Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Liz Smith | 04/24/2008 3:33 pm

Olbermann and Matthews Take It on the Chin from Hillary!

Liz Smith

It was fun to watch Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann preside over MSNBC’s coverage of the Pennsylvania primary the other night. One suspects these two significant cable yakkers don’t much like each other, though they behave as if affably inclined.

They seem united, however, in their distaste for Senator Clinton. To see them have to concede her victory over Barack Obama, who is MSNBC’s pin-up boy, was great television.

Matthews at least tends to give Hillary a kind of half-admiring thumbs-up for stick-to-it-ness. But he was so anxious to offer that the results “were too close to call” that he misread the clock at 7:30 PM, saying it was 8 PM. (As the results came in with Hillary leading, I received a call from a pal who joked, “Chris Matthews has lost the power of speech!” Fascinating and likable as he can be, sometimes when Chris is interviewing dignified and mature spokespersons, you can see the pain on their faces as he repeatedly interrupts them and they are too decent to shout back.)


2008_0424_ap_cmatthews.jpg
Chris Matthews © AP

Olbermann for his part looked kind of grim and tight-lipped. He behaved better than he usually does but one feels he was itching to scream, “Why won’t she go away?” (Once she does, things will turn very dull for all these mediacasters, so I don’t see why they are so anxious for that result. They’ll be sorry if they don’t have Hillary to kick around anymore.)

Senator Clinton has it slightly easier at MSNBC now that Tucker Carlson has bitten the dust. But it’s still a frat house over there and the “tingle down the leg” that Hillary generates is one of fear and frustration. (That was Chris Matthews’s famous reaction to Obama’s oratory abilities, if you’ll recall.)

Only the network’s brilliant numbers-cruncher analyst Chuck Todd keeps a cool, on-the-ball detachment.


2008_0424_ap_kolbermann.jpg
Keith Olbermann © AP

Mr. Olbermann is the somewhat (but not always) liberal doppelganger of his arch enemy, conservative pundit, Bill O’Reilly. They really should meet in person, perhaps in the ring. And Olbermann is extremely tiresome when he tries to imitate O’Reilly’s voice. There is this ideological chasm between the two, but they share a sense of towering ego, self-righteousness and seem to be twin entities. Maybe they cancel one another out. (O’Reilly won’t utter Olbermann’s name and has attacked NBC relentlessly hoping to drive Keith out. But the latter has made big mileage from directly attacking O’Reilly, who is Roger Ailes’s great star at Fox News.)

Sometimes I think the young idiots at MTV’s “The Real World,” now in its 20th terrible year, behave more maturely than some of the big guys who are positioned to give us what is laughingly called “hard news” and what is mostly egotistical analysis.

Note: Click on this text to read my nationally syndicated daily column.

122 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Bonnie Oliver
Both men are what used to be call ‘feature writers’ as opposed to newsmen or journalist. They are paid to offer their personal comments and that is what they do. We can listen or not…..our choice. HOWEVER, I do have a question for any advocate of Senator Clinton. She is fighting a uphill battle and the chance of her gaining the nomination is probably one out of ten (my opinion). But, can she really do it? Or, more specifically, and since she will need most of the super-delegate vote, how can those super-delegates vote for her if Senator Obama retains the lead in regular delegate count? The “pundits” have said the Democratic Party will “blow up” if the super-delegates take (or steal) the nomination from Senator Obama and that the African American voters may not vote in the November election at all. Therefore, how can Senator Clinton win the nomination and not leave one of the most loyal wings of the party in tears if not anger? If she can do it, it will truly be a come-back worthy for the pundits and later the historians to acclaim. But, can she do it? I don’t see how.
By Bonnie Oliver on 04/24/2008 3:49 pm
beth willis
Sometimes I feel like we are sitting around a campfire telling stories to see who will become most frightened. Texas has not had its state convention, so I’m not quite sure why those delegates are already counted for Obama. These pundits are making a living; there are so many of them, they seek to be outrageous to keep their jobs. This is no time for people to pick up their marbles and go home because they didn’t get their way. If Hillary does not get the nomination and Obama does, I’ll support Obama.
By beth willis on 04/24/2008 7:25 pm
Meg Umans
I think by now Hillary’s goal isn’t to win, but rather to prevent Obama’s win. (Notice that almost all of us almost always use her first name and his last name?) She can run against McCain next time with a decent chance, but not against Obama ever.
By Meg Umans on 04/24/2008 8:15 pm
No GOP
Bonnie, Harry Reid is going to press the superdelegates to declare….presumably to end death to the Demos by a 1,000 cuts…..
By No GOP on 04/24/2008 11:28 pm
Deni G
Oh Harry Reid is on it! Oh good! I was worried. But now that I know that Harry is on it, I feel sooo much better. ~LOL!
By Deni G on 04/25/2008 12:15 am
Bonnie Oliver
Thanks Grace and etal. Someone on TV said that the super delegates will be asked to cast their support to either one or the other candidate by the first week in June. Maybe the results from the primaries yet to be held will leave Senator Clinton in a more advantageous position to ask for those super delegate votes on a basis of momentum and/or right. However, I have come to the conclusion that the only way Senator Clinton will win the nomination is if Senator Obama steps down. And the only reason he would step aside is if he concludes that he could not win in November against Senator McCain and, more importantly, that she could. And I don’t see how any of those decisions can possibly be made prior to the Convention. Even though the “pundits” are saying that the Clintons are keeping in contact with the undeclared super delegates and are trying to persuade them to support her efforts, I have a suspicion that she is really trying to convince Senator Obama that she is the candidate who can win in November. I wonder if he is listening? And is she ‘the’ winning candidate?
By Bonnie Oliver on 04/25/2008 2:26 am
Kay Sara
Interesting how men’s opinions (even the idiots) seem to carry more weight than a woman’s opinion.
By Kay Sara on 04/25/2008 9:56 am
Michael Salling
I said much of this in response to Mr. Bua in an earlier reply on this topic, and I’ve added some more thoughts at the end: Super delegates exist for a reason. It is very possible for Sen. Clinton to win the nomination if the SDs decide that Obama is not strong enough to defeat McCain. If in good conscience they shift the nomination to Obama’s opponent, they are doing their job. Those who claim that this would be undemocratic and unfair just don’t understand the system or the Democratic Party. Is it fair to Florida voters not to count their votes? How democratic is the caucus system, where Senator Obama picked up all his so-called “pledged” delegates? If the convention were deadlocked, and after the 20th ballot the party turned to Al Gore, would that be democratic? In my opinion, it would be divine justice, and it would certainly be in the best tradition of the DEMOCRATIC Party. As you may know, I dream of a Clinton / Obama ticket. My dream is to have the first woman president after 220 years, and the first African American Vice-President. I foresee Obama being the kind of loyal, proactive VP that Gore was and I have little doubt he’d be elected the first black president in 2016, when humanity will need a 21st century Abraham Lincoln. He’d still be nearly a decade younger than Hillary is now. It’s the best bet the Dems. have to secure the White House for the next 16 years. It will take at least that long to repair the damage done by the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton cabal. If she receives the nomination and does not offer the VP slot to Obama I’d never forgive her, and I’d never forgive him if he rejected the offer. I believe each has vulnerabilities, but at this point I feel he is far more vulnerable to “Swiftboating”, and the Super Delegates must take this into consideration. Every decision should be made in the context of the overwhelming need to keep the Republicans out of the White House, of course.
By Michael Salling on 04/25/2008 10:44 pm
Mrs. Miniver
Olbermann and Matthews, one must remember, must maintain high ratings though they are becoming more to be poor magazine entertainers, sportscasters, than serious journalists at times. It has become tedious to hear grown men clinging to bullying their ideals of what Hillary must and should do…How dare Hillary show them up. Like, Joseph Bua, here so angrily stated…of how fed up he is with Hillary’s damn negative game that he finds so abhorrent to the majority of the Democratic Party (since he seems to know the Demo. Party so well) but fails to list the negatives, as if they are so, so obvious. According to (D) Rep. Rahm Emanuel, last night on The Charlie Rose Show, Hillary has hardly been negative, running ads that are in accordance with winning the nomination compared to past presidential hopeful ads. And Rep. Emanuel is someone worth listening to in experience. Hillary and Obama, and their camps, are exhausted campaigning for 15 straight months now…tempers start flying after 24/7 scrutiny…and sleep deprivation…so there are bound to be slip-ups; some Aide doing their own thing under pressure without clearance, thinking they are helping the cause. Anyone who has been on such campaigns, know of what I speak. Others, well…claim to know it, never having gone through the experience but always seem to be pointing out the negatives of the sound bites. I bet they are the same people who see the glass as always half empty. Damn it…I wish they finally state what the heck candidates are suppose to be doing for they all sound like 4-year-olds whinning, sucking their thumbs, throwing temper tantrums…while screaming those holy political decrees of ” I know what is good for our country ” nonsense…and God help anyone that disagrees with them. Lighten up. This political season is invigorating cause it stirs people to talk and get involved. In regards to O’Reilly, he is not worth the time of day…He is the shock-jock of tabloid television disguised as a newsman….May Edward R. Morrow rest in his grave. Has anyone noticed, how the men that write on this site, tend to be a bit angry…? Some even go so far as to actually…(I can only sense this by the way they type)…dare to talk down to us…my, my…instead of conversing and discussing.
By Mrs. Miniver on 04/24/2008 4:33 pm
Eileen T
Agree with you Mrs. Miniver. I have noticed men writing on this site tend to be angry with their comments as well as condescending. How many of us have witnessed that same old from some men when they encounter a strong woman. That’s part of why a large percentage of experienced women understand and support Hillary and all women of major accomplishments. Come to think of it - that’s explains MSNBC talking heads Matthews, Olbermann and Shuster.
By Eileen T on 04/24/2008 5:07 pm
No GOP
Mrs. Miniver—Agree re Edward R. Morrow, Charles Collingwood and others of that era and ilk. SOME men here are bonafide jerk-offs…not all. Frank, Mark, Dan and a few others are very nice.
By No GOP on 04/24/2008 11:35 pm
Michael Salling
Let me know whenever my remarks rankle, Ms Min — “faux grace from cyberspace” and others have been supportive, but I will never forget who started the site and invested the capital to create a unique forum for women. I had the best mother in the world, whose 49 year marriage to my dad was one of the most successful I’ve ever known of. I had a 35 year marriage that was rocky and ended badly, but we accomplished a lot, most importantly rearing a child who will be a bright light for his generation, I believe. My ex-wife had a successful career in politics from 1978 to 1998 which I supported in every way I could, including being “Mr. Mom” from 1988 thru 1998. Hope that qualifies me to make some worthwhile contributions.
By Michael Salling on 04/25/2008 9:46 pm
Candace Wood
Amen, Liz. Unfortunately, like others I don’t know how to quit them - I guess at some level I like aggravation. How about the Huffington Post? I had to laugh when they had to use decimal points to show Hillary only had a single digit lead. One other thing, I am so tired of the headline “desperate democrats”. Perhaps some democrats are desperate to have it over but personally I love that people in late primary states finally get to have their say. Let it roll, I’m voting for a democrat regardless of who gets the nomination.
By Candace Wood on 04/24/2008 5:25 pm
Josie Sullivan
Ditto! I’m with you Candace!
By Josie Sullivan on 04/24/2008 5:57 pm
Charles Dance
She’s wrecking her party.Someone should talk to her….who would that be?
By Charles Dance on 04/24/2008 5:30 pm