Chris Matthews Doesn't Rewrite History About the Clintons, He Just Makes It Up

First of all, you have to ask, 'Is history a reasonable basis on which to make a statement?'... We're not talking about opinion here. Chris Matthews on Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough January 11, 2008

True enough. Chris Matthews did not support his argument with opinion. He flat out lied. It wasn't a slip of the tongue. He gave it a lot of thought and preparation.

Matthews was defending some comments about Hillary Clinton that triggered widespread revulsion, most notably from the women on The View:

Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.

That's how she got to be a senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation, right?" That's what happened! That's how it happened. Matthews on Morning Joe January 9, 2008

Matthews' thesis is that "in the midst of all this humiliation," a phrase he couldn't repeat often enough, Hillary Clinton's poise, toughness, and "heroic" campaigning caused people to feel sympathy for her. But if you believe Life's a Campaign, then it's oxymoronic to say Hillary shows toughness and poise and then say, "She didn't win it on her merit."

According to Matthews. the turning point in Hillary's viability as a candidate occurred during September - November 1998, when she campaigned for Chuck Schumer in New York.

Back in 1998 in the midst of the terror that he was involved with in that intern, he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, and then he faced conviction in the U.S. Senate, in the midst of all that in the fall campaign of 1998, Hillary Clinton went out and heroically campaigned for Chuck Schumer. Matthews on January 11, 2008

Remember, "We're not talking opinion here." So how many falsehoods did you find? Here's my count:

1. Back in 1998 ... he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives

False. The House did not impeach Clinton until after the November 1998 election in lame duck session.

2. ...and then he faced conviction in the U.S. Senate...

No one seriously thought that a conviction, which required a 2/3 vote, was either politically or arithmetically possible. Democratic Senators were uniformly against impeachment and a number of Republican Senators had severe misgivings. (On the final vote, the Republicans favoring conviction failed to attain a simple majority.) After Americans watched Clinton's videotaped testimony, the percentage in favor of even beginning impeachment proceedings was 31%.

3. In the midst of the terror that he was involved with that intern...

Terror? (Listen on Joe Scarborough how Matthews emphasizes the word "terror.") On September 25, 1998, Bill Clinton's approval rating was 67%. It had shot up from 61% right after the public got a good hard look at Bill Clinton's videotaped testimony about his relations with Ms. Lewinsky.

The apparent resurgence for Mr. Clinton has come swiftly -- and is surprisingly pronounced. Not only has the months long slide in his personal ratings halted but, in a marked shift from only a week ago, Americans also trust him more as a leader, like him more, are less inclined to think he committed perjury before the grand jury and increasingly believe that the scandal is a private matter that has little to do with his job as President... 78 percent of Americans, and 65 percent of Republicans, said [the videotape] should never have been released. People said they objected to the committee's prying into what they regard as a private matter and that it was unnecessary to make public salacious details about sex. In addition, 65 percent of Americans said Republicans in Congress were unfairly trying to weaken the President and the Democrats; 39 percent of Republicans saw it that way as well. The New York Times September 25, 1998

Also, 60% of Americans said it was appropriate for the President to refuse to answer questions about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. At the time, House Speaker Newt Gingrich's approval was 18%.

4....went out and heroically campaigned for Chuck Schumer...

What's so heroic about campaigning in friendly territory? At the time, Bill Clinton had a 69% approval rating in New York, and the Ken Starr investigation was red meat for the Democrats. To drive home the point, the Schumer campaign aired a TV spot reminding voters that his Republican rival, Al D'Amato, investigated Whitewater. Schumer proudly campaigned aside Bill Clinton as well as Hillary.

Oh, and in case anybody forgot...

In a stunning rebuke to the capital's taste for scandal, voters on Tuesday handed Democrats surprising victories in key Senate and governor's races and held out the possibility of closing the Republicans' slim majority in the House. St. Petersburg Times November 4, 1998

But here's the kicker:

If you go back and look at the newspapers, which I did last night to confirm all this, you will find glowing accounts, especially in USA Today, I picked it up on the front page, by Kathy Kiely a great reporter, about how it was her poise in standing up in the midst of that humiliation where she was able to go out and campaign politically and show her strength in New York state, up and down that state for Chuck Schumer. And then she gets a call two or three days later from our old friend in New York Charlie Rangel...

The story ran, "It was her poise in the campaign in the midst of all this humiliation that made her a candidate for the senate." So if you don't accept the history then accept the syllogism, "Had Hillary Clinton not been a United States Senator right now because of that election would she be a serious candidate for president?"

You can't argue that she's a United States senator because of the fact in which, in humiliating circumstances she showed her toughness and elicited one whale of an amount of sympathy from people for having the guts to go out and campaign in the midst of all that humiliation...Hillary would not have been a U.S. senator and not have been in eligibility to run for president had that humiliation not been thrown upon her." Matthews on Morning Joe, January 11, 2008

There was no such story in USA Today. Matthews fabricated the quote. More specifically, he revised Kathy Kiely's story in USA Today, dated November 9, 2000, to fit his insupportable claims. Kiely wrote:

Clinton's poise under pressure impressed New York Democratic leaders, who began wooing the president's wife to make a bid for the seat of the retiring Moynihan, who was first elected in 1976. Her months on the campaign trail transformed the first lady from a reluctant public figure into an energetic and thick-skinned politician.

The word humiliation shows up nowhere. The word sympathy shows up nowhere. The article does not say that Hillary's poise was the deciding factor for New York Democratic leaders. Think about it for a second. Do you think other attributes - name recognition, affiliation with an extremely popular President, familiarity with the ways of Washington, being a quick study and a hard worker - might be deemed more important than poise? Here's what Knight-Ridder printed on October 28, 1998:

After making more than 50 appearances at fund-raising events and rallies through the year, Clinton campaigned full time in the week before the election, traveling to New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

She's a huge drawing card,'' said Michael Tucker, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which helps finance Democratic Senate candidates.

She is perhaps the strongest voice we have in terms of firing up the base. She's always been that way, she's always had a lot of base appeal. She appeals to working families, organized labor, minorities, teachers. [Emphasis added.]

Now consider the second sentence in Kiely's passage, "Her months on the campaign trail transformed the first lady from a reluctant public figure into an energetic and thick-skinned politician." Is that factual reporting or literary license? Before September 1998 Hillary was a reluctant public figure? Please.

This brings up another fatal flaw in Matthews' assertion of historic fact. Contemporary political analysis in a newspaper is not the same thing as historic fact. A historic fact is something beyond dispute. No one disputes that the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003. But many dispute that the invasion, which ignored widespread looting, was an unqualified success. Citing a newspaper account describing the Iraq invasion a success does not, in and of itself, prove a historic fact.

As for going back and checking with the newspapers, I did a search on Factiva covering the period in 1998 when Hillary campaigned with Schumer. The search was for "Schumer" and "Hillary" and "Clinton" and "campaign" and "New York" and "sympathy" and "humiliation." Total results: zero.

Matthews' challenge, "If you go back and look at the newspapers," is a favorite stunt of the Bush White House. Check out Tony Snow's press conferences. Nine times out of ten, whenever Snow uttered the words "if you" followed by a reference from the past (e.g. "if you go back and look at..." or "if you actually take the trouble to read....") the reference was bogus. Michael Chertoff used the stunt a few days after Katrina, when he said, "I remember on Tuesday morning [August 30] picking up newspapers and I saw headlines, 'New Orleans Dodged The Bullet.'" There was no such headline. Chertoff lied and no one called him on it.

Getting back to the reaction from The View, I think Scarborough and Matthews missed their point. I think they were offended by the mean-spirited way in which Matthews devalued Hillary's accomplishments. "[T]he reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around... She didn't win it on her merit..." It's analogous to saying Colin Powell sat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff only because of affirmative action. In that regard, Matthews' remark is no more defensible than Ann Coulter's comment that, "If [Max] Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator in the first place."

Once again, Chris Matthews pulls out all the stops to portray the Republican narrative as absolute truth. We saw it in his attempt to say that Bill Clinton did not speak out against the Iraq invasion. And we saw it in his attempt to conflate Hillary's vote on the October 2002 war resolution into the decision to invade Iraq. As he has for the past decade, he argues that the Lewinsky affair central to the lives and careers of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Except, according to the polls, vast majority of Americans, then and now, did not see it that way.

If Barbara Walters wants to debate history and debate politics, and what's happened in this country in the last 50 years, if she wants to go on Jeopardy and see what she knows and what I know, I'll take her on... Matthews, January 11, 2008

Hey Chris, I'm willing to call your bluff and take you on. I'm not famous and I've never worked in politics. But I majored in History. And I sure know the difference between a fact and a lie.

ADDENDUM: (January 23, 2008, 7:23 pm) I just saw Chris Matthews apologize to Senator Clinton and others who were offended by his remarks. He also said he gets it. Good for him.

All talking heads and politicians should look to Joe Biden as a role model. On this first day of his campaign, Senator Biden said something dumb about Senator Obama. Biden apologized and everyone moved on.

 

Comments

[TexasDem0]

With all the negative feedback, how does this opinionated, obnoxious charlatan keep his high paying job? Almost anyone would be better, and there are plenty of people who would do a great job. How do the rest of us get a job with an astronomical salary for being an outright boor?

[chrysalis]

Kudo's to Keith

[Christopher4]

Chris Matthews is not a journalist -- he is a political attack dog which seeks to take down the presidential candidate of the democrats that has the best chance of winning. The ‘whoop’ of Howard Dean was NOTHING in Iowa until Chris Matthews used Limbaugh like tactics of ridicule and distortion. He now seeks to do the same think to H.Clinton. This keeps up and MSNBC is off my viewing list. He portrays an attitude of sexism and hatred that has NO place in responsible political analysis, commentary or journalism. I used to hold his show in high regard -- his obvious 'issues' make it tripe. Watch carefully, if Obama gets the nomination his show will be the centerpiece leading the attack on Obama – just like those ‘swift boater’ ads which he kept airing. I think the first step in combating racism and sexism is to LISTEN to those who are challenging your rhetoric and who are not the same race or gender you are. What Matthews and “Morning Joe” do is ridicule and denigrate them – the height of sexism. I think there should be the same outcry as there was against Imus when he ridiculed and denigrated because of race.

[xrayman]

I think Matthews is on and off the wagon. Sometimes he is droopy eyed and spitting, and other times, when it seems like he is sober, he's antagonistic and cuts off the guest if they don't say "You are right, Chris."

[Christopher4]

Chris Matthews is not a journalist -- he is a political attack dog which seeks to take down the presidential candidate of the democrats that is leading the pack and has the best chance of winning. The ‘whoop’ of Howard Dean was NOTHING in Iowa until Chris Matthews used Limbaugh like tactics of ridicule and distortion. He now seeks to do the same think to H.Clinton. This keeps up and MSNBC is off my viewing list. He portrays an attitude of sexism and hatred that has NO place in responsible political analysis, commentary or journalism. I used to hold his show in high regard -- his obvious 'issues' make it tripe. Watch carefully, if Obama gets the nomination his show will be the centerpiece leading the attack on Obama – just like those ‘swift boater’ ads which he kept airing. I think the first step in combating racism and sexism is to LISTEN to those who are challenging your rhetoric and who are not the same race or gender you are. What Matthews and “Morning Joe” do is ridicule and denigrate them – the height of sexism. I think there should be the same outcry as there was against Imus when he ridiculed and denigrated because of race.

[envilliven]

As usual "Motor Mouth Matthews" makes up his own facts to suit whatever topic he happens to be discussing. As intellegent as he is Matthews constantly manages to inject phoney unsupportable facts into a make believe scenario that he has created with his wild imagination. As politically astute as he claims to be he, manages to twist words, phrases and facts to support his assertions that it must be correct because he says it is.I find it so annoying that he constantly interrupts invited guest on his show "Hardball. It seems whenever one of his guest is about to answer a question posed by Matthews or is about to make a valid point, he will inject his own opinion or shout over the guest so that it's impossible to hear what the guest has to say. Why invite educated people on your show if you don't plan to give them a chance to speak? Personally, I like the guy, but he needs to change the format. The Sunday "Chris Matthews show is much better where the invited commentators a given a chance to express their opinion. Of course this is just my opinin. 'HAAAA"

[KarenM]

"As he has for the past decade, he argues that the Lewinsky affair central to the lives and careers of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Except, according to the polls, vast majority of Americans, then and now, did not see it that way."

Matthews has to keep bringing it up. He made his own PoliFi/Media fortunes on the backs of the Clintons and Monica. It's all he knows, and is the center of his universe. Everything in his world relates to it.

Except, of course, when he is comparing the manly qualities of the GOP candidates in disgusting detail.

[PoliFi = Political Fiction]

[Janelynne]

Matthews is a poor excuse for celebrity. There is no way to explain his keeping his job. His shouting, his chaotic thinking, his spitting and slobbering are repugnant. He is a news man like Patrick Dempsey is a physician. Except Dempsey is a pretty smart guy. Obermann needs to find a better home.

[PROUDOFRO]

I just wrote a letter to Chris Matthews and MSNBC regarging Mr. Matthew's unprofessional behavior. His derogatory remarks about women are unacceptable and certainly should not come from some one that sits in a fairly powerful seat on MSNBC. His rude, insulting attitude towards Erin Burnett is unexplainable.

Mr. Matthews in my opinion is a mean-spirited, congenital liar and extremely crude. I have asked that MSNBC replace him with someone who has professional behavior, like Keith Olberman or Dan Abrams. These two guys can be funny, but they are not unprofessional in their behavior.

Annette Krass
Weston, Florida
954-384-7959

[Codymens]

Why don't we organize a protest infront of the "Today" show to let the world know what Chris Matthews is all about.
We can organize one infront of "Good Morning America" too to let this idiot know that we are serious.

[Codymens]

I have stopped watching that drooling Chris Matthews. He is disgusting. Finally, I hope the MSNBC executives will sit him down and give him a stern warning about how the sponsors feel.
He is just a talking head and nothing more.

[OhgReaTone]

Chris Matthews has become enamored with his celebrity status. He has let his guard down and now we cans see him for who he really is.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/09/chris-mattthews-racist-chauvenist/

[Tator]

One question. Would Hillary be a Senator today if she had not been married to Slick Willy? Answer: NOPE

[AlleyCat]

Chris Matthews has never learned that when you kick a dead horse all you do is get dead horse shit on yourself.

I wish someone would go back over the last six weeks or so and paste all of his anti Hillary rants together. I wonder how many hours it would take up. I guessing around 8 hours minimum.
You should have seen him swooning over Schwarzenegger during the election out here in Cali, he gets week in his knees and star struck around celebrities.
He is a victim of the Catholic Church for sure.
Great Article Keep them Coming.

[KingT]

Are you kidding me? Chris Mattew is the best, hands down. I love his show, and loved it for years now. You proved every point he raised. I have read your article, and I was baffled by your lack of supporting evidence. Were you living in the US in the '90s? Or, is it some kind of selective amnesia? Is that your best rebuttal? You should be ashamed of yourself. Why you hate MSNBC anyways? It is the only news outlet with integrity to show both sides of the argument and tell it as it is. With MSNBC we have the facts, with(CNN-Clinton's News Network), we have distorted reflection of the facts by talk heads who are/were closely associated with the Clinotons.