THE PLANK DECEMBER 7, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
As Chris Matthews mulls over whether to run for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania, he
may want to start thinking about how he'll make nice with women and
Hillary Clinton supporters--two key constituencies that remain unlikely
to view him favorably after a series of disparaging remarks about the New York
Senator earlier this year. Women activists in the state have had
colorful things to say about the possibility of a Matthews candidacy.
Jeanne K.C. Clark, a NOW member in Pittsburgh who described Matthews as
a "media primadonna," told TNR that his candidacy "would be a total
insult to the women of Pennsylvania and to Secretary of State Clinton …
I'm trying to encourage women to call our Democratic party leaders to
tell him to stay in DC." According to Clark, word of Matthews's
inflammatory remarks is spreading among the state's activists—who are
sure to make his comments an issue if he runs. Pennsylvania NOW
president Joanna Tosti-Vasey agreed that she found the possibility
of a Senator Matthews "discouraging," but pointed out the organization
relies on its national PAC to determine its endorsements.
Former Congressional candidate Lois Herr, who characterized Matthews as
"a political ambulance-chaser," hopes that someone would "grill him hard
and long" about his commitment to women's issues. His uphill climb with
these groups aside, she doesn't think his style is consistent with the
politics of the moment: "His in-your-face attitude might be a problem
with conservative Pennsylvanians and younger Pennsylvanians who don't
really go for confrontation anymore—they want someone like Obama who is
calm, clear, articulate, and ready to solve our problems. Chris
Matthews's approach is quite the opposite."
It would add further insult to injury, many women said, if Matthews
emerged victorious at a time when Pennsylvania finally has the
possibility of electing a woman Senator. Many mentioned Allyson
Schwartz, a congresswoman from the Philadelphia suburbs, as their top
choice for the spot. Schwartz's spokesperson says she's focused on her
work in Congress, but "she's not going to rule out anything." Clark is
hopeful that energy sparked by Clinton's campaign will galvanize women:
"More women are going to be running for office, too," she said. "It
gets harder for men to get away with the sexist crap that Matthews
likes to peddle."
Specter's self-described pro-choice stance will probably make it
harder to convince likeminded women that voting for Matthews is a matter of political necessity. Still, as Susan Woodland, another
NOW member pointed out, two years is a long time away—and Matthews
could do a lot of work to erase voters' memories in the meantime. Even
Herr wouldn't eliminate the possibility of working for him. As Heather
Arnet, executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation, put it,
Matthews would have a lot of work to do proving his commitment to
women's issues before he'd gain their support.
But she, like many other feminists, is still cool to this particular
MSNBC host. "I would be happy to have Rachel Maddow run for Senate!"
she said.
--Marin Cogan
17 comments
Matthews pissed off the wrong set of PA voters, I can tell you that.
But first of all, its harder to find a tougher, more politically active group of folks than PA people in general. They are respectful of hierarchy and demand that dues be paid. It was Rendell's explicit orders to his ranks that swung Hillary voters to Obama overnight. If Matthews thinks just being from PA, backslapping with Rendell and being a TV guy counts as dues (I'm not aware his other qualifications, so please excuse me if the has more), he may be in for a surprise.
I was a vocal Obama supporter, an avid member of Women for Obama and was too often frustrated with Hillary's campaign (although those days are over, I'm one of those people absolutely thrilled with Secretary of State Clinton).
Yet many women even in my cohort said all along that Matthews should have been at least publicly cuffed by his management, if not threatened with firing over his boorish treatment of women, not just Hillary.
It takes alot for me to call someone sexist (sorry to bring up a tender subject, but I still think cries of sexism by team Hillary were almost all hooey). I've only assigned my personal pig snout to a few people in my life and he is one of them. (PS Along these lines, I adore Larry Summers and always have - he got the shaft. The women who refuse to accept his profuse apologies disgrace the word feminist).
- Wandreycer1
December 7, 2008 at 9:48am
Exactly how does Matthews have his finger on the pulse of Pennsylvania? That he is capable of bullish rhetoric--the ability to stare down corrupt powerbrokers and call them on their shit--seems insufficient in swaying a state with a rather large educated sector. And, as Cogin mentions, Specter is pro-choice, and would certainly vote to confirm a SCOTUS who is as well. I'm not sure where the Democrats got the idea that they should necessarily run familiar names like Kennedy and Matthews for Senate, as that strategy doesn't seem to be hands-down winner (Franken). OTOH, candidates with a rich catalogue of social service and work in state government does (Obama).
- dylanposer
December 7, 2008 at 12:36pm
Exactly how does Matthews have his finger on the pulse of Pennsylvania? That he is capable of bullish rhetoric--the ability to stare down corrupt powerbrokers and call them on their shit--seems insufficient in swaying a state with a rather large educated sector. And, as Cogin mentions, Specter is pro-choice, and would certainly vote to confirm a SCOTUS who is as well. I'm not sure where the Democrats got the idea that they should necessarily run familiar names like Kennedy and Matthews for Senate, as that strategy doesn't seem to be hands-down winner (Franken). OTOH, candidates with a rich catalogue of social service and work in state government does (Obama).
- dylanposer
December 7, 2008 at 12:36pm
I don't see a lot of TV so I don't have an opinion about Matthews. However, I hope he runs, I hope he raises a fortune for the race and spends it all, and I hope he has his ass handed to him on a platter. He needs to become an example for those of his ilk (i.e., pundits) contemplating similar adventures.
What bothers me is not Matthews allegedly boorish statements about women; what bothers me is that he's a pundit who thinks that makes him qualified for high office. Yeah, yeah, I know he worked for Tip O'Neill et al. That and a fin will get him a Happy Meal with enough change left over to buy a copy of the local evening broadsheet that no longer exists. The only reason he's on anybody's radar (including his own) is that he's a network talking head.
Many in the punditry and in politics likely snicker at jokes about the incestuous reputations of families in hamlets in Appalachia and other "backward" parts of America. What they like don't realize (or won't admit) while they're laughing is that the intellectual and professional copulation occurring daily amongst themselves is a far more seditious (to the nation) form of inbreeding than the occasional hillbilly-cousin coupling.
National media types running for office is the worst possible conflict of interest. A constitutional amendment banning same would not be inappropriate.
- williamyard
December 7, 2008 at 1:34pm
Chris Matthews strikes me as do most other mainstream media pundits. When it comes to projecting their political intelligence, they are generally a mile wide and an inch deep. In other words, they are fully informed about the politics of running campaigns and being elected...but far less so about the nuts and bolts that go into the making of social, political and economic relationships most Merican citizens must negociate upclose and personal day in and day out.
Matthews is a fully functioning member of the inside the beltway clique. They all read each others' stuff, echo each others' opinions, agree or disagree with each others' points of view etc., based largely on the liberal/conservative narrative that is currently in vogue. Independents, leaning farther left ot right, offer merely variations on the liberal/conservative continuum.
Where things get even more predictable, however, is down at the grassroots. Indeed, what allows the pundits [and the politicians] to warble such hackneyed iterations of what everyone else is saying, is a citizenry that is often woefully lacking in the sophistication needed to garner and to gauge the ofttimes incestuous [and corrupt] relationships between wealth and power, elections, PACs, lobbying, editorials and op-eds, cable news, talk radio and on and on.
Finally, this sorry state of affairs can precipitate the most dangerous consequence of all----extremist, dontrinaire, dittohead mentalities. These are the folks [whether in it for the money, the celebrity or the power] who have succeeded in twisting the political dialogue into an [at times] acrimonious and vicious slugfest of boilerplate, partisan politics, character assassination and ad hominems. Eventually this can all lead to rhetorical recipes for the sort of zealotry that can give rise to a demagogue who can make things really, really mean and nasty.
And this becomes all the more disconcerting in times of economic crisis and political turmoil. Like, say, the time we may find ourseves dangling over the cliff in very, very soon.
That can't happen here?
Yeah. right.
george walton
- iambiguous
December 7, 2008 at 5:34pm
As a Pa. voter I guess my opinion counts for more than everyone who isn't. If he wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for him. Specter is old, pretty damn sick, and a Republican. I voted for him a few times but no more. Matthews is as entitled to run as anyone else is and the simple fact is I agreed with many of the things he said about Hillary, so I obviously won't hold that against him.
Wandrey, I appreciate the respect you are showing the people of Pa. but honestly, we are all pretty much dumb shits. People in Pa. do nominate famous people all the time, Sen. Heinz, Bob Casey Jr., (I like him, but he is dumber than a bunch of rocks) Lynn Swann, etc. so I have to give Matthews a pretty good shot in the primaries. I am not sure who has the name recognition to go up against him, unless Rendell does. As to NOW, they will find themselves shocked when they find that their decision is more likely to gain Matthews votes than lose him any. Pa. is Democratic, but it is Bob Casey Jr. Democratic, not Nancy Pelosi. Dem women voters in the Philly suburbs just don't add up to enough to counteract Dem voters everywhere else.
Now will I vote for him in the Primaries? If he is polling better against Sepcter than anyone else I will. 2010 Dems have to hold the line, 19 Repubs are up for re-election against 15 Dems. Pa. is very winnable because of Specter's severe sickness.
- blackton
December 7, 2008 at 6:17pm
I agree with you about poor Bob Casey Blackton, he's not the sharpest tool n the shed.
People like Specter in PA, probbaly because he's been around so long more than anything else. One thing you have to admit about the place is a serious allergy to change.
I have never seen anything like it. It's endemic to the culture a every level.
I was around so many PA voters of every type this last election and I have a weakness for poltical people. I liked them (although I will never get used to the unashamed racism I witnessed - it is worse there than I have ever seen anywhere).
PA people are just so political, maybe Matthews is a good example of that - I love that. I could be the only New Yorker alive who still dreams of going to Pakistan and meeting those rioting lawyers in their suits and ties (in my chador I suppose, I'd do it). The political junkies of the world (minus anyone who wants to murder civilians or religious kooks, often the same but not always) are my people, I can't help myself.
Matthews is as multi-faceted as most of us, yes he has a dark side - who doesn't? If he looks viable, I'm fine with it. I'm not one to side with identity politics idealoges over all other logic no matter what I think of Matthews. But he does need a snout, no question. I'll be happy to provide him one.
- Wandreycer1
December 7, 2008 at 6:50pm
BLACKTON:
As a Pa. voter I guess my opinion counts for more than everyone who isn't.
GEORGE:
Not necessarily. Some might argue that in order to gain a wiser perspective it is important to gain a wider perspective as well.
But the wisest of all know that any alleged political wisdom is merely a reflection of the way in which one interprets the daunting gap between what you think you know is true and all that can be known.
And this [epistemological] gap is quite relevant to, well, practically everything having to do with political policy.
I would ask Chris Matthew if he has any idea how this might be applicable to him.
In other words, I'd ask him something important that cannot be readily discerned by tracking down poll numbers or batting it around the politics fix roundtable.
george walton
- iambiguous
December 7, 2008 at 7:42pm
"Former Congressional candidate Lois Herr, who characterized Matthews as "a political ambulance-chaser," hopes that someone would "grill him hard and long" about his commitment to ...."
Insert "New York State" issues and I think we have great description of Hillary circa 1999. I'm sorry, does no one see the uncomfortable irony?
- ryanmacd
December 7, 2008 at 8:32pm
wandrey, off topic but it is very unusual to find the area in which I live in the NYTimes
www.nytimes.com/.../07lacey.html
I live right outside of Juchitan. This area of Oaxaca is very different from what most people think of, although I have to say the area is not quite as tolerant as the article lets on.
George, what I meant was that in the end the only opinion that will count is the opinion of the Pa. voters, granted I am just one, but one is more than zero. I seriously doubt that there will be many Pa. residents that will concern themselves with any epistemological gap.
And you can be damn sure that the reason why Hillary won in Pa. despite Obama outspending her 4 to 1 is not because of the feminism of Pa. voters. Pa. is about as unfriendly to feminism that you can find in a Democratic state. Wandrey is right about resistance to change, Pa. is blue collar Catholic. If NOW wants Mathews to lose they best change tactics, go after him as a carpetbagging elitist from DC, labelling him a sexist pig will only get him votes.
- blackton
December 7, 2008 at 8:33pm
Regardless of his blatant sexist remarks, Matthews is and has always been a hack who gives liberalism a bad name. He is not the kind of candidate who goes into publci service because he wants to help people. He is serving his own ego and greed for power.
- jakerbrown
December 7, 2008 at 8:38pm
BLACKTON WRITES:
George, what I meant was that in the end the only opinion that will count is the opinion of the Pa. voters, granted I am just one, but one is more than zero. I seriously doubt that there will be many Pa. residents that will concern themselves with any epistemological gap.
And you can be damn sure that the reason why Hillary won in Pa. despite Obama outspending her 4 to 1 is not because of the feminism of Pa. voters. Pa. is about as unfriendly to feminism that you can find in a Democratic state. Wandrey is right about resistance to change, Pa. is blue collar Catholic. If NOW wants Mathews to lose they best change tactics, go after him as a carpetbagging elitist from DC, labelling him a sexist pig will only get him votes.
GEORGE:
Hey, I was born [and loosely raised] in Wilkes Barre. I used to go back and forth over the years to visit my relatives. Half of Miners Mills was [in one way or another] part of my extended family. On the other hand, I never voted there.
Epistemological gaps in Pa.? Yeah, you got that right. If truth be told, I never met anyone there who could define irony either. Though [as in Kansas] many of these sorely befuddled Reagan Democrats couldn't, if their life depended on it, tell you how the Founding Fathers would make a proper constitutional distinction between the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights.
Ah, but even they could see a Grand Canyon sized contradiction between the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe and the much smaller numbers on their unemployment checks. Increasingly, many just couldn't afford to be THAT bitter.
On the other hand, given the direction many on the left see Obama going, he may end up BEING a Reagan Democrat, right?
George Walton
- iambiguous
December 7, 2008 at 9:48pm
I've always found Chris Mathews to be just another insufferable blowhard. A mile wide and an inch deep is right. Whether Democrat or Republican, an asshat is an an asshat; I hope he won't get far.
- jobeek2
December 8, 2008 at 8:53am
Slightly off topic, Tom Ridge was the keynote speaker at a conference I attended in Chicago a few years ago. He was the boring bureaucrat all around, boring presentation, boring content.
- satyendra
December 8, 2008 at 9:13am
I think that Chris Mathews would be a wonderful candidate for the Democrats in the event they lose seats in the next Senate race. With his penchant for loving to hear himself talk, he would be the perfect "Phillybluster" senator from PA.
- carrico
December 8, 2008 at 9:47am
Obama vs. Osama: Is Afghanistan The Right War? Or Will It Become Obama's Quagmire? By Michael Crowley
- Anonymous
December 8, 2008 at 10:16am
I think the real trick is for Matthews to conceal his liberalism. The sexism won't be a negative, but if he starts spouting off on a hyper-liberal agenda, or denigrating "family values" and "social conservatism", even indirectly, he'll get whooped soundly by pretty much and republican nominee that strolls down the road.
- GSpinks
December 8, 2008 at 12:29pm