Supplemental: Stooges assess upcoming coverage!

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2015

How to treat liberals like fools:
For our money, Rachel Maddow’s opening segment last night was just appallingly bad.

That said, Chris and Lawrence were even worse in their discussions of the possible coverage of Candidate Hillary Clinton. Each was assisted by a gaggle of corporate cable stooges.

At issue was a directive from a private group about potential sexist coverage of Clinton. On Hardball and on The Last Word, panels of pundits rolled their eyes at the amateurish directive.

The irony was especially strong on Hardball. This is the way the loathsome Matthews started the discussion, helped along by the repellent Ruth Marcus:
MATTHEWS (3/30/15): Let’s get to the hottest stuff, Ruth. This is something that I want you to start with because this is a wildfire, potentially.

A group of Hillary Clinton supporters, not associated with her, calling itself the HRC Supervolunteers, is out with a list of 13 words—reminds me of George Carlin—and phrases that they say are sexist if anyone uses them to describe Hillary Clinton.

Now, these are the list. I want you to jump on these. I want to take each one at a time.

Is the word “polarizing” sexist?

MARCUS: No.

MATTHEWS: OK. And by the way, jump in here—

MARCUS: I like being the ruler here.

MATTHEWS: Well, I’ve only got one woman here.

FINEMAN: Go ahead.

MATTHEWS: Calculating.

MARCUS: No.

MATTHEWS: Disingenuous.

MARCUS: No.

MATTHEWS: Insincere?

MARCUS: No.

[…]

MATTHEWS: OK. Entitled?

MARCUS: True.

MATTHEWS: Overconfident?

MARCUS: Possibly.

MATTHEWS: Possibly what?

MARCUS: Possibly she is overconfident.

MATTHEWS: But is it sexist?

MARCUS: It has nothing to do with gender.

MATTHEWS: None of these sexist so far! Secretive?

MARCUS: True, and not gender-related.
On and on—and on and on—these relentless cable hacks went.

Will Hillary Clinton face sexist coverage in the upcoming campaign? We have no idea. Truth to tell, there was no particular reason to discuss the press release by the unaffiliated, amateurish advocacy group.

That said, all the pundits, Marcus included, understood that Matthews trashed Clinton for many years, in openly misogynistic ways, from the late 1990s right through the 2008 campaign.

He was hardly alone at MSNBC. In 2008, Keith Olbermann had to apologize on the air for one especially egregious suggestion.

By 2008, Matthews’ conduct bad been so egregious, for so many years, that it finally got profiled by the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz. The man was an undisguished, decade-long cesspool of misogyny and loathing.

A person like Marcus won’t tell you that. Instead, she will simper on command.

She’ll happily tell you the words which aren’t sexist. She will be careful not to recall what Matthews used to call Clinton.

Over on The Last Word, Lawrence’s childish cable stars were every bit as bad, Josh Barro almost excepted. All his panelists understand the history of the channel’s stars. They also know that, above all else, they mustn’t tell you the truth.

Will Hillary Clinton face sexist coverage? By June 2008, Maureen Dowd’s conduct had been so bad that she was savaged for her misogyny by Clark Hoyt, the New York Times public editor. Matthews’ insults down through the years couldn’t have been more clear.

This is the history of the topic the stooges pretended to analyze. On both programs, they knew the rules—they are the children, and children must always keep their pretty traps shuts.

To watch Lawrence’s segment, just click here. For the clowning on Hardball, click this.

You’ll be watching two gaggles of stooges. They all understand their top assignment:

They must cover for their hosts. They must never tell you the truth.

Barely scratching the surface: Kurtz profiled Matthews' long-standing attacks on the “witchy” woman he called “Nurse Ratched” in February 2008.

This was part of his profile. It barely scratched the surface:
KURTZ (2/14/08): [T]he Hardball host has been particularly hard on the former first lady, to the point where some of her advisers have glared at him at parties. And there is a history here. In 1999, amid speculation that Clinton might seek a Senate seat in New York, Matthews told viewers: “No man would say, ‘Make me a U.S. senator because my wife's been cheating on me.’ ”

The following year, he said: “Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people—like maybe me on occasion. . . . She drives some of us absolutely nuts.”

In 2005, when Clinton criticized the administration on homeland security the day after terrorist bombings in London, Matthews said: “It's a fact: You look more witchy when you're doing it like this.”

In recent weeks, he has asked whether Clinton's criticism of Obama makes her “look like Nurse Ratched.” He has said that “Hillary's loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition” and likened her to Evita Peron,
“the one who gives gifts to the little people, and then they come and bring me flowers and they worship at me because I am the great Evita.”

It was against that backdrop that Matthews sparked a furor last month when he said: “I'll be brutal: The reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around.”
Kurtz was barely scratching the surface. Indeed, Matthews had been comparing Clinton to Evita Peron at least since 1999, when his coverage of senate Candidate Clinton sometimes crossed over the line to the realm of the deranged.

In fairness, he did that on behalf of Saint Rudy. So at least in 1999 and 2000, he had a very good cause!

Last night, Matthews' guests all knew this history. They also knew that, above all else, they must never tell.

52 comments:

  1. The bald spot with a keyboard left out the obligatory paragraph stating that this behavior is the exclusive fault of liberals and progressives.

    FTFY - you're welcome TDH.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Truth to tell, there was no particular reason to discuss the press release by the unaffiliated, amateurish advocacy group."

    Truth to tell, if Bob Somerby had been following the story he could have written a better post. There was no press release at all, as New Republic indicated March 28th.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121399/internet-outrage-machine-finally-ready-hillary

    The New Republic based its work on an earlier article in the Washington Times five days ago:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-that-warned-media-against-sexism-toward-hillary-in-no-way-attached-to-campaign/article/2562108

    But, like the Boston street tough he is...liberal, lazy, and dumb, Bob Somerby took the story as an opportuntiy to rehash battles gone with MSNBC's hated hosts.

    Somerby could have trashed MSNBC for its coverage on Monday, and more importantly, the NY Times and Washington Post and others who preceded MSNBC for falling overboard over one guy's mistaken e-mail. Instead he was too busy (humbling a senior in college or fighting to prove his keys to the wage gap stolen strawberries did exist) to notice this journalistic embarrassment.

    Or Somerby could have used this groups's e-mail, like he did the comment about country music and muslims, to advise liberals not to do stupid things on behalf of their causes (in this case Hillary Clinton) since the corporate media and right wing noise machine will make hay while the sun shines.

    Instead Baltimore Bob the Blogger takes you back to relive 2008. Because nobody will remind us of how bad Chris Matthews is and heaven's knows you never get to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looked to me like Chris was making a little of that hay. He's proven quite good at it, that's how he became a multi-millionaire.

      Delete
    2. Shame on Somerby for not getting out front on this (non)story. His chronology is lacking. He didn't trash MSNBC a day earlier ...

      Get real, a day earlier and you would have bitched just the same.

      Delete
    3. Matthews says Hillary advocacy group "is out with a list."

      The REAL story, says troll, is that -- contra Somerby(!) -- it's not a press release!!!

      Hilarious refusal of MSNBC guests to confront ACTUAL history of their benefactor's misogyny? Old news, yawns troll.

      Delete
    4. Somerby could have covered this story when Amy Chozick of the New York Times started it last Wednesday. But she did it on Twitter and Bob Somerby doesn't do social media. It was quickly picked up with an outrageously headlined Washington Post online piece. Bob has been covering their "jihad" about speaking fees but managed to miss this non-story. By Thursday it was all over the right wing echo chamber, Daily Caller, Drudge, etc. but Bob no longer covers the right wing internet, just those Maoist women at Salon. On Saturday the New Republic had the whole story, including the fact that this was an e-mail by one person, and that the group was a very small Facebook group, and a false Twitter account in their name had already been created to further the silly outrage.

      The story was debunked before MSNBC picked it up Monday. If Somerby wanted to wait six days after the story broke to cover it, the least he could do is, if he is serious about covering the press like he used to, gotten his facts right and covered how the story started and spread. That is what he used to do.

      Instead, Somerby is either lazy or he disappeared facts.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous @ 6:58/10:14 just did what TDH used to do.

      Delete
    6. Uh oh! Somerby, in his excellent coverage of that sexist pig Chris Matthews reminds us what Howie Kurtz had to say about that old meanie back in 2008.

      "By 2008, Matthews’ conduct bad been so egregious, for so many years, that it finally got profiled by the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz. The man was an undisguished, decade-long cesspool of misogyny and loathing."

      Unfortunately Somerby's sometime pal Howie has gone over to Fox. Here is how he covered this very story on Hillary just last week.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/27/hillary-backer-calling-clinton-calculating-or-ambitious-is-coded-sexism/

      Looks like all Howie could remember is the "Iron My Shirt" sign and the "Hint Of Cleavage" claptrap. He forgot all about Matthews. And Somerby missed Howie's latest effort altogether. Is it because they are all men? Is it because they are all getting too old for the game?

      Gack!



      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DO these HRC Supervolunteers have any super powers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should've stuck with 7:18 cheechee

      Delete
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGB8Uuffi4M

      Delete
    3. cicero,
      Are they black? If so, Officer Wilson of the Ferguson PD (along with a bunch of others, who aren't the slightest bit racist--- as far as you know) would certainly think so.

      Berto

      Delete
    4. @ Berto,

      HRC was lying when she claimed she didn't allow her BlackBerry to associate with other communication devices. She did not use it exclusively while she was Secretary of Foggy Bottom. HRC was simultaneously using an iPad. If only HRC had Officer Wilson's credibility.

      Delete
    5. @cicero,
      I could care less about your hard-on for HRC.
      I was responding to your question about superpowers, and was pointing out that she isn't black.

      BTW, Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police are liars (and racists). His testimony (Brown ran about 35 feet, then turned and charged back towards him) is not supported by forensic evidence. Brown's body was over 150 feet from Officer Wilson's car.
      Probably the least surprising part of your response was that Wilson has any credibility whatsoever, in your mind.
      Berto

      Delete
    6. The testimony is correct if you realize he meant yards instead of feet. It is an easy mistake, especially under stress.

      Delete
    7. Unless your being sarcastic, 35 feet and 35 yards are easy to confuse?

      Delete
    8. 35 yards = about 105 feet. The distances are the same. Rather than assuming he lied it makes more sense that he misspoke and said feet instead of yards. People do that all the time.

      Delete
    9. "People do that all the time."

      One minute into April Fool's Day. Great line.

      Delete
    10. 150 feet = 50 yards, not 35.
      Instead of thinking he misspoke or lied, maybe he doesn't know math. If so, a good career move for him might be putting the GOP budget together.

      Berto

      Delete
    11. Our most reliable witness, who corroborated Office Wilson, No. 102, knew he was 450 feet from the SUV. He saw Brown's hands as he turned, over 600 feet away. That is 200 + yards. Go stand at the end of a football field, imagine cars and trees in between, and tell me what you see on the ground at the opposite goal post. Now double the distance.

      Delete
    12. Why of course "our most reliable witness" is the one that tells the story we want to believe!

      Delete
    13. There is a reason why, in covering football, the press box is generally not at field level.

      Delete
    14. "His testimony (Brown ran about 35 feet, then turned and charged back towards him) is not supported by forensic evidence. Brown's body was over 150 feet from Officer Wilson's car."

      "The testimony is correct if you realize he meant yards instead of feet."

      Wilson testified that he pursued Brown, but in the DOJ report it's not clear that he said how far. Add whatever that distance is.

      Delete
    15. And we get right back to police officer chasing down an unarmed teen, who he thought could kill him with one punch.
      That isn't necessarily ridiculous, the DOJ report isn't clear about Mike Brown's reach (arm span).

      Delete
    16. "And we get right back to police officer chasing down an unarmed teen,"

      After the teen hit him and tried to take his gun away. And how would he know he was unarmed?

      Delete
    17. "And how would he know he was unarmed?"

      If he was armed, the teen would have shot him when he told him to 'get the fuck off the street", and then backed-up and hit him with his car.

      Delete
    18. "If he was armed, the teen would have shot him when he told him to 'get the fuck off the street", and then backed-up and hit him with his car."

      Bullshit. The *only* way to determine if Brown is unarmed is by a physical search, not by guessing how he may or may not act.

      Delete
    19. That's right. Brown was assumed to be armed. Because, you know, he's black.

      Delete
    20. Doesn't matter if Brown was armed or not. He was a black teen, so he had super-human powers. (The strength of Hulk Hogan, the ability to kill a cop with one punch, etc).

      Delete
    21. Hey guys! Obama had every reason to confirm the False Narrative" that you all jumped on back in August even though you didn't have all the facts. But try as he could there just wasn't anything there to confirm the False Narrative and instead Wilson's story is what they had to support. It's OK though, there will be other False Narratives in the future you can embrace with no facts. Have a great holiday!

      Delete
    22. @ Berto,

      Saying "I could care less about your hard-on for HRC" means you actually do care about priapism for HRC.

      Delete
    23. @ 8:14

      Brown certainly used his mere mortal physical stature and strength to intimidate the liquor store proprietor prior to his confrontation with the LEO.

      Delete
    24. LEO? That's a funny way to say "gang memeber".

      Delete
    25. @ 12:19

      Officer Wilson belonged to a gang?

      Delete
  5. It's telling that Tre Gowdy wants to conduct the "hearing" on HRC's email use in private. That way, he and his operatives can selectively leak excerpts from the hearing out of context and spin the leaks to attack HRC, just like Darrel Issa did with the initial BENGHAZI!!BENGHAZI!! hearing.

    And Somerby thinks we can reason with these people using logic and facts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's telling that Tre Gowdy wants to conduct the "hearing" on HRC's email use in private."

      There will be additional public hearings for sure.

      Delete
    2. True that.
      As many as it takes to taint HRC. Whether there is any proof of wrongdoing or not.

      Delete
    3. Well, she did set up her own server with only herself having administrative rights. That casts a permanent pall over any claim she has of her innocence around her email, and it's of her own doing.

      Delete
    4. "Well, she did set up her own server with only herself having administrative rights. That casts a permanent pall over any claim she has of her innocence around her email, and it's of her own doing."

      Yeah, because it is a long tradition in this country that all Secretaries of State are assumed to be criminals and criminal conduct should be assumed unless proven otherwise.

      Please direct me to the link for all of Colin Powell's and Condoleezza Rice's emails.

      Delete
    5. "Colin Powell's and Condoleezza Rice's emails. "

      Their service predated specific rules codified by National Archives in 2009.

      Delete
    6. So what.

      "the National Archives has always required the secretaries to preserve their records regardless of the format, and the same requirements applied to Powell and Clinton. Powell is “a perfect comparison to Clinton. Neither were prohibited from using personal e-mail. Both were supposed to preserve their records. Both likely have the vast majority of their records preserved anyway because they sent them to and got them from state.gov accounts where someone else preserved them. However, in one instance (Clinton), she kept her records and has been able to turn them over to State. And in Powell’s case, whatever unique records he had were ultimately destroyed.”

      Delete
    7. mm, that statement comes up with a "Three Pinocchios" rating: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/10/the-misleading-democratic-spin-on-hillary-clintons-emails/

      Delete
    8. Gerhardt FrochsteinApril 2, 2015 at 1:16 AM

      4:03- do you know what codifies means?

      1041 - along with Polifact, Kessler's column has been variously discredited numerous times including here by the bald spot with a keyboard, so the pinocchio bs is hardly a litmus test. Who's factchecking the factcheckers?

      The wingnuts blew their chance to torpedo HRC's 2016 presidential run (and hopefully, win - look at the alternative!) with their faux Benghazi "scandal . As far as credibility goes, the GOP is right up there with "the dog ate my homework" on this issue. In other words, nothing to see here - move along.

      Delete
    9. Nope, Gerhardt, the email problem is permanent and of her own making, you will see. Even many of the liberal pundits are admitting it and hoping for Plan B. :)

      Delete
    10. Right. It was given three Pinocchios even though every word was absolutely true. This is par for the course when anyone named Clinton is involved.

      Colin L. Powell served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005. He used personal email for official State Department business. And we all remember the non-stop hounding he received when he left office to turn over all his emails.
      Actually, no. This never happened. Everyone shrugs and says, what a nice man.

      Rice, Secretary of State from 2005 to 2009 simply states that she wasn't a "habitual emailer". Everyone shrugs and says that's nice.

      Even if Clinton had used a state department email account, she would still have been permitted to delete anything personal just like everyone else. She and only she would have determined which ones to delete. Therefore it is a distinction without a difference. She turned over for archiving all the her official state department business emails. Why is it assumed that Clinton and only Clinton is hiding something?

      Delete
    11. "the email problem"

      no explanation necessary,

      Delete
    12. mm: "Run Elizabeth Run!" LOLOLOL!

      Delete