Matthews to Rice: You meant to go after birthers with your speech, huh?

View Comments (34)

• She treated Chris Matthews exactly as she should have. Chris Who? Can you imagine what a show it would be if every conservative thinker treated Matthews the exact same way? Oooooooooooooooo...he would have major tingles up ALL of his legs. ;-)

• Yeah, but did you see the size of the teleprompter she used during her speech?

• I don't agree with Condi's mildly Pro-Choice position, but she is a classy person. Why does someone like her even sit across from Matthews? I guess if Obama gave you a tingle up your leg, you would possibly start to get unhinged like Matthews if it looked as if the possibility of Obama going down as another Carter loomed.

• It seems Chris Tingles struck out again. One can only hope that he someday offends the wrong person, and receives a richly deserved knuckle sandwich, on one of his staged BS interviews.

  • Maybe he will ask Buzz Aldrin if the moon landings were faked.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

  • That's why celebrity libtards never leave the safety of Hollywood or some New York penthouse.
    They know full well if they were to appear on main street any city USA an ass whooping would surly follow.

• I totally do not understand why any conservatives go on MSNBC at all much less Tingles. It would be much more effective to simply ignore them. NO-ONE stupid enough to watch that CRAP for information would ever vote anything other than straight line socialist/communist anyway so it is not like they are going to change anyone's mind.

• Chris gets bitch slapped at home by Dowd and he got it last night when Dr. Rice refused to take the bait and responded with an answer he couldnt beat her with.

• As bad as Chris Matthews is, he's not the worst person on MSNBC. Not even close. But he may be the most worthless host on the channel.

  • That fricken clown, crack head Sharpton is second....He's a disgrace to blacks.Rev.Sharpton, go F^#@ yourself

• Even Andrea Mitchell looked embarrassed when Chris cut in with his inane question, and that it something you seldom see.

  • I saw Andrea interview Marco Rubio yesterday. She seemed stumped by what he had to say and at the end she seemed resigned to the inevitable. A complete Republican landslide in November. Tingles is just an embarassment to white men everywhere, ignore him.

    • He is an embarrassmentto EVERYONE< not just white men. He is clearly obsessed and rabidly supports certain positions while hiding others. He's a lib.

• Who listened to Matthews question? I just did.

  Who knows what rejoinder means?

  The OP interpreted his question about as wrongly as possible. He was elevating her speech over some of the other usual nastiness of campaigns, and I agree with him there. Hers was an awesome speech

  Or, perhaps, I have the sense of the OP a bit wrong.. but still, it ignores the fact that he seemed to genuinely appreciate her words. Many Republicans are tired of the negativity of birtherism, and feel its costing them potential votes. Calling this out has value

  • Matthews was being duplicitous, praising Condi's speech as a way of attacking the other speeches made at the convention. CR's speech was not a rejoinder to anything said by Republicans at the convention or elsewhere. CR knew it was a tendentious question, she was wise to ignore it.

    I doubt a partisan hack like Matthews actually appreciated CR's speech (or any other Republican speech a the convention).

  • He may have appreciated her words. Who didn't but the rejoinder was, in my view, a infantile stab at becoming the news, which, I think, is why CR ignored the question.

    • The rejoinder in question is not Matthews', but how he characterized her speech, vis-a-vis countering other elements in her party. Its not news that the Republican party has significant fractures within its coalition. Note the gist of her words on immigration policy (more like Bush's), or the contrast between RNC platform and Romney's position on abortion exceptions. And Republican coalition fracturing is not even unique, as Democrats have their own.

      I work with Republicans who are embarrassed by birtherism, and feel that it costs their party votes. These are IT folk with fine intellects. Matthews is just expressing a preference for one segment of the Republican party over others, and giving her a chance to take a shot. Understandably she demurs, as party unity is the mission of conventions.

      I looove the Rice-wing of your party

      • OUR party?

        • Well I was talking to Sidekick, so specifically referred to Republican Party. But I don't have any party affiliation. I don't like the coalition that comprises either of the major parties.

      • I'm not a birther, but why is it thought to be strange when people are curious about the background of a man who is president who seemed to say until 2007 that he was born in Kenya, but then seemed to suddenly start saying when he wanted to run for President: Oh yeah, I was actually born in Hawaii.

        • i didn't know he was claiming to be from Kenya until 2007. The only thing i've heard about was some text in a Harvard publication, in what.. early 90s? I mean, he was a big hit with Dems in 2004 convention.. wouldn't that have been a big deal back then..? They were immediately talking about him being President after his speech

          Hillary used to mock the idea that a man can shoot to the stratosphere of politics with a speech

        • About the only thing HRC and I agree on is her contempt for BHO.

        • If he really was born in Hawaii, he obviously felt it was some sort of self-promotion gimmick to claim he was from Kenya. As if being from someplace other than America gave him some sort of special standing, which in his circles, it does. Again, all part of his promotion of himself.

      • I do too and I see your point of view. I think where I was going is that Mathews is hell bent on driving the narrative of his choice since the Dems do not have a damn thing to run on that is even remotely positive. The Birthers are irrelevant much as the media would like to convince us otherwise.

        • Agreed he is trying to drive a wedge in there, through Condi.. and she wouldn't bite. I shouldn't discount that.. its a purely partisan act. But i do appreciate that he's capable of a preference for some aspects of the opposing party, rather then what you often see as vicious & broad attacks on ALL "rethuglicans" by the unthinking left.. It falls into my naive wish that some core of both parties find a way to work together on matters over which there is much agreeement

        • Part of me hopes we remain fractured politically because when both sides agree, it seems that the tax payer gets creamed and/or we go deeper into debt.

        • true.. it would have to be a common core that is fiscally prudent.. Now i'm bummed out

• Interesting that he didn't go to his normal spit-laced charge of "racism". If Matthews was the only crash-and-burn "journalist" he would be kind of funny to watch. Since he is only the most deranged of the bunch, he is just pathetic.

  • That would have been absolutely hysterical, frothing off at Condi Rice about being a racist?!?! I wouldn't put it past him...

    • Maybe that's why he is spinning out of control. His little brain says:

      - ALL conservatives are racist
      - Blacks can not be racist

      It's kind of like a sideways IQ test question. When faced with a black conservative (of which there are SUPPOSED to be zero, according to NBC/WSJ) the little cogs in that otherwise vacant capsule on top of his neck start swirling around, smoking and sputtering.