Ron Mills- News And Commentary

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Did Obama Win Nevada

On Saturday, in Nevada, they elected city delegates whom will then go to the county and then to the state, where the national delegates will be selected to go to Denver.

There are two kind of delegates. The more important kind, nationally speaking, are the latter, of which Obama — according to a revised AP count — is expected to emerge with 13 to Clinton's 12.

That's the technical grounds on which Obama claimed a kind of victory. The Clinton campaign's and the Nevada party's objections to this earlier this evening were yet more technical, but also accurate: The national delegates haven't yet been formally awarded.

"The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson.

But the only plausible scenario in which the awarding of delegates chances is one in which one of the candidates drops out of the race and endorses the other. In which case it'll be academic. So in the only likely scenario that matters, Obama will wind up with one more delegate out of Nevada, an all-but-meaningless number in any case.

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Voter Intimidation in Nevada

UPDATE via Taylor Marsh: "NEVADA UPSET: Clinton over Obama"

::::::::::::::

Taylor Marsh has been on this story since last week. This morning, in "Free Elections Epilogue," Taylor posts, "Salon.com's Joan Walsh this morning":

But United Farmworkers' Union co-founder Dolores Huerta went further, accusing the Culinary Workers Union of intimidating Clinton supporters and keeping them away from the caucuses. Union leaders are telling Clinton backers if they don't vote for Obama, "they won't get transportation, they will be fired," Huerta said. She also argued that Clinton has a "cultural, political and social relationship with the Latino community, which Senator Obama does not have." Latinos call Clinton "Hilaria," Huerta said, adding derisively that they call Sen. Obama "Como se llama?" (as in "What's his name?") …

… .. Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh picked up the tale, relying on Marie Angers' account. But so far, Antuna has been silent since talking to the Sun. Reached by telephone Friday afternoon, at first she didn't want to talk. "I'm just afraid to say anything," she said. But then the CWU shop steward of 24 years agreed to tell her story.

Taylor continues:

As Walsh states in her piece, Atuna has been silent since originally talking to the Sun. Angers, whose name I have not used until this post, would not even allow me to use her name in the audio interview (the story I broke before anyone). As I said in this post taking on the Sun's piece, this is about free elections and having the right to vote for whomever you want.

Read all.

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

And more. Much, much more.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Chris Matthews

'When politicians are having difficulty getting themselves out of a controversial situation, pundits like Chris Matthews are quick to offer a diagnosis: The politician, they tell us, should immediately come clean, take responsibility and, if necessary, apologize. Get it over quickly; don't let it drag out -- and don't make it worse with evasive answers or half-hearted explanations.

Chris Matthews and MSNBC should have followed that advice.

Amid growing outrage over Matthews' comments about Hillary Clinton and other women, the Hardball host spent the first five minutes of his show last night delivering his version of Richard Nixon's Checkers speech.

Acknowledging that he had been "callous," "nasty," and "dismissive" toward Hillary Clinton, Matthews insisted "I get it."

Matthews' acknowledgement is a welcome first step -- and a victory for those who have spoken out against his misogynistic comments, from Media Matters and other media critics to national leaders such as Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy to scores of writers and bloggers to countless concerned Americans who contacted MSNBC to express their concern. The idea of Chris Matthews publicly admitting he has made inappropriate comments about Hillary Clinton -- a politician who he openly hates -- would have been nearly unthinkable just a few weeks ago. But it happened, demonstrating that the sorry state of our nation's media isn't inevitable: Concerned citizens who take responsibility for speaking out against behavior like Matthews' can bring about change.

But Matthews' speech last night isn't enough. As Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Matthews' comments: "Chris Matthews is a repeat offender when it comes to sexist attitudes toward women politicians. ... I wasn't really looking for an apology. I was looking for a behavior change, and for him to treat female politicians the same way as male politicians."

Maybe last night's Matthews speech will mark the beginning of such a behavior change. But based on their response to the controversy so far, it seems that neither Matthews nor his MSNBC colleagues really "get it" at all.

Matthews' five-minute speech focused exclusively on one comment he made about Hillary Clinton -- and suggested he made that comment only one time. Early in Matthews' speech, he noted that his comments are "almost always without a script." Later, he pointed to the "heated, fast-paced talk we have here on Hardball." But Matthews' assertion that the only reason Clinton is a leading presidential contender is that Bill Clinton had an affair wasn't a one-time mistake resulting from a fast-paced, scriptless television show. Matthews has said largely the same thing at least 10 times dating back to 1999.

And Matthews has made countless other comments about Hillary Clinton that he completely ignored last night. He has called her a "She devil" and "witchy" and said that men who support her are "castratos in the eunuch chorus" and compared her to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is a "convincing mom" and said she speaks in a "scolding manner" and described her laugh as a "cackle" and suggested that "being surrounded by women" might "make a case against" Clinton being "commander in chief" and called her an "uppity" woman and described her as "anti-male" and obsessed about her "ambition" while ignoring that of the (all male) Republicans running for president.

Matthews didn't address any of those comments in his speech last night; he didn't even acknowledge that they existed, or that the criticism he has faced recently has anything to do with any comments other than what he said about Clinton being a presidential contender because her husband cheated on her.

Nor did he address or even acknowledge his lengthy history of highly questionable comments about other women, like his suggestion that Nancy Pelosi would "castrate" Steny Hoyer and that she would have difficulty disagreeing with President Bush without "screaming" and "without becoming grating." Or his suggestion that the Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary Clinton because the paper's "female editors and publisher" succumbed to "lobbying" by Bill Clinton.

And Matthews completely ignored his pattern of objectifying women, particularly women who are guests on his show. He has told Elizabeth Edwards, "You've got a great face, Elizabeth. I love your smile," adding "I don't want to patronize you." He once began an interview with Laura Ingraham by telling her, "I'm not allowed to say this, but I'll say it -- you're beautiful and you're smart," and ended it by adding, "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." He has asked guests if they find Ann Coulter "physically attractive" and declared that she "doesn't pass the Chris Matthews test." Coulter and Ingraham may have odious ideas, but they deserve to be judged on those ideas, not on whether they're "beautiful" or how they fare on "the Chris Matthews test" of physical attractiveness.

Matthews famously urged CNBC reporter Erin Burnett to "come in -- come in further -- come in closer. Really close" and told her she is a "knockout" and "beautiful." He engaged in an extended commentary about "beautiful" CNBC reporter Margaret Brennan," noting "she's 6 feet tall" and telling her, "You're gorgeous." He has described the stars of online videos as "gorgeous creatures of god" and told one of them, "You're giving me the peepers. I can tell. ...You are doing it. You are flashing your incredible eyebrows at me. Look at that. It's awful what you're doing." And he told another: "[B]e careful with the advances you are making with your eyes right now. I'm not a casting agent." He has commented on Michelle Obama's appearance so extensively, NBC colleague Andrea Mitchell was moved to remind him that he was talking about a Harvard-educated attorney.

EMILY's List president Ellen Malcolm has described Matthews' comments as "sexual harassment brought to you by MSNBC."

But during his five-minute speech last night, Matthews pretended none of this exists.

And so it seems that he doesn't really "get it."

Worse, MSNBC doesn't seem to get it, either. The cable channel's executives have remained silent on the matter, lending their tacit approval to Matthews' behavior.

And some of Matthews' MSNBC colleagues have leapt to his defense.

On Morning Joe this morning, host Joe Scarborough said it is "offensive" and "outrageous" that Matthews "has to apologize." Like Matthews, Scarborough focused only on Matthews' comment about Hillary Clinton's success resulting from Bill Clinton's affair.

At the end of his rant, Scarborough insisted, "This ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign."

Scarborough got that part right. This isn't about Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is about a consistent pattern of misogynistic comments by Chris Matthews. Comments about and directed toward a variety of women. A consistent pattern of Matthews objectifying women. And a consistent pattern of MSNBC looking the other way.

It's about an MSNBC host saying things like this: "I've been trying to call Alessandra Stanley with The New York Times for some time just to have lunch with her, and she thinks it's because I'm trying to influence her -- that's not the case at all, it's because, I was surprised, I saw a picture of her and I thought she was kinda hot!"

That one wasn't Chris Matthews, though. That one was ... Joe Scarborough.

It's about things like a male MSNBC host describing a woman running for president as "shrill" (and "very shrill") and asking, "[W]hat about her housekeeping skills?" Those were Joe Scarborough, too.

MSNBC's David Shuster also chimed in with a defense of Matthews: "[T]o see him have to go through this is absolutely infuriating, to see the way these groups used him for pure political gain is absolutely infuriating."

But this isn't about political gain. This isn't about one comment about Hillary Clinton, or even 30 comments about Hillary Clinton: This is about Chris Matthews' pattern of inappropriate treatment of women, and about MSNBC's continued acceptance of it. It's about things like a male journalist doing a mocking "impersonation" of the women who host The View - an impersonation that featured a high-pitched, whiny voice.

That one wasn't Chris Matthews, either. That one was ... David Shuster.

And then there's MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, who has described Hillary Clinton as "whining" and suggested the reason there are so few women in Congress is that "most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics" and said of Clinton, "[W]hen she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs," and described her as "castrating, overbearing, and scary." (MSNBC can't say they didn't know what they were getting when they hired Carlson; before joining the cable channel, he said women "want to be spanked vigorously every once in a while" and told Elle magazine that Clinton is his "guilty fantasy," explaining: "Every time I see her I think I could, you know, help. ... She seems tense.")

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski weighed in on Matthews' behalf, too. Brzezinski defended Matthews by referring to comments Matthews made in response to criticism of his misogynistic remarks -- not to his January 9 comments that "the reason" for Hillary Clinton's political success is that "her husband messed around -- and by complaining that "the websites isolated one portion of what he said."

But the only people who have "isolated" Matthews' comments are Matthews himself -- and his MSNBC colleagues like Mika Brzezinski. They have pretended that the entire controversy is about one statement Matthews made about one person, one time. That isn't it at all. It's about many comments about many women, many times.

If Mika Brzezinski thinks Chris Matthews is being taken out of context, she's free to explain what context makes it acceptable to refer to Hillary Clinton as "witchy" and to describe Clinton and Nancy Pelosi "castrating" males and to depict Clinton as a "strip-teaser" and to describe the women on the Des Moines Register editorial board succumbing to "lobbying" by Bill Clinton. Then she can explain what context makes it OK for Matthews to leer at female guests over and over and over again.

As Joe Scarborough said: "This ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign."

This is about what Ellen Malcolm described as "sexual harassment brought to you by MSNBC."

It's about whether MSNBC -- the cable channel that hired Ann Coulter, that gave Michael Savage a television show (then had to take it away when he told a caller to "get AIDS and die"), that hired Don Imus to spew insults until one day he went too far in talking about the Rutgers women's basketball team -- has learned from its previous mistakes, or whether it will continue to tolerate sexist comments from its hosts and reporters.

Last night, Matthews told us that he "get[s] it." Now he -- and his on-air colleagues, and MSNBC executives -- have to show us that they really do. And a speech won't do it; they have to change their behavior.

A week ago, MSNBC had a Chris Matthews problem. If things don't change, the cable channel may have a much bigger problem.

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Friday, January 18, 2008

Matthew's Sort-a Sorry

Chris Matthews' record of creepy, on-air misogyny is not exactly new, but it reached new depths last week with his small-minded dismissal of Hillary Clinton. After years of anti-woman rhetoric, this one seemed to cross the line.

Thankfully, Matthews seemed to get the message. Or, at a minimum, his bosses seemed to get the message, and told Matthews to apologize.

For 10 days, the "Hardball" host had doggedly insisted he was just reciting a bit of history when he said on the air that "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."

But protests against those and other remarks by Matthews reached a peak yesterday when the presidents of such groups as the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority and National Women's Political Caucus sent a joint letter of complaint to NBC News President Steve Capus.

On last night's program, Matthews defended the substance of his remarks that Clinton's political career in New York was launched because of public sympathy stemming from her husband's much-investigated affair with Monica Lewinsky. But, he said, "was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying."

Noting that it would be just as unfair to attribute John McCain's political success to having been shot down in the Vietnam War, Matthews said: "Saying Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, came across just as nasty — worse yet, just as dismissive." He said he would be "clearer," "smarter" and more respectful in discussing women.

It's worth watching:

The comments were certainly welcome, but are they enough?

Kim Gandy, NOW's president, said last night that "Chris Matthews is a repeat offender when it comes to sexist attitudes toward women politicians. . . . I wasn't really looking for an apology. I was looking for a behavior change, and for him to treat female politicians the same way as male politicians."

In the joint letter, also signed by author Gloria Steinem, the women cited other examples in which Matthews referred to Clinton as a "stripteaser" and called her "witchy." When Nancy Pelosi was in line to become House speaker, the letter noted, Matthews asked a guest if Pelosi was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if the Maryland congressman was elected majority leader.

About 30 people affiliated with the National Women's Political Caucus picketed NBC's Nebraska Avenue NW bureau yesterday afternoon as a protest against Matthews's remarks.

"This is a victory for all women. We are pleased that Chris Matthews has shown remorse," the caucus said in a statement last night.

I am, too, but at the risk of sounding overly demanding, I found his contrition underwhelming. For one thing, Matthews didn't apologize willingly — he insisted for nearly two weeks that his comments were perfectly appropriate, and only backpedaled when the network started feeling the heat.

For another, Matthews' apology made it sound as if his misogyny problem was limited to one anti-Clinton diatribe. It's not; his problem extends to other women, and has for quite a while.

What I'd hoped to hear is a sense that Matthews realizes that he's been disrespectful to women, and that he's finally ready to change his attitude. Instead, we heard one statement of contrition about one incident.

Matthews has a pattern of behavior. I got the sense that last night's mea culpa was, as far as he's concerned, the end of the controversy. In reality, it should be just the initial step.

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Ron Paul May Win Nevada

Polling accurately in Nevada is tough to do, and ARG has Ron Paul in fifth place (9%) while Research 2000 has him in sixth (6%). But the Associated Press says the Paulistas just might strike it rich in Vegas:

Republican candidates have stayed away from the diverse electorate and unfamiliar electoral landscape as Nevada voters weigh in earlier than ever before.

No major GOP candidate has set foot in the state for two months, and some Republicans are bracing for a possible surprise first-place showing by long-shot Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the only Republican to broadcast TV ads in Nevada.

He beat Rudy Giuliani like a drum in Michigan. And the Michigan GOP thinks McCain won. The party is in complete disarray, with a pack of flawed candidates and no clear winner emerging. It's hard to imagine anything making the GOP presidential race any more chaotic, disorganized and comical than it is, but a Paul victory in Nevada could do it.

It's a long shot, but I'm pulling for him.

(h/t TPM)

By: Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

David Brock Issues Open Letter to NBC News President Steve Capus

Brock raises serious questions regarding the on-air conduct of MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Washington, D.C. -- Today, Media Matters for America President & CEO David Brock issued an open letter to Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, raising serious questions about the on-air conduct of MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews. Given Matthews' long history of degrading commentary, Brock has urged Capus to protect the network's trusted reputation for fair and equal coverage and, as Capus himself articulated, "continue the dialogue about what is appropriate conduct and speech" on the air.

Highlights from the letter include:

"Senator Clinton's candidacy aside, Matthews' degrading attacks on women constitute a broader and more troubling pattern that has unfolded over the years. During his coverage of the 2000 presidential race, Matthews repeatedly referred to author Naomi Wolf as "the political equivalent of Viagra." His on-air treatment of CNBC anchor Erin Burnett ("Could you get a little closer to the camera? ...You're beautiful. …You're a knockout.") has been described by Emily's List President Ellen Malcolm as "sexual harassment brought to you by MSNBC."'

[…]

"[A]s you well know, programs like Hardball define wider media narratives and agendas and shape public perceptions about public affairs, especially, as is the case now, when the nation is poised to make critical choices about its future direction. Given Matthews' record detailed above, I fear that he will continue to insult, misinform, and ultimately disserve the public as we continue to engage in a basic process of our democracy in the coming months."

Below is the full text of the letter:

January 16, 2008

Steve Capus

President, NBC News

NBC Television Network
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York , NY 10112

Dear Mr. Capus:

I'm writing today to express urgent concern over the appalling on-air conduct of MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews and to ask that you engage Media Matters for America and other concerned parties in the broader community of NBC viewers in a constructive dialogue about appropriate remedies to this most unfortunate state of affairs at NBC's cable news channel MSNBC.

As you know, the event precipitating the current firestorm surrounding Matthews' conduct occurred on MSNBC last week in the wake of Senator Hillary Clinton's victory in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire . During MSNBC's coverage that night, Matthews said he would "never underestimate Hillary Clinton again" -- an apparent reference to his long-standing pattern of on-air denigration of Senator Clinton's candidacy and persona -- documented in a Media Matters survey of Hardball with Chris Matthews published December 18, 2007 (attached). The following morning, on the MSNBC program Morning Joe, Matthews said of Clinton , "the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around" and that "she didn't win [ New York ] on her merits." These statements were demonstrably false, utterly disrespectful, and, as the ensuing controversy has revealed, deeply offensive to many Americans.

Given Matthews' history of animus toward both Senator Clinton and President Bill Clinton, these remarks might be seen as just par for the course. After all, MSNBC has entrusted Matthews -- as Hardball host, frequent on-air news anchor for MSNBC, and host of the syndicated Chris Matthews Show run on the NBC broadcast network -- with a prominent role in political campaign coverage throughout the last year, despite his 2001 statement referencing Clinton reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." To my knowledge, Matthews has not disputed the quote, which betrays an ugly and unprofessional personal bias that unfairly skews political coverage of one of the leading candidates for President of the United States night after night on MSNBC.

Matthews has referred to Clinton as a "She Devil," compared her to a "strip-teaser" and referred to her as "witchy." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom," and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to " Midwest guys." Even Matthews' journalistic guests have called out Matthews for using sexist rhetoric. On one episode of Hardball devoted to what Matthews repeatedly referred to as Clinton 's "cackle," Politico reporter Mike Allen broke in and said, "Chris, first of all, 'cackle' is a very sexist term." Matthews has hosted right-wing radio host Michael Graham, who said on Hardball:

"Anyone listening to Hillary Rodham in her speech last week about patriotism, that screaming, screeching fingernail, I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron. That's what I wanted to do." (Matthews is quoted on the jacket of one of Graham's books endorsing the radio host as "the funniest political observer in the country. The guy turns the truth into a punch.")

According to a Media Matters count, over the course of two weeks in 2006, Matthews barraged his guests with 90 separate questions about what Matthews has variously described as Bill Clinton's purported "lifestyle," "social life," "personal behavior," and "personal life." This pattern of obsessive personal attacks on the Clintons has, of course, been glaringly on display for years; back in 1998, Salon memorably described Hardball as the "official cable club house for Clinton-haters."

But last week -- with America engaged in an invigorating democratic process, in a moment freighted with the potential for historic progress and promise in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans as, for the first time in our history, both a woman and an African-American are leading candidates for the presidency -- Matthews' sexist attack struck a nerve.

Senator Clinton's candidacy aside, Matthews' degrading attacks on women constitute a broader and more troubling pattern that has unfolded over the years. During his coverage of the 2000 presidential race, Matthews repeatedly referred to author Naomi Wolf as "the political equivalent of Viagra." His on-air treatment of CNBC anchor Erin Burnett ("Could you get a little closer to the camera? ...You're beautiful. …You're a knockout.") has been described by Emily's List President Ellen Malcolm as "sexual harassment brought to you by MSNBC." Matthews once ended an interview with right-wing radio host and author Laura Ingraham 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."

During coverage of a presidential debate last spring, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell appeared compelled to remind Matthews that Democratic Senator Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, is a Harvard-educated lawyer as Matthews focused obsessively on her physical appearance, stating she "looked perfect," "well-turned out ... attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, 'classy.' "

Why NBC apparently believes such conduct and speech to be informative, appropriate or responsible broadcasting in the public interest is a question for you and for General Electric's management and Board of Directors. In this regard, I should note that gender-based attacks have also been documented by Media Matters on MSNBC's show Tucker, hosted by Tucker Carlson. Carlson invoked Lorena Bobbitt to claim that Clinton is tapping into women's anger toward men, and on another broadcast of Tucker, said of Clinton : "[W]hen she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." During a discussion of how gender might play into Senator Clinton's candidacy, Carlson's right-wing guest Cliff May said, "At least call her a Vaginal-American."

My concern about your network's broadcast standards is not limited to sexism. In 2006, Matthews hosted right-wing pundit Ann Coulter the day after she had posited on another NBC cable network, CNBC, on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, that Bill Clinton is gay. Questioned about the remark by Matthews, Coulter offered a bizarre theory to conclude Clinton "shows some level of latent homosexuality." She continued, "I don't know if he's gay, but Al Gore -- total fag." Matthews concluded the interview with, "Well, thanks, Ann, you're great."

In Warp Speed: America in the Age of Mixed Media, the esteemed media critics Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote, " 'Hardball' has no grounding in reporting, no basic news function, is not designed to elicit facts or explore issues with policy-makers."

That judgment notwithstanding, as you well know, programs like Hardball define wider media narratives and agendas and shape public perceptions about public affairs, especially, as is the case now, when the nation is poised to make critical choices about its future direction. Given Matthews' record detailed above, I fear that he will continue to insult, misinform, and ultimately disserve the public as we continue to engage in a basic process of our democracy in the coming months.

My concerns are based in fact. According to a study by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism of political media coverage in 2000, Hardball accounted for 12 percent of all media reports that discussed presidential candidate Al Gore's purported "tendency to exaggerate," a false campaign narrative perpetuated by the Republican National Committee. Indeed, Matthews seemed so unfair in his treatment of Gore that NBC Today show host Matt Lauer upbraided him on the air, saying, "Let's be honest here. Al Gore irritates you." "The public has been saying that too," Matthews replied.

The aforementioned Media Matters study examined Matthews' statements on Hardball about the two then-front-running candidates in each political party, Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in the months of September, October, and November 2007. The results showed Matthews made 10 negative remarks about Clinton for every negative remark he made about Giuliani. Moreover, Matthews made nearly three times as many positive remarks about Giuliani as about Clinton .

In addition, Matthews has said on Hardball that he believes Republican Senator John McCain "deserves to be president."

Mr. Capus, during the controversy last spring surrounding Don Imus' racist and sexist remarks broadcast on MSNBC -- remarks first documented by Media Matters -- we commended your acknowledgement that NBC has a responsibility to protect the network's trusted reputation for fair and equal coverage and to "continue the dialogue about what is appropriate conduct and speech" on its air. In the case of Chris Matthews, I implore you to once again consider the gravity of that responsibility.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Stop Chris Matthew's Woman Bashing

Using overtly sexist language, he has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has called her "witchy" and likened her voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."

Had enough? Contact MSNBC to tell them what you think.

Mr. Phil Griffin,
Senior Vice President, News
NBC Television Network
30 Rockefeller Plz
New York, NY 10112
phil.griffin@nbc.com

Steve Capus,
President, NBC News
steve.capus@nbc.com

MSNBC
letters@msnbc.com
MSNBC/Microsoft-NBC
30 Rockefeller Plz
3rd Fl
New York, NY 10112
(212) 664-4444

Chris Matthews
hardball@msnbc.com

After Clinton won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, Matthews asserted: "[T]he reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." He described her performance at a debate last Saturday as apparently "good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway."

His sexism is hardly limited to comments about Clinton. During coverage of the New Hampshire primary, he said that Clinton is the only viable woman presidential candidate "on the horizon." He couldn't think of a single female governor eligible to run: "Where are the big-state women governors?" he asked. "Where are they? Name one." In fact, several of the states that currently have women governors are comparable in population to the states in which the male presidential candidates serve or have served as governor.

In November 2006, shortly after the Democrats took the majority in Congress, Matthews asked a guest if then-presumptive speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if Hoyer (D-MD) were elected House majority leader.

During coverage of a presidential debate last spring, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell was compelled to remind Matthews that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) wife, Michelle, is a Harvard-educated lawyer after he focused obsessively on her physical appearance.

The good news is that people are speaking out against Matthews' flagrant, persistent sexism.

Of the New Hampshire primary results, the blog TalkLeft, observed:

"It was a revolt of women sick and tired of the likes of Chris Tweety Matthews and the Media Misogynists.

Barack Obama did not lose New Hampshire. The Media did. Their misogynist hatred of Hillary Clinton was soundly rejected by the voters. Especially the women voters of New Hampshire.

How the Media will react to this well deserved rebuke is the question. And let's be clear, Chris Matthews should be removed from covering this race. His offensive behavior is a disgrace to NBC."

It's time to play a little "hardball." Please contact MSNBC and Chris Matthews today and let them know what you think.

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Thompson's Last Stand

Former Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) provides an important lesson in effective campaign messaging.

Sen. Thompson is relying on a strong showing in South Carolina to propel his candidacy to the White House. CNN reported this afternoon that the Thompson campaign is joking about South Carolina as "Custer's last stand."

Of course, General Armstrong Custer was defeated and killed in the Battle of Little Bighorn.

Apparently, Sen. Thompson didn't learn anything from the opening scene in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Sen. Thompson either doesn't know history, doesn't want to stick around in the race, or both. (To be fair, Sen. Thompson has a history of remembering the facts wrong, or not at all.)

They Never Learn, Do They?

Giuliani's New York canvassers are trolling Red Sox Nation in Yankees garb, in advance of the primary:

Some Rudy Giuliani volunteers bused here from New York City struck out as they went door to door in advance of Tuesday's Granite State primary while wearing caps or jackets of the hated New York Yankees.
"Some people really don't think," said a person with knowledge of the situation.

"You're in the middle of Red Sox Nation wearing stuff from their enemy. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Strike two?

Ron Paul to Cross Picket Line... Again

Republican presidential candidates are jumping ahead of one another to cross the picket line of workers who have public opinion handily on their side. First, it was Mike Huckabee, who said he didn't realize that he was going to be crossing the line.

Up next, Ron Paul, who will appear on the Tonight Show this evening.

As ThinkProgress points out, this isn't the first picket line that Ron Paul has crossed. In December, Paul appeared on The View -- despite the striking writers. He later said that he "doesn't care about the unions or the pickets."

Also make sure to check out FlipperTV.

A Election '08 News Site:

For News And Commentary:

For Florida Election News See:

Political Talk For And By Political Junkies

Just Rumors The Rumor Mills