Chris Matthews’ Sexism at Full Display. Again.
When Governor Sarah Palin became Senator John McCain’s running mate for the presidency last year, she was subjected to a sexist, aggressive, dirty smearcampaign seldom seen before. Not only Democratic operatives but especially journalists and pundits went after her as if her sole existence threatened all we hold dear. They targeted her personally and they even went after her family on an unimaginable scale. Famous blogger Andrew Sullivan even went so far as to accuse her of faking a pregnancy in order to protect her daughter who, Sullivan argued, was the real mother of ‘baby Trigg.’
If you thought partisan journalists and bloggers would leave the governor alone now that her sole focus is on Alaska again you are sadly mistaken. Chris Matthews, MSNBC pundit, reopened the attack yesterday calling Palin McCain’s “mail-order bride.” Watch it:
It’s an absolutely disgusting and incredibly denigrating comment from one of the leading political commentators on TV. To say that Matthews should be ashamed of himself is putting it rather mildly. This man has to be kicked to the curb.
For those who can’t watch the video because they’re at work, here’s the transcript:
MATTHEWS: What happened between those two?
FINEMAN: Uh, it was a lost weekend that didn’t go beyond the weekend. [LAUGHTER]
MATTHEWS: He thought she was something special [crosstalk] but she wasn’t the genuine article.
FINEMAN: You know what? He had no idea, with all due respect to the Senator, he had no idea what he was getting. They came into the convention, and I was covering it closely at the time –
MATTHEWS: Was she a mail order bride? [CROSSTALK]
FINEMAN: Practically! He really didn’t know who she was!
Imagine what would’ve happened if a conservative commentator would’ve made this remark about, say, Hillary Clinton or, worse, about Michelle Obama.
Its discouraging that the American public was dumb enough, AND MCAIN was dumb enough to go for this nitwit! Good GOD, what if she had become president?! McCain belongs in a hospital gown, at home, resting.
Are you seriously trying to defend her? Sexist, Dirty smear campaign? Sometimes I appreciate your comments but this makes you seem like you are from a different planet. All that the media had to do was let her talk and that was it. Finished. game over. Election lost. The only sexist thing was that the press let her get away with her incredible lack of knowledge perhaps because she was a woman. If a man had said those things she said, he would have been laughed right off the campaign bus.
I’m still waiting for the day when Sarah Palin is no longer radioactive. We’re not there yet.
I’LL DEFEND HER.JUST TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT DODD,FRANKS,WATERS,THEY ALLOWED FANNIE MAE TO GO WILD WITH NO OVERSITE TO COOK THE BOOKS. JUST SO THEIR CONRADE MR.RAINES & MANAGEMENT WOULD HIT THEM TARGETS IN ORDER TO GET HUGE BONUSES.SARAH HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL POLOCIES,SO WHY WOULD ANYONE EXPECT HER TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS IMMEDIATELY.HAD THE ECONOMY NOT TANKED McCAIN WOULD BE PRESIDENT. NOW THINK ABOUT IT,OBAMA WON BY 4 1/2 PER CENT. WITH 1 BILLION DOLLARS OF POSSITIVE(FAWNING OVER THEMSELVES)MEDIA COVERAGE,100′S MILLION DOLLARS OF UNDISCLOSED FUNDS,VOTING AN ALL TIME RECORD “PRESENT”IN THE ILL. SENATE & NO LEGISLATIVE LAW THAT HE WROTE,VOTING A STRAIGHT PARTY LINE,HAVING HEROS & MENTORS THAT COULDN’T BE DISCUSSED,NO ACCESS TO HIS SCHOOL PAPERS ,ILL. SENATE “WORK”, BIRTH CERTIFICATE—HE SHOULD HAVE WON IN A LANDSLIDE LIKE REAGON.SARAH WOULD HAVE BEEN UP TO SPEED FAST ONCE SHE WAS ON THE NATIONAL SCENE.COMPARE THAT TO THE EXPERT(GENIUS)JOE BIDEN,WHAT’S HE BEEN IN 32-40 YRS.OF NATIONAL OFFICE.HIS IDIOTIC COMMENTS ARE TROUBLING& DISTURBING.SARAH IS HONEST,HARD WORKING,CAPABLE AT MULTI-TASKING,AGAINST CORRUPTION & WASTE WHO BRINGS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO DECISIONS.SOMETHING THAT’S SORELY MISSING IN OUR CURRENT CROP OF HOUSE & SENATE LEADERS TODAY.AND LET’S NOT FORGET HER REAL SIN,SHE WASN’T A LIBERAL.
jim cooper: if the media had indeed just let Palin talk and left it at that, and if she was found lacking (personally I think somewhat, because she wasn’t ready for the national scene and completely unprepared for managing her media image), that would be perfectly acceptable. But why is it OK for media pundits and journalists to frame the criticism of her in gender disparaging terms like ‘mail order bride’?
It’s not, plain and simple.
Perhaps she was unwise to accept the invitation to a national ticket- but it doesn’t excuse the degrading treatment that she got. And when MvdG criticizes that type of media coverage, it doesn’t mean one way or another whether he’s defending Palin herself.
‘Perhaps she was unwise to accept the invitation to a national ticket- but it doesn’t excuse the degrading treatment that she got. And when MvdG criticizes that type of media coverage, it doesn’t mean one way or another whether he’s defending Palin herself.’
Not at all. I’m no fan.
I’m often puzzled about why some people find it hard to understand that one can call someone out for a manner of criticism even if one agrees with the underlying criticism itself.
Is it a failure to learn critical reading comprehension skills, to understand the meaning of what is written, or is it because of the hyperpolarized environment where people seem eager to peg writers as being in their camp or the opposing one? I can detect some of the latter in fence sitter’s comment, for instance when he says “Sometimes I appreciate your comments but this makes you seem like you are from a different planet.” It’s as though he thought you were ‘one of his’ but saying anything that opposes a person who opposes Palin makes you seem like your in the ‘enemy camp’.