In case anyone missed Wednesday's tragic-comic debate and needs more proof that the fourth estate is third rate, Chris Matthews was more than happy to oblige on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher. Not only did Matthews contradict reality, he contradicted himself.
As usual, Matthews spoke from a position of fabricated and self-appointed authority, this time as as the spokesman of all blue collar men in Pennsylvania. And, once again, Matthews projected his own emotional baggage as fact, explaining that men go to diners in the morning because "they don't want to hang out with their wives for an hour and they want that hour away..."
Being the great comic that he is, Bill Maher segued seamlessly from Matthews' "Take my wife" set up into the following question:
Speaking of which, you have been criticized as being a little sexist about Hillary.... Don't you think she has a point that gender has actually been a bigger factor in this campaign than race?
Without missing a beat, a cocksure and visibly self impressed Matthews replied:
No, actually there are more women democrats than there are male democrats. That should help her.
What does his answer have to do with the question? How does a higher percentage of female Democrats prove that gender is not an issue in this campaign? But Matthews really showed off his reason-free reasoning when, he responded to Maher's question about why Hillary was "doing better with Catholics" by saying:
That's a great question, that is a great one... 65% in Pennsylvania right now against 26%. I bet she goes up to 70, 75. I think that's just another word for Catholics, small town, middle class, I don't know I can't quite explain it. I don't know the answer to that.
BM: "Wow, I stumped Chris Matthews! I should win something."
Not to be outdone or stumped, the critically thinking Matthews surmised:
Maybe... Lemme find an issue you agree with the Pope on here. You're both against the war in Iraq. Catholics are generally against the war in Iraq, Hillary voted for it. Maybe that would be a logical reason, I'm not sure it's the real reason. But that would make sense.
What? Anti-war Catholic resentment of a war-voting Hillary WOULD make sense... If Matthews were explaining why Hillary is UNPOPULAR among Catholics. But since Matthews himself offers statistics demonstrating Hillary's popularity among Catholics, he just presented an illogical, contradictory explanation.
So why this explanation? In the words of Matthews, that's a great question, that is a great one... don't know the answer to that... Maybe the answer is that Matthews has a blinding anti-Hillary bias which prevents his brain from registering any Hillary popularity. Or maybe the answer is that Matthews just isn't the brightest crayon in the box, in spite of his fluency in statistics and stereotyping.
Bill didn't catch Chris's illogical explanations on gender or Catholics. But in all fairness, it's hard to keep up with Matthews non-stop cerebral flatulence. And Maher did call out Chris's inanity earlier in the interview, when the pundit waxed nostalgic about the 2004 election:
CM: They asked the question which one of the candidates would help you, Bush or Kerry, if your car was broken down on the road... would stop and help you. Neither guy got 50% but Bush beat out Kerry. And that was a disaster. Because if you're a Democrat and people don't think you're gonna look out for the other guy, you're finished because you're not gonna win on law and order, or national security or all that stuff--
BM: But Chris the president is never on the highway. That would never come up. It has nothing to do with how a president affects people's live
CM: I know. it's about is this guy on our side or not.
Well, if we were to ask ourselves if Chris was on our side or not, I'm pretty sure the answer would be no. If our side wanted truth over truthiness.