Chris Matthews is already endorsing Hillary for 2016 and pleges support.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I know they're not synonyms, that's why I brought it up. Which is Chris Matthews and which is Sean Hannity? If Chris Matthews came out and said, "Actually I'm a Republican," wouldn't the context of his criticisms change? My point ultimately is that someone who is overtly partisan is different from someone who is covertly partisan, and I wasn't sure which one Chris Matthews is.

They are both political commentators, who are supposed to offer opinions and some insight.
While Matthews leans left often, it's certainly not always. Nowhere nearly as consistent as Hannity is on the right, which is always. I honestly don't listen to either one. Not even sure I get MSNBC on my cable to watch Matthews at all. I do stumble on Hannity from time to time, but I'm usually gone in a minute or so.
But from what I've read, Matthews is pretty darn flaky, but not as bad as Hannity.
Matthews doesn't seem to exist strictly for "Look at how awful the other side is!!!!" the way Hannity does.
Hannity's a one-trick pony that way.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by rivergator

They are both political commentators, who are supposed to offer opinions and some insight.
While Matthews leans left often, it's certainly not always. Nowhere nearly as consistent as Hannity is on the right, which is always. I honestly don't listen to either one. Not even sure I get MSNBC on my cable to watch Matthews at all. I do stumble on Hannity from time to time, but I'm usually gone in a minute or so.
But from what I've read, Matthews is pretty darn flaky, but not as bad as Hannity.
Matthews doesn't seem to exist strictly for "Look at how awful the other side is!!!!" the way Hannity does.
Hannity's a one-trick pony that way.

I couldn't argue because I don't really know -- however, I do know that on Chris Matthew's wikipedia it has him listed as a "liberal political commentator," for what that's worth.

[T3goalie]

Matthews is on the blue team/blue team good red team bad. Hannity is on the red team/ red team good blue team bad. Their loyalty is unwavering and their support unquestioned.
Both are one trick ponies.

Both parties goal is power and to represent themselves. Both have looted the American people.

[secgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I couldn't argue because I don't really know -- however, I do know that on Chris Matthew's wikipedia it has him listed as a "liberal political commentator," for what that's worth.

It's because, contrary to river's breakdown of Tingle Boy Matthews--he IS the epitome of "look how awful and stupid the other side is" commentator. Has been for years and his liberal views get more and more pronounced each passing month. When things don't go his way--or the way of ultra lib whack ideology--he nearly blows a gasket or pops a vein when trying to defend the issue in question.

When Obama has his horrid showing during the first debate, Matthews was fit to be tied. When he started his defense of Obama and the excuse making for his savior, it looked like any minute the guys in the white coats were going to come in and drag him away.

So yes--contrary to river's assessment--Tingle Boy is indeed the prince of painting the other side as being wrong, stupid, and whatever other adjective can be thought of in a negative light. The title of King rests with Keith Olbermann but that is another topic altogether.

[wargunfan]

Do we know yet which part of Matthew's anatomy is beginning to tingle over the hildabeast?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by secgator

It's because, contrary to river's breakdown of Tingle Boy Matthews--he IS the epitome of "look how awful and stupid the other side is" commentator. Has been for years and his liberal views get more and more pronounced each passing month. When things don't go his way--or the way of ultra lib whack ideology--he nearly blows a gasket or pops a vein when trying to defend the issue in question.

Like others here, you are apparently just saying what you want to be true without a clue what is true.

Matthews' books:

Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.
Life’s a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success
American: Beyond Our Grandest Notions
Now, Let Me Tell You What I Really Think
Hardball: How Politics Is Played, Told By One Who Knows the Game
Kennedy & Nixon: The Rivalry that Shaped Postwar America.

Hannity's books:
Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda

Anyone see a difference?

[rivergator]

Meanwhile, here are some things that Matthews said about Bush:

"Sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility."

"Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left," adding, "I mean, like him personally." (At a time when Bush had a lousy approval rate.)

Before Bush had even delivered his November 30 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Matthews used variations of the word "brilliant" twice to describe it, while deriding Democratic critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers."

Maybe Matthews and Hannity are the same and you guys can point to times when Hannity said similar things about Obama.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Meanwhile, here are some things that Matthews said about Bush:

"Sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility."

"Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left," adding, "I mean, like him personally." (At a time when Bush had a lousy approval rate.)

Before Bush had even delivered his November 30 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Matthews used variations of the word "brilliant" twice to describe it, while deriding Democratic critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers."

Maybe Matthews and Hannity are the same and you guys can point to times when Hannity said similar things about Obama.

Don't mess up a righty meme with facts. They hate that.

[Matthanuf06]

The distinction is whether or not an idiot member of the public realizes the bias or not. At this stage everyone knows CM and SH bias. 7 years ago you could have made a case Matthews was still masquerading around as a centrist voice of reason, but that's not the case anymore

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

The distinction is whether or not an idiot member of the public realizes the bias or not. At this stage everyone knows CM and SH bias. 7 years ago you could have made a case Matthews was still masquerading around as a centrist voice of reason, but that's not the case anymore

^ Well said. River, you seemed to know off of the top of your head that Hannity had written books, did you know Matthews' had too, or did you have to look it up?

Also, Matthews' saying nice things about Bush doesn't mean all that much -- other than that the guy has said nice things about Bush. It in no way means he's not a Democrat or Liberal. I've heard many Liberals, especially post-2008, say things like, "You know, I'll bet that GWB probably isn't a bad guy personally, I just think he was a terrible politician." Or something like, "Bush seems like he would be a nice person if you met him, but he was a puppet of the party." The fact that these people pre-2008 would have completely lambasted him is actually relevant, because Obama is still President, while Bush wasn't. For example, many Conservatives have warmed up to Clinton's years because I think A. He's not President anymore, they can see more clearly, and B. They think our current President is doing such a bad job that the things thought were bad with Clinton really aren't as bad compared to what our current administration is doing. There are number of variables as to why some Presidents receive harsher criticisms than others, and that of Obama is nowhere close to that of what Bush II received.

The problem with this argument is that it's a dumb one. I don't really care because it doesn't really mean anything to anyone. No one here really cares whether Matthews or Hannity are comparable or not.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

^ Well said. River, you seemed to know off of the top of your head that Hannity had written books, did you know Matthews' had too, or did you have to look it up?

.

You're the one who brought up that Hannity had written books. I had to look both up to get the titles.

Also, Matthews' saying nice things about Bush doesn't mean all that much -- other than that the guy has said nice things about Bush.

Well, it does prove the earlier claim that all Matthews does is say "look how awful and stupid the other side is" is completely false, don't you think?

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You're the one who brought up that Hannity had written books. I had to look both up to get the titles.

Well, it does prove the earlier claim that all Matthews does is say "look how awful and stupid the other side is" is completely false, don't you think?

Yes, if you took that OP's comment completely literally and without a grain of salt.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Do we know yet which part of Matthew's anatomy is beginning to tingle ...

Ha, beat me to it!

[PSGator66]

The mere thought of Hillary in the WH is making me ill! I do believe that she will be heavily favored and she will have the MSM liberal activist towing her line with the number of moochers at an all time high by then not wanting their goodies taken away. I think is country is headed deadly path.