Get Me Chris Matthews' Primary Opponent on Line One!

Last night on the Tonight Show, Chris Matthews announced that he was in the tank for one candidate while ostensibly "covering" the race for President. Tonight on his MSNBC show, Matthews admitted that he has opposed Bill and Hillary Clinton "for 20 years." Then he launched into yet another attack - so clearly trying whatever last ditch tactics and selective quoting he could find to block Barack Obama's nomination of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.

My question is this: Who else is likely to run for  the Democratic nomination for that Senate seat in Pennsylvania - and how can we help that person?

The always observant Bob Somerby nails the latest derangement from the Clinton-hating camp, behavior as predictable as that of animals under a full moon:

As noted, we have no particular view on Hillary Clinton as Sec of State. But we do have a reaction to the pundit corps’ renewed Clinton/Gore-loathing: Things have reached the point where these sad life-forms are “objectively anti-American.” The nation is in a set of major messes; a new president is trying to pick the people he thinks will serve him best in a difficult time. But so what? Even in such a perilous time, the loonier members of the Dowd-Matthews axis can’t quit their Clinton-loathing. Nothing will keep them from this vast pleasure, the one pleasure of their sad lives.

It’s almost like they loathe the country itself. In the past, they’ve done astounding harm to that country through their aggressive Clinton/Gore-trashing—especially when they worked so hard to put George Bush where he is. But even now, they refuse to abandon their childish games. Nothing will ever make them stop. They care about little else.

Dean Broder was polite today, as befits a high-minded man. But Chris Matthews has been actively clowning on Hardball—and does anyone really doubt this report? These palace dwellers have done vast harm to this country in the past sixteen years. Their Clinton/Gore-loathing remains their great joy—and it could be a national problem again if Obama and Clinton combine.

What's really appalling is the utter lack of public respect Matthews and his ilk have for President-Elect Obama, a man whose candidacy the hateful MSNBC hyena once claimed sent a thrill up his leg.

Comments

[Neil M]

Speaking as a Pennsylvania voter, I can say that if the 2010 Senate race comes down to Specter vs. Matthews, I'm probably going to move to New Jersey so I can cast a vote that won't twist my guts. Chris Matthews in my view lost all credibility when he gushed over Bush doing his "Mission Accomplished" flight-suit strut.

That being said, I think that if you dig through the irrational hate there is a point in suggesting that this should-I-stay-or-should-go stuff seems unusual in terms of a Cabinet position. Clinton seems to be looking for the best deal possible, and I guess I can't blame her, but truth be told I'm getting a bit tired of the I-won-18-million votes thing. It makes her look rather nakedly ambitious in a city where ambition is as common as memorials named after presidents. At the same time, though, she's a prominent figure in the Democratic Party and that gives her leverage that she's using. And I guess I can't blame her for that, either.

[Susie]

It does seem as if you will have a depressing choice in front of you. I feel for you, as I did the unhappy voters who had to choose between Coleman and Franken.

We don't really know what's going on, but a Cabinet position of such importance going to a Senator who is also the wife of a former president involved in international undertakings is going to have some complex issues involved. I'm sure the Obama team wants to take its time, as well. Nor does this seem to have been attention Clinton invited, and I doubt she was responsible for Edward Kennedy's last minute change of heart regarding her role in health care legislation, an additional complication.

Anyway, recent reports seem to indicate it's a done deal. I for one have complete faith in the judgment of the President-elect, for now anyway. :)

[Susie]

" there is a point in suggesting that this should-I-stay-or-should-go stuff seems unusual in terms of a Cabinet position."

In addition to the factors I mentioned above, some people up for Cabinet positions don’t have that many attractive options in front of them. Janet Napolitano is escaping a looming budget crisis in her state, for example. Daschle is a has-been Obama is rescuing from relative obscurity. Clinton is in a very different position. Rahm Emanuel took some time thinking about the chief of staff position, because he had ambitions in the House.

[Tom K]

I keep reviewing this, trying to find a way not to conclude that you are quoting, with approval, the notions that anyone who doesn't support HRC for Secty of State is "unAmerican".

It doesn't get any better on rereading, though, so I have to ask you: HAVE YOU ABANDONED ANY SEMBLENCE OF REASON?

[Susie]

I almost thought that, too. Somerby is prone to overstatement and he went slightly overboard here. But I think the central point is that irrational Clinton bashing (as opposed to rational criticism, which does exist) is not good for the national political discourse and hence the nation. I’m not sure anyone is saying that opposition to Clinton for SoS is in itself un-American. Somerby makes a point of saying he has no particular view on the matter and I’m sure Tom wouldn’t say anything like that.

I do think Somerby's conflating the good of the Democratic Party with the good of the nation, which partisans on both sides often do.

[Tom W.]

Well, TK - you take that claim a bit far! The quote suggests that if it's almost as if the obsessed corner of the media that hates Clintons/Gore "loathes" their country itself...not because they oppose Clinton for SoS, but because they helped elect Bush.

It truly is a sad obsession. And it's really weird to watch people who really pulled for Obama throw him under the bus over, gasp, Hillary. It's crazy.

[AnninCA]

Chris Matthews makes me laugh. He really wants to dictate political choices whiloe avoiding the hard work of being elected to office.

What a nitwit.

[Neil M]

"It truly is a sad obsession. And it's really weird to watch people who really pulled for Obama throw him under the bus over, gasp, Hillary. It's crazy."

What's *really* crazy is the way that liberals have seethed over Reid NOT kicking Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus. Sure, Lieberman went overboard when he said the Democratic nominee wasn't ready to lead, but I just don't see any benefit in booting Lieberman from his chairmanship except some temporary visceral pleasure. I swear, if Obama fails it won't be the conservatives who do him in, but the liberals. (And I speak as a liberal.)

But back to the topic. Many liberals are angry at the HRC nomination because she voted in favor to authorize the use of force in Iraq, and she hasn't backed down from that vote. Now, although I agree that she made a bad call, I think that it's unwise for Obama to surround himself solely with advisers who agree with him on every topic to the same degree. After all, we just came off of eight years of an administration that equated disagreement with disloyalty, and I don't fancy a reprise, thank you very much. I didn't think it was the job of the Secretary of State to slavishly agree with the president, so if Hillary wants to (privately) challenge Barack over foreign policy, so what? Sometimes she'll be right, sometimes she'll be wrong, but in any case the debate will improve both our foreign policy and our nation. The gods know this nation could use some improving.