Matthews is just a dip-shit entertainer as far as i can tell. Reading this crap, my first criticism is that he is a lazy jerk for just mouthing the Repugnant talking points -- which he does frequently.

Being in the mis-info-tainment biz, Matthews is all over the center-right map. Just another nihilist making the bucks with no regard for anything else.

(He forgot to layout the misogyny agst Hillary, or at least Pelosi...maybe next week.)

Chris Matthews makes 5 million dollars a year. He doesn't have the right to speak for regular people anymore. He hasn't seen a regular person in years, and he certainly doesn't spend any time with them.

His egghead comments are comical; he doesn't even have a 'real' job by his own lights - he just sits and talks into a camera. He's paid to have the kinds of conversations he'd have in a bar. He's the luckiest man on earth, and he should keep the pie hole closed. And I often like him...

Remember, when conservatives attack MSNBC as in the tank for the administration, they count Matthews as a liberal partisan.

Well, you notice that Matthews did not call Obama Hitler, Mao, or Stalin. He did not accuse Obama of plotting to kill old people and put his political opponents in death camps. Clearly, he's pulling his punches because he's a liberal shill.

You are particularly correct about the anti-intellectualism. In the '70s, I remember a book entitled Anti-intellectualism in America. It sorely needs a strong comeback. The commentators need to be reminded TO THEIR FACES that they are the voice of the Know-Nothings, and that their attacks on rationalism and enlightenment put them in the ranks of the Dumb and Dumber class of American slackers. Some guest on one of their shows should make a big splash pointing this out.

To anyone from NC who might be out there, Senator Burr sent out emails this am telling everyone that the democratic health care bill is bad and his is better. In other words treating them like fools, please do as I did, I sent a lengthy reply telling him he was wrong and he should join with democrats and vote for the bill, I told him about people in my small town who filed bankruptcy due to health care costs and those who have no health care and rely on the emergency rooms. He needs to get a ton of responses.Sorry this is off subject.

As for the general nonsense about "eggheads," anti-intellectualism, alas, remains alive and well.

this is the jealous attack of an ignorant, immature moron, so insecure in his own capabilities that he has to attack and denigrate the capabilities of others.

Good point, candideinnc, but you'll not see an 'intellectual' on any of the cable shows; they are either toiling away at small colleges like Antioch and Swathmore, teaching graduate students, or they are French.

As to who DOES get on the TeeVee, it's a closed circle (jerk) of the Usual Suspects- From Buchanan on the right, to Van den Heuvel on the left. Recently on Grit TV (Laura Flanders), a guest complained that he couldn't get on Rachel Maddow.

As to Matthews: The man has a screw loose; either from his Peace Corps malaria, overexposure to Jimmy Carter, or The Drink. Remember him pinching Hillary's cheek last year? Foul language while interviewing Mrs. Edwards? (Who upbraded him for it, saying "my children are watching!)

I think he's a Twelve Stepper, so he is probably not under the influence while on air, but he sure does slip the bonds of reason now and again. . .

Punditry is about nothing but celebrity. Matthews, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. would gladly sell their souls to keep their exalted position in popular culture.

Chris Matthews: "And who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City, the media capital of the world, so they could tell their story?"

Oh, Chris. How about the Founding Fathers? You know, the guys who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Try Amendment 6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

Interesting observation, Day. I never considered that dry drunkeness might be responsible for the embarrassing spectacle that is his show.

Perhaps most embarrassing (and enraging) is his insufferable arrogance, most egregiously displayed in his obnoxious and constant interruptions of his guests. It drives me crazy. Most amazing is the fact that the guests simply sit there and tolerate it, which leads me to believe that not only Matthews but everyone on his show is willing to say or do anything for a payday on the air.

When will someone have the guts to call Matthews on his insufferable rudeness?

Chris Matthews wears argyle socks! -Kevo

America has a long, shameful history of anti-intellectualism. Often it involves prejudice against New Yorkers, where people are still passionate about ideas. New Yorkers even enjoy museums and go to the opera.

They're also good at trying criminals. They think it has something to do with the Constitution.

There's an essential difference between those who want Obama to succeed - like Matthews - and those committed to disparaging and undermining him. I'm one hundred percent behind this president but I'm critical when he appears too robotic from his overdependence on the teleprompter. I too think he can improve his "touch" with ordinary Americans.

Not as a recommendation, merely an observation: Matthews plays basketball, or at least he used to. Were Obama to get Matthews on a court, he'd school him.

And Matthews would never say another bad word about him.

Anti-intellectualism has got to be THE most bizarre and ugly aspect of the American character. I really don't get it. If this country ever falls to totalitarianism, you can safely bet that leading the assault will be some mindless dumbfuck you were laughing at a year earlier.

It's increasingly clear that Chris Mathews is a poseur, masquerading as a regular guy/media wizard. His continual references to old movies and long gone sports stars show him to be stuck in his own past. His monologues posing as questions insult his "guests" who sit by, sometimes trying to get a word in edgewise, but, on the whole being willing to play Mathew's game. He seems fully stuck in his conception of the images he seeks to present and comes across as shallow, callow, and narrow. His understanding of much he seeks to critique, particularly when it comes to religion, is simply silly. He is, short, way in over his head and shows no inclination to learn anything that might help him restore his image.

If Matthews has a problem with an educated, intelligent President, he has just told us what his own intellectual capabilities are.

Hasn't he.

I dislike Matthews intensely. But the signs are growing that Obama is not a particularly effective leader or President, and IMHO part of that is his formation of a very intense and closed circle of insiders as his advisors many of whom do in fact hail from a small set of east coast origins. Oriented more around Wall Street than any particular universities, but then again the top New York financial positions are filled from a small set too.

And yeah, I know what I will get for bringing this up. Same thing anyone who has expressed the mildest concern/criticism of Obama has received since June of 2008: a big steaming cup of STFU. But I think it is well past time for the reality-based community to start taking off the hopey-colored glasses and doing some reality-based analysis.

Cranky

> I'm one hundred percent behind this president
> but I'm critical when he appears too robotic
> from his overdependence on the teleprompter.

If you are "one hunderd percent behind this president", then why are you repeating the false "teleprompter" nonsense?

Cranky

I notice you don't address the question about Tim Geithner.

I was watching Matthews yesterday when he brought up the "egghead" nonsense and I almost threw a cat at the TV!

And yet, sometimes, he's amazingly supportive of the administration and the Democrats. Maybe he is drunk...

Don't worry, Cranky, I am not going to tell you to STFU. That's not the way to conduct an argument. Obama does deserve criticism on a number of points; being too soft on the banking industry (he should just have moved right away to nationalize them), allowing the stimulus bill to be whittled down and rendered less effective in the name of "bipartisanship," and indicating that he may continue to hold some detainees indefinitely without trial. Those are issues on which people like Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald should go on holding his feet to the fire.

But I also think it's absurd to say that he's "not a particularly effective leader" after less than a year, during which he has actually accomplished quite a lot despite the godawful mess he inherited, and the total-war obstructionism from the minority party. I think the decision to try KSM in New York is a bold and important move; like Greenwald, I wish he would try all the Gitmo detainees in the same way, but this is a major first step toward restoring justice after the Constitution-shredding cynicism of the last few years. And his accomplishments in foreign diplomacy have been real and significant. So give the guy a chance.

Media capital of the world?

Who cares? These days, if you point a camera at somebody, whether in New York or the middle of the Gobi desert, it's seen everywhere. the stupid things said by people who are paid millions to be on TV never cease to amaze me.

Lou, where have you been for the last 30 years? Every President since Reagan has routinely used teleprompters for prepared remarks, and before that, they used to read from typescripts or note cards. The advantage of the teleprompter is that it allows the speaker to look out at the audience instead of down at the lectern, but do you seriously expect any politician to memorize an hour-long speech, or to speak off the cuff when the consequences of a misstatement or a muffed line could be horrendous? If you think that Obama delivers his prepared speeches "robotically," you must have seen some pretty impressive robots in his time. The fact is that he is a marvelous public speaker, and this silly non-issue that right-wingers have trumped up about his use of the teleprompter is an effort to counteract his obviously greater skill with the English language than Bush ever possessed, even with the help of concealed earpieces and prompters.

He did not accuse Obama of plotting to kill old people and put his political opponents in death camps.

actually, there was a point during august where tweety came very close to pushing the death panel meme; but i suspect he quickly realized who he was aligning himself with and backed off.

it's infuriating that he's gets 2 friggin hours for that abysmal hour of programming -- that is really nothing more in content that dinner party gossip. the second slot should be given to lawrence odonnell -- who is actually interesting to listen to when he speaks about the inner workings of senate committees.

The other annoying meme he tries really hard to promote is that Democrats oppose tort reform because they're "in bed with the trial lawyers."

He never, ever, mentions the myriad corporate interests that Republicans are "in bed with" or that trial lawyers are on the front lines in the fight for little guys against those interests.

Incidentally, so called tort reform has been a disaster for "regular Americans" here in Texas.

As Claire McCaskill pointed out during the town hall shouting matches, there was plenty of tort reform legislation passed during the Bush administration.

Tort reform was supposed to reduce malpratice awards against doctors, but has had no impact on lwering healthcare costs. Yet it's always one of the 2 or 3 suggestions made by republicans to reform healthcare.

Did I miss an election?

Was there some time when Americans voted to choose Chris Matthews' approach to the problems facing us? As opposed to the one I remember, when we chose to have Obama making the decisions?

No? Well, then, maybe Matthews should just STFU.

Oh, and BTW, having a non-egghead in the office for the previous two terms really worked out swell, didn't it?

Wouldn't MSNBC make just as much money if they ran dead air between the commercials? Why does Chris Matthews have a job?

Slightly OT: I can't help noticing the odd symbols at the bottom of the screen here. I don't watch Hardball so no idea what they are. Looks like stand-ins for the top five stories on the show.

As artifact, though, how striking to juxtapose Obama, JFK, and Palin.

Like something from Idiocracy.

On the other hand, maybe it's just my advanced degree showing.

Hmmmm...a dry drunk, maybe. However he strikes me more as a bi-polar. At any rate I stopped watching him long ago, based on his deeply flawed and ever changing policy positions. The screeching over guests hurts my ears and his hero worship of various questionable public figures is embarassing. I'm hoping that MSNBC will replace with him Lawrence O'Donnell.

As usual, what I don't is why an organization with a rather large amount of money feels it's worthwhile to give big piles of it to Chris Matthews. What does he know? What makes him special? He's basically just a dick. You can hire someone to be a dick on TV much more cheaply. Why keep him around?

Having multiple advanced degrees from Univ. of Calif. schools, and having worked with scores of Ivy and alter-Ivy trained professionals and businessmen, I have observed a clear distinction between intelligent people and intellectuals. The former run businesses and professional firms that create money for themselves and jobs for the rest of us; the latter talk to each other on campus. Who would you trust making decisions about YOUR life?

Chris Matthews, of course, is neither. But that doesn' mean he's not a liberal partisan. Maybe he's not a Hopeychangey Kook Aid drinker, but clearly he's a liberal partisan

Chris Matthews is a complete fool.

I guess Democrats tolerate him because he occasionally squawks something that sounds "liberal." But he has no brain; he's infatuated with his own voice and "point of view,." He thinks he's such a big "policy wonk" and that his duty is to "educate" everyone else.

He's also incredibly rude -- or maybe it's just his ADD talking. He interrupts constantly. Why bother to go on the show when you, as a "guest" are just an excuse for Tweety to spout his own crap.

Give that "Hardball" hour to Lawrence O'Donnell.

Dave H, do you think all those brilliant businessmen would be busily creating jobs and opportunities without the aid of the despised academics who provided them with their educations? I'll accept for the sake of the argument, by the way, that all the brilliant businessmen you admire really were creating worthwhile products or services, as opposed to mortgage-backed derivatives and creative Ponzi schemes.

Two strikes against Matthews:
1) He has one of the most irritating overloud declamatory voices in broadcasting. Time was, if a network or station hired a non-broadcaster, his/her voice had to be at least tolerable (eg Edward R Murrow, Irving Levine). No more, clearly.
2) I still can't believe that he was staff director for Tip O'Neill, one of the great liberal congresspersons of the 2nd half of the 20th century (and speaker of the house in the Saint Ronnie years). Its like he willfully forgot everything Tip taught him.

Anyone who panders to the ignorant, anti-intellectual elements of the herd is an asshole, pure and simple.
People who are proud of being anti-intellectual should be required to live with electricity, go shopping via horse and wagon (without wheels), and shit in holes in the ground.
In other words, Matthews, speaking as one of those intellectuals you take pride in criticizing, Fuck You.

Oops ! Sorry, that should have read without electricity.

"Having multiple advanced degrees from Univ. of Calif. schools, and having worked with scores of Ivy and alter-Ivy trained professionals and businessmen, I have observed a clear distinction ..."

Well gee, I guess I consider myself a member of both classes, so there goes your fucking distinction. What a crock of shit. I seem to recall that Einstein got a few things done, and he even had discourse with a few people on a few campuses, and he may even have inadvertently launched a few million businesses along the way, even though he didn't give too big a shit about business. Christ, what planet do you live on ?

I'm surprised more people with political agendas don't commit capital crimes, so they'd have "a chance to tell their story".

Or could it be they are smarter than Chris Matthews (and a host of other room-temperature-IQ journalists), and know that in a criminal trial, you don't get to sit up there and bloviate about your personal likes and dislikes. Motivation comes a far-distant second to establishing if you did or did not do the crime. The only folks who care about your motivation are criminal psychologists and, yes,...journalists.

Chris Matthews is an ass, and also will fuss about whoever is in the admin to be 'interesting."

However, whining about Chris "tingle leg" Matthews' Obama coverage during the election, as if he were pro-Mccain is rather rich...

I don't suggest that the Dems are 'in bed' with lawyers as their reason for opposing tort reform. I just don't think that the Dems get it. They don't think the system is intrinsically unfair to physicians. They don't think that defensive medicine is real. They abhor caps on damages, which admittedly would deny some compensation for some injured patients, but arguably would serve the greater good. For some balance, see www.MDwhistleblower.blogspot.com

very useful read. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did you guys hear that some chinese hacker had hacked twitter yesterday again.