The Matthews Meter

Okay, let's put it to the Matthews Meter and ask our regular panel of experts the following political question: did Chris Matthews' obsessive and openly sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton help or hurt the New York Senator in New Hampshire,  where she scored a stunning and historic comeback victory against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary for President.

Whoa, look at that number. 12-0! We rarely see such unanimity on the Matthews Meter. Everyone believes Senator Clinton was helped by the bizarre and personal attacks on MSNBC. Digby, you're one of the panelists who voted yes, what do you have to say?

I wonder if Chris Matthews realizes that every time he or one of his fellow gasbags blithely reveal their sexist lizard brains like this, another little feminist gets her (or his) wings.

Glenn Greenwald, you've described the national political media like Chris Matthews as in thrall of Drudge-like innuendo and pseudo-pschology. Can you add to that?

Can one find more compelling proof of all of this than their juvenile, sadistic, lynch-mob savaging of Hillary Clinton over the last several days based on the pettiest and most fact-free assaults and their long-harbored desire to see her crushed?

Tom Brokaw, give us some perspective. You came up in a different era of political reporting. Matthews suggested to you last night that without the amateur personality analysis, guys like him should ust stay home. What's your reaction?

No, no we don't stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they're saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this. But we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process. Look, I'm not just picking on us, it's part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding.

Okay, that's the traditional journalistic experience. But it's a different world - you know, there are all these bloggers out there, it's a free-for-all. Hillary is fair game, right Markos Moulitsas? You bloggers love this stuff because it's just so "real."

The more she's attacked on personal grounds, the more sympathy that real person will generate, the more votes she'll win from people sending a message to the media and her critics that they've gone way over the line of common decency. You underestimate that sympathy at your own peril. If I found myself half-rooting for her given the crap that was being flung at her, is it any wonder that women turned out in droves to send a message that sexist double-standards were unacceptable? Sure, it took one look at Terry McAuliffe's mug to bring me back down to earth, but most people don't know or care who McAuliffe is. They see people beating the shit out of Clinton for the wrong reasons, they get angry, and they lash back the only way they can -- by voting for her.

Yes, but surely people didn't actually react to Matthews himelf, right? Christy Hardin Smith, you voted yes - what's your take?

What is wrong with Chris Matthews?  With all of these media people? I mean that, in all honesty, what in the hell is wrong with them? Their personal loathing of Hillary Clinton shone through in every sniggering, overwrought report this week.  Their building up of Barack Obama is only their prelude and set-up for the frenzied clawing and shredding of him that is to come.  And they have well and truly written off coverage of either John Edwards or Bill Richardson solely based on their current fundraising numbers, and never mind that, as of yesterday, there had been two -- count them, only TWO -- Democratic contests. 

None of it has anything to do with substance.  It's as if a pack of hyenas were crossbred with the characters in Mean Girls and then sent out to play at journalism.

But did it actually mean, you know, real votes? Surely not, Matthew Yglesias.

"I don't think pissing off Chris Matthews is a good enough reason to pull the lever for Clinton, but I can certainly understand the impulse."

Wow, we may be learning something here, folks. Surely, there's a lesson for the Chris Matthews in the media right? What do you say, Greg Sargent?

Last night, Matthews said: "I give her a lot of personal credit; I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again." But by this morning Matthews had already forgotten his newfound respect for her. He said: "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. That's how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on the merits..."

Put aside for a sec just how loathsome this statement is on its own terms. The larger point here is that a mere half-day after acknowledging that he'd gotten it wrong and that she deserved a lot of "personal credit" for winning over voters, Matthews was already imposing his own narrative on her entire political career, the current race included, saying that her past and current success have nothing to do with "the merits."

Surely the voters don't see Hillary this way. But already Matthews is back to speaking for the voters again, oversimplifying complex voter sentiment in the most crude and reductive fashion he can muster.

Lesson unlearned. Oh, well. Maybe next time.

So, unanimous. Stunning. The Matthews Meter never lies. There you have it. One final thought from Mark Halperin and we'll be back with Lance Mannion and Jon Swift on the sad tears of Maureen Dowd, and Jason Chervokas on the new, softer Hillary.

Comments

[Tom K]

Matthews is a long-time DC insider who knows how the game works, and how the Clintons have played it.

That, and the fact that he is not directly or indirectly employed by the Clintons, goes a long way toward explaining his attitude -- which I concede is manifest.

It's like what Ed Koch (allegedly) replied when asked why Bella Abzug didn't win her own district of residence: "Those people know her."

BTW, have you ever noticed that Matthews is not too keen on GWB either? And, pretty clearly, on more substantive (policy-based) grounds? Do you not see that, or you see it but figure journalistic bias is OK in that case?

[bruce b.]

Excellent posting, Tom.

I was astounded that the pundits couldn't figure out last night why all the polls were wrong. Isn't it obvious? There was a huge REACTION by women in the last two days to the sexist Hillary-bashing. The biggest part of the feeding frenzy was Monday. The backlash came too late to be picked up by the polls.

Matthews was at the lead of the pack, ready to tar and feather Clinton. There was nothing better than to hear Tom Brokaw lecture that blow-hard on election night. Some other Matthews Moments that you didn't delineate:

-- on Monday, in an encounter with Clinton, when she showed some class by greeting him with a hug, he actually pinched her cheek. Can you imagine him pinching Bill Clinton's cheek, or Barack Obama's?

-- earlier in the campaign, he referred to Hillary's male campaign staffers as "eunuchs".

-- He seems totally impervious to how much he is hated by broad sections of the electorate. When Rachel Madow, on election night, reported that people on "Talking Points Memo" were attributing the huge gender gap to a reaction to Matthews's insensitivity, he was dumbfounded.

He's a base, ignorant guy. Why can't the network see that? The emperor has no clothes.

[bruce b.]

TK says:

BTW, have you ever noticed that Matthews is not too keen on GWB either? And, pretty clearly, on more substantive (policy-based) grounds? Do you not see that, or you see it but figure journalistic bias is OK in that case?

I don't know if the issue is bias. Almost all pundits are biased. It is MISOGYNY.

Incidentally, while he has been consistently against the war, Matthews (who admitted to voting for GWB in 2000) LED THE CHARGE against having all the votes counted in Florida. He immediately declared GWB the winner and consistently MOCKED and belittled Al Gore for trying to get the votes counted, in much the same way (albeit without the sickening sexism) that he has recently mocked and belittled Hillary Clinton.

The man is a walking plague.

[bruce b.]

There is a superb diary over at Daily Kos detailing a long, long list of sexist and misogynistic blitherings by Chris Matthews. Calling Hillary's male supporters "eunuchs", saying Hillarys aides will "scratch your eyes out", and on and on and on. This has been going on for years.

The man is hateful. He should not be on TV.

[dalloway]

Can you imagine if Matthews had said, "Barak Obama only won his Senate seat because affirmative action-loving liberals feel guilty about slavery?" He'd be off the air in a New York minute.

[Ralph DeMarco]

TK says:

BTW, have you ever noticed that Matthews is not too keen on GWB either? And, pretty clearly, on more substantive (policy-based) grounds? Do you not see that, or you see it but figure journalistic bias is OK in that case?

Huh? Political memory is short. Matthews was all gung-ho about Bush and his war policies until public opinion changed. Am I the only one who remembers when Bush landed on the air-craft carrier and Matthews said, "We're all Neocons now!". Give me a break Tom K. Matthews does not provide any real commentary on policy issues -- just like Dowd, it's all about superficial perceptions. Pathetic.

[bruce b.]

As TW and Kos have pointed out, Tom Brokaw's long (and unusual) lecture on election night, obviously directed at Chris Matthews, was devastating. What Matthews and his ilk (Matthews is the current ringleader) in the media are doing is SUBVERTING the substantive process in American politics, and trivializing politics and campaigns.

As TW has frequently said on this blog, Maureen Dowd is another one who reduces politics to a shallow soap opera.

Tom Brokaw warned Matthews: keep it up and the people will turn on you! It looks like this is happening.

[Tom K]

I long for the old days, when you had the real journalists to whom you guys seem to be contrasting Matthews. Like no one could hope to figure out what Dan Rather thought of Nixon, or Sam Donaldson of Reagan, right?

[Ralph DeMarco]

The press is SUPPOSED to question authority on issues that actually matter to the country. I will not defend bad reporting, and over-zealous attacks. Rather and Donaldson might have been tough on Nixon and Reagan, but they didn't reduce political analysis to pure emotion and triviality. They were serious about Watergate, and Iran-Contra, for example, because the public was serious about it. Because those events were important.

People in the country deserve journalists who care about the issues, who care about what's right and wrong -- not just how Clinton's voice is annoying, or how Fred Thompson reminds you of your grandpa and English Leather cologne. Matthews shouldn't be working out his 'daddy and mommy' issues in public - take it to a therapist I say. People are fed-up with the Matthews and Bill O'Reilly's of the world because they add nothing to the debate, they offer no constructive analysis of anything important to the country. We need the FCC to enforce its own charter that these stations operate in the public interest. Right now, they are hurting the country.

[Tom W.]

TK, Donaldson and Rather were both reporters. They filed actual stories. Rather especially dug for facts. Sure they hated Nixon, and they didn't start from even on what they chose to report. But they generally backed up their reporting - Rather with some serious investigative stuff, Donaldson by shouting questions at helicopters.

Matthews is just a talking head who has long abandoned really interviwing anything but his own thumb.

And Ralph's right - he was in thrall of shock and awe and flight-suited GI joe, then he turned when the body counts went higher. He was almost the inventor of the GWB "regular guy I'd want to have a beer with meme."

Plus, not that it's valid, Matthews drives liberals crazy because he's on a center-left cable outlet - it would be like Sean Hannity ripping into a very serious Republican woman because of her gender and husband. And the Fox guys give Clinton more respect, actually (that sad little rodent Bill Kristol of The New York Times notwithstanding).

[Campaspe]

When on a non-political chatboard just before NH, I saw conservative women from places like Georgia and Texas--women who would NEVER vote Clinton--expressing their disgust with the way the press was treating her "tears," I had a pretty good inkling Hillary might pull it out. If they don't gain a little more self-awareness the professional Mean Girls may snark Hil right into the White House. And wouldn't THAT be an irony delicious enough to dine out on in Georgetown.

[Linkmeister]

Campaspe sez, "If they don't gain a little more self-awareness the professional Mean Girls may snark Hil right into the White House. And wouldn't THAT be an irony delicious enough to dine out on in Georgetown."

I wonder if anyone has asked Sally Quinn how she felt about all that blatant misogyny directed at HRC?

[bruce b.]

Linkmeister said:

I wonder if anyone has asked Sally Quinn how she felt about all that blatant misogyny directed at HRC?

It doesn't seem to bother Maureen Dowd.

Can someone please explain to me why press people rarely directly go after each other? Olbermann going after Bill-O seems to be the exception, and they are in a ratings war.

Woman-haters like Chris Matthews do so much to set the tone of an election. Has ANYONE in the mainstream press given that misogynist a piece of his/her mind, in print?

[Teresa]

I can't agree more with your analysis. I support Obama, but I've been raging to my poor husband for weeks that the media coverage was going to force me to vote for Hillary if only to stick it to the press -- esp. Matthews. I couldn't believe it two weeks ago when he was asking over and over on one show, "Is Hillary trying to strangle Obama in his crib?"

And he continually insinuates Bill is still catting around and that it will be a problem for Hillary, while his hero Rudy is never asked about being a serial philanderer himself.

Frankly, I thought the "Matthews Effect" would show up in Iowa, but I guess it took one more week of dancing on her grave for the women of NH to take matters into their own hands.

[bruce b.]

Teresa said:

I couldn't believe it two weeks ago when he was asking over and over on one show, "Is Hillary trying to strangle Obama in his crib?"

Wow. I missed that one.

TK, how can you POSSIBLY compare this sort of crude, misogynistic language to Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson, both of whom, by the way, were excellent journalists.

Teresa said:

Frankly, I thought the "Matthews Effect" would show up in Iowa, but I guess it took one more week of dancing on her grave for the women of NH to take matters into their own hands.

The whole thing reached an insane fever pitch Monday. Front page spreads in every tabloid bashing Hillary. The polls show her way behind. Her "tearing up" moment takes place in the morning, played over and over and over again. At a press conference, Matthews "confronts" her with some rude and disrespectful questions. She diffuses it by hugging him, but he extends the disrespect by pinching her on the cheek. Then, in the afternoon, the morons from the disk jockey show yell "Iron My Shirt!" at her.

This was all Monday, the day before the primary, too late to show up on the vast majority of polls. This garbage was shown on TV Monday night, when EVERYBODY in NH was paying attention.

On Monday night/Tuesday AM, Gloria Steinem's Op-Ed, "Women Are Never Front Runners", is published in the NY Times, and is immediately emailed all over the country.

It seems obvious as to why the polls were wrong. Vast numbers of women in NH were sickened by this display, at the expense of an accomplished, serious, hardworking, progressive Senator. They cast a "solidarity" vote against misogyny. All in all, it was one of the most amazing political protests of all time.

[Tom K]

*TK, how can you POSSIBLY compare this sort of crude, misogynistic language to Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson, both of whom, by the way, were excellent journalists.

I'm not comparing specific statements; I was responding to the complaints over CM's manifest personal dislike of HRC.

On the specifics, you can't compare the days of 1/2 hour network newscasts to the days of 24-hour cable. Even serious journalism had to elbow its way in to the former (and often did so with a heavy political bias), whereas the latter is desperate for filler.

Matthews at his worst, or Olbermann, or any old bloviator about poliics represents the substantive side of a spectrum dominated by Greta Van Susstern, Nancy Grace, or the less memorable men who spend much of cable air time rehashing Natalie Holloway or unmasking sexual predators.

It's pretty grim. But that said, I couldn't disagree more with Ralph when he writes

*We need the FCC to enforce its own charter that these stations operate in the public interest.*

No, we don't. The FCCs regulation of the airwaves was always fraught with 1st amdendment concerns. While the airwaves were limited, as in the broadcast environment, someone had to be favored so, rather than just go to the highest bidder, they came burdened with substantive oversight, not only to prevent obscenity, but to promote forms of expression favored by our esteemed overseers in DC. Probably OK, in the circumstances.

But to say that power persists with hundreds of channels is effectively to say that you don't believe in free speech. And you will not have to wait very long from the regulation Ralph is eager to see until censorship of the internet.

[Tom K]

BTW, I mostly agree with Bruce's take in his most recent post, which nicely summarizes what several others have said.

But I would add one thing. While I don't especially doubt that the flavor of the HRC coverage was a factor, I think it was a minor one. More significantly, I think many women who may have in fact been ambivalent about HRC saw that she was about to be out of the race less than a week after the first votes were cast, and as a result of the very first primary, and said -- "whoa, there. Whatever our reservations about her, she's a serious enough candidate that she shouldn't be knocked out that fast. What's going on here?"

And that may very well have got them thinking that maybe this wouldn't be happening if she were a man. Which, in turn, may have further sensitized them to some of the points Tom W has focused on. But only at the end of a thought process driven by the other considerations, in my view.

[Emil Minty]

BTW, have you ever noticed that Matthews is not too keen on GWB either?

The fuck are you smoking? When Chimpy did his flightsuit number, you could practically hear Tweety jizzing his shorts. He and Howie Fucking Feinmann used to gush and sigh like they were in some dinner theater production of Gone with the Wind.

[Jack Hughes]

Apparently, Matthews is still harboring a seething resentment that he wasn't hired as Bill Clinton's press secretary. It's so petty and unprofessional.

[blue girl]

How do you know that Jack?

[Tom K]

If there are actually people on this earth who've been watching Chris Matthews the last few years and who dispute the claim that he is "not too keen" on GWB, the world is in worse shape than I thought. And that's saying something.

[Emil Minty]

Ugh. I watch Tweety only through accidental glimpses. What I see is an unreconstructed stooge who limits his criticisms of Dubya to some hollow-ringing anti-war criticism, which at this late date is rather like the painful attempt of the vice principal to seem hip at the school dance. If the shit does go through the fan, e.g. the recent events in the Straits of Hormuz being ginned up into World War MCMLXXVI, Tweety will go back to polishing Dubya's knob with such swift fierceness that our teevees will sychronously explode. Any accidental grunts he may have made about the phoniness of a push to war with Iran can be chalked up to gas.

[Judith]

Hi Tom -
I commented on that same Charlie Rose show in the thread about Huffington. I hadnt seen this thread yet. Mark Halperin won my good will with what he said. He had a lot of guts and I appreciated it. I will start reading his blog...admittedly I dont watch his channel but he has proven to me that he will try to be fair and will acknowledge any errors. That is a lot to offer these days and if we can find one good person perhaps the MSM wont be destroyed (ha)

As for Matthews, I am not trying to sound schoolmarmish, but the best way to take him down is to ignore him. I never watch him and just done care. But I suppose if you are for HRC winning the nomination, you cant ask for a better advocate than him.