Hello Everyone:

For those of you who do not watch Hardball or follow MSNBC media pundit Chris Matthews on a regular basis, he has lost any credibility that he may have had as a so-called journalist in my opinion by allowing his own personal bias against Hillary Clinton to be so obviously seen when he is supposed to be objectively reporting and asking questions on his program! 

Here is credible documentation of the very blatant anti-Hillary bias that Chris Matthews is openly showing:    

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13814

Why I think Chris Matthews crossed the line showing his own bias against Hillary

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 5, 2007 - 3:30am.

Chris Matthews talking about Hillary Clinton right now is about the same thing as watching Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, or Sean Hannity talk about her on FOX News.  You already know what they are going to say before they even say it and the exact same thing is true about Chris Matthews right now in my opinion!

Chris Matthews was especially blatant with his anti-Hillary bias on Hardball on Wednesday, December 26.  Here are just some of his biased quotes against Hillary Clinton and endorsing Barack Obama from that program which I definitely believe fall into the category of very biased personal opinion such as what you hear on FOX News as opposed to serious, credible, and objective journalism:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22408216/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Dec. 26
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Joe Sestak, Pat Buchanan, Norah O‘Donnell, Eugene Robinson

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST:  "Hillary Clinton must keep Barack Obama from winning because if he wins, it will be the biggest news story of the year.  More on this in just a moment...

But first, our HARDBALL “Hot Topic.”  Let me say here what nobody else has said so far.  If Senator Barack Obama wins the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses next Thursday—that‘s eight days from now—it will be the biggest story in American politics in a generation.  Actually, it will be a global story carried on the front pages and leading the broadcast news in every country on the planet—an African-American, someone whose father came from Kenya, has been chosen by American voters to succeed George W. Bush.

It‘s a story with tectonic importance that it will dominate world news for days.  It will be up there with the opening of the Berlin Wall, the first all-races elections in South Africa, both stories I was lucky enough to cover.  And it could be just as positive, depending, of course, on your politics...

Bigger story than the tactics and the strategies is the fact of who‘s running.  I wouldn‘t have known this a year ago.  I never saw it coming.  This is a phenomenon to me, this Barack Obama thing.

Barack Hussein Obama, a guy whose father comes from Kenya, who was raised at least in his youth in Indonesia from a third world perspective, almost a third world presentation, a totally un-Bush—David, he‘s the un-Bush.  He‘s everything that the president isn‘t, for better or worse.  He‘s a man with a global perspective because he comes from the world to us.  He‘s sort of a gift from the world to us, in so many ways.  Bush is a man lacking in curiosity—native intelligence, obviously, but lacking in sort of global interest even or curiosity.  It‘s been said a million times.

And here‘s a guy who says, Wait a minute, I am part of the world.  I‘m not just an American, I‘m a citizen of the world.  I‘m going to bring us back and make us part of the world again.  It just seems to me that if I were a Kenyan newspaper editor on Friday morning next week and Obama wins this caucus, I‘m leading the paper with it...

If I‘m a South African newspaper editor, if I‘m somebody in Rangoon, wherever that is, if I‘m somewhere in Hong Kong, I‘m leading the paper with this.  This is the biggest news story to come out of America since I don‘t know what, what, Reagan beating Carter, at least?..."

Here is the Hardball video link to watch for yourself Chris Matthews saying all of this biased nonsense which in my opinion is definitely NOT serious, credible, and objective journalism:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22401075#22401075

The battle for Iowa 

Here is another biased jab that Chris Matthews took at Hillary on this show about "nonsensical spinning:"

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST:  "And is Hillary bracing herself for a loss in Iowa?  Today‘s “Des Moines Register” says—quote—“The New York senator also tried, in an interview this week with ‘The Des Moines Register,‘ to dampen expectations that she will win the leadoff contest on January 3.  She tried to limit expectations, with the argument that some people who would support her might be unable to attend the caucuses.”

Will this nonsensical spinning ever end?  “Unable to attend” is another phrase for not voting.  In this case, it doesn‘t depend on what your definition of is is..."

Here is the Hardball video link where you can watch for yourself Chris Matthews saying this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22401228#22401228  (03:00)

Hardball big number: 45

Fortunately Rep. Joe Sestak was a guest on this same program and in my opinion he did an excellent job of shutting down Chris Matthews and his blatant anti-Hillary bias!  Here is the Hardball video link to watch this very informative interview with Joe Sestak which I think does an excellent job of showing why Hillary Clinton IS the most experienced Democratic Presidential primary candidate right now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22401360#22401360  (07:24)

Is Clinton really experienced?

Right below is the complete Hardball transcript of this interview.

Here are some of the key quotes about Hillary Clinton from Joe Sestak that stood out to me from the transcript below:

REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA:  "And, therefore, when you read, Chris, her “Foreign Affairs” article...

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

SESTAK:  ... it says the most important relationship we have in the future is with China. 

This is a woman who has learned and fought through what she saw at the White House, close to decisions on war and peace, and understands that our military, even though it can‘t be used recklessly, nor can be hoarded like misers‘ gold, if it is to be a force for peace and progress.  That‘s the judgment that she has garnered from her time in the White House..."

SESTAK:  "This is a woman who understands the processes of Washington. 

Let‘s take her Iranian vote.  Very few people understand that, until the Iranian Guards were declared by the president as a terrorist organization, they could not be placed under sanctions by an executive order.  She, therefore, voted to encourage the president to place them under that executive order. 

She understood that this was—had to be pushed by Congress in order to have the president actually then act, which he did, because of hers and other votes, to move this Iranian Guards, underneath the executive order, as a terrorist organization.  I know.  I have operated with those at sea..."

SESTAK:  "Here‘s what they also believe; while Americans may be tired of this war, they want to salvage the best from it.  Here‘s Hillary Clinton, who has stood by her vote, and not only that, has not said get out of Iraq tomorrow.  She has said get out of Iraq.  How we end this war, she recognizes, is important, actually, more important than just ending it.  And that is the kind of experience and that‘s the strength she brings..."

SESTAK:  "She‘s ahead of her time.  Think of where she went as first lady.  She went to India, soon to be the number two economic power in the world.  Number two, she went to China.  She went to China and spoke about human rights and women‘s rights.  And most importantly, I think, she went to Africa. 

She recognized before others did that poverty is where terrorists go.  They hide.  Finally, this past year, the military woke up and actually established, Chris, as you know, what‘s called the Africa Command.  She was there talking about security—poverty being a security issue well before others. 

She has vision.  Not only that, she understands, as the example I gave you on Iran, the executive order, how Washington works.  We need a president with vision, but someone who can go to the boiler room and fix Washington, that‘s broken..."

My conclusion is that I hope this post gets these three main points across:

1) Chris Matthews is definitely biased against Hillary Clinton and he is NOT credible in his reporting so anything negative that he says about Hillary or anything positive that he says about Barack Obama definitely has to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion because he is clearly NOT a truly objective reporter or journalist!

2) This is good information to keep on file to show to people who may listen to Chris Matthews.  It is also good to keep on file because Joe Sestak in my opinion is very credible and what he has to say about Hillary Clinton's experience should help to move undecided primary voters over to vote for Hillary if it can be articulated to them in time in Iowa, New Hampshire, and in other primary states!

3) It is obvious to me that Chris Matthews is giving Obama a free ride in the media right now.  More Democrats than Republicans probably watch Chris Matthews because Matthews is hated as well as being very closely watched by Neocon GOP media rapid response as "NewsBusters" will definitely verify:

http://newsbusters.org/people/television/chris-matthews

Chris Matthews

The free ride that Barack Obama is getting right now from Chris Matthews, Oprah, and from other people may be nice when it comes to a Democratic primary BUT this free ride will definitely end when it comes to the general election IF he is the nominee! 

That is when Barack Obama will have to carry himself and all of the evidence that I have seen so far shows that Obama is NOT strong enough, tough enough, or smart enough to carry himself in what will definitely be a very difficult general election fight:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14153

ANALYSIS: Barack Obama's three most vulnerable areas that need to be brought up!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 17, 2007 - 5:52am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14107

ANALYSIS: The tough BUT fair questions I have NOT heard Barack Obama answer yet!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 12, 2007 - 10:45am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13894

ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 10:46am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782

Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433

ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.

I hope that all Democratic primary voters will at least very seriously think over and consider this information BEFORE any primary votes are cast because once there is a presumed nominee, then it will be very difficult to make any changes without an awful lot of embarrassment!

I also hope that all Democratic primary voters will clearly understand how very high that the stakes are in the 2008 election.  If the GOP nominee wins in 2008, then it will for certain be another Neocon GOP ideologue (Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson) who will pick right up where Bush leaves off on 1/20/09 and who will probably make our foreign policy much worse than it already is with a continuation of Bush's destructive Neocon "cowboy diplomacy" foreign policy!

The future of the world for many years to come is literally riding on who wins the 2008 election so it is very important that Democrats get it right when they choose their nominee.  That is why I am proud to be supporting Hillary Clinton along with Rep. Joe Sestak and Gen. Clark right now!             

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22408216/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Dec. 26
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Joe Sestak, Pat Buchanan, Norah O‘Donnell, Eugene Robinson

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 

Well, Hillary Clinton often touts her experience as first lady as the reason to vote for her, but today‘s “New York Times” examines her foreign policy credentials from the White House years, and, among other things, reports that she did not have a security clearance at all when she was first lady, did not receive a copy of the president‘s daily intelligence briefings, and was barely speaking to her husband when he was weighing whether or not to bomb the Sudan and Afghanistan back in ‘98. 

Has Hillary oversold her foreign policy experience from her time as first lady? 

Well, U.S. Congressman and a Democrat Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania served on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.  He is a Hillary supporter. 

What do—what do you say to people who say, Hillary was the first lady; she wasn‘t secretary of state; she wasn‘t secretary of defense; she wasn‘t on the NSC; why can she claim that experience? 

REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA:  It makes a big difference. 

Look, I was at the White House for two-and-a-half years as director for defense policy.  I was close, but not as close as Hillary Clinton, to the decisions on war and peace.  She stood there in the White House when a father came back with grief of having lost his son in combat. 

She was also there when rewards were given to our men who had come back, for example, of Haiti.  When the president was done, she then sat there in the Cabinet Room—I watched her—and talked to them about the future.  She understood that other military could not—even though it‘s a national treasure, can‘t be used recklessly. 

But, more than that, Chris...

MATTHEWS:  Well, why—let me go through this, because the policy question in the Democratic Party, your party right now, is about who to replace—who to use to replace President Bush.  President Bush is not popular in the Democratic Party, largely because of his decision to take us into Iraq. 

SESTAK:  Yes. 

MATTHEWS:  Hillary Clinton voted to authorize that decision.  Why does that represent good experience on her part? 

SESTAK:  She made...

MATTHEWS:  What good has her experience done her, if it said go along with Bush on the war? 

SESTAK:  Here‘s where it has helped. 

She understands that we have to redeploy from Iraq.  She has judgment.  For instance, she was there in the White House when the decision was made to move two aircraft carrier battle groups off Taiwan.  Remember 1996 and the missiles were raining down? 

MATTHEWS:  No, I don‘t actually. 

SESTAK:  Nine—yes.  We moved two carrier battle groups off of there, and the missiles seized. 

Nine years later, she asked me, as a Navy admiral in Congress—it was a helicopter procurement hearing.  And she stopped at the end and said: 

Admiral, I have a question to ask you that doesn‘t have to do with this hearing.  What does it mean to the United States‘ Navy, to our nation, for a China that, in the last few years, has begun to pursue a large navy in the Western Pacific?

She didn‘t forget how easy it was to move two carrier battle groups off Taiwan and stop at that time, when China really didn‘t have a good navy...

MATTHEWS:  Right. 

SESTAK:  ... and the difference it is now. 

And, therefore, when you read, Chris, her “Foreign Affairs” article...

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

SESTAK:  ... it says the most important relationship we have in the future is with China. 

This is a woman who has learned and fought through what she saw at the White House, close to decisions on war and peace, and understands that our military, even though it can‘t be used recklessly, nor can be hoarded like misers‘ gold, if it is to be a force for peace and progress.  That‘s the judgment that she has garnered from her time in the White House.

MATTHEWS:  But, if you—Congressman, if you connect the dots, she supported the war in Iraq.  She voted to authorize it.  She said it was a very tough decision, but she voted to authorize it. 

Barack Obama opposed it.  She voted to identify the Iranian national guard, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, as a terrorist organization, which, to many people, seems like another neoconservative justification for a war, another one of these Iraqi liberation acts that gets us into trouble politically. 

Where has she displayed—you have pointed out the input.  What‘s the output been? 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  What demonstrates to us her—the use of her experience? 

SESTAK:  This is a woman who understands the processes of Washington. 

Let‘s take her Iranian vote.  Very few people understand that, until the Iranian Guards were declared by the president as a terrorist organization, they could not be placed under sanctions by an executive order.  She, therefore, voted to encourage the president to place them under that executive order. 

She understood that this was—had to be pushed by Congress in order to have the president actually then act, which he did, because of hers and other votes, to move this Iranian Guards, underneath the executive order, as a terrorist organization.  I know.  I have operated with those at sea.

MATTHEWS:  She doesn‘t sell what you just sold.  She doesn‘t go out and brag about the fact she voted for this resolution.  She seems embarrassed by it. 

SESTAK:  Not at all.  She made the right decision. 

Now, let‘s take her other—let‘s...

MATTHEWS:  What about the war in Iraq?

SESTAK:  Absolutely. 

MATTHEWS:  Do you think she was right to vote for the war? 

SESTAK:  Here‘s a person who takes accountability for her decisions. 

She had the seat of a senator when she made that decision.  It‘s relatively easy for others, myself included, who wasn‘t in the seat voting, or not seated, to say, I was against that war. 

It counts most when you are sitting there and actually have to cast the vote.  That‘s when you can hold someone accountable.  And she said, I made the best judgment I had on the intelligence that was provided. 

We know now how that intelligence that was provided by the Bush administration was misrepresented. 

MATTHEWS:  She believed at the time that Iraq was going to launch a nuclear weapon at the United States?  What was the threat that justified us going to war? 

SESTAK:  No, never said that a nuclear weapon would be launched against the United States. 

MATTHEWS:  Bush did. 

SESTAK:  Bush said that. 

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

SESTAK:  She was concerned about the weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence that had been presented. 

MATTHEWS:  She believed that was the reason we were going to war? 

SESTAK:  She encouraged—

MATTHEWS:  She believed that‘s why Bush was taking us to war? 

SESTAK:  Weapons of mass destruction, and the way that President Bush had presented it.  

MATTHEWS:  I don‘t believe that was the reason we went to war in Iraq. 

It was geopolitical.  

SESTAK:  There could have been several reasons why we went to war with Iraq, but never because a nuclear weapon was about to be launched. 

MATTHEWS:  When we couldn‘t find weapons of mass destruction, the president said it was still the right decision, because his primary reason for going had nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction.  He made that manifestly clear the minute we got in there.  Oh, we didn‘t find the weapons.  We still should have gone. 

SESTAK:  Hillary Clinton has said, based on the information she was provided at the time, precluded from some of it by the White House, she made the right decision from what she knew at the time. 

MATTHEWS:  That‘s your judgment.  I don‘t think the Democratic voters believe what you just said.  They don‘t agree with you.  They think it was the wrong decision to go to Iraq.  They think it was the wrong decision to target Iran for another war. 

SESTAK:  Here‘s what they also believe; while Americans may be tired of this war, they want to salvage the best from it.  Here‘s Hillary Clinton, who has stood by her vote, and not only that, has not said get out of Iraq tomorrow.  She has said get out of Iraq.  How we end this war, she recognizes, is important, actually, more important than just ending it.  And that is the kind of experience and that‘s the strength she brings. 

It‘s not just where she‘s appealing to every voter.  She has—

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS:  That‘s the Hubert Humphrey brand of Democratic foreign policy.  I think the Democratic party is in a mood for a more Bobby Kennedy foreign policy right now.  They don‘t want that. 

SESTAK:  Think about—

MATTHEWS:  You think they want what Hillary is offering? 

SESTAK:  Oh, absolutely.  Think about it.  She‘s ahead of her time.  Think of where she went as first lady.  She went to India, soon to be the number two economic power in the world.  Number two, she went to China.  She went to China and spoke about human rights and women‘s rights.  And most importantly, I think, she went to Africa. 

She recognized before others did that poverty is where terrorists go.  They hide.  Finally, this past year, the military woke up and actually established, Chris, as you know, what‘s called the Africa Command.  She was there talking about security—poverty being a security issue well before others. 

She has vision.  Not only that, she understands, as the example I gave you on Iran, the executive order, how Washington works.  We need a president with vision, but someone who can go to the boiler room and fix Washington, that‘s broken. 

MATTHEWS:  I spent two years there.  Thank you very much. 

SESTAK:  Glad to be here. 

MATTHEWS:  Admiral Sestak.  Up next, eight days before Iowa, and less than two weeks now to New Hampshire; believe it or not, it‘s come upon us.  It‘s happening, and it‘s getting hot.  The politics fix when we come up. 

This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)