Slog - Comments on "I'm not criticizing your book, I'm criticizing your philosophy of life."

Comment by Carollani

Carollani — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:11:39 -0800

But but... that's not IT!

Comment by kim

kim — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:14:49 -0800

new york mets?

huh?

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:15:21 -0800

Seconded. Tis not the Matthews interview.

Comment by Carollani

Carollani — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:18:55 -0800

this is it

Comment by Carollani

Carollani — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:20:15 -0800

Okay, it's not Eli's fault. Comedy Central fucked up the link. Just go to the page and click the Chris Matthews one.

Comment by Meagan

Meagan — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:20:54 -0800

No, no, dudes. THIS is it.

Comment by Amy Kate Horn

Amy Kate Horn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0800

I've fixed it.

Comment by Katelyn

Katelyn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:37:48 -0800

I thought the Mets segment was great, but the Matthews interview blows that out of the water. Here, here, I'll be Matthews, okay?

"HAH! HAH!" *impotent*

Comment by Gabriel

Gabriel — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:45:53 -0800

As much as I think Matthews is a blowhard and deserves to be cut down to size, there's something about this interview that bugs me, the same thing that irked me about his infamous CNN appearance. Jon Stewart, as smart and witty as he is, often has such a hard time making his points clearly. The best he could do on Crossfire was "you're hurting the country" and the best he does here is "it's a recipe for sadness." Mildly amusing lines, but if you're gonna be rude and take someone down to size, you should at least do so with pinpoint accuracy.

He has so many interesting and great guests on, and the interviews should be great, but so often they're let down by Stewart sort of bumbling through questions, or trying to rephrase something more clearly with little success. I know it's got to be difficult to make an interview both funny and interesting, but he should really get on top of his game. With guests like Clinton, Morales and Musharaff, we should really be more intrigued by the conversation.

Comment by Heather

Heather — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:46:29 -0800

It is sad that some people will read a book like that and actually take its advice to heart. It reminds me guys who to this day actually believe that "real" men should not eat quiche or ask for directions. Matthews blows!

Comment by jameyb

jameyb — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:48:29 -0800

Wow. I don't particularly care for Chris Matthews, and generally I find Jon Stewart funny and smart and engaging, but damn, he sure treated Matthews like shit during this interview. He didn't really even give him much of a chance to defend or explain his book.

The book does sound awful though.

Comment by spencer

spencer — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:18:50 -0800

As much as I love him and his show, between that interview and Lauren Weedman's piece, he's got to be some kind of arrogant prick. He just had Matthews on to sandbag him. I'm no Matthews fan, but he's right about that being a terrible interview.

Comment by It's Mark Mitchell

It's Mark Mitchell — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:26:37 -0800

The bully in me loved it.

Comment by ellen

ellen — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:35:39 -0800

This was the interview Chris Matthews deserved. I applaud Jon Stewart for getting the confrontation skills required during a time when the media (particularly Chris Matthews) is choosing our candidates and creating the atmosphere for war. Matthews wasn't chosen by the people and he has no check on his power. Stewart realizes this and is providing one.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:49:02 -0800

I thought it went well. Besides, I'm sick and tired of watching late night shows only to see the host suckin' the guests ass all night.

Comment by Medina

Medina — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:53:41 -0800

Great interview. Stewart challenged the Mathew's underlying thesis. This was not a "bullying" interview. Mathews thesis was challenged. If you want his side of the story, read his book. But Stewart has no obligation to let him come on his show and propound a morally dubious thesis.

MoStewart simply illuminates that this thesis is not new by referring to Machiavelli's "The Prince." Yes, you can be successful, but do the ends justify the means? That isn't bullying or sandbagging, that's reasoned debate.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:06:13 -0800

I thought he was correct. There is something deeply disturbing about Chris Matthews, and his world view is in fact one of darkness pretending to be light.

Even I, who frequently will push a point, recognize that Jon is right on this.

Comment by superyeadon

superyeadon — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:25:37 -0800

I wish that once a month, I could select someone for John Stewart to destroy. It'd be great fun. Careers would be ruined. Up first, Bob Novak.

Comment by chicken crossing

chicken crossing — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:29:08 -0800

I've got to get on my soapbox for this, Matthews is completely distorting the point of the Prince in comparing his book to that. As noted in the Prince, if the people are not dealt with correctly, then the Prince will not have power. It is a careless reading that comes up with "the end justifies the means". Machiavelli goes on in the Discoursi to discuss how a republic should be started and structured. Matthews should have focused more on that reading!

Comment by abracapocus

abracapocus — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:40:40 -0800

Anybody who has suffered through Hardball has to appreciate Stewart's treatment of Matthews in that interview.

Matthews is as much of an overbearing, leering boor as Rush Limbaugh. Can Matthews ever have a conversation that doesn't at some point reference Bill Clinton's relationship with women?

Well done, IMO.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:53:09 -0800

It's like reading the Art of War and not realizing that it's not suggesting that constant war and instability is a good thing. But something to be used when needed.

Comment by piminnowcheez

piminnowcheez — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:16:25 -0800

12 - you think the Lauren Weedman piece made Jon look bad!?

Comment by SDA in SEA

SDA in SEA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:42:17 -0800

"Self hurt book". LOL. Nice one.

To anyone complaining that Stewart sandbagged Matthews, have you ever watched Matthews? The guy is a monumental asshole. He regularly treats his guests much worse.

Jon Stewart owes him nothing. Matthews was on his show for one purpose: to whore his book. Authors do it all the time. Write a new book, go on every talk show you can to blab about it, sell lots of copies. Stewart is under no obligation to prostitute himself to endorse this Matthews' book. He read it (which is more than most interviewers do), disagreed with it, and challenged the author rather than just allow his show to be a glorified ad for the book.

Fuck Matthews if he can't handle a tough interview. He, of all people, has no right to complain about a tough interview. If he wanted a softball interview, he should never have agreed to go on.

Comment by ellen

ellen — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:45:02 -0800

Oh man, 20 is so right:

"Matthews is as much of an overbearing, leering boor as Rush Limbaugh. Can Matthews ever have a conversation that doesn't at some point reference Bill Clinton's relationship with women?"

He is clearly obsessed with how Clinton got women, the Clinton's marriage, ... Creepy.

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:57:52 -0800

Notice how Matthews, when he first shakes Stewart's hand, LITERALLY looks down upon him. Matthews is a bully and an asshole and is what is wrong with America today.

Comment by anthony

anthony — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:23:10 -0800

Jon was an absolute prick, wouldn't let Matthews explain, tell the story he wanted to, or defend himself against Stewart's hateful and senseless trashing. That was uncalled for in so many ways. I wasn't expecting that out of Stewart at all, and I watch him daily. What's more sad is you all seem to celebrate it. For what reason, exactly? Because the style of Hardball doesn't appeal to you? What a bunch of bully pricks.

Comment by Mr. X

Mr. X — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:26:31 -0800

Anthony,

In short, he did to Matthews EXACTLY what he does to most of his guests. Serves the glass-jawed bully exactly right, in my book.

Comment by Chris in Tampa

Chris in Tampa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:42:22 -0800

The interview is only 6 minutes long. Matthews had no chance to tell the story he wanted to. There was absolutely nothing hateful about the way Jon spoke to him. And he gave him plenty of time to try and explain his point of view, and Matthews chose a few poor examples to do so. Why do people have a problem with simple conflict, especially on an entertainment show?

Comment by douglas

douglas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:07:46 -0800

mathews hosts a show called hardball, yet he's whining about how tough the interview was? boo-fucking-hoo. stewart has no obligation to be nice to that guy. i think it's kinda funny that there are people who view stewart as a prick because he didn't pamper mathews through the interview. grow up, confrontation is not the end of the world.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:35:39 -0800

If Matthews wanted to be treated fairly, he should have done that to guests on his show.

Karma - it's a beeyotch.

Comment by Lythea

Lythea — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:26:02 -0800

It was just a proper debate, or at least much closer to the real thing than most politicians get these days. Is it really better to trash someone's ideas behind their back than to their face?