http://www.youtube.com/v/YK0d8ENS__c&hl=en

5/16/2008 11:14:04 PM

IBTLOL

5/16/2008 11:30:37 PM

That was somewhat entertaining.

5/17/2008 12:10:07 AM

hahaha, that was pretty damn funny

5/17/2008 12:44:04 AM

this was definitely inspired by my post in chit chat

5/17/2008 12:54:16 AM

or any blog today

5/17/2008 2:00:05 AM

now if you could show me a blog referencing this video to treetwista i'd love to see it

5/17/2008 2:23:48 AM

Chris Matthews?! That former Democrat operative and hack is so far in the tank for Obama that he can't even see anymore!

Here, Matthews feels a "thrill going up [his] leg" concerning Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM

Here, Matthews' MSLSD colleagues rightly mock him for his ridiculous comments:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU

Here, Matthews is nearly brought to tears at the thought of Obama losing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDzcJUIY7DY



Maybe Matthews should just focus on not harassing women. Here, he makes a creepy comment to colleague Erin Burnett while on the air:

http://tinyurl.com/6buqzd

Here, Matthews apologizes profusely for making inappropriate comments about Hillary Clinton:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jLIasbt_0xE

And, finally, Matthews admitting to putting "shit" on the air:

http://tinyurl.com/67xrr5

5/17/2008 3:54:09 AM

Chris Matthews is an asshole.

Everybody knows this.

Doesn't stop the video from being funny.

5/17/2008 8:14:54 AM

^^none of that changes the hilarity of that video.

5/17/2008 8:47:12 AM

its funny b/c every republican is thinking "damn, I wish president Bush would go into hiding until after the election"

5/17/2008 9:04:47 AM

^not at all. What did bush say that was wrong terd?

5/17/2008 9:17:53 AM

claiming it is appeasement.

the fact that he took domestic politics to a foreign body.

5/17/2008 9:19:21 AM

I feel like if the republicans try to turn Israel policies into a major platform issue this year, they are gonna lose!!

The average american, in my opinion, doesnt care about Israel. We are worried about ourselves. If they want to win they should play up the economy and how they are going to lower taxes (and hopefully cut spending). I think a lot of people are looking for a fiscal conservative.

Bringing up Israel is just going to keep reminding people about the war and how involved we are in all the crap that goes down in the Middle East. Beating the issue like a drum just makes the president, and republicans, seem like the war hawks that the democrats accuse them of being.

I dont think the whole "we need to fight to make america safer" BS is going to work this election either.

5/17/2008 9:25:58 AM

Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.


No big uproar over Pelosi's or Carter's trips and statements.

Im not so sure this was intended to be an attack on obama directly, but I like it is being taken that way.

The sad part is that if any perceived criticism about obama is launch, he immediately turns to the "politics of old" line, and you kids eat it up. Bush made a great point in his speech, but you guys just JUMP at the chance to defend ANYTHING obama or democrat.

You can tell the dems perceive this to be a weakness, bc of all the whinning about fairness. imo

Terd, you do realize he was IN Israel celebrating thier anniversary. Its also VERY appropriate to mention Iran and Nazis when talking about Israel's security.

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2008 9:34:26 AM

he had no basis to claim that talking with the Iranians was appeasement as a direct attack on Obama. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete republican tool.

5/17/2008 9:41:08 AM

Ok, and drawing a comparision between Nazis trying to rid the world of jews, and Iran who wants to rid the world of jews is ridiculous? His comparision is that talking to fucknig nuts like hitler doesnt get the job done. Like he said, we had senators in this country thinking war coudl be avoided if ONLY they could talk to hilter.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along . . . We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

What is wrong with anything in there? He is dead on

I dont see how this is a direct attack on Obama as its more an attack on a way of thinking. Its just the liberal wing of the dems is the dog that got hit by the rock.

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2008 9:46:20 AM

Quote :

"Ok, and drawing a comparision between Nazis trying to rid the world of jews, and Iran who wants to rid the world of jews is ridiculous? His comparision is that talking to fucknig nuts like hitler doesnt get the job done. Like he said, we had senators in this country thinking war coudl be avoided if ONLY they could talk to hilter."

The point is, it's not appeasement, it's just talking, which was one of the major points of contention.

Quote :

""Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along . . . We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.""

That's an outright lie. Obama never said anything about appeasing anyone or giving in to their demands. To be able to sit down and negotiate and at least know the other side's terms gives you an understanding of where they're coming from and how passionate they are about their cause, two things that would be beneficial to know during a conflict anyway. It's not surprising that you would fail to see what is wrong with Bush's speech.

5/17/2008 10:00:30 AM

I just dont see Iran as the same threat as Nazi Germany. I dont think the leadership in Iran has the same support from its people that Hitler had. I dont think Iran has the same military that Germany had. I think Israel could probably take care of Iran itself if it wanted to.

5/17/2008 10:10:58 AM

Direct talks would happen only if those countries made changes to their own policies. Iran would have to halt its uranium enrichment work and Syria would have to stop supporting groups Washington considers terrorist organizations, Snow said.

"If between now and the 10th of March the Iranians suspended reprocessing and enrichment, then you'd have a different ballpark," he said. "If the Syrians had changed their attitude toward Hamas and Hezbollah, OK."


Our policy, at least my understanding of it, has been to isolate Iran and Syria for their dealing with terror and nuclear production. They refuse to talk unilaterally, but want to talk to these countries as a community. The fact that APPEASEMENT keeps getting mentioned and you are SO upset about. Just look at the the sanctions Iran has broken. They arent living up to thier end of the bargain and so we will not engage them directly until they DO what they said they would do. How many sanctions have been passed against Iran from the UN, yet they defy them. We have to speak as a world community, not undermind that community. IMO

Terd, I agree. But you bet Israel takes what Iran is saying seriously. I agree that Israel would wipe up Iran in a conventional war. Thats why a nuclear bomb worries Israel, and should. There is no doubt hilter would have used on it existed, that is why Iran might be a bigger threat to Israel than Hitler ever was.

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2008 10:16:12 AM

Someone once said that Chris Matthews has the interviewing equivalent of retard strength

5/17/2008 10:58:15 AM

Iran is not working to destroy the Jews. Learn to separate Israel and Jewry in general. Furthermore, there are Jews in Iran's parliament.

Don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

5/17/2008 11:26:04 AM

Oh some token Jews in Iran's parliament huh?

c'mon lets be fucking serious here.


Give me a link on that shit or something. Even if it is true it kind of contradicts everything coming from the horses mouth, its people like you who let Hitleresque dictators run amok b/c you don't have the balls to step up and do whats right to begin with.

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2008 11:42:38 AM

His name is Maurice Motamed. And despite your attempts to wage a war through analogy instead of confronting the facts you should know that like Zoroastrians, the Jews of Iran are afforded special religious, and cultural protections in Iran.

I know, it is much easier to call the Iranians Hitler and move on with life. Until you are capable of separating Jewry from Israel, there is no point to having this conversation

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2008 11:50:48 AM

If you're going to be honest, then you should at least acknowledge that those special protections probably more closely resemble pre-1964 American treatment of blacks than anything else.

5/17/2008 12:10:38 PM

Not at all.

5/17/2008 12:48:56 PM

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

Ahmadinejad on Israel's 60th birthday

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

Ahmadinejad, October 2005

Yeah, clearly this man wants to negotiate and compromise. I dont know why Israel would be concerned over him getting a nuke. And any comparison between that speech of wiping it off the map and annihilation and hitler are just "the politics of old" and aimed at Obama, and have NO validity.

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2008 1:22:07 PM

^^ Not at all what?

5/17/2008 1:33:05 PM

Quote :

"No big uproar over Pelosi's or Carter's trips and statements."

what news do you watch?

5/17/2008 2:20:55 PM

waaah?

5/17/2008 2:28:18 PM

I hate to say it but Chris didn't own anybody by being an obnoxious asshole and not allowing the man to explain himself.

5/17/2008 3:11:13 PM

haha...

5/17/2008 4:12:37 PM

some ppl deserve to be treated like that though. chris was a jerk about it, but the guy was parroting someone else and couldnt (and wouldnt) answer chris's question. its fair to ask someone to support their opinions and/or someone they agree with.

5/17/2008 4:25:21 PM

yeah and furthurmore, "not letting the man explain himself"


did you watch the fucking video???

5/17/2008 4:27:16 PM

Quote :

"^^ Not at all what?"

It means you provided no information to back up your gut feeling.

Quote :

"Yeah, clearly this man wants to negotiate and compromise. I dont know why Israel would be concerned over him getting a nuke. And any comparison between that speech of wiping it off the map and annihilation and hitler are just "the politics of old" and aimed at Obama, and have NO validity."

Hitler was about eliminating Jewry. Iran is about annihilating Israel. It's a big fucking difference.

5/18/2008 12:43:24 AM

Can someone explain what this has to do with twista? Or is it an in-joke?

5/18/2008 1:04:18 AM

Quote :

""Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation." Ahmadinejad on Israel's 60th birthday "Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." Ahmadinejad, October 2005 Yeah, clearly this man wants to negotiate and compromise. I dont know why Israel would be concerned over him getting a nuke. And any comparison between that speech of wiping it off the map and annihilation and hitler are just "the politics of old" and aimed at Obama, and have NO validity. "

All of that is pretty bad, but from the outside looking in, they see our axis of evil talk as the same thing. And when we talk about nuking them, it doesn't make us look any better to them, compared to how we perceive them.

I have no problem with Bush schmoosing the Israelis when he is in Israel, they are a good ally (relatively speaking). But it's idiotic to try and assert that we are pure in this matter, because clearly we are not. We have a long ways to go, and supporting useless war mongering and posturing doesn't help anything.

In any case, the gov. and people of Iran are far more complex than Ahmedenijad's statements, which a large amount of Iranians likely disagree with.

5/18/2008 1:10:46 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU&feature=related

omg haha...heres another interview the guy that got pwned did with fox news

5/18/2008 1:20:53 AM

^THis is soap box. No need for rick rolling.

5/18/2008 8:42:18 AM

hahahaha awesome

5/18/2008 9:11:10 AM

Quote :

"^^ Not at all what? It means you provided no information to back up your gut feeling."

Google "Persian Jews", "Iranian Jews", "dhimmi", "Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh", and "Iranian human rights".

I'll agree with you that comparisons between the Iranian government and the Nazis are hyperbole. However, Jews in Iran are restricted and do not share the same rights and freedoms as Muslims in Iran.

5/18/2008 9:40:36 AM

There are some limitations, but when compared to all other middle eastern countries, except Israel, Iran affords the best protections to the Jews.

5/18/2008 9:45:43 AM

That guy has some sort of imbalance

HEY CHRIS

HEY

HEY

HEY CHRIS

5/18/2008 9:48:35 AM

Quote :

"Iran affords the best protections to the Jews."

...and that makes Iranian treatment of religious minorities OK?

5/18/2008 10:18:09 AM

better than our supposed allies.

5/18/2008 10:58:54 AM

Quote :

"Iran affords the best protections to the Jews."

yup.

if it wasnt for the Persians, the Jews would have LONG ago ceased to exist. Ever since the Babylonian Exile, the Jews have been a significant (and respected) Iranian minority throughout Iran's (Persia's) existence.

5/19/2008 3:21:29 AM

MSNBC's Chris Matthews problem

Quote :

"I do not care which person is your candidate. I don't care what you think of Hillary Clinton as a potential president. What is being done in the press is akin to a pack of rabid 7th graders trying to haze the nerdy girl in school simply because they can. It has nothing to do with her qualifications -- it has to do with gender, and these lemming pundits think that it's perfectly acceptable because everyone is doing it, including women like Andrea Mitchell and Anne Kornblut. -- Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake "OK, let's put the gender thing in here. I love gender politics, guys." -- Chris Matthews The behavior Christy Hardin Smith describes has its epicenter on MSNBC's Hardball, where rarely a day goes by without host Chris Matthews sputtering and shouting about Hillary Clinton, often in terms that would give Bobby Riggs pause. Put simply, Matthews behaves as though he is obsessed with Hillary Clinton. And not 'obsessed' in a charming, mostly harmless, Lloyd-Dobler-with-a-boom-box kind of way. 'Obsessed' in a this-person-needs-help kind of way. More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: 'I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.' Even before that, Matthews told the January 20, 2000, Hardball audience, 'Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people like maybe me on occasion. I'm not going to take a firm position here, because the election is not coming up yet. But let me just say this, she drives some of us absolutely nuts.' Not that there was much chance his feelings would go unnoticed by even the most casual Hardball viewer. Matthews has referred to Clinton as 'She devil.' He has repeatedly likened Clinton to 'Nurse Ratched,' referring to the 'scheming, manipulative' character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who 'asserts arbitrary control simply because she can.' He has called her 'Madame Defarge.' And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as 'castratos in the eunuch chorus.' Matthews has compared Clinton to a 'strip-teaser' and questioned whether she is 'a convincing mom.' He refers to Clinton's 'cold eyes' and the 'cold look' she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a 'scolding manner' and is 'going to tell us what to do.' Matthews frequently obsesses over Clinton's 'clapping' -- which he describes as 'Chinese.' He describes Clinton's laugh as a 'cackle' -- which led to the Politico's Mike Allen telling him, 'Chris, first of all, "cackle" is a very sexist term.' (Worth remembering: When John McCain was asked by a GOP voter referring to Clinton, 'How do we beat the bitch?' Allen reacted by wondering, 'What voter in general hasn't thought that?' So Allen isn't exactly hypersensitive to people describing Clinton in sexist terms.) Matthews repeatedly suggests Clinton is a 'fraud' for claiming to be a Yankees fan, despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that Clinton has been a Yankees fan since childhood. In April of 2007, former Washington Post reporter John Harris, who has written a book about Bill Clinton, told Matthews to his face that the attacks on Clinton over her history of being a Yankees fan were false. Harris said: 'Hillary Clinton got hazed over saying she was a New York Yankees fan. It turned out, actually, that was right. She had been a lifelong Yankees fan. But people were all over [her] for supposedly embroidering her past.' But Matthews doesn't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of his efforts to take cheap shots at Clinton: At least twice since Harris set him straight, Matthews has attacked Clinton over the Yankees fan nonsense, once calling her a 'fraud.' Matthews has described Clinton as 'witchy' and -- in what appears to be a classic case of projection -- claimed that 'some men' say Clinton's voice sounds like 'fingernails on a blackboard.' In what appears to be an even more classic case of projection, Matthews has speculated that there is 'out there in the country ... some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender.' Matthews has suggested that Hillary Clinton 'being surrounded by women' might 'make a case against' her being 'commander in chief.' He once asked a guest if 'the troops out there' would 'take the orders' from 'Hillary Clinton, commander in chief.' When his guest responded, 'Why wouldn't they listen to a [female] commander in chief?' 'Sure,' Matthews responded: 'You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?' When his guest responded 'No,' Matthews couldn't quite believe it, sputtering: 'No problem? No problem? No problem?' Matthews has wondered if she is unable 'to admit a mistake' because doing so would lead people to call her a 'fickle woman.' He has said that Clinton is on a 'short ... leash' as a presidential candidate, lacking 'latitude in her husband's absence' to answer a question. He has, at least twice, called Hillary Clinton an 'uppity' woman -- both times, pretending to attribute the phrase to Bill Clinton. But, as Bob Somerby has explained, there is no evidence Clinton has ever used the term. One of Matthews' favorite topics is Clinton's marriage. After The New York Times ran an article purporting to count the number of nights the Clintons spend together, Matthews' imagination ran wild, and the MSNBC host couldn't get the Clintons' marital life out of his mind. At one point, Media Matters counted 90 separate questions Matthews asked guests about the topic during seven separate programs; the number undoubtedly grew after we stopped counting. In the middle of one of Matthews' bouts of obsessive speculation about how often the Clintons are 'together in the same roof overnight, if you will,' Washington Post reporter Lois Romano asked him, '[W]hat is your obsession with logistics here?' In response, Matthews snapped at her: 'Because I'm talking to three reporters, and I'm trying to get three straight answers, so I don't want attitude about this. It's a point of view -- I want facts. Tell me what the facts are, Lois, if you know them. If you don't, I don't know what you're arguing about.' Matthews has claimed: '[T]he 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.' John McCain's political career got started after he left his first wife for a wealthy and politically connected heiress, married her, and ran for Congress. But Chris Matthews doesn't suggest that the reason McCain is a 'U.S. senator ... a candidate for president ... a front-runner' is that he 'messed around.' Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Matthews' comments about Clinton went too far: 'I mean, it's rough business what these people over there [at MSNBC] are doing. We don't do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband messed around. I mean, that is -- that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not.' Matthews periodically gets it into his head that the most important question in the world is whether Bill Clinton will be a 'distraction' or whether he will 'behave himself.' He badgers Clinton aides about the question and warns that Bill Clinton 'better watch it.' He asks if Clinton will be a 'good boy' or be guilty of 'misbehavior.' Matthews is not so subtly referring to Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But curiously, he doesn't have the same concerns about McCain or about Rudy Giuliani, as I wrote nearly a year ago. Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn't hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs -- and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless. And then there's Matthews' fixation on Hillary Clinton's 'ambition.' In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton's Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was 'ambitious.' Finally, Matthews said, 'People who seek political power are ambitious by definition,' leading Wolfson to tell him: 'if you say so. If it will make you happy, I'll agree.' If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the 'ambition' of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private. And, in the midst of his years-long assault on Hillary Clinton, much of it either directly based on her gender or on a sexist double standard, Matthews has the audacity to accuse Clinton of being 'anti-male' and to insist that 'she should just lighten up on this gender -- "the boys are coming to get me" routine.' None of this should surprise us. Chris Matthews acknowledged his feelings about Hillary Clinton long ago: 'I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.' And 'she drives some of us [guys] absolutely nuts.' But Matthews' questionable treatment of women extends beyond Hillary Clinton."

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 5:16 AM. Reason : Continued below. ]

5/19/2008 5:14:49 AM

MSNBC's Chris Matthews problem (cont.)

Quote :

"Matthews has described House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as 'scary' and suggested she would 'castrate' House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. And he has wondered how she could disagree with President Bush 'without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?' Just this week, Matthews claimed there isn't a plausible female presidential candidate 'on the horizon' because there aren't any 'big-state women governors' -- but Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius all run states with populations comparable to male governors who have recently run for president, including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Bill Richardson. How large a state does a woman have to run before she qualifies as a plausible presidential candidate to Chris Matthews? One that is twice as large as Mitt Romney's Massachusetts? Three times as large? Last October, Matthews mused aloud about a hypothetical couple trying to decide who to support for president. In Matthews' mind, the wife just wants to see 'the first woman president.' According to Matthews, the husband has to explain the math to his wife: '[T]he husband says, "You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can't do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money."' After the Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary Clinton earlier this year, Matthews suggested that the paper's 'female editors and publisher' succumbed to 'lobbying' by Bill Clinton. Matthews has repeatedly focused on the physical characteristics of his female guests. He recently began an interview with conservative radio host and author Laura Ingraham by telling her, 'I'm not allowed to say this, but I'll say it -- you're beautiful and you're smart.' He ended the interview by saying: 'I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country. But also, you are a hell of a writer.' Note that Matthews said Ingraham is also a good writer -- apparently, to Chris Matthews, there is no reason for men to care about whether a woman can write, only about how she looks. Matthews' comments about Ingraham came only a month after he told CNBC anchor Erin Burnett, 'You're a knockout,' adding: 'It's all right getting bad news from you.' Matthews also told Burnett: 'Come on in closer. No, come in -- come in further -- come in closer. Really close.' Matthews made such a spectacle of himself during the exchange that The New York Post said iit sure looked' like Matthews had been 'perving on CNBC hottie Erin Burnett on live TV the other night.' Matthews explained that he had merely been 'kidding around.' During MSNBC's April 26, 2007, coverage of the first Democratic presidential debate, Matthews discussed the 'cosmetics' of the evening. In doing so, he complimented Michelle Obama's pearl necklace and declared that she 'looked perfect,' 'well-turned out ... attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, "classy."' Matthews also appeared to argue that many viewers would be basing their decisions about the candidates on how, in Clinton's case, the candidate was dressed, or, in the case of the male candidates, how their spouses were dressed: 'Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle -- and they said, "I like the fact he's [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that." They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance.' When NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell interjected, noting 'You're talking about two ... lawyers,' who went to 'Harvard and Yale,' Matthews defended himself, saying, 'Cosmetics are a part of this game.' Nor is any of this new: In August 1999, Matthews hosted notorious liar Gennifer Flowers, during which he told her: 'I gotta pay a little tribute here. You're a very beautiful woman, and I -- and I have to tell you, he knows that, you know that, and everybody watching knows that; Hillary Clinton knows that. How can a woman put up with a relationship between her husband and somebody, anybody, but especially somebody like you that's a knockout?' After Flowers told him 'Gosh, you make me blush here,' Matthews replied, '[I]t's an objective statement, Gennifer. I'm not flirting.' In 2000, Matthews responded to linguist Deborah Tannen's explanation of then-presidential candidate George W. Bush's efforts to appeal to women voters by saying, 'So is this like the political equivalent of Spanish fly? That these seductive number of words you just drop out there and women just swoon.' That led another Hardball guest, Lynn Martin -- a Republican -- to point out, 'You wouldn't suggest he's seducing men.' Chris Matthews has been treating female guests as sexual objects for years. He has been judging women -- senators, presidential candidates, the speaker of the House -- on their clothes and their voices and their appearance for years. He has been referring to women as 'castrating' for years. He has been applying double standards to male and female candidates for years. This is who Chris Matthews is. He is a man who thinks that men who support women politicians are 'eunuchs.' He isn't going to stop unless you make him stop. Chris Matthews uses his voice to marginalize women. Use yours to tell MSNBC you've had enough."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110014?f=h_top

5/19/2008 5:16:05 AM

Quote :

"that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not"

It's official. Bill O'Reilly is the world's greatest troll.


And have you finally accepted Media Matters as a non-biased source?

5/19/2008 7:55:04 AM

Quote :

"better than our supposed allies."

The actions of Iran stand on their own and are neither qualified nor condemned by the actions of others.

Quote :

"if it wasnt for the Persians, the Jews would have LONG ago ceased to exist. Ever since the Babylonian Exile, the Jews have been a significant (and respected) Iranian minority throughout Iran's (Persia's) existence."

You may want to review some of the history of the intervening ~2500 years.

5/19/2008 8:57:11 AM