Fully Exploring the Chris Matthews “Obsession” With Hillary Clinton

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


chris_matthews_smirk.jpg One need only watch Hardball for maybe 30 or 40 seconds to know that Chris Matthews has some really odd issues with women that he projects onto Hillary Clinton. There was the discussion of her “cackle,” the claim that she was only elected to the Senate because her husband “messed around,” the fact that he pinched her cheek when they met face to face, and the probing of Hillary’s status as a “she devil.”

That’s why this comprehensive takedown of Matthews by David Brock is so welcome. Here’s a sample of Matthews’ statements, from that takedown (which I encourage you to read in full).

“Nurse Ratched”

“Doesn’t she know she looks like a fraud?”

“[L]et’s talk about the troops …Will they take the orders?”

“[S]he’s clapping, like she’s Chinese. I know the Chinese clap at each other, but what is she clapping at? I mean, it’s like one of these wind-up things.”

“[S]he was giving a campaign barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it — fingernails on a blackboard, perhaps.”

There’s also the simple fact that Matthews doesn’t really say things. He declares them, in big, showy, unambiguous ways, and then goes on and on and on about them. In the days leading up to the New Hampshire primary, he announced Hillary’s campaign dead and asked every guest he had if she should just drop out of the race. After yesterday’s debate, he announced that Clinton’s performance was a “dramatic powerplay” (even though it was a relatively nondescript debate in which all candidates looked tired but intelligent and composed) and would not stop repeating his chosen storyline (even though no one else on his network seemed to see it the same way).

So here’s the summary. Chris Matthews: odious and sexist when slamming Hillary Clinton, just plain annoying at all other times.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest