Chris Matthews Panel: Why Can't Barack Obama Be More Like Bill Clinton?

[babylonsister]

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/chris-matthews-panel-why-cant-barack-

Chris Matthews Panel: Why Can't Barack Obama Be More Like Bill Clinton?
By Nicole Belle

Video at link~


Revisionist history is in full bloom on The Chris Matthews Show, all in the name of undermining Barack Obama. Now, Barack Obama is guilty of not-connecting with voters, unlike Bill Clinton.

There's been a lot of this revisionism in the remembered legacy of Bill Clinton amongst the Villagers. I have several theories as to why: 1) hindsight is always kinder as the rough edges smooth over in the intervening years; 2) some of the Villagers are too young and too intellectually incurious to know about the toxic culture of the Beltway during the Clinton years; and 3) in true bobblehead fashion, they don't really care that they said one thing during one news cycle and something diametrically opposite in another.

In the case of Chris Matthews, I have to believe that it's the third option in play. Keep in mind that the whole dubbing of the DC media as the Villagers came into play in their reaction to Bill Clinton and how they felt that he and Hillary did not properly show obsequiousness to the powers that be in the Beltway cocktail circuit. And Matthews was definitely part of that group. Even years after Clinton's term was over, Matthews could not let go of Clinton's infidelities and impeachment, even crediting that with Hillary Clinton's personal success as a politician.

But now, Tweety finds him the consummate politician, relating to the crowd in a way that Obama cannot, even editing the video of that CNBC Town Hall to not show Obama's response, and then bemoaning that he did not take the time to relate to her a time when he and Michelle suffered financially.

Um, what? Seriously, Villagers, with your own disregard for the the middle class that you still don't report that the Republicans are fighting desperately to keep "small business owners" like Bechtel and Koch Industries from paying higher taxes, we're supposed to feel that the President should bite his lip more and "feel our pain" for a higher approval rating? I'm not too young to remember how you and your fellow media mates mocked Clinton for doing that.

And ultimately, it's all more of the same push to make voters feel dissatisfied with Obama: he didn't get visibly angry enough during the BP Gulf oil spill, he's not empathetic enough to the struggling middle class now, his agenda is too left wing, his agenda is too centrist, he simultaneously hates big business and is a crony for it.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why there's such a big narrative push to instill dissatisfaction in some way--in any way--against Obama right now before the mid-term elections. I suggest to you that it's a combination of the elitism of the Villagers and the corporations that own them.

[bluestateguy]

1. Some of us haven't forgotten Tweety Bird's sanctimonious rants against Bill Clinton in the late 90's

Every goddamn night in 1998 and 1999 on and on about Bill, Monica, the blue dress and other such self-righteous bullshit.

[Bitwit1234]

8. I was just going to say that.

Matthews couldn't get enough of lambasting President Clinton. And as soon as Hillary made it clear she was running he started on her. He is two faced as they come. And just as spitful...I read in SEVERAL articles that the reason he got upset with Clinton, who he at first supported was that he applied for and campaigned for the press agent job with Clinton and didn't get it, wasn't even considered for it. And he has had the knife out for the Clintons ever since.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Tweety made a career out of demonizing the Clintons. He wouldn't have a show

were it not for Monica.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. The Joke During The Impeachment Brouhaha

The joke during the impeachment brouhaha was that Matthews would "beat up" Clinton on his MSNBC show and then Geraldo would "rehabilitate" him in on his show which came on immediately after it.

[zipplewrath]

3. Matthews is the worst example

I guess technically he is the "best" example of the larger problem with "news as entertainment". Matthews is a seriously empty suit. He's been around for a while, but he doesn't really have ANY expertise in anything. He's the functional equivalent of a guy sitting at the bar complaining about politics.

But he has to fill a show every day/week. And since he's not going to have a long discussion about macro economics, nor a detailed breakdown of counterinsurgency strategies, he can only go for basically pure fluff. "Personality politics" basically. He's the People Magazine of political shows, "who was seen with whom doing what on what beach?". And his "Matthews Meter" is a flat out joke. "Let's ask 12 people, who also don't know anything, what they think on this superficial question".

[bluestateguy]

10. A cognescenti of the Georgetown Cocktail Party media

His show even feels like a Georgetown Cocktail Party too.

[karynnj]

11. wonderful summary of him

[tavalon]

18. Tweety is not a term of endearment, as I'm sure you're aware

He twists in the political wind singing, "I tawt I saw a puddy tat!!". Grade A jackass then and now.

[Mass]

4. It would be more fun for Tweety, but I am not sure what it would accomplish for us.

[saltpoint]

5. And for that matter, why can't Orrin Hatch be more like

Jack Nicholson?

Matthews makes a wrong turn from time to time and no tracking device in the world can find him and bring him home.

[Frustratedlady]

6. Ooooo. Love that comment. May I borrow it? n/t

[saltpoint]

7. I probably ripped it off subconsciously from my

great-Uncle Edmond, our family tree's strongest pro-Union member, may he rest in peace, who would have used 'hounds dogs' instead of 'tracking device,' which is not as modern but a lot more fun.

If it works, use it!

:hi:

[karynnj]

9. I really don't get the way the mythology of Clinton keeps resurfacing

It seems that we rarely have anyone addressing the reality of who Clinton was and what he did. They instead oscillate between the few that he was beloved of everyone, connected easily with everyone, and was a good, persuasive President, whose leadership led to an era of peace and prosperity and the few that he was a very seriously flawed President, who benefited by good times (presumably caused by Reagan actions 4 to 12 years before ?!!) and who set in motion all the problems that would later beset Bush.

Neither is really true - life is more complicated than angels and devils.

In 2000 and 2004, this comparison was also made with the more honest, more introspective and less extroverted Gore and Kerry. Few in the media making the negative comparison bothered to look at the positive side of the comparison. (In addition, they covered very little live coverage of Kerry, who DID connect well in person to both small groups and large rallies - making it easy for the media to claim he didn't.) This was especially galling as their honesty and genuine decency were in fact the opposite of two of Clinton's biggest flaws. The biggest difference was on TV - for some reason - it seems that TV makes some of the least sincere people look sincere with their smooth responses, while making the more qualified, but more honest responses of truly honest people look less certain. (think wide eyed John Edwards vs Al Gore)

But, what is different here, is that where Kerry and especially Gore are less extroverted - Obama is not. He can engage a crowd - in person or on TV - as much or more than Bill Clinton. People saw this in 2007 and 2008 - and I think they still do when he gets on TV or gets out before a crowd.

The real question is why are people doing this now. I suspect that they want a story - and the Clinton vs Obama story is one that has served them well. It is far easier than actually speaking of the issues - most of which center on economics or foreign policy and both are extremely complicated. It is also easy to do - Clinton, to his credit has made an effort to campaign and to do some talk shows. But, it is very easy for almost any reporter to push Clinton to either sound like he is criticizing what Obama is doing or patronizing him - even when that is NOT what Clinton is doing. All they have to do is ask the question, "what would you advice Obama to do?" That Clinton falls back on referencing something he did is very natural and often relevant. This raw imput then becomes part of the Obama vs Clinton game.

[babylonsister]

16. Why are people doing this now? Because they're invested

in striking any discordant notes within the Dem party, whether based on fact or not. And you got it; it is far easier to do this than to confront important issues and to try and educate. This is lazy-man reporting at its finest.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. Clinton wasn't even Clinton in 1994.

His presidency was supposedly done by 1994. He had failed with healthcare reform. He had failed at passing his $16 billion stimulus. He had failed at convincing many in his own party to support his agenda.

By 1994, most political pundits (no doubt, Matthews himself if he were on the air back then) were writing his political obituary.

Pres. Obama is nowhere near that level of desperation. Pres. Obama still has fairly respectable approval numbers and has been able to pass much of his agenda. He's also the favorite to win re-election in 2012. You couldn't say the same thing about Clinton until early 1996.

You're absolutely right, though. They want to make this an Obama-Clinton issue. It shouldn't be because every president and presidency differs. Every president has his ups and downs. Every president struggles and succeeds.

Some struggle more than others.

It also belies the point when Clinton failed to reach a majority in the popular vote in both his elections. Obama has already done it once.

Clinton also saw a humiliating mid-term loss. Obama might lose the House, but he won't lose the Senate.

[karynnj]

27. Nice summary - and a reminder that this is a media game that they play only on Democrats

Do you remember them ever holding up Regan to W - arguing that he needs to be more like him. Occasionally they spoke of him almost being the new version of Reagan - but it was positive.

Here, the danger is that this is likely intended to push Clinton, who has a pretty strong ego and a less strong adherence to truth, to try to "help" the comparisons in a way that makes him look better - better than he did and better than Obama. That does not help - and it could make the party less likely to use him - which will be a loss.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. That's always been my concern...

Clinton realizing Pres. Obama could out-success the one Democrat that brought Democrats back to national relevancy.

The thing is, I remember Matthews saying early on in Obama's presidency that he shouldn't be like Clinton.

He said Clinton was a president who always did just enough to stay ahead of popular opinion, but never enough to make his presidency both memorable and great.

So, what is it?

[young but wise]

12. Whatever, slobbering Matthews.

President Obama is likeable enough.
:rofl:

[COLGATE4]

13. Because he doesn't give Tweety a thrill up his inner thigh?

(Oh, sorry. That was Tweety's other love affair, DimSon).

[WI_DEM]

14. Tweety needs to be reminded that the Dems lost congress under Clinton and that Obama, unlike, Bill

won a majority of the vote in 2008 (53%) compared to Bill's 43% in 1992, in fact, Bill never won the presidency by a majority.

[old mark]

17. Instead of posting it all here, send your disgust with Chris Matthews to

MSNBC. Lets let him retire while he is still young enough to enjoy it. He is less than worthless.


Email MSNBC management and tell them that.

[e-mail]


mark

[WI_DEM]

19. Chris Matthews why can't you be more like Walter Cronkite?

[babylonsister]

20. Haha! If only. nt

[Aramchek]

21. Why can't Chris Matthews be more like Walter Cronkite? i.e. a real Journalist

[Supersedeas]

22. Capt Superficial just being superficial as usual--opinion and shallow surface distinctions are all

that matter to Tweety and his producers.

Discussing factual policy differences is that last think that Tweety want to do...too much work...too complicated for the audience that he intends to reach.

He and Tucker Carlson have a lot in common. And John Stewart's criticism of Carlson could just as easily apply to 99.9% of Tweety's shows.

[Phx_Dem]

23. Thank God he's not!! No offense Bill, but seriously.

[elleng]

24. Thanks, think I'll skip it (as usual!)

[babylonsister]

26. This aired on his 1/2 hour weekend program. You didn't miss much. nt

[elleng]

28. Thanks, b'sis. Just heard some of the shouting on his nightly; uGH!

[angee_is_mad]

29. Still POed that he won

as far as matthews, he had some extremely idealistic vision of the POTUS election all the sins of America would be corrected.

[chieftain]

30. Great question.

In the same vein, why can't Mathews be more like Madow. You know: prepared, informed and not a prisoner of the conventional wisdom the talking heads repackage from each other.