When progressive Democratic politicians or public figures are assassinated, it is inevitably the act of a lone psychopath, who leaves behind a scribbled diary saying:

Kill RFK

or

Kill JFK

or

Kill MLK

To think otherwise; to question the conventional wisdom; to scoff at Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan is to don the tinfoil hat and remove yourself from the mainstream.

For years, I've waited to see a major journalist write a critical profile of Matthews. Today, we learn what it takes. Matthews has to say something (mildly) critical about the major journalist in question.

For what it's worth, Matthews has been much more consistent on Iraq that this piece would suggest. But aside from that, he has caused tremendous damage and destruction in the past dozen years. At present, he's pandering hard to Republican candidates (and to Fred Thompson), and he's persistently beating the bejesus out of Hillary Clinton. He also mocks Gore every chance that he gets. Mocking Big Dems and praising Big Reps has long been his stock in trade.

Salon complains--when he says something unflattering about Salon! This piece is a perfect example of how Modern Big Media really works.

Why?

Who's worried?

Who?

Chris Matthews simply confirms our worst impressions of the punditry: loud mouthed, ignorant, power worshipper, fawning clown and a hypocrite. Add to that the strawmen and women Fineman, Mitchell, Borger - who wont get invited if they don't play along. You get a toxic mix of dishonest journalism, vicious character asssinations and a strange attack of Clintonitis. This particular ailment render Matthews incoherent, his voice is distorted, his emotional outbursts overcome him. It is a pathetic display of a blind hatred of all things Clinton.

Now switch the discussion to Guiliani. Suddenly the man becomes rational, admiring, hero-worshipping and disdainful of his personal indiscretions - generous, in fact, in seeing no evil. He sweeps away any criticism of Guliani.

Don't waste time with him. Do what I do. Find another channel.

I think this is why the nickname tinkerbell resonates so well for Matthews. He just flits about the surface being carried along by the "conventional wisdom" of DC punditry. Thanks for the article David.

I have watched Matthews pretty regularly over the last three years on HARDBALL. His show on Friday, May 25th, really showed him at his most biased. Clearly, he doesn't like Hilary Clinton, and Friday was the day to spend most of the program on the two "new" books that are about to be unleashed.

When he asked Howard Wolfson why two esteemed journalists and publishing houses were putting out books on Hilary, Wolfson, to his credit, didn't take the bait. The answer is obvious: to make $$$ and to cash in while Hilary Clinton is front and center in the public eye. Never mind that Carl Bernstein hasn't had a best seller in a long time!

And then he has that "astute" bag of nasty, Melanie Morgan, to weigh in on Hilary and the books. Why does anyone book her? Why? Because she is a minor league Ann Coulter who can be depended upon to liven up any ten minute spot with her own special brand of crazy.

Part of the problem is that these cable shows have lots of time to fill and they are all chasing the ratings. And, as you point out, they are so inside the beltway in their thinking that they have yet to realize how much of the country has moved on from caring about the past.

Enough about the Clintons and Whitewater and Jennifer Flowers and Travelgate. We have moved on, and whether or not Hilary Clinton wins the nomination and the election, will depend on what visions she offers the country. And on that, there is a lot to discuss!

For continuing to play your silly games and not admitting the truth of the Kennedy assassination, that Oswald acted alone.

I am 500 pages through Bugliosi's book. It is, so far, unassailable in its merciless logic. It is a far better book than all the silly imaginings of the conspiracy press over forty years. It makes you, and all the other conspiracy nuts, look like the fools you are.

Christ Matthews has been very badly wrong about many other things. But not this. Salon continues to embarass itself by publishing your self-promoting blog.

Andrew Sullivan speaks for a generation ... of do-littles, a generation I find myself in and so have a position from which direct has been possible for 25 years.

But there are youth movements on the increase, especially as a result of this war and the economic B.S., and they will find your JFK work to be a fruitful corroboration of the suspicions - and evidence - engendered in the last 6 years.

And yet there is soooo much more than the JFK assasination, as but a sample, to wit:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/govt_docs/2005/cheney_olson_papers.pdf

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3244cheney_olson_case.html

Even in finally going off on Chris Matthews, Salon gets it wrong. Perhaps the only thing Mattthews has been consistent about is the Iraq war. While his fascination with the President playing fighter pilot hero is consistent with his teen age crush on all men John Wayne, the fact is that he has consistently questioned the rationale and conduct of the war.

But, SALON, has cared little of Matthews calling democrats girls and saying anything he pleases about the Clintons. No, Salon gets upset when the phony man lets his Sunday cast of fellow clowns talk badly about yet another conspiracy author.

Why, what next, Joan reveals that Joe Scarbough is disengenuous. No, she likes the air time.

WHS

For the most part I agree with David's observations about Matthews. The guy is a total dunce and he is grossly misinformed. Its obvious he doesn't read the books his guests plug and my guess is he doesn't have a clue as to what the blogs say. But in all fairness, Matthews did oppose the Iraq war in the beginning. His fawning over Bush, especially his man-crush when Bush appeared in his flight costume, and his continued man-crushes on McCain and Giuliani make me question whether he truly is a "conservative Democrat". More than likely he has followed his brother to full fledged Republican.

I have not read Brothers so I cannot speak for what David's research came up with. And I agree with David's analysis of the shortcomings of the US media, especially twits like Fineman, Borger, etc. But the Kennedy assassination has been researched and gone over for over 40 years now. Bugliosi's massive tome and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" provide ample evidence that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, Lee Oswald, as the Warren Commission said. At one time I believed there was a conspiracy but after reading the various books out there and talking with people who had some involvement in the investigation, both in Dallas and in Washington, I follwed the evidence and came to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone in Dallas that day.