Chris Matthews: The Economy Is Worse Than Monica Lewinsky

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 8:22 am, January 20th, 2010

» 3 comments

Everything old is new again! Last night certainly felt like a blast from 2008 as all the cablers went wall to wall with coverage of Massachusetts special election. And really it would be hard to argue that there is anyone who enjoys the election circus more than Chris Matthews who had a hard time concealing his glee a the excitement last night’s results generated. Matthews’ sort of freefrom analysis often times feels like its own sort of political art form. Last night he was in top form (video below). Whilst waiting for Martha Coakley’s concession speech last night Matthews, reached farther back than 2008 and summed up the election results thusly (hint: it’s the economy stupid…but his version is far more entertaining):

We deal all the time with the cosmos we live in, the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times…are unhappy. There’s a dissatisfaction out there; it may be the cold winter, it may be the unemployment rate. It’s not going down. People react — I’ve always believed you can trust economic circumstances to give you a fabulous reading on the mood of the country. Richard Nixon. People say ‘what do you mean? He covered up a break in and he lost his presidency over that’ No, the times were terrible economically. Bill Clinton embarrassed us over Monica Lewinsky, but you know what the times were great. I’m a Marxist when it comes to analysis: People judge their current economic circumstances and then make political judgments.

Like we said, it’s the economy stupid. Also, if you’re going to be a misbehaving president wait until the unemployment rate goes down. Rachel Maddow points out it might also have had something to do with Marhat Coakley’s personal appeal…or lack thereof. Video below.

Bill Clinton, Chris Matthews, Martha Coakley, Monica Lewinsky, msnbc, Rachel Maddow, Richard Nixon, Scott Brown

ChrisNH

The anger is easy to explain. People are without sources of income at a time when they are being asked to pay much higher taxes…all the while certain special interests (Nebraska…**cough**…Mississippi…**cough**…unions…**cough**) are excused from that in order to buy support. You can’t placate certain special interests without pissing off the people who aren’t part of those groups.
http://www.nukethefridge.com MartiniShark

Here’s a question I pose strictly out of mirth, but considering the sources it seems a fair query. Given the amount of time Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow have spent declaring the lily-white tea-party crowds as racist they have declared themselves as the arbiters of social tolerance. Therefore can it not be said that their appearance inside a bar for the duration of the election coverage last night was slightly insensitive to Bostonians? The implication appears to be that Boston has a large Irish contingent, and we all know they are a group of heavy drinkers, so they would be more acceptable if they appeared in a bar while in town.
Tsk-Tsk.
pyrope

Point of order ChrisNH, I believe you were referring to Louisiana–not Mississippi–and Mary Landrieu who received the bribe for her vote on -0bamacare.

As for anything said by Chris Matthews, Rachael Madcow, or Keith Overbite is concerned; who cares? No one with an IQ greater than that of an artichoke watches them.