Tucker on Sen. Clinton: "[T]here's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary"
On the March 20 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson noted that a 1984-inspired attack ad posted on YouTube.com characterizes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "as an Orwellian Big Sister" and proceeded to endorse this depiction of Clinton, saying, "But there's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary." Carlson maintained: "I mean, you've gotta admit, when you watch that, it does get right to heart of people's instinctive problems with Hillary, which don't have to do with policy." Carlson further noted that the ad "seems to be the work of one person with a computer who doesn't like Hillary or, in any case, perceives the truth about her."
From the March 20 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: It's hard to remember what spreading like wildfire meant before there was an Internet. Yesterday, most of the country became aware of the political ad you just saw characterizing Hillary Clinton as an Orwellian Big Sister. But this ad does not appear to have been the work of any organized campaign. Rather, it seems to be the work of one person with a computer who doesn't like Hillary or in any case perceives the truth about her.
Here to talk about the implications of the story we welcome back A.B. Stoddard [associate editor of The Hill] and [political consultant] Dan Gerstein.
Welcome to you both. Sorry, a little editorial comment had to -- I mean, you've gotta admit, when you watch that, it does get right to heart of people's instinctive problems with Hillary, which don't have to do with policy. It's not like Hillary is some communist or something. You know what I mean? She's no more liberal than [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL]. She's more conservative probably in some ways. But there's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.
Talk about scary. Whenever I see a picture of Tucker, my mind says "chester the molester".
Maybe the actual problem is that Carlson has no 'nads to begin with. :-) Those bow ties are a big clue...
Young Tucker's fear of castration is strange coming from someone who lacks a pair.
Tucker? Afraid of a woman?? NAHHH...
If most people, let alone most women, could kick your butt, you'd be afraid, too.
I think this comment says a lot more about Tucker than about anyone else. If you can't stand up for yourself, that's your problem. Nobody's castrating me, I don't care how high he or she rises in government.
I hope women are listening closely to all this. This isn't the language of politics. It's the language of sexism. Conservatives are telling women with these sorts of insults where women stand in their world.
Well, you know... conservatives aren't going to be happy until the woman is barefoot, ensuring that dinner is ready and that she's ready for sex anytime the husband wants it.I guess this would explain why there are NO strong conservative women running for political office other than the stooges that the Right likes to parade in front of voters and photo ops.
go back to the bow ties loser
Considering that you're a 38 year old man who wears a bow tie and that no one has ever witnessed you actually standing by any single editorial position in favor of the Bushskyites you've ever uttered, here's a clue, Tucker...
NO ONE is surprised that you'd find a female US Senator to be "castrating, overbearing and scary". I've no doubt you 'd find a junior year college intern to be "castrating, overbearing and scary".
And Jon Stewart STILL got you cancelled...giggle, snort.
So you had to go and use the bow tie thing? ¶Schmuck, it’s a non sequitur!
¶You just couldn’t look at the photo and perhaps notice…that damned bastard’s wearing a tie—one could call it a cravatte or perhaps…some bastardized version of a bolo—and not that cliché around his neck, he thinks gives him an intellectual’s “street cred”?
¶Then again, I could be your grandpa. And in all that time & more, I’ve always been a liberal thinker & doer…I looked out for the “other” guy, i.e. the common man. And yes, I did find [some] “junior college intern[s]” and I did find most of them to be, as you stated, "castrating, overbearing and scary" yet I didn’t “giggle, snort.” And yes, I suppose, it was a good time.
Yet for all my fulminating rhetoric, you still fail to grasp the elemental truism of: Not giving fodder to the enemy! You just couldn’t look up and comprehend that shanda of schmucky dreck wasn’t wearing a bow tie? And we call neocons & their elephantoids…stupid & pig headed…duh?
I see Carlson's not the only one who finds female assertiveness to be castrating, overbearing and scary.
The reference to the bow tie was because it has become so synonymous with Carlson's appearance. It was what he was aiming for in having selected the prop in the first place.
The glaringly apparent problem with your first statement and your response to mine is contained within: "The reference to the bow tie was because...".
If you have to explain the reason you said something, after the fact ,in the first place, then you never said it in the first place…you merely thought you did. Sorry, that don’t count. And you just made it worse for yourself.
CORRECTION: "it [had] become so synonymous with Carlson's [old, previous and to-be-forgotten cause it ain't what neocons want] appearance."
Also, you don’t see…you just took my words out of context—over what, YOUR mistake? I stated, “I didn’t ‘giggle, snort.’ And yes, I suppose, it was a good time.” You were snidely implying a congruence with Schmucker Carlson yet he never had a good time …I did!
And please, don’t you ever think for just a moment that you can twist someone else’s words to fit your own narrow-mindedness and dream you can get away with it. For with that attitude, which ain’t a liberal’s either, you become [on the level with] any of those neocon, crony-bastards…along with Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Miers, Gonzales, etc. You made the statement & you screwed up…admit it, show your error then correct it. You didn’t do any of the sorts. Just remember, no amount of whining corrects what you missed at the onset of all this crap…and you have to clean your crap still.
FYI: If you look at the tie he's wearing? It blows chunks.
And they're most assuredly...Tuckies.
Twist someone ELSE'S words? Those were my own words. What words of yours did I refer to at all?
As an exorcise of futility…that didn’t happen.
And I’m too tired right now to re-explain what I re-read. ¶Against their well-oiled machine, now a stumbling juggernaut about to skid & eventually…crash, let’s only hope all of us & America survive as best one can…and it ain’t gonna be pretty either.
BeWell & HappyTrails
What the F*** is he talking about? Tucker just explained a whole lot about himself and nothing about Senator Clinton.
there there tucker. look what mom has for you. cookies. you'll forget all about that mean old lady that scared you.
LOL!!!
Exactly. I can't believe someone who considers himself to be a grown man is talking like a little boy with a petty inferiority complex. The only word he didn't touch on was "cooties".
Tucker Carlson will never learn:
By Sean Loughlin CNN Washington Bureau Wednesday, July 9, 2003 Posted: 6:50 PM EDT (2250 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Payback is rarely so sweet.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, helped CNN Crossfire Host Tucker Carlson eat his words Wednesday, following the news that sales of her memoir "Living History" had exceeded 1 million copies.
Carlson, the conservative half of the political talk show, had repeatedly claimed on air that Clinton's book would never sell that many copies, vowing to eat his shoes if it did.
"I will in fact eat my shoes because I'm a man of my word," he proclaimed in one segment.
After liberal co-host Paul Begala played a video clip reviewing Carlson's repeated pledge, Clinton came from behind stage, surprising Carlson with a chocolate cake
"After liberal co-host Paul Begala played a video clip reviewing Carlson's repeated pledge, Clinton came from behind stage, surprising Carlson with a chocolate cake"
-----
The cake was in the shape of a shoe.
Tucker,
Let us be honest Sen. Clinton cannot castrate you....to do so, she would need the Hubble Telescope and a pair of very small tweezers to find her objective. So, you are safe and may continue to take things into your own hand.
"But this ad does not appear to have been the work of any organized campaign."
Spoken like a true minister of truth. It's a GOP ad.
makes you wonder why the person does not simply identify themselves. don't they want everyone to know their brilliance?
Oh, I would guess the Apple Inc lawyers might have a little something to say about wether that is brilliant or not.
The reactions of the guests was cut off from this video clip.
It was embarassed laughter. Embarassment for the host, like they couldn't believe what they just heard, like it wasn't Tucker Carlson interviewing them but Borat.
Tucker Carlson is one of the few people who can make Sean Hannity look like a genius.
Too bad this is what passes for political dialogue in 2007.
It's not dialog... it's sheer garbage. Trash talk. I've seen more intelligent conversations coming from my seven year old than these puppets.
Tucker Carlson is one of the few people who can make Sean Hannity look like a genius. - johnny_nyc8351
Sorry, Johnny, I know you were posting in a relative sense, but there's a point where the IQ curve kinda flattens out. The part that includes Hannity, Carlson, and maybe a sea cucumber.
Yes, Hillary is so...so...so...
...so like an IBM PC!
Run Away! Run Away!
Boys and girls, you don't want a President who's like DOS, do you?
But neither would you want a President like Al Gore, who hired a consultant to give him an Aqua interface! And besides, he says he invented TCP-IP!
Now John McCain--he's like Linux! He's a maverick!
Good god--could this get any stupider?
*sigh* I guess we'll find out...
There is something about Tucker Carlson that fees arrogant, childish and overprivileged. I would call him a "want to be," but I can only see comments short of a "dido bird."
Like CNN, MSNBC will see through this bothersome symbol of white mainstream establishment. He lacks substance and any since of honest intent outside of the dido talking points he was put in his position to release. This guy is on a short fuse to firing. On that day, journalism would have paved the way for more serious hard working functional individuals.
Joseph
IN THE OLD DAYS, there was the "apprentice system". The masters, the people who KNEW about the world, and how to actually DO things, would bring along the young and inexperienced, show them the skills it takes to be productive ... SLOWLY ... and watched critically for YEARS. The apprentice was not trusted with important work, sometimes not for decades.
In the American PRESS, one had to start as a copy boy (or even "person"), then advance to cub reporter, then upward in skill level AND responsibility, with those trusted to offer "opinion" at the top of the pyramid. It was EARNED, it was developed, it was the next step in proven advancement.
Those we now have "educating" us through the American Press have no such learning curve, no required credentials, no need for a quality resume', no track record of proven knowledgeability. Instead, there are only TWO requirements: The ability to talk on camera without freezing or stammering, and a rightwing ideology.
What in the past or experience of Tucker, or Hannity, or Rush, or Savage, or any of the "popular" rightwing talking heads qualifies them to give "opinion" about ANYTHING? The fact that they're certain of their rightwing positions? Have any of them studied, for example, the skill of debate, and what constitutes logic fallacies when used as substitute for actual debate?
These people who would tell us how we should run this country, and who should be our leaders, and what is "best" for Americans ... are the most ignorant, uneducated, arrogant lot of egotistical blowhards one could imagine. In real life, we wouldn't nominate them to chair a decorating committee ... they are incompetent and cannot work with others. They are irritating and without redeeming qualities. Yet, THEY are the people being put forward to propagandize the American People.
What do they KNOW? Absolutely NOTHING. Their credentials for being able to speak to us is NIL. Their experience in such things as personal relationships, war, economics, and culture is insufficient to get them a position as an INTERN, let alone be the top anchor for a "let me tell you how to think, how to vote, how to feel" show.
Tucker was more qualified for "celebrity dancing" than he has ever been to host a program about "news". Why would anyone listen to him?
Tex what you wrote actually moved me.
As I noted in the post before yours, substance was something Tucker Carlson lacked in his opinion and character. I will look forward to your next post. You have the stuff and makings of good writings people go back to pick up.
Joseph
Tex,
Are you wistfully hoping for more Frankens and Gerrafalo's (sp?). Or maybe an Alex Baldwin? Who is there?
Your point re: the ethics of rhetoric and rules of debate is well taken. However, your frustration over the dominance of RW spokespersons does not make a case that LW spokespersons have ever employed debate strategies or rhetorical ethics on a higher moral plane than anybody else. It can be argued, in fact, that the RW learned what they know about hardball from the LW.
" It can be argued, in fact, that the RW learned what they know about hardball from the LW."
It can be asserted, just like the RW will assert anything that is convenient to their position. I have never seen that little gem argued, nor have I seen it successfully defended.
Now you're going to tell us that the LW has always kept it on the high road.
It's all about telling the TRUTH. The biggest liars (at least lately) are Republicans and their blow-hard media apologists.
Taking back America...
One dirty, stinking, filty conservative at a time.
FILTHY
FILTY's a word. It's OK.
If there's one thing the hysteria about the '1984' ad proves once and for all, it's this:
The prospect of a female President scares the holy hell out of any man who routinely wears a jacket and tie.
The single point on which *I* credit Tucker, is that he evidently knows the susceptibilities of the audience to which he speaks, He may utter garbage without end, but it targets the exact audience which he must satisfy - the men at that margin between 28% and 35% - who have returned to Bungle's "flock" over the past seven weeks. Tucker and the rest of the S.C.U.M.* have attacked Obama and Edwards and Clinton on the secret fears of that "male at the margin", with great effect. My hope is that the certainty that Bungle is killing our troops out of insane vanity, will continue to outweigh these character assassinations.
*So-Called Unbiased Media Acronym courtesy of Easy To Refute Wingnuts
anyone notice how these good ol' boys never ever refer to lib's as "Senator", especially Senator Clinton? That hardball good ol' boy, the lot of them, it's never "Senator". I recently discovered that ol Tuck lives about 2 blocks from me. In DC! Tuck ol boy, Virginia is right across the river. They have some nice big houses over there...
The reich wingers are hillarious, I wouldn't vote for Sen. Clinton but their hangup about women is ...... hard? no to explain. These were the guys in high school who got the atomic wedgie in front of the girls and have been scarred ever since.
This is not about Carlson, penultimate dweeb that he may be, but it does put a fine point on a very REAL phenomenon in the world of gender and politics. When asked about her views by my Woman For President friends on having a woman run for president, a Southern woman recently stated "Oh nooooo dear, that would be TOO MUCH POWER for a woman." And that gets to the very heart of the matter. It is not Hil, it is ANY woman. If a woman can be every bit as effective, strong and powerful as a man, then what role does that leave for men? At least that is the ages old question in the mind of the doubter. As I like to tell my daughter when she has trouble navigating in the mean middle school territory of social relations: women can do what men can do ,PLUS ONE. Now, those who have considered this deeply know full well that it takes men AND women--it is not an "either/or"choice and that to equate having a woman president with the demasculinization of America is a false equation. But that is the deep frame. Please read The Wimp Factor:gender gaps,holy wars & the politics of anxious masculinity by Stephen Ducat. Hands down best book on gender politics. And the first rule of social engagement is to first reduce your opponent's/partner's anxiety,because until you do, the discourse will be fact -based on one side and emotions- based on the other and no communication will be possible. Once anxiety is calmed then you can get to the facts of the case. I think that little old Southern lady was onto something that we often overlook--many men feel that women are already extremely powerful in their lives and they fear being made irrelevant.
"This is not about Carlson, penultimate dweeb that he may be"
-----
For future reference, "penultimate" means "next to last." When it comes to the dweeb queue, Tucker's near the front, not the back.
This proves my theory that most modern Young Republicans of Tucker's ilk are just overaged little boys in blue blazers and neckties. Seriously, what a child.
Give me a break. This man, Tucker Carlson, must have been traumatized at an early age . He lacks any respect for women and is over the top about women seeking power, or having power. He's a very weak television personality, and his wife probably has issues with him as well. Tucker is a talking points kind of guy, so my solution is to skip his time slot.
it's no coincidence that carlson and beck are crooning the same tune. i believe that even though they are on supposedly competing venues they are part of the paid off media group that is tasked with putting democratic contenders in a bad light. they want the repubs out there to think of sen. clinton as a b____. or overbearing, former sen. edwards as feminine, sen. obama as a muslim extremist, sen. biden as a racist, and gov. richardson as a harasser. none of those charicterizations are factual but they resonate mightily with the feeble minded repub base. these are people who look for 2-4 word slogans, easy to remember fairy tales, and fox noise fables and call it news. , compare the democratic contenders i mentioned, as well as those i forgot, such as sen. dodd to the repubs running. romney? mccain? rudy? hunter? oh yes, what if knute gets in? it's easier to slander the opposition than to try to convince the CONserves that there are any repubs worth voting for.
Anything that keeps him from procreating works for me.