Thursday’s Hardball featured a thick, heavy lather of liberal love for everyone from the Obamas to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, all thanks to an ebullient host Chris Matthews hours after the House voted to formalize the impeachment inquiry against President Trump.
In his latest love letter to the Obama family, Matthews had on former National Security Adviser Susan Rice to promote her memoir when he read an excerpt in which she predicted at a dinner party in August 2015 that Trump could win the GOP nod because “[t]here’s a lot of hate out there’” and “some people just can’t get over where we are now.”
Matthews agreed, including her belief that it stemmed from America being filled with (millions of) racists who wanted to strike back against Obama.
He then offered a fact-free summary of the Obama family, neglecting to mention Michelle’s cushy job on a hospital board, allowing Chicago radicals like Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright to jumpstart their rise, or the money Obama made from his two pre-presidential books (click “expand”):
Well, you know, I’ve said it 1,000 times in this show, and I believe in it, that Barack Obama was such a sterling character, his family was such a sterling perfect family, they are perfect by any standards of traditional American values. They obeyed all the rules. They weren’t money grubbers. They pub — big public service from the beginning of his career. He didn’t — he didn’t even go into private money. He went into helping the country with community development, the whole works — public service and it drives some people who don’t like the success of anybody that was a minority crazy. You suggested that was one of the reasons why you thought Trump might win.
RICE: I think it was that and more. I think there was a vein of discontent that I sensed that Trump had the potential to tap into. Part of it may have been of course the fact that we had an African-American President who was elected twice and quite successful in office, but I think it was broader than that[.]
To end the show, Matthews’s closing commentary was one that led off with the thesis that “[a]t their best, great leaders and great journalists are also educators” as “[b]y their state craft in the case of leaders, by their trade craft in the case of journalists, they show us how it is done.”
In the case of the first, Matthews held up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her slow walk toward impeachment (despite the fact that Matthews had been incensed her party didn’t collectively move earlier, as per a sample of posts here, here, here, here, here, and here):
Watch Speaker Nancy Pelosi these past weeks. Notice her sense of timing, her patience in waiting for the key moment, her quickness in action when it came. She held off her caucus until she saw the clear-cut case for the President’s impeachment, then she struck with all her force and intellect. Today, we got the accounting from that: 231 Democratic votes for the impeachment inquiry, just two against. Better yet, three strong impeachable witnesses to the President’s abuse of power all testifying on the record — three strikes as every American knows and you’re out.
And as for the latter, he insisted that Friday’s show will feature “a top journalist on to talk about impeachment but also about her tradecraft” in Maddow, whom most sane people would instead describe her as a liberal pundit (while still not facing any serious attacks like her equivalents at Fox do).
Matthews promised she’d promote her book “about the fouling corrupting power of oil” and encouraged viewers to tune in because “[s]he always has something to teach.” If by “teach” Matthews meant liberal conspiracy theories and that Russia is everywhere, then sure.
Over the years, MSNBC has successfully spun Maddow to their liberal audience plus compatriots who are more like fanboys and girls.
In a December 2014 promo, MSNBC asserted that “[s]he’s a news anchor with a big personality” while she was included in a 2017 promo that claimed the network “is not an echo chamber.” And as per our Jack Coleman, Maddow stated in a 2017 SiriusXM promo that she does her job “without fear or favor.”
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on October 31, click “expand.”
MSNBC’s Hardball
October 31, 2019
7:49 p.m. EasternCHRIS MATTHEWS: In her new book Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice writes about how she recognized the very real prospect of a Trump presidency back in August 2015. “During a small dinner party with President Obama and a couple of senior political aides I said that I could see a way for Trump to gain the nomination. I persisted saying, ‘There’s a lot of hate out there. You know some people just can’t get over where we are now.’ I was not suggesting then that Trump would be president, but I didn’t think the nomination was out of reach.” Well, Susan Rice is back with us with her clairvoyance. So, you thought it was doable that he might just pull that thing off?
RICE: I certainly thought it was possible he could win the nomination. Now, this was August 2015, so we still had quite a ways to go to the nomination, but I saw a path.
MATTHEWS: Well, you wrote in the book that —
RICE: A prediction I’m not proud to make, by the way.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, I’ve said it 1,000 times in this show, and I believe in it, that Barack Obama was such a sterling character, his family was such a sterling perfect family, they are perfect by any standards of traditional American values. They obeyed all the rules. They weren’t money grubbers. They pub — big public service from the beginning of his career. He didn’t — he didn’t even go into private money. He went into helping the country with community development, the whole works — public service and it drives some people who don’t like the success of anybody that was a minority crazy. You suggested that was one of the reasons why you thought Trump might win.
RICE: I think it was that and more. I think there was a vein of discontent that I sensed that Trump had the potential to tap into. Part of it may have been of course the fact that we had an African-American President who was elected twice and quite successful in office, but I think it was broader than that and, you know, at that time, the field was very large and it seemed almost inconceivable to most people that it wouldn’t be, you know, a Bush or a Rubio or something like that, but Trump had a particular brand of tapping into visceral, negative views of, you know, many Americans.
MATTHEWS: Demagogues, too.
RICE: And they were out to divide us.
MATTHEWS: Well, you write the day after Trump’s election, “I felt like a stinging rebuke of all we believed in, unity, equality, dignity, honesty, hope, and progress....The more I thought about it, the worse I felt.”
(....)
7:58 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: At their best, great leaders and great journalists are also educators. By their state craft in the case of leaders, by their trade craft in the case of journalists, they show us how it is done. Watch Speaker Nancy Pelosi these past weeks. Notice her sense of timing, her patience in waiting for the key moment, her quickness in action when it came. She held off her caucus until she saw the clear-cut case for the President’s impeachment, then she struck with all her force and intellect. Today, we got the accounting from that: 231 Democratic votes for the impeachment inquiry, just two against. Better yet, three strong impeachable witnesses to the President’s abuse of power all testifying on the record — three strikes as every American knows and you’re out. Tomorrow night, we have a top journalist on to talk about impeachment but also about her tradecraft. My colleague Rachel Maddow will come on Hardball to assess this historic week, to talk too about Blowout her huge new best-seller about the fouling corrupting power of oil. Don’t miss Rachel tomorrow night here on Hardball. She always has something to teach.
