Chris Matthews hates Hillary Clinton

Matthews detests Hillary, yet continually denies it. That's clear just from listening to him. But it's nice to get some numbers to support that impression, and Media Matters has done a study of his opinions on his show, MSNBC's Hardball, during the months of September, October, and November. MM compared his opinions on Hillary to his opinions on Rudy Giuliani.

The results demonstrate that Matthews has been particularly friendly to Rudy Giuliani in recent months, and extremely hostile toward Hillary Clinton. Not only is there a qualitative difference between the kinds of praise and criticism he offers these two candidates, but a quantitative difference, as well: Matthews made 10 negative remarks about Clinton for every negative remark he made about Giuliani, and nearly three times as many positive remarks about the former New York City mayor as about Clinton. The ratio of positive to negative remarks was 3.5-to-1 for Giuliani, but 1-to-8.2 for Clinton.

• Matthews made 10 positive remarks about Hillary Clinton in the past three months, most of which were evaluations of her campaign performance. But six of these 10 remarks also contained some criticism, as when he said, "She has been charming but cold and absolutely flawless," or when he described a debate as "a highly scripted, brilliant performance by Hillary Clinton." Others -- for instance, his praise of Clinton's success in getting support from "every interest area in the Democratic Party" -- could also plausibly be interpreted as backhanded compliments.
• Matthews made 82 negative remarks about Clinton during this period. They cover a wide range of topics, but most have to do with character issues -- that Clinton is overly calculating, disingenuous, or unethical.
• Matthews made 28 positive remarks about Rudy Giuliani, most concerning how much of a leader and how tough Giuliani is.
• Matthews made eight negative remarks about Giuliani, most about his stance on immigration.

The complete list of positive and negative remarks is available at the end of this report.[2]

The picture painted by this list is clear. Indeed, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported in June 2001 that Matthews told an MSNBC colleague, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

Why does this matter? Well, here is Rachel Maddow discussing the fact that women voted for Hillary in New Hampshire because they are angry that the media is piling on Hillary because she is a woman.



Chris' anger at being questioned comes through this clip clearly. Apparently he can't accept that others have the temerity to disagree with his self-image as a competent, fair-minded and balanced journalist.

Chris clearly doesn't understand just how many people in the TV viewing audience recognize his misogyny and find it disgusting, so that when the differences between the candidates are not of major import, those people just might vote in a way so as to demonstrate their disgust with him.

That's an interesting, if unprovable, explanation of Hillary's vote from women. Whatever - I don't like Chris at all, and I'm glad to see him getting flack. He has set himself up for the flack, and it is good to see it going his way. The media matters study certainly justifies it.

---

Addendum 5:01 PM CST
Here is a great example of Chris Matthews expressing his personal loathing for Hillary Clinton.



I got this from a really excellent post by Tristero over at Hullabaloo. Tristero and Bob Somerby of the Howler are completely correct. The problem for Democrats like Hillary isn't just that the right-wing Wurlitzer and their propaganda outlet, FOX News, don't like Democrats. It's that the entire national Press corps detests Democrats. Ask Al Gore and John Kerry.

But don't ask Chris Matthews. He'll just tell you that he is an even-handed unbiased journalist selling his opinion on TV, and that he has no influence at all on how people think about the people they have never seen in person, but know only by the way the media (like Chris) portrays them.

Qualified Republican Presidential nominees "Well, does Fred Thompson at least smell manly?"

TRex over at Firedoglake points to Chris Matthews' comments regarding the potential Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson. Poor Chris. He is reduced to asking if Fred at least "smells manly." (Crooks and Liars has the video.) Give Chris credit. When there's not much to work with, Chris will work with what he has. That's what a good public relations flack does.

So Chris Matthews is reduced to trying to push Fred Thompson's Presidential candidacy based on the manliness of his smell, we viewers might well suspect that the FOX/MSNBC Republican machine (and its associated political party) has hit a spot of trouble in politics. Ya think?

Well, let's look at the situation.

The Republicans have a bench of potential nominees that even the Republicans can't stomach. Everyone is looking at Romni, Guilliani and McCain in incredulity, with Democrats saying "Thank you, God." and Republicans saying "Oh. My. God!"

When the best person on stage is an ancient crackpot Obstetrician (from the Texas District next to that of the disgraced Tom DeLay) whose claim to fame is a strong following among anti-government Libertarians and who is famous for regularly voting against the entire House of Representatives on basic things like the military budget, the phrase “Houston, we have a problem.” takes on all new level of meaning to Republicans.

But all is not lost. There is, somewhere deep in the Tennessee woods, a lobbyist, actor, one-term do-nothing ex-Senator with no significant credentials or accomplishments beyond appearing old and gruff. He is not known for standing for anything of any kind politically, and beyond being elected to the Senate during the Republican landslide of 1994, has zero political accomplishments. OK. Positive side – think “Political blank slate”. And he does have that tiny, perky little trophy wife about half his age with the cute giggle. Compared to the current potential Republican dwarfs, that's a real positive.

Of course, he makes depressed basset hounds look positively attractive, but who else is there? How do the Republican flacks repackage this utter political do-nothing vacuum into someone who desperate Republicans can vote for??

Well, how does he smell? Is it manly enough? That's what Chris Mathews is trying out. And why shouldn't he? Matthews has no reputation to protect, and he is as desperate as the rest of the Republicans to find someone or something better than the current crop of potential nominees.

If FOX and MSNBC can't somehow use the do-nothing cradle robbing ex-Senator lobbyist into a viable candidate who makes Republicans' hearts go pitty-pat -

(NO! Keep him away from Dick Cheney until after his surgery for his new defibrillator battery next Summer! What if the build-up works? Some people's hearts just can't DEAL with pitty-pat!)

- they may be forced to pull a wooden or fiberglass puppet out of the closet from somewhere. (Wooden IS preferred. It has to appeal to conservatives, after all.) Then Chris Matthews will be lauding the beauty of this new candidates' hinges while his handlers whisper urgently into his ear mike (Chris - don't talk about the strong, pretty strings!)

The lobbyist-actor Thompson with the remarkably unmanly name "Fred" is really the best they have. Expect to see the Wurlitzer to push him as hard as they can.

[ h/t to Glenn Greewald]