LET’S PLAY DUMBBELL: Hardball’s assortment of jugglers and clowns!


Part 1—Chris has a memory lapse: The scams, the cons, the frauds are endless on the cable TV show Hardball.

This has been true for at least fifteen years. Career liberals still haven’t said so.

Do such people fail to notice the endless assortment of scams and cons? Consider something Chris Matthews said on last Friday’s program.

Michael Tomasky, a favorite of ours, was making a good solid point about our two-party politics. “I don’t blame cloth-coat Republicans [who vote for mink-coat Republicans],” he said:
TOMASKY (4/4/14): If you care deeply about abortion, if you think abortion is murder, you’re going to vote Republican even though you know the Republican Party is for the rich people and not for you. If your gun is important to you, you’re going to vote Republican—that’s fine. It’s the Democrats’ job to make these things clear to people and—
Tomasky wasn’t able to finish his thought. At this point, Matthews broke in with an odd account of the glorious Clinton years.

(To watch this whole segment, click here.)

Matthews recalled how brilliant both Clintons were back in the 1990s. Slack-jawed, the young analysts rose from their chairs:
MATTHEWS (continuing directly): But you know who’s doing that, and not to sell them too hard because they don’t need help, is the Clintons.

Bill Clinton was so—and so Hillary Clinton, when they were working together as a team, back in the 90s—they were so sharp that they would say, “We’re not going to let you divide the country on culture.” They made a point of separating themselves from the far left—Sister Souljah. They weren’t part of those rap songs, that rap music. They said, “We’re not part of that.” And they caused some trouble with Jesse Jackson over that fight.

But they also said, “We’re for people that work hard and play by the rules. We’re for people on abortion rights.” They wanted it to be “safe, legal and rare.”

TOMASKY: Correct.

MATTHEWS: They didn’t say “outlawed”—safe, legal and rare. So they were able to cut it across and say, “You can be culturally middle of the road, or even conservative a bit, and vote Democrat because we’re not against you.” They made that—they were very good politicians to make that point.
We were surprised—and not surprised—to hear Matthews say these things. To hear him gush about Hillary Clinton’s brilliance in the 90s.

We weren’t surprised for an obvious reason—we’ve chronicled Matthews’ endless cons over the past sixteen years. If you see the gent’s lips flapping, you can assume it’s a con.

We were surprised because we remembered what Matthews said about Hillary Clinton in real time, in the 1990s. That includes the two years when he broadcast nightly scams designed to send Bush to the White House.

We even remembered his endless assaults on Hillary Clinton right through 2008. As we watched Hardball last Friday night, our memory was just that good!

Last Friday, Matthews told almost a million viewers that Hillary Clinton was a “very good politician,” “so sharp,” back in the 1990s. As he did, we recalled what this gigantic fraud was telling the world in real time.

Just a guess—most people who watch Hardball today don’t understand that its spittle-flecked host is a ginormous con man.

They don’t know what he said back then, about both Clintons and then about Candidate Gore. They may not realize how fraudulent his various presentations still are, even after he’s been repurposed as a spittle-flecked crusader of the left.

Did they realize how fake last Thursday’s segment about health care was, the one with Joan Walsh and Michelle Bernard? We’re going to guess that they didn’t.

Hardball viewers may not know that Matthews is dumbing them down even now. They may not see that his tribal rantings could conceivably make it harder for progressive goals to succeed.

Why don’t Matthews’ current viewers know that he’s a giant fraud? In part, it’s because they didn’t watch his shows in the 1990s (and beyond), or because they didn’t watch his programs closely enough.

In part, it’s because people like Tomasky have always refused to tell them.

The career liberal world has always refused to tell the truth about Matthews. It refused to do so in real time, when he was assailing both Clintons, then Candidate Gore.

They gave him a pass on his endless misogyny right through 2008. Career liberals saw no evil!

Today, they refuse to recall what Matthews said and did in those bad old days, when he scratched and clawed and lied to send George Bush to the White House.

When he reinvents his past views, they just sit there and take it. They refuse to challenge his low-IQ gong-shows which seem to support liberal causes.

Matthews has repurposed himself over the course of his cable career. He has transformed himself from a disgraceful anti-Clinton/Gore screamer to a dimwitted screamer of the pseudo-left.

But then, Walsh and Bernard have reinvented themselves as well. Everyone chuckled about Bernard’s reinvention at the end of last Thursday night’s segment.

A lot of people who play Hardball are no longer what they once were. In truth, the program seems to be larded with cable news jugglers and clowns.

For sixteen years, the career liberal world has refused to discuss this program’s fraudulent host. Tomorrow morning, we will recall what Matthews said in real time.

Coming: Additional highlights from last week:

Matthews with Walsh and Bernard about health care; Matthews attempts to discuss the Mastro report


  1. Is there such a thing as a career conservative? A career pseudo conservative?

    No. At least not in the archives of Somerby World.

    1. And who exactly are these "career liberals" who, by looking away, are complicit in the crimes of Matthews?

      Bob doesn't tell us. He won't name names.

    2. At least one of them has to be named Nicole, right?

    3. Anonymous replies to his own comment, in order to create the impression that oh-so-many people hate Bob. LOL.

    4. He mentioned Tomasky in this particular post. Did you not read it?

  2. They didn't tell them because Mathews is just a regular guy who doesn't think the Clintons and Gore are angels.

    Clinton's womanizing is fair game.
    Gore's "teacher's pet" nerdiness is fair game.
    And Hillary, my God.

    Bone-gnawer has even conned some mainstream folks into thinking there was a "war on Gore" - of the two candidates in 2000, Gore was funnier, thats all. The war on Gore was caricature - the NY TImes dutifully endorsed him in the serious section of the paper.

    1. Yes, what did Hillary ever do to deserve the way Matthews attacked her in 2008?

    2. She must have stuffed lots of money in her pant-suits.

  3. I don't know about the scams, the cons, the frauds on the cable TV show Hardball.

    I do know the spittle flicking is annoying as is the interrupting. Does that make me a career liberal or a pseudo liberal?

  4. On Balance, we're not a fan of Matthews or how he reporting on the Clintons or Gore, but we have a hard time understanding this statement by Bob. "That includes the two years when he [Matthews] broadcast nightly scams designed to send Bush to the White House."

    That's quite the accusation for a residental ranter of all things Maddow (or Matthews). Does he have one scrap of evidence to support it? We doubt it. Would he accept such a statement about oh, Christie from Maddow? We doubt that too.

    Stay tuned...

    1. To clarify, does he have one scrap of evidence to suppor that Matthews reports were "..designed to send Bush to the White House?" Stress on the word designed.

    2. Bob laid all this out when he demonstrated in a series of recent posts.

      After failing to get someone killed, Matthews on air conduct provided the margin for Bush's victory and thus got tens of thousands killed. Bob proved it journalistically fairly recently.

      You must be one of the people who just showed up at TDH to defend Maddow after she convicted all those people of crimes in her witch hunting scandal coverage.

    3. You know, I really think you should read "How he got there" before asking for evidence of the perfidy of Matthews and others.

    4. "How He Got There" violates our Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

  5. Thank you, Bob. Clintons v 1.0 said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Modern progressives have decided that advocating that the killing of certain weak and disenfranchised humans shouldn't necessarily be be "rare" so long as they are in a particular location. With deliberation they removed the "rare" from the democratic platform so as not to offend modern progressives who believe the killing of certain humans is value-neutral.

    Those Clintons haven't been heard from lately. Tomasky is right to say republicans who vote against their economic interest cannot be faulted for voting for their moral interest. Modern progressives are a bizarre and degenerate breed apart from democrats of decades past including the recent Clinton era past.

    1. Except for some inconvenient facts you ignore.

      The abortion rate dropped like a rock during the Clinton administration. During the "pro-life" Bush II years, that decline flattened, and the rate began creeping back up.

      It is now dropping like a rock again.

      If Clinton and Obama are supposed to be the advocates for abortion you paint them to be, they are doing a lousy job.

      But it is nice to see your concern for pre-born "weak and disenfranchised humans." I hope your concern extends to them after they are born.

    2. The fact that abortion rates dropped is a positive development to anyone who thinks an acceptance of killing humans is "bad" and no one criticized policies that produced that result.

      However, you didn't address the fact that progressives have decided that the democratic platform was wrong to assert that abortion should be "rare" and removed the terminology. People with any ethical grounding will agree killing human beings in any context should be "rare." The New York Times should not publish wedding announcements with backstories of the couple that cavalierly include the couple's previous abortion, told in neutral-to-positive terms. "We just weren't ready so we killed him." Modern progressives have determined that it is better to accept the killing of humans as morally neutral if stating it should be "rare" might hurt the feelings of women who may abort and make them feel judged. Twisted.

      Any liberal or any human with a formed conscience for that matter, including those who are pro choice for the many defensible, humane reasons one may be pro choice, will understand that regarding a certain class of humans as expendable is not a desirable cultural development. But it is the modern progressive mindset, because modern progressivism has nothing to do with humanity and compassion. It is warmed over Stalinism.