Again attempting to explain his controversial remarks, Matthews misrepresented polling on Clinton before Senate run

Written by Ryan Chiachiere

Published

In a blog post, Chris Matthews wrote that in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998 and as Hillary Clinton began campaigning in New York, first for then-Senate candidate Chuck Schumer, her “grace under pressure in those dreary months gave her a political lift she'd never enjoyed before. Her national approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s to just above the 70 mark in one poll.” In fact, according to Gallup, Clinton's favorability rating never reached as low as “the mid-40s” throughout 1997 or 1998, and she had a 60 percent favorability rating shortly before the Lewinsky scandal broke.

In a February 14 entry on Hardblogger -- the blog of MSNBC's Hardball -- Chris Matthews wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been “at her best in bad times,” adding, “In 1998, with Monica clouds overhead, she went up to New York and campaigned for senate candidate Chuck Schumer eight times, winning tremendous respect for sticking to her job, not just as First Lady, but as a vital national Democrat.” Matthews continued: “I've said this the wrong way before. Let me say it right now: Hillary Clinton's grace under pressure in those dreary months gave her a political lift she'd never enjoyed before. Her national approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s to just above the 70 mark in one poll.” While he did not specify which poll, the USA Today/Gallup polling from the time indicates that then-first lady Clinton's favorability rating never reached as low as “the mid-40s” throughout 1997 or 1998. Indeed, in the two Gallup polls taken before the Lewinsky scandal broke on January 17, 1998, Clinton's favorability was at 56 percent (December 18-21, 1997) and 61 percent (October 27-29, 1997). A poll taken shortly after the Lewinsky scandal broke (January 24-25, 1998) showed Clinton's favorability rating at 61 percent. Her lowest favorability rating throughout 1997 and 1998, according to Gallup, was 51 percent.

Additionally, according to Gallup, she had a favorability rating of over 60 percent shortly before she began to campaign for Schumer in September 1998. A September 24, 1998, New York Times article said that the trip on behalf of Schumer “signaled a new public role for the First Lady in the fall Congressional races” and asserted that “the First Lady would take on an election-season role that in normal times would have been assumed by Mr. Clinton.” A USA Today/Gallup poll taken September 14-15, 1998 -- before she began campaigning with Schumer -- showed that Clinton had a favorability rating of 61 percent. An August 7-8, 1998, USA Today/Gallup poll showed Clinton with a 60 percent favorability rating. Subsequently, a December 28-29, 1998, USA Today/Gallup poll showed her with a favorability rating of 67 percent, and a February 4-8, 1999, USA Today/Gallup poll showed her with a 66 percent favorability rating.

Matthews' comment that he “said this the wrong way before” is apparently a reference to his January 9 assertion that “the reason she's [Clinton is] a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit.” Matthews subsequently said of the comments: “The truth of course is finer, smarter, larger than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton won tremendous respect from the country for the way she handled those difficult months in 1998.” Immediately afterward, he similarly misrepresented polling, saying: “Her public approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s up to the 70s in one poll I looked at.”

Matthews touted the post at the beginning of the February 14 edition of Hardball, asserting, “Check out what I've just posted, by the way, on this regard on Hardblogger.”

From Matthews February 14 entry on Hardblogger:

The same thing happened when President Clinton got into trouble in 1994. When the Democrats lost control of Congress, he buckled down, pulled in his sails, brought Dick Morris aboard and declared the era of big government was over. He also signed the Republican-drafted welfare bill, while ultimately hanging tough in defense of affirmative action.

Hillary Clinton has been equally at her best in bad times. In 1998, with Monica clouds overhead, she went up to New York and campaigned for senate candidate Chuck Schumer eight times, winning tremendous respect for sticking to her job, not just as First Lady, but as a vital national Democrat. I've said this the wrong way before. Let me say it right now: Hillary Clinton's grace under pressure in those dreary months gave her a political lift she'd never enjoyed before. Her national approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s to just above the 70 mark in one poll. Her toughness in walking through fire had much to do with the strong invitation from New York Democrats, U.S .Congressman Charlie Rangel led the parade of welcome wagoners, to begin competing for a senate seat of her own.

This ability to look good under fire, and, let's face it, look not quite so good when things are going swimmingly, seems to be an essential, even predictable pattern to the Clinton family's political chronicle.