "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg."

Read the article at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...his_spell.html

It would all be too funny if so much were not at stake.

Rae