TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.05.2008
In Defense of Chris Matthews

Hendrick Hertzberg pens the Chris Matthews defense America wants and needs:

Chris was a mildly conservative Democrat when I met him, and he still is. His Lewinsky-era anti-Clintonism built ratings for “Hardball,” but I don’t believe for a moment that it was a calculated or cynical move. Chris was quite clearly against the Iraq War when that position was unpopular with Americans in general and cable blowhards in particular. Yes, he is prone to hyperbole. Yes, he is apt to tell a guest that he or she is a “great American” whose current collection of ill-researched columns is “a great book.” Yes, his obsession with cultural-populist tropes, especially the horseshit assumption that the ideal male, maybe even the default human being, is a fortyish white non-intellectual in a baseball cap holding a can of beer, is annoying at best. Yes, the internal censor that keeps most peoples’ ids in check functions rather intermittently in his case. But that reckless freedom of his yields at least as many brilliant connections and startling metaphors as it does howlers. And his “liberal” outbursts are at least as numerous as his “conservative” ones, and maybe more heartfelt.

Of course, Hertzberg admits his favorable opinion of Matthews probably has something to do with the fact that they've been friends since they worked as speechwriters for Jimmy Carter. I don't have that excuse. Indeed, not only am I not a friend of Matthews's, I may well be the only person at TNR never to have been a guest on his show. I guess I like Matthews purely on the merits.

I rarely watch the cable shows, but when I do, "Hardball" is the one I turn to. That's mostly for the pure entertainment value of Matthews's "reckless freedom" (not to mention his rampant insecurity)--which is likely to produce any number of jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping moments. But it's also because the guy has spent a life in politics and, a lot of the time, he actually knows what he's talking about--which is more than you can say for most of the cable news talking heads.

In some ways, Hertzberg's tribute to Matthews reads like a eulogy. Maybe there's some truth to the rumors bandied about in that NY Times Magazine profile that MSNBC is on the verge of showing Matthews the door. While it's hard to argue that the world would be worse off with one less cable chat show, I know I'd be sad to see Matthews go.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:04 AM with 26 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

BHLnyc said:

I agree. What I like most is that Matthews is an equal-opportunity offender. Left, right, center, he doesn't suffer fools gladly and that is unique in the world of cable punditry.

May 28, 2008 7:38 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Also to Matthews' credit, when he's wrong, he's usually wrong in an original way. He rarely falls for the punditocracy's conventional wisdom BS of the week. Unlike most of his peers, on TV and in print, he's not a hack.

Throw in the fact that he's one of the only people on American TV who is capable of conducting an interview and Matthews gets my vote.

May 28, 2008 8:11 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Well, I have a special sort of resentment towards the man, whatever his charms may be (totally lost on me and I'm a political junkie too).

We have Mathews to thank for this embarrassing orgy of identity politic bullying coming from Team Party Unity over in Hillaryland. The only valid sexism chargs in the whole shebang point to Mathews and the they are more than valid.  

People like him deserve and extra kick - a hate crime designation of you will - from women from me who adore men and fights phony charges of sexism (usually an excuse for doing a poor job) as hard as I fight real sexism (which clearly exists and does huge damage to women and men).  Thanks Chris, you ass.  

May 28, 2008 8:15 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Well, I have a special sort of resentment towards the man, whatever his charms may be (totally lost on me and I'm a political junkie too).

We have Mathews to thank for this embarrassing orgy of identity politic bullying coming from Team Party Unity over in Hillaryland. The only valid sexism chargs in the whole shebang point to Mathews and the they are more than valid.  

People like him deserve and extra kick - a hate crime designation of you will - from women from me who adore men and fights phony charges of sexism (usually an excuse for doing a poor job) as hard as I fight real sexism (which clearly exists and does huge damage to women and men).  Thanks Chris (and here is your honorary pig snout, wear it well).  

May 28, 2008 8:15 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I just wanted to say, I meant to delete that last line before I hit enter and it did not take - my bad. No use being potty mouthed.

May 28, 2008 8:21 AM

AMVHuck said:

"Yes, his obsession with cultural-populist tropes, especially the horseshit assumption that the ideal male, maybe even the default human being, is a fortyish white non-intellectual in a baseball cap holding a can of beer, is annoying at best."

Very true.

May 28, 2008 9:00 AM

JackR said:

Wandrey - I was surprised to hear you single out Chris Matthews for sexist opprobrium.  Personally, I thought Keith Olbermann was far rougher on Hillary with his long moralistic rants about her various  ploys.  What would be some examples of things Chris said to warrant that "extra kick"?  

May 28, 2008 9:12 AM

pawlowski said:

While Chris Matthews deserves to be singled out for individudal criticism, I have special enmity for MSNBC for what must be its corporate irresponsibility in its personal attack on Senator Clinton.  Apart from Matthews and Olbermann, think: Tucker Carlson talks about his nut cracker shaped like Hillary's legs; David Schuster accusing Hillary of "pimping out" her daughter; Joe Scarborough saying that Hillary reminds men of their first wife in divorce court; David Gregory who loads his program with Obama lovers like Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow and John Harwood.  These people have been attacking Senator Clinton for over a year now. They are still doing it now even though Senator Obama has the nomination all but wrapped up.  If they hope to win the general election for Obama, they had better "make nice" to Hillary's supporters otherwise the latter just might stay home in November.  I don't think MSNBC appreciates how deeply devisive it's anti-Hillary policy has been in splitting the Democratic Party.   Even today, the MSNBC crew seems intent on destroying the Clinton "wing" of the Democratic Party.  That's called cutting your nose off to spite your face.  

May 28, 2008 10:32 AM

timteeter said:

Chris Matthews knows how to conduct an interview?  Surely you jest.  The guy interrupts any thought from any interviewee that takes more than fifteen seconds while Matthews free-associates out loud and in public.  The only guy I ever saw handle Matthews with the necessary patience was Mario Cuomo.

May 28, 2008 10:33 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

You know what JackR?  I shouldn't even flap my gums/fingers.  I rarely, if ever watch TV - I haven't in 15 years, wouldn't dream of it.  

I would not dream of spending three seconds watching Keith Olberman speak about ANYthing.  So, I really haven't the foggiest, I'll admit.  Pardon my barbaric yawping.

I've only watched Mathews on links sent to me or from other sites, there are lots of lists going around of things he's said and done - I do have Hillary supporting friends who are much more versed than I, all quite credible even to my skeptical eye.  He's rather heavy breathing with female guests, for example - eeeewwwww.  That's a power thing, putting a woman in that position.  Eeeeew.  Pig snout for him!  

He also went off on Hillary in really vicious ways that had nothing to do with the facts at hand (at that point anyway).

Its like pornography, you know it in your stomach rather than your head.  He turns my stomach.

As far as the rest of the TV yellers, just turn the damn thing OFF.

May 28, 2008 10:49 AM

benjamin81 said:

You've never been on Hardball, Jason? That's amazing. Hell, even I've been on Hardball, and I'm not even in politics.

On one of the occasions I met Matthews, he asked a group (off camera) whether Hillary Clinton would run for President in 2004. I answered that she wouldn't, since she had promised to serve out her term as senator, and would be weighed down with that broken campaign promise. Matthews disagreed, saying that wouldn't stop her. "I don't think either of them [Bill or Hillary] have an honest bone in their body." So I think that much of his disdain for Democrats is actually transferred disdain for the Clintons. Let's see what happens as they're sidelined in favor of Obama's people over the next few months (and, God willing, years).

May 28, 2008 10:49 AM

sabatia said:

I don't watch much TV of any kind(Yow, I mus' be one o' dem Elites!) except around election time. This is the first year I've had time to watch anything but Election Night itself. I had no idea who Matthews was, in fact, didn't even know he existed, until about six months ago. I haven't felt that I missed anything!

Until I read Hertzberg's piece. Follow the link and enjoy yourself, less for the defense of Matthews than the high quality of Hertzberg's writing. And, in spite of my prior dismissive view of Matthews, I found myself seeing him with new eyes and new respect. Though I agree, it reads like a eulogy.

Also, I believe that Matthews publicly apologized for his comments about Hillary. I suspect that got lost in the blur of all the "reject and renounce" apologies Team Clinton has demanded.

May 28, 2008 10:54 AM

teplukhin2you said:

I'm with Wandrey on this. It's true that Matthews as an ex-aide knows the business of politics well, but we rarely if ever see evidence of that, either in his questions, manner, or choice of topics. He's a ratings whore, no less than the rest of them, and the surest way to boost ratings these days is to turn political discussion into a version of professional wrestling..

I put Matthews on the same end fo the spectrum that runs from Charlie Rose and the old Ted Koppell 'Nightline' program, on one end, to the political Howard Sterns on the other end. He and Olbermann have more in common with O'Reilly and Limbaugh than with Rose. All of them have dumbed down the discussion and degraded the debate. A good marketing strategy for their business owners, sure, but bad for the nation, IMHO.

May 28, 2008 11:04 AM

wldctfan142 said:

I once saw geraldine ferraro (i think it was her) handle chris matthews pretty well in an interview some years back. I don't recall the specifics of the discussion, but matthews was doing his usual interrupting, when she called out to someone off-camera for a rope to tie him to his chair for fear he would fly away. It had quite the desired effect on him.

May 28, 2008 11:36 AM

ackyri said:

Chris Matthews needs to learn how to speak without shouting. But his recent tearing down of that Republican hack blathering on about "appeasement" was nothing short of heroic.

May 28, 2008 12:59 PM

liberal reformer said:

Chris Matthews does know politics inside out but his incessant motor-mouthed persona puts me off.

May 28, 2008 1:10 PM

williamyard said:

Back when I had a looking-glass I'd sometimes watch the telepundits and anchors and who not and try to guess if they were real or if they were a mirage, a cartoon, built in an animator's basement of software and duct tape, as they will surely all be someday because animations are a hell of a lot cheaper than live actors and we all know the purpose of these shows isn't the edification of anyone, but the richification of a few people we will never meet, if they are lucky, and we luckier.

Hertzberg writes of Matthews' verisimilitude before the camera as it reflects reality which, in fact, it might, but I am not willing to take that chance. It's a less-than-zero-sum game, brain-wise. Television is the Grand Fellatrix: she sucks; spent, we sit dumbly, wondering what just happened.

Matthews' "reckless freedom" of which HH writes sounds to me like nothing more than simple honesty, which we teach our children to practice but which we are surprised to hear coming from the lips of the animated phantoms. What's the big deal about Matthews or anyone else being honest? (Putting aside for a moment all that he knows and yet doesn't say, whose absence dilutes to homeopathic concentrations even the most "reckless" of his "freedom.")

The sad part is that people take this shit seriously--at all. Jason is wise to remain the only TNR staff member to avoid the ratings-whipped Sirens and their flattering hot lights and little clip-on mics that catch and release every lie as if it were true and deserved to live, instead of being disemboweled and Hibachi'd right there on the pier.

May 28, 2008 2:04 PM

tec619 said:

I like Hendrick, but I think he ought to check the Hardball transcript in the months prior to the Iraq invasion. Chris was pro-war and pro-Dubya. Only after things went waaay south (he was still pro-Bush, even after the Abu Gharib scandal) did Matthews begin to pose trenchant questions regarding money wasted, lives lost and lies told and non-existent WMD.

I deployed to Iraq in 2006 and I'm certain Chris was still fairly pro-bush.

BillYard: You don't own a looking glass? I thought you liked to look at yourself pleasuring the Sonoma Strumpet.

May 28, 2008 3:09 PM

timteeter said:

Actually, I enjoy Olbermann.  You just need to remember that it's not news, but political theater (although he conducts a better interview than Matthews).

May 28, 2008 4:11 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Matthews is a paradox.

As mentioned above, he doesn't suffer fools gladly - think of his evisceration of that right-wing radio jackass who didn't know what appeasement means or what Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler, or his righteous disgust at professional sleazeball Michelle Malkin when she claimed John Kerry shot himself in the leg to get a Purple Heart.

But, on the other hand, he *is* a fool himself. Take his idiotic, head-scratchingly offensive comments about Hillary Clinton. Watch him fawn over alleged macho men like John McCain or Fred Thompson, or Tom DeLay. Somewhere out there there's a video clip of Matthews talking to DeLay during a 'Hardball' commercial break, and his absolute fawning over this creep from Texas is sickening. He often doesn't get a very simple point and goes on and on about it. He has an incredible need to be liked, accepted and respected by people he considers powerful. And he can't control his obnoxiousness.

Oh, and add Pawloski to the list of folks who are demanding that everyone start kissing the collective ass of HRC supporters. Or they just may stay home in November! So you better be nice to our candidate, you big meanies!  

May 28, 2008 5:08 PM

ChanRobt said:

Whatever Chris Mathews' excesses, he twelve times brighter than Olbermann, who seems to believe himself to be a latter day Edward R. Murrow.

What a full of himself dufus.

May 28, 2008 7:34 PM

WoodyBombay said:

No, Matthews doesn't have a third of Olbermann's intellect, nor a hundredth of his sense of humor.

May 28, 2008 8:58 PM

desertdog said:

Matthews was a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle for many years after he served as President Carter's head speechwriter.  His columns were syndicated in many daily newspapers around the country.

I was a fan of his very insightful columns before he got the TV show in the late 90s.  He does have the gravitas and a sense of history that very few opinion hosts have.  I don't like the way he talks incessantly over his guests, but I do respect and enjoy the fact that he doesn't put up with any "talking points" BS, from either the right or the left.

One thing he is, though, is a Clinton hater.  It's so obvious that it has diminished his credibility.  It's a little known fact that he wanted the job as Bill's Communications director back in '92 but was rejected for the post.  I also heard that Hillary had alot to do with him not getting the job.  She didn't think he'd be loyal enough.  It's obvious h e never forgave Bill or Hillary for that supposed snubbing.  He gleefully led the charge against Bill when the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski stories got out.  

I also suspect he's a bit of a male chauvinist and a womanizer the way he embarassingly fawns over attractive women guests and treats those physically less attractive with rudeness.  A little Bill envy, perhaps?

May 29, 2008 12:54 PM

The Stump said:

Like Jason , I pretty much agree with every word of Hendrick Hertzberg's recent defense of Matthews

May 29, 2008 7:04 PM

basman said:

Up here north of the 48th parallel my cable package included MSNBC--I could not live without television; used wisely, like computers, so that it does not swallow you up, it is an indispensablle and amazing window on the world--and I can't think of much preferable after a tough day of work, than putting my feet up with a cold one and watching Matthews-- a hot guy on a cool medium in Mcluhan's terms--display all his various warts and strengths, so aptly commented on above. I think the latter outweighs the former. Then Olbermann comes on after, and I quickly do something else, like lying on a bed of nails.

May 29, 2008 9:28 PM

The Plank said:

Jack Shafer, perhaps as some sort of new alternative sentencing program, watched Chris Matthews throughout

January 22, 2009 10:16 AM