The Carville-Matalin Joke Is on Us
For the love of God, please stop enabling them.
“Only 39 days until the Iowa caucuses,” Tim Russert gravely intoned over the dramatic John Williams “Meet the Press” score. “The Democratic race: too close to call. The Republican race: too close to call. Which issues, policies, strategies will resonate?”
If Mr. Russert really wanted a thoughtful and provocative discussion of that subject, then why did he—yet again—hand over half of his show to James Carville and Mary Matalin, two of the four panelists whose punditry monopolized Sunday’s one-hour broadcast?
This is not an issue of disclosure. Mr. Russert correctly noted in his opening that Mr. Carville “helped put Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House in 1992” and that Ms. Matalin supports Fred Thompson, and later pointed out that Mr. Carville has also donated money to Hillary Clinton’s ’08 campaign.
Instead, it’s a question of quality, fairness and basic respect for the intelligence and time of the viewing audience. Does Mr. Russert, the host of what is supposed to be the preeminent news discussion program on television, actually believe that Mr. Carville and Mrs. Matalin provide viewers with objective analysis? And why does he continually include them—on a regular panel that also features Republican Mike Murphy and Democrat Bob Shrum—without offering a similar platform to any of the other candidates’ prominent supporters?
It took about 14 seconds on Sunday for Mr. Carville to show his stripes, when Mr. Russert used the first question of the show to ask Mr. Carville to analyze the latest Iowa numbers, which show Mrs. Clinton trailing Barack Obama, 30 to 26 percent (with John Edwards at 22 percent). Released last week, the poll prompted a round of Is-Hillary-Suddenly-In-Trouble stories in the press.
Mr. Carville’s response could have been written by Howard Wolfson: He immediately downplayed the significance of what is inarguably a negative development for his candidate.
“It says that Iowa is very tight,” Mr. Carville said, “and this poll and every poll has shown that it’s very tight. Also, Iowa polls are unreliable over a month out. John Kerry was running third, Bill Bradley, at the time, was way ahead of Al Gore in Iowa.”
He went on in this spirit, but let’s stop right there, because Mr. Carville, in those few sentences, already mangled history in a way that is conveniently conducive to Mrs. Clinton. His claim that Bill Bradley “was way ahead of Al Gore in Iowa” at any point during the 2000 campaign is false on its face. In fact, eight years ago nearly to the day, an Iowa poll showed Mr. Gore throttling Mr. Bradley, 54 to 32 percent. Mr. Gore led Iowa wire-to-wire in 2000. New Hampshire was the volatile state that year, not Iowa.
Maybe this was just an innocent misstatement by Mr. Carville. After all, his broader point has the ring of truth: The Iowa leaderboard, the 2000 example notwithstanding, can change in a hurry. Any pundit in the country could have made that observation. But because of his personal devotion to the Clintons, it can’t be assumed that Mr. Carville’s motives in making it were pure. Actually, his entire answer raised several questions, including:
* If the poll in question had shown Mrs. Clinton—and not Mr. Obama—opening a lead, would Mr. Carville have been as quick to point out, as he did, that it’s still early, that other polls have produced different results, and that surveys at this stage can be unreliable?
* Was his inaccurate statement about the Gore-Bradley race an understandable error, or was he—like any master of spin—guilty of intentional exaggeration and overstatement in an effort to amplify his Clinton-serving argument?
And this was only the first question of the show. The next time he spoke up, it was to point out that Mrs. Clinton had “performed superbly” in the Democratic debates and to echo her attack that Mr. Obama’s health care plan “doesn’t have the mandate, leaves 15 million people uninsured.”
Good lord. Where was the competing, pro-Obama “analyst” to point out, say, the massive campaign contributions that Mrs. Clinton has gobbled up from the health insurance industry?
Even Mr. Carville’s “criticisms” of Mrs. Clinton could be seen as subtle efforts to blunt attacks on her and to bolster her campaign. For instance, Mr. Russert pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s pilloried performance two debates ago and asked if “her answer on the driver’s license immigration issue and on other issues, or her reluctance to answer, hurt her with the honest, trustworthy questions that were asked in this poll?”
Mr. Carville’s responded that he “did not think that that was (her) best performance”—something Mrs. Clinton herself had said publicly—and then quickly added that “anybody that looks at her performance over the course of the debates says that this a competent, thought-out campaign.”
During a discussion of Mrs. Clinton’s recent effort to claim credit for the domestic economy during her husband’s presidency, Mr. Carville—as if it represented some stunning admission on his part—offered his opinion that “ her argument is actually not a bad one, in this case.” Next Page >
I fully agree.
However, perhaps having Carville on the show is secretly very damaging to Hillary's campaign -- seeing his snakehead and enduring his fake cracker charm on an otherwise peaceful Sunday morning reminds viewers that, should Hillary win the nomination, we're going to have that whole annoying crew back in our faces. And that's not appetizing
How old are you Kornacki? Everybody knows that these are biased strategist and that they get booked because producers think its' cute that they are married and support different parties.
Exactly what planet are you on?
Johnnie is exactly right. Instead of watching Michael J. Fox in "Back to the Future" we would be watching Billary starring in "Back to the 90s."
I used to enjoy MTP, but lost faith in Tim Russet during the last election cycle. He does not ask penetrating questions unless he openly dislikes a candidate. If any other Sunday program came on at the same time, I would watch that instead (I tape CNN). As to Carville&Matalin, what part of this gimmick is a come-on - do they really hate each other's politics that much, or is the marriage really the inside joke? I cannot stand to argue with my husband over politics and we have only minor points of disagreement. How could a real marriage survive if these two people had such differing views of life? One is for entitlements and spending money on problems while the other is for maximizing one's wealth and just making sure the bars on the windows are nice and strong. How could you raise children with such differing views on life? So, one of these people (or both) really just sees politics as a career where you just give out the party line regardless of your personal ideals, or they must sit around talking about the weather and whether the kids need new coats. I used to love this pair but now think they are simply smarmy.
Huh, Johnnie? Judging from the last few appearances on Meet the Press, it's Mary Matalin doing the damage -- not only to her candidates, but her entire party -- with her rote recitation of doctrinaire GOP talking points that Russert has demolished. To say that she continually comes across as disingenuous would be putting it very politely. And just where the hell is the RNC? Someone from First Street SE -- preferably Mike Duncan himself -- should've put their foot down on her mediawhoring a long time ago.
It's the political clique. A very small circle. The elite rule. So many potential new voices could shake up punditry, but those who have already "made it" are not interested in new voices, just listening to their own echo chamber. Perhaps their day is ending, perhaps blogs and other online voices will impede their power. Or perhaps Big Corporate Media strategies to weaken other voices through hard-nosed tactics like consolidation and squeezing bandwidth will squelch the voices of freedom. It's a big struggle.
30KV
Why don't you answer your own question? Russart is part of the Washington "you wash my hand" culture of big Pop Media Politics. After we learned of Matlin trying to cash in on old favors by pushing Chris Matthews around; you might have thought She would ease up. But these people are not big on shame.
If it's any comfort, you get a diferent version of this in the "alternative" media. Ariana Huffington has hired Marc Cooper, a supposedly "radical" journalist who actually scans decidedly to the right to cover Campaign 08. Cooper spews vitriol almost daily against Hillary Clinton, who he openly despises, then puts on his "journalist cap" and goes to cover the campaign. Not surprisingly, the "big story" of Clinton's problems and the Driver's Licence "Issue" (where, by the way, She seems to have had the same answer as vitually everyone else on the Dem's side) was not played down at The Huffington Post.
the reason is simple
it is because Matlin and Carville are the Burns and Allen of political pundrity.
Dixie (not verified) says: "I cannot stand to argue with my husband over politics and we have only minor points of disagreement. How could a real marriage survive if these two people had such differing views of life?" Very easily Dixie, my parents had that type of relationship and thrived for over 40 years until my mom passed away. But agree about Russert, since he's had MTP, and I won't watch it because he's without question a rethug shill. I end up screaming at the tv because he always obviously toughly challenges Democrats and pussyfoots with rethugs.
Truely, there is very little difference between Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday. The primary difference is that FOX is unapologetic for its anti-populism views, while Meet the Press attempts to hide their anti-populism views. The game is the same, only pitched slightly differently.
Russert has been unwatchable for years. What used to be a thought-provoking Sunday morning show has turned into a platform for flacks of the lowest order. Carville and Matalin used to be entertaining. No more. It's stomach-turning recitation of talking points with very little attempt by the enabling Tim to do any actual questioning. You know ... as a real reporter would.
Absolutely correct. It's not enough to say that Carville is a HRC supporter when he is asked to give his opinion on a recent poll showing strength for other candidates. Russert sucks and I'm happy that there is a blogger world out there.
But like most of the American national beltway press blowhards this is just another example of their inbred world.
First, Matalin, Carville and Russert are friends off the air.
Second, Matalin and Carville were the "darlings" of the circuit during Bill Clinton's years. They were cute then, not so much now. Time to put these two to pasture.
Third, Russert and MTP are ineffectual.
Leave it to the Brits to get this party rollin,' with the Guardian's piece today exploring questions around Hillary's rumored lesbianism and her apparent ongoing affair with her personal aide, Huma. No one will blame her: Bill humiliated her beyond belief, over and over again; who can blame Sen Clinton for seeking solace with a lover of her own gender, who isn't working through unresolved childhood issues by becoming promiscuous. The fact is, America is ready for a LGBT candidate--most families have a transgendered member, not to mention gay or bisexual.
If I have learned anything during this campaign, it's how to win elections. First you buy the polling companies. That tilts all of the polls in your favor. Then you make sure that all Politicians have assurances that they will have a job in your administration. That gets you all of the endorsements and super-delegates. Then you make sure that every talking head that could possibly be asked to go on TV or provide a comment, used to work for you. And you make sure that the Media only talks to those people by denying access if they don't. It's no wonder that any panel would be pro Clinton...they all worked for her husband at one point or have been promised a job in the future. Yep, this campaign has shown me a lot about how politics work in this country.
Tim Russert has taken Meet The Press from "Can't miss" to "Can't watch"
Tim Russert becomes more and more unwatchable all the time. His performance at the democratic debates should forever remove him from every again moderating a debate. I suspect he never has a guest on MTP that he doesn't already know what they are going to say. There are no surprises on his show, which basically makes it just more MSM propaganda.
Maitlin and Carville are redundent. They are way past their sell by date! Not only are they positively the most hideous looking pair of human beings they are also incredibly snobby; not to mention condescending and contemptuous of the American people. That Tim Russett hasn't got it yet isn't that surprising now is it?
I think you give them too much credit. They're more like Martin and Lewis instead of Burns and Allen.
Russert and the Matlin/Carville are best friends. They dine together, family together and, I believe one is the godparent to the others child.
It's not cute anymore, It's embarrassing.
They represent everything that is wrong with our politics.
Re: the above post about Hillary's affair with her assistant Huma, I agree many Americans will be accepting of her straying (about time!) but I think Huma's being a woman would cause problems for Hillary's battle against the Republicans.
All three, Russert, Maitlin & Carville, look like "Pigs" at the trough, literally. OINK! OINK! The ugliest bunch of people. Guess they have to stick together. As for Hillary she's not a looker either. Very manly to me.
obviouly mr karnacki does not support Clinton or Thompson !
Do you believe that political pundits should be impartial to offer a fair & provocative discussion?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1095
.
I've noticed that this happy couple of media darlings are always on MTP over holiday weekends when Tim can't find anyone else to fill up the airtime.
EQUAL TIME. I totally agree with this article. I think that those who make their living as TV "journalists" have forgotten that they are supposed to be objective journalists rather than spinning for establishment candidates and their consultants. Political consultants have no morality. Maitlin, Carville to Dick Morris. They work to control the political process for whomever pays them. Maitlin and Carville have this Left/Right Branding going on. Only thing is that the money and power that controls America has shifted of late to Democrats. Democrats and Republicans are each vying for money from the elites. The Bush/Cheney legacy is that they have hurt Republican fundraising because the very same fat cats who use to line up for the GOP are now standing behind Hillary. If Republicans hate Bill & Hillary it is usually more because of that simple fact alone. They have stolen their clients.
To answer the question of why Russert has them on, it is because he is a whore.
Enough with these two clowns--It was moderately entertaining in the 90's...We get it..A 'political Odd Couple'--ha ha... old joke-not funny..Say good-by to Timmy...So, easiest remedy for Sun. AM I've found- is 'This Week w. Geo. Steph.'--and , somewhat ironic-when one recalls he actually was IN the B. Clinton. admin...PS- Comparison to 'Burns and Allen' is a terrible insult to George and Gracie...
These two are close personal friends of Russert and Russert has no shame when it comes to giving them a stage for their "act". We all know that Carville and Matalin stand for nothing but making money. If they actually believed anything they say, they couldn't be married to each other.