Chris Matthews: "It's Hard to Tell" Where Hillary Stands on Iraq

No it isn't.

Chris Matthews, the neo-conservative host of MSNBC's Hardball, takes a momentary break from suggesting Americans need a "little bit of fascism" and returns to his favorite past-time: Clinton-bashing. This week's distortion: Sen. Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq.

On the February 26 edition of Hardball, Matthews interviewed New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson—one of the second tier Democratic presidential candidates whose background and potential may push him to the A-list. Matthews took the opportunity to suggest Clinton favors the Bush Administration's troop escalation whose loudest cheerleader is Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT).

MATTHEWS: Well, don't you take umbrage at the fact that she's broad-brushing other Democrats, perhaps, to her left? I mean, it's easy to get to her left on the war in Iraq. She takes a somewhat -- well, it's a hard ambivalent position. It's very hard to tell whether she's with Lieberman or she's with the Democratic Party on the issue of the war.

Take a memo. In January, we reported Clinton's call to reduce troop numbers and start re-deployments. About two weeks ago, Sens. Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama voted with all of their Democratic colleagues and seven Republicans on a non-binding resolution against the escalation. Lieberman voted with the Republican majority.

Clinton was one of 77 senators who voted for the 2002 Iraq Resolution. As we have been saying for months, she should not apologize—no one voted for five years of civil war, suspension of habeas corpus, detainees at Guantanamo, manipulation of intelligence data and a conflict that has already cost more than Vietnam. The Democratic presidential candidate cannot apologize for authorizing the war because the new talking point would be "they were for it before they were against it." (A plus for Obama, he's always been against the war and wasn't in the Senate in 2002.) That cost Kerry the 2004 election and it's not going to sink the party in 2008.

Go ahead and lay into Hillary for parsing the word "authorization" or rationalizing her intentions behind the vote. Sens. Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama may disagree on how to resolve the massive and costly foreign policy fiasco created by the Bush Administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress. But there is no disagreement over the escalation.

Interesting how Chris Matthews vacillates between swooning over Giuliani and Romney ("He has the perfect chin, he looks like a Mountie.") to tearing down Hillary Clinton and analyzing her sex life. He's definitely a closet ... neo-conservative.

You May Want to Read ...

Matthews on Giuliani: The Country "Wants a Little Bit of Fascism" (Rod 2.0) Matthews on Hillary: "How Many Times is She Going to Be Confused by Men?" (Rod 2.0) Matthews is Obsessed with Hillary's Sex Life (Rod 2.0) Matthews and Newsweek: Mitt Romney is "Buff" (Rod 2.0) Do Pants Suit? (Rod 2.0) News: Hillary and McCain (Rod 2.0) News: Hillary and the Gays (Rod 2.0) News: Hillary Packs Crowds in Iowa (Rod 2.0) Anti-Gay Mike Huckabee Paroled Rapist/Killer (Rod 2.0) Decision '08: Hillary Internet Chats, (Rod 2.0) Breaking: Hillary Clinton Announces (Rod 2.0) Clinton Announcement? (Rod 2.0) Cheney: Hillary Clinton "Could Win" (Rod 2.0) Hillary Clinton's Republican Senate Opponent Uses the "L-Word" (Rod 2.0) Lucifer vs Hillary vs Condi (Rod 2.0)

Comments

[Joseph]

LOL neo-con, perhaps he just does not like hillary; it's not a far stretch of the imagination; his democratic credentials are solid; he did work for Carter and Tip O'Neill

[ca]

Matthews Democratic credentials expired long ago. He "worked' for Tip O'Neill and Carter way back in the day before he began attacking Bill Clinton in 1991 when he was still a print reporter. Now he supports George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.

Former liberals who turn conservatiove are called ... "neo-conservative." The term was popularized in the Reagan Administration.

[Andy in Seattle]

Yes, Matthews has left the building--the Democratic Party one--and if he thinks his neocon leanings will earn him kudos from the right, fine, go work for Fox "News" and continue to distort and mislead. The problem is, how many people in the MSM are taking the time you, Rod, just have to point out the distortions and misrepresentations? Not many, I fear. But thanks Rod for your clearly annotated entry.

[Bill]

It's OK Rod, when he's tired of bashign Hillary, he'll move on to Sen. Obama. He's about ripe for his hi-tech lynching by the Clintonians...

[Andy in Seattle]

Agreed, Bill--any moment now all those who fear (and serve to lose something) if Obama prevails will bring out the long knives and wait until they see a weakness or peak of his popularity... and then let's stand back and watch. Smears, obfuscations, distortions, etc. It's going to be a very interesting political open-season.

[Joseph]

eh, the liberals say he's conservative; the conservatives say he's liberal; maybe he is just in that center that so many seem to be desparately grasping for these days

[ca]

Publicly supporting Georege W. Bush and Mitt Romney is not cenetr. That is right. I'd say Giuliani or Clinton are in the center.

Matthews is on the record for voting for and supporting Bush. Twice. That's not centrist.

[Michael D. Fein]

I am not a fan of Mr. Matthews and I take very little of what he says seriously. But I am quite surprised that so many people seem to be willing to decide so far in advance who they are supporting in the 08 presidential election. We are almost a year away from the first primary. The candidates haven't even all declared. Their positions have been all over the map, and only with time, can we figure out who we feel will serve the country best. This whole idea of these ultra-long campaigns in the states is just ridiculous, in my rarely to be humble opinion. :-) Here in Canada, when an election is called, the maximum length of the campaign is 6 weeks, usually less. The voters get to focus on the issues, the candidates abilities to govern, their parties agenda and priorities, etc. Of course, there is always a bit of negativity, but nowhere near what goes on in the U.S. campaigns. No one really cares who slept with whom, or he they are gay or straight, or if there is truth to the rumour that he/she parented a black child out of wedlock etc. The campaigns are too short for the elements of personal destruction that the U.S. campaigns seem to thrive on more and more with each passing event. Perhaps shorter campaigns might help keep the focus on the important elements of the office each candidate is seeking.