Thursday, September 27, 2007

Ooh! A Chris Matthews Post!

Now your week will be complete. Chris Matthews decided to share with his audience the qualms he has about women, once again:


MATTHEWS: Do you find it difficult to debate a woman?

DODD: No, not at all. I haven't faced one in the eight elections I've been involved in, but I think here this is a question of looking for leadership. There's no more important election, Chris, in our lifetime than the one that's going to be conducted about 14 months from now. […]

RUSSERT: What I want to hear is the conversation tonight between president Clinton Hillary Clinton about president Clinton's comments last year on MEET THE PRESS that we ought to have an exception that if we know the number three guy in Al Qaeda knows a bomb is going off and where it's going off, it's okay to beat the hell out of him. Have a presidential (inaudible).

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is. She was asked by you, sir, about whether we're going to get full disclosure of contributors to presidential libraries. And she did not feel that she had the latitude in her husband's absence to give you an answer. She said, you'll have to ask my husband, as if you're a guy going door to door trying to sell someone and says you'll have to wait for my husband to get home. It was unbelievable that she wouldn't answer that. Never mind, let's drop this.

Now do a reversal. Think of a woman with such complicated views of men talking as a fairly mainstream political pundit, opining that men are sorta too aggressive to be leaders or something similar to that. What do you think would happen to her?

The point, which I'm hammering here very hard indeed, is that a female pundit with mirror-image problems to those Matthews appears to have would never, ever in a million years be regarded as "mainstream". She'd be so far in the distant planet of feminazis that nobody would mention her without some involuntary shivers.