ITS TIME FOR WALSH TO ACT! Matthews had time to ask five questions. Two dealt with Clintons old joke: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007
JURY DUTY: Dang! Our entire staff has been assigned to a jury! This will throw us off for the next several days. But incomparably, upon return to our headquarters Monday, we did throw this together:
THEY WONT RECANT, RETRACT OR REPUDIATE: When they returned from jury duty, our analysts hurried to TPM, eager to see what David Kurtz had said about Sundays puzzling post—the post in which he seemed so clueless about what Hillary Clinton has said (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/12/07). And uh-oh! Soon, the analysts came to our chamber, faces long and spirits dragging. Omigod! As of Monday night, Kurtz had refused to retract, recant or apologize for the post in which he seemed to misstate about Clinton so baldly. He hadnt said he was wrong, called his work a mistake, or repudiated what he had written.
As we said, Kurtzs work is normally astute; thats what made his Sunday morning post makes such a striking object lesson. As weve told you, the mainstream press corps has simply refused to report what Clinton has said about her (horrible) 10/02 vote. What happens when a press corps plays such games? Even people as sharp as Kurtz end up getting bamboozled. You can imagine the confusion that is sown among the voters as a whole.
We think its time to retract, repudiate or explain that post. Anyone reading Kurtzs post would draw a blatantly bogus conclusion; he would think that Clinton hasnt yet said whether shed vote for the war resolution again. Or is it OK to do this to Clinton? After all, as Chris Matthews has repeatedly said, shes just someone who giggles like a girl. Shes really just an uppity woman.
THE BUMPTIOUS OF THE EARTH: In haste, well link you to Garance Franke-Ruta and Scott Lemieux for further thoughts on this matter. Lemieux us one of the few liberal bloggers who seems to have heard of the central political event of the past dozen years. And Franke-Ruta is one of the few liberal bloggers who has the capacity to be offended when a woman like Hillary Clinton is openly mocked on the basis of her gender. For ourselves, were very happy to find ourselves on the same side with this now-bumptious blogger. More later.
THE MAN WHO LOVED WOMEN: One man out there does love women. Its Patrick Healy, New York Times, who penned his latest tribute to Katharine Kit Seelye in Mondays paper. Try to believe that he wrote it—again! And that it got into print:
HEALY (2/12/07): At nearly every stop in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, has been greeted warmly but has been met by skeptical voters asking pointedly about her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. On Sunday in Nashua, one person told her that her explanation ''doesn't fly,'' while another asked why she did not simply say that the vote was a mistake.It was the second straight day he had used this laughable formulation. See yesterdays DAILY HOWLER.
Its hard to believe—that even a paper as undisciplined as Gothams great Times would wave such nonsense into print. Beyond that, wed have thought that only Seelye would clown so blatantly as a reporter. But its now clear. Healy—clearly a lover of women—worships at Seeyles small feet.
MAYBE ITS THE BEST HE CAN MANAGE: Who knows? Maybe Chris Cillizza is just too dumb to play this particular game. He began to put this thought in our heads as we watched him orate about Clinton on last evenings NewsHour. Once again, he enacted the formula to a T; he murkily explained what Clinton wont do (She wont recant her vote!), while failing to report the things she has actually said. This kind of reporting leads us straight to that post by David Kurtz. This kind of reporting leads the voters straight into massive bamboozlement.
Who knows? Maybe Cillizza is really this dumb weve actually begun to consider the possibility. The transcript isnt available as we head out the door. Well present it to you tomorrow.
ITS TIME FOR WALSH TO ACT: Then, again, theres the utterly laughable Matthews, who interviewed Bill Richardson on last evenings Hardball. Matthews asked five questions during the segment. Here were the first two questions he asked:
QUESTION 1: Welcome back to Hardball. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is a Democratic candidate for president. Governor Richardson, how do you break into top ranks of the guys and the woman, Hillary, fighting for the Democratic nomination?So far, perfectly sensible, if a bit light. But then, Matthews returned to the topic which matters most—the joke Clinton told more than two weeks ago. Incredibly, here were his next two questions:
QUESTION 3: Hillary said a couple of days ago, a week or two ago, that she is equipped to deal with bad and evil men because of her dealings as first lady. What do you make of that assessment and that claim?No, we arent making this up. After making Richardson waste his time on this inane topic, Chris posed his final question:
QUESTION 5: OK. How do we—then Ill let you go positive, Governor. How do we get out of Iraq?Oh yeah. That.
Simply put, this man is out of his mind—and this has been clear for a very long time. And he has a jones about Hillary Clinton—about liberal women generally—that just wont let his tortured soul go. This problem has been obvious for almost a decade, going back (lets say) to his angry, disrespectful session with Elizabeth Holtzman, who had the temerity be to be right on the facts about one of Matthews favorite Clinton-accusers (links below). But last night, we once again were shown the depths of this mans inanity. He had time to ask Richardson five questions—five. And two of them, using up half the segment, dealt with Clintons utterly pointless, more-than-two-week-old joke. The real joke is on the American discourse when this man stays on the air.
Which brings us back to the question weve asked. This has gone on with Matthews for the past dozen years—his sheer inanity, and his open jones toward uppity liberal women. (His term, though he pretends its Bill Clintons.) Last night, we watched Joan Walsh on Scarborough Country, and it made us wonder once again: Why has Walshs Salon never reported on this influential mans strange behavior? Walsh is smart, and shes a liberal woman. Well post in more detail another day. But heres the question we would ask: Since Walsh is so familiar with the workings of MSNBC, why in the world has she let the clowning by this bizarre person go unchallenged? Why in the world would a smart, liberal woman keep averting her gaze from such nonsense?
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: Holtzman was right about Darling Willey—so Matthews landed on her like a ton of bricks. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/8/99 and 1/28/99.
Funny, aint it? No one but us ever seems to notice this influential mans nasty conduct. No one but us ever seems to notice his jones about liberal women. Its funny—its amazingly strange—that no one ever seems to notice. Huh! What on earth could possibly explain the wide berth this weird man receives?