Matthews: Hillary has such a beautiful voice!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013

Our latest “liberal” failure: Has anyone ever been repurposed the way Chris Matthews has?

For many years, he was the leading misogynist attack-dog against the vile Hillary Clinton (and a string of liberal women). But now, he has been reinvented.

Last night, he gushed and fawned. Thrills ran up both legs:

MATTHEWS (1/23/13): Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was at her best today, appearing before both Senate and House committees on foreign affairs. She showed acuity, eloquence, humanity and charm. To the reasonable questions, she offered candor and humility...

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. She never looked better. Venturing forth in unprotected waters today, she showed how not to be defensive, how not to sweat, also how to exhibit humanity, and yes compassion...

It was a magnificent display of smarts, I think, guts definitely, and caring.

[...]

You mentioned the fact of compassion and feeling. When she referred to the late Ambassador as Chris—happens to be my name—and constantly hearing her talk about Chris, she had a feeling of common human nature with that guy that a lot of these clowns didn’t even get near today.

[...]

She did look great...I thought she has a wonderful way of speaking. And I—and my old boss Tip used to say Ronald Reagan’s great strength was his voice. She has a beautiful voice. She knows how to speak for hours and it's not bothering anybody, the tremendous power of that beautiful voice she has.

[…]

Anyway, thank you, Howard Fineman, and thank you, Joan Walsh. I knew you’d love this one. I loved it, too.

Later, at the end of the show: “As her legions of followers like to say, Go, girl, go!”

Is that what her followers say? Chris made a very good try!

At any rate, Hillary has a beautiful voice—and she has never looked better! For one example of the types of things this horrible man used to say about Hillary Clinton, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/27/08.

Scroll down to “Trashing Clinton.” While in Jack Welch's employ, he ranted this way for years.

Whatever! By now, Matthews has been completely repurposed; he gushes and foams on our side. But Clinton’s twin sessions before the Congress represented the latest liberal failure. They showed the way our liberal leaders let the gong-show attacks against Susan Rice become a great cause in the world.

By now, the whole gang on The One True Channel stands to fight for Clinton and gush. But for months, while Rice was being slaughtered, the channel maintained complete silence. Just as “liberals” once kept their traps shut as both Clintons, then Gore, were savaged and slaughtered, so too our “liberal leaders” kept their traps shut as Rice was sent off to die.

In that sense, the mere fact of yesterday’s hearings represent a major liberal failure. In another way, it helps us see the pitiful state of our upper-end journalism. Even in today’s news report, this is the way the New York Times describes what Susan Rice said:

GORDON (1/24/13): A persistent line of questioning by Republican lawmakers concerned the initial comments from Ms. Rice that the attack might have resulted from a protest, over an anti-Islamic video, that spun out of control.

Mrs. Clinton defended Ms. Rice even as she appeared to distance herself from Ms. Rice’s comments. “I told the American people that heavily armed militants assaulted our compound, and I vowed to bring them to justice,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Really? Is that what Rice said? Did she say the Benghazi attack “resulted from” a protest which spun out of control?

Actually, no—she didn’t. After saying a million times that her information was subject to later correction, Rice said that extremists armed with heavy weapons came to the scene of a demonstration and then “hijacked events.”

That isn’t the same thing at all. But you live in an intellectual culture which can’t articulate such distinctions. Basic paraphrase is too hard for your upper-end press corps.

All last fall, Lawrence and Rachel refused to help—and the New York Times still can’t explain what Rice really said. For that reason, John McCain was back on Fox last night, still posing his stupid-ass question:

MCCAIN (1/23/13): I don't think [Rice] has many of the answers. The answers lie within the State Department, the CIA, and the White House. Who changed the talking points and why? Because the talking points, if it had included the classified information they had would have depicted a very different version of events than the ones that Ambassador Rice told the American people.

And, I guess finally, why would we ever think that people bring mortars and rocket propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations? I mean, on the face of it, this cannot be ignored, the fact that this was all in the heat of a presidential campaign, a president who was campaigning, saying bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda's on the run. We know that's not true.

Except, Rice never said that the demonstrators had rocket propelled grenades. She said a bunch of extremists brought the RPGs to a pre-existing demonstration, at which point they “hijacked events.”

John McCain’s question makes no sense. Due to the uselessness of our major elites, he has been asking his stupid-ass question for well over four months!

Final question: Are our liberal leaders just a gang of slobbering racists? After all, they now stand to defend the white woman after they let Rice rot!

Shouldn’t we get out R-bombs out? Or do we just do that to The Others?