Matthews and the DLC: Setting the Agenda?

I see some heavy attention being paid to Chris Matthews.  Certainly it makes sense to call someone to account for their words.  

But I think we're getting played here.

My theory below.  

Reverse psychology is all it takes for the power brokers to keep the focus exactly where they want it.   If gender is the focus, Hillary wins, because she's the only woman running.  The DLC will do everything it can to frame everything in terms of sexism.  They want 2008 to be a referendum on whether a woman can be president.

How about we focus on whether THIS woman should be President, rather than whether a woman should be able to be President.  We all know the answer to the latter.  Even Tweety understands it.  

There will always be some idiot out there saying sexist things about Hillary.  When deciding whether to ignore it or confront it, consider whether you are falling right into the frame that someone else intends.  That's not to say sexism should be ignored.  It's just to say that shifting the focus to sexism takes little more than some bozo with a TV show and a group of good-hearted bloggers who want to call him to task.

Consider the possibility that Tweety doesn't really hate Hillary and is just saying the kind of shit that will stir the netroots up to defend her.  He's saying precisely the things that the DLC and the folks at CNN (who were previously coronating Hillary as inevitable) have to know will merit front page focus on this site.  There's as much evidence that Tweety is playing us as he is not.  We just don't know what goes on in that bird brain.  But one thing is for sure:  misdirection is a powerful tool.

All I'm asking you to do is to think beyond the idea that people say what they mean.  Tweety gets power through attention.

Thanks for your consideration.

•  Matthews

  ...sexist remarks aren't limited to Hillary.

  by BarbinMD on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

  •  Same result, a focus on sexism

    ... which helps precisely one candidate.

    by Data Pimp on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM PDT

  •  In addition, would the diarist

    take the same position regarding responses to racist remarks?  I somehow think not.  Yet one can make easy substiutions in his argument.  

    by TomP on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:43:45 PM PDT

    •  I'd take the same position regarding any MSM

      personality making any remark on anything:  consider whether you're being played.  

      Following your example:

      If 50% of our population was African American, and the entrenched power brokers in the Democratic party were behind Obama, and the progressives were behind Hillary, and a MSM personality started to spout off racist comments, ... well, then I think it would be proper to consider whether that individual was part of an effort to make race the focus than to solidify support among that 50% and the part of the other 50% who hate racism.  (Which would include me.)

      But I most certainly think a response is needed to all outrageous conduct, I'm just saying -- be careful -- you can be played by forcing you to put the focus on something not of your choosing and away from the real issues of merit.

      It's just basic chess.

      by Data Pimp on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:54:54 PM PDT

•  I disagree with your theory,

  but appreciate the amount of thought you put into it.
  Tweety is just a giant dick with ears, there's my theory.

  by godislove on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM PDT

  •  haha, your theory appeals to me too :)

    by Data Pimp on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM PDT

•  No, I've been watching him for years...

  He just can't help himself. He made his bones as one of the jackals hounding Bill about the Clintsky thing, and he is scared shitless that A woman, ANY woman, could have power over him and his white-boy club.

  by Eirik Raude on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM PDT

  •  Data Pimp is onto something .....

    As Roger Waters once sang :

    Things are not what they seem

    The fact that Chris Matthews has seemingly challenged Hillary on several fronts lately shouldn't fool us into thinking that he isn't firmly in her camp. On Hardball over the last few months Tweety has mentioned Hillary (for better or worse) for upwards of what seems like 10 times each show. She has been dominating the airwaves over at MSNBC and every minute of coverage she gets is one less minute for progressive or otherwise more worthy candidates.

    I think we need to remember the old axom about media coverage; the only bad press is no press, and keep that in mind when considering Hillary and how she is covered.  

    I thought the interchange between Matthews and Hillary which was broadcast on Hardball yesterday was particularly telling. For those who missed it, after Tweety asked Hillary how her plan/timeframe on bringing the troops home from Iraq differed from Obama's (she deftly deflected this question of course) , almost flirting, smiling, she accused Tweety of being "obessed" with her and then  approached him and embraced him with a warm huge. Before putting her arms around him she referred to him as "Christopher" and seductively stroked his check with the back of her hand.

    This was really surreal stuff.

    But I think this gives us some insight into what is really going on. Matthews is firmly in Hillary's camp, I believe.

    Matthews knows what his job is and his does it very well, misdirection and manipulation of the public included.

    by Rogue Scoop on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM PDT

    •  You might be right.

      I have often wondered how much of Matthew's shtick is designed to retain conservative viewers by appearing to pummel the Left. But sometimes I just can't bear to watch his fawning over the Right. Since the 2004 election I have become like them - I wish oblivion to the opposition party.

      by Eirik Raude on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM PDT

    •  Thanks Rogue. I think you're right about Tweety

      by Data Pimp on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM PDT