On Morning Joe, Carlson compared Clinton to a "cat in a box" and a "drunk party guest"
On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Tucker Carlson said of Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Look, she's a trapped animal, there's absolutely no question about it. As I've thought to myself many times, if you've ever tried to get your cat in a box, you know what Hillary Clinton is doing right now." Carlson then imitated a screeching cat, and added, "with all four paws out, all the hair standing up? Look, she is in feral mode." Later in the segment, Mika Brzezinski referred to Clinton as "the cat in a box, as Tucker so aptly put it."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's decision to remain in the presidential race, MSNBC senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson, during the May 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, said of Clinton, "Look, she's a trapped animal, there's absolutely no question about it. As I've thought to myself many times, if you've ever tried to get your cat in a box, you know what Hillary Clinton is doing right now." Carlson then imitated a screeching cat, and added, "with all four paws out, all the hair standing up? Look, she is in feral mode." After co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "I don't know what to say," and guest co-host Mike Barnicle said, "Tucker Carlson, ladies and gentlemen," Carlson asserted, "And I say that as a compliment, I admire her tenacity. I do." Brzezinski then said, "I'd just like to point out, I have scars from trying to do that to one of the cats that I own," to which Carlson replied, "OK, then you know how [Sen. Barack] Obama feels." Later in the segment, Brzezinski referred to Clinton as "the cat in a box, as Tucker so aptly put it."
Later on Morning Joe, Carlson also compared Clinton to "the drunk party guest who won't go home, the cab's idling out front, and she's opening a new bottle of wine." He added: "And the hosts of the party, the press and the Democratic establishment, want her to go home, and she won't." At the conclusion of that segment, Carlson's last on that day's program, Brzezinski asked Carlson to "do the cat in the box thing just one more time before you go. Who's the cat in the box?" Carlson complied, again imitating a screeching cat.
As Media Matters for America noted, on the April 22 edition of MSNBC Live, guest host David Shuster presented to Carlson "a Hillary laughing pen" -- a pen shaped in the likeness of Clinton's head with a mouth that moves as the pen makes a laughing noise. In response, Carlson stated: "I can't tell you, David, how much I appreciate this, how much I appreciate your going through Chris' mail while he's gone and how much I'm really going to miss that cackle. I hope it goes on forever. It's brought light to my life."
From the May 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BARNICLE: Let's get back to Senator Clinton. What about this aspect of her campaign: How much credence do you put in the theory that some hold that in her heart of hearts, as a political person, as a politician, she knows that this is it, in terms of her and the presidency, this is the last, best, only shot she's ever going to have at it?
CARLSON: Look, she's a trapped animal, there's absolutely no question about it. As I've thought to myself many times, if you've ever tried to get your cat in a box, you know what Hillary Clinton is doing right now. [Screeching cat noise], with all four paws out, all the hair standing up? Look, she is in feral mode.
BRZEZINSKI: I don't know what to say.
CARLSON: This is true, you know this is true.
BARNICLE: Tucker Carlson, ladies and gentlemen.
CARLSON: And I say that as a compliment, I admire her tenacity. I do.
BRZEZINSKI: I'd just like to point out, I have scars from trying to do that to one of the cats that I own.
CARLSON: Yes. OK, then you know how Obama feels right now.
[...]
BARNICLE: Tucker, Tucker, I will max out to you right now for you and your campaign, I'll max out to you if you commit right now to choosing Mike Gravel as your vice presidential candidate.
CARLSON: See, I couldn't do it, there are so many great Liber -- I'm thinking Alan Greenspan, actually, another great Libertarian. No, actually, I am a Libertarian, and no, I'm not running, I never was running, but it's kind of a great idea. Maybe I will someday.
WILLIE GEIST (co-host): I just have to say, I think you could take Bob Barr, that's just me.
BRZEZINSKI: Very cute.
CARLSON: He won it.
BRZEZINSKI: Very cute. All right. Well, right now the candidates are Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the cat in a box as Tucker so aptly put it, and John McCain. And the Republican and the Democratic front-runners definitely going at each other on foreign policy, we'll have a lot more to talk about that, the editorials are great today.
[...]
CARLSON: Hillary Clinton, as I've said many times, is the drunk party guest who won't go home, the cab's idling out front, and she's opening a new bottle of wine. And the hosts --
BRZEZINSKI: Wow.
CARLSON: That's exactly right. And the hosts of the party, the press and the Democratic establishment, want her to go home, and she won't.
BRZEZINSKI: I -- you know what? Tucker --
BARNICLE: So we've gone from a cat to a drunk party guest.
BRZEZINSKI: I am sorry. I think that's just just too far. That's just not true.
BARNICLE: That's Tucker Carlson, ladies and gentlemen.
BRZEZINSKI: Our love for Barack Obama? Tucker. I just, I--
CARLSON: Of course it's true.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, come on.
CARLSON: Everybody in the press loves him. Mika you know that. Look into your heart, you know that's true.
BRZEZINSKI: All right, do the cat in the box thing just one more time before you go. Who's the cat in the box?
CARLSON: [Screeching cat noise]
Pretty apt descriptions as far as I can see.
Considering her RFK assasination comment the other day, not to mention all her other machinations throughout this primary, she has nobody to blame but herself for getting skewered in the media.
I think Tucker could of done without the "cat in box" comparision.
J, Tucker could do without alot of things, this is a man who has made a career on smarta*s remarks.
Wow-- you mean Olbermann actually criticized Clinton? That's news!
Big deal. He'd find something wrong with her about the way she does her dry cleaning. Olbermann's a disgrace, an embarrassment these days. A pontificating blowhard, who likes to call young women tramps and sluts.
He also falsely padded her comments by splicing in another remark she made, to make it look as if she were pondering her words, which she was not. That was patently dishonest for MSNBC to do.
And in regards to the RFK comment, Hillary was right. Things happen. That's why it is absurd for anyone in her position to drop out before the convention. There is no historical precedent for it.
Unless, of course, you have the misfortune to run against the messiah. The annointed one, of which there shall be no criticism-- or else.
Annointed one.
Dude that's lame. You're pretty lame. You're projecting.
Who started this race as the inevitable one? Who started with such advantage that her husband is still called Mr. President?
In recent history, the only candidate more privileged than she is the one who still calls daddy Mr. President.
Take your medicine. Hillary has been bested by the grassroots candidate and her eliminationist rhetoric reaks of desperation.
What puerile crap, 'dude.'
FYI, all ex- presidents are addressed as "Mr. President," 'dude.' Where do you get your history from?
And Hillary was never the annointed one. Annointed by whom? A press that always hated her, that tried to destroy her from the very first debate, when even Bill Richardson said he wasn't going to be part of the abuse?
Sorry, Obama fans. Hillary has lots more general support in the party-- which will be proven in November, when few of them will help bail out his sorry ass when he shows he's in over his head against the Republicans. Or when his wife sabotages his chances. Or when the media decides they are tired of him and want the GOP to win anyway, because it will be better for their bottom line.
I cannot believe the absolute ignorance and arrogant mean-spiritedness of so many Obama supporters. It's going to doom the Democrats.
I think the above post works better like this...
"I cannot believe the absolute ignorance and arrogant mean-spiritedness of so many Obama supporters. It's going to doom the Democrats.
Sorry, Obama fans. Hillary has lots more general support in the party-- which will be proven in November, when few of them will help bail out his sorry ass when he shows he's in over his head against the Republicans. Or when his wife sabotages his chances. Or when the media decides they are tired of him and want the GOP to win anyway, because it will be better for their bottom line."
- - carlileb5935 / Wednesday May 28, 2008 5:17:35 AM EDT
Guess what, buddy? No matter who the Democratic nominee is, if the Dems lose and the Repugnants win come November it won't be either Hillary or Obama's fault, or the fault of the media, or of Michelle Obama. No, it'll be the fault of each and every one of the stay-at-home/vote-for-McCain members of the 'other' camp (unless someone decides to run as an independent when she...ermm, I mean they...don't get the nomination and splits the D vote accordingly). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - it'd be funny if it weren't so sad.Thankee kindly, and apologies for the small font...:-o
You missed the point. I hope you deliberately missed it.
All I'm saying is accept the fact that having a daddy or a hubby who just happens to be called Mr. President comes with monumental privileges of insider connections. You should accept it as a strength...like Hillary has...you know the whole I'm so experienced argument?
Anyway, I don't think you need to bother calling me nasty, people here know what I am by now. But if you're worried about nastiness check yourself.
Come November, if Hillary gets her death wish and Obama isn't in the race, I'll vote for her. Only an idiot would vote Republican, or worse, not at all.
What a surprise. Olbermann and Carlson are joined in their "Hillary Hatred" by Tommy and JLyons.
The bashing, unfair attacks, mindreading excursions, and wildly inappropriate analogies continue, all based on that horrible, UnAmerican trait Hillary has demonstrated that she will not give up until actually LOSING.
As of now, Obama is ahead, but has not acheived any measure by which he can claim to have WON, so the contest goes on.
And so must Hillary's detractors, insulting and belittleing, casting aspersions and speculating about the worst of motives on her part, all in an attempt to get Hillary to quit before she's been beaten.
The Obama camp, to be fair, is behaving with class and recognizing reality, so this drumbeat of negativism towards Hillary is coming from all those sources which should be IGNORED by Americans: Rightwing Partisans and the MEDIA (arguably the same thing). Who give a fig what Tucker Carleson has to say (even when he still had his own show)? It's PAP.
JLYONS complains, "Tex- I support Olbermann on this one, get your facts straight."
RESPONSE: That's exactly what I said, that Olbermann was joined in his Hillary Hatred by you. That fact was as straight as can be.
JLYONS adds, "No where was I critical of Olbermann in his Special Comment about Hillary."
RESPONSE: Of course. You are both Hillary bashers.
JLYONS concludes with the ad hominem, "Why are you such a jerk?"
RESPONSE: It may seem that way to those with defective reading comprehension. You confirmed exactly what I said.
How am I a Hillary Hater when I think Tucker Carlson was way out of line?
Am I a Hillary Hater because I support Obama?
You are lost. Get a clue
The protracted Dem keeps the focus off the McCain train wreck, it gives him less opportunity to ingratiate himself to voters.
A drunk party guest. With her recent comments, I guess I could see that analogy.
What concerns me, though, is this depiction of Clinton as a feral cat. For some reason, I associate cats and female dogs as a very negative label traditional males place on powerful females to demean them (e.g. "cat fight", "that b-word has claws!", etc.). It's like comparing Obama, or any black man, to a monkey or a chimp. It's just really insulting, plays on cultural stereotypes and fears, and should not be tolerated in any civilized discourse. By the way, I am a white male.
What concerns me, though, is this depiction of Clinton as a feral cat.
Billy
Great point. Would Tucker have said that if Senator Clinton were a man?
Would Tucker have said that if Senator Clinton were a man?
That's really what this is about...and the answer is is "No!".
Also,
Would (T)ucker have said anything like this about a re-puke-lican?
Would (T)ucker have said anything like this about a re-puke-lican?
Never.
SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT !!
Again, in this Hillary-sympathetic article, almost none of the following posts have anything to do with the topic.
This is a common occurence here at MMFA. Any time Hillary Clinton is defended by an MMFA article, the Obama maniacs go to work to evade the issue and throw the thread.
Hillary supporters-- you've been warned. Proceed at your own risk. It's pretty shameful-- Just what is up with these Obama fans?
Let the abuse rip....
Nice projection. You did in that short post everything you accuse others of doing.
Typical GOP tactic, now applied by those who claim to be Clinton supporters.
Your tactics give you away. The Democratic Party will have no problem coming together for either nominee after you GOP liars fail at splitting it apart.
I'm not sure Carlson would have used this phrase for a man. In theory it's gender-neutral, but I don't think Carlson has the best record regarding women. If it is the case that he uses this sort of imagery only for women that would be sexist, because it suggests a woman has to do what people think she should or she's a wild, uncontrollable animal.
If there's a history of misogynistic remarks in his past, it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's also hard to make a definitive declaration, since it requires some level of assumption. It's suspect commentary though, and worth noting.
I think Tucker's comments go more to the Clintons, and ideology, than to gender. If he also makes what some consider sexist comments towards conservative women, then a case could be made here, but I haven't heard it.
So the question remains do people who makes these comments limit them to those they disagree with ideologically and politically, or is that irrelevant? And does that make them sexist, or just politically disrespectful, irrespective of gender?
It doesn't really matter if he treats conservative women the same way. He can express sexism against women he disagrees with politically but not for others. It would still be a sexist comment, even if there's a politically-based double standard attached to it.
If the question is whether he's such a raging sexist that he ignores his political allegiances, then I'd say he probably isn't.
It may not matter to you, but it is relevant in whether of not a person is sexist. I can see where this comment may be viewed by some as being sexist in nature, but considering Tucker has never liked anything "Clinton", then it's as much about that, their ideology and their liberal politics as some assumption that he discriminates or is prejudiced towards women.....when in fact, through his history of punditry he does not display the same snarkiness towards women he agrees with politically. That cannot be discounted.
I am not excusing any of what he says, he is responsible for it - but to call him a sexist is an overreaching generalization.
"It may not matter to you, but it is relevant in whether of not a person is sexist."
But he does have a reason to suppress that sort of comment about certain people. I just can't imagine if Randi Rhodes made a racist comment about Clarance Thomas that anyone would buy the defense of "well you can't say she's a racist because she doesn't make these sort of comments about Sharpton or Jackson or Obama, etc". The comment would still be racist at the very least.
"I can see where this comment may be viewed by some as being sexist in nature, but considering Tucker has never liked anything "Clinton", then it's as much about that, their ideology and their liberal politics as some assumption that he discriminates or is prejudiced towards women.....when in fact, through his history of punditry he does not display the same snarkiness towards women he agrees with politically. That cannot be discounted."
It may be more about the Clintons than the gender, that's true. But you can say that the comment is sexist (or at least has a sexist tone to it) without saying Carlson is a through-and-through sexist. Maybe it's something that comes out just for her, and doesn't represent his views of women as a whole. That is entirely possible.
"I am not excusing any of what he says, he is responsible for it - but to call him a sexist is an overreaching generalization."
I'm just saying the comment itself might be sexist, and it relies heavily on his history. It's difficult to make the determination, as I said already.
Bingo Irony 101.
BTW, there is an interesting article on the Nation website by Katrina VH that I have to wonder if she would have written the same story if the candidate was a man or the situation were reversed with Obama...
or would she not risk being called a racist?
She also said that the women at the nation are the first to deplore the sexism in the campaign.
Seriously?
Are they doing it in the break room?
LOL
I'd like to hear me some Katrina Van Halen. Maybe some Katrina and the Waves meets Van Halen.
Walkin on the Devil!...
Exactly. That was my first thought: cat = catty = claws out = vicious = woman/women.
And there is Mika saying "aptly"
Can we make her apologize?
LOL
Lesson 1. Calling Hillary bitch (which no one did by the way) is descriptive, not demeaning like calling someone a monkey. How are things going with your subpoena.
Spot on Tommy. It is certainly a sad spectacle to watch this woman succomb to her own ego in the national spotlight. Her situation would be like Phil Mickelson refusing to believe he made double bogey at Oakmont in 06' and playing the hole over again so he can claim victory. Go home Hillary!!!! We all know you are trying to put yourself on the ticket as a VP candidiate anyway.
BTW, there was an interesting discussion on the "mediamatters" thread from Friday about how YOU are to blame for discouraging more progressives from participating at this site. Of all the nerve Tommy, what makes you think you should be able to voice an opposing opinion here? Also, please let me know what company you are working for.....you know....the one tha pays you to come here and disrupt the discussion board. Too funny :-)
I know Chris, and I am accused of derailing a thread when there are about 40 posts going on about the conservative posters and their worthiness (lol), and I don't believe Mr. Foser even mentioned any of our names in his comments? No derailment there however.
It was entertaining to read, dripping in its own hysterical irony.
"...hysterical irony" ?
Leave me out of this... ;>)
Leave me out of this... ;>)
They were talking about "hysterical irony". You, OTOH, are the sane, well-adjusted, level-headed irony. :-)
The hilarity of the posts was nearly too much to handle. How does it feel to know that you are able to pervade others thoughts so much? I mean really, it's not as if the ideas floated on that thread were spontaneous. there are people who put much thought into how you effect them on an emotional scale. You really get under some folks fingernails simply because you have the audacity to be a non participant in a circle jerk of agreement. What it boils down to is that the specific folks in that thread would like to have this site be nothing but a haven where like minded individuals exchange like minded ideas and dissent be damned. Of course if you think differently you are automatically incapable of logical thought or just plain "stoopid". Isn't it funny how some self proclaimed liberals are so incapable of being free from narrowness in ideas or doctrines? The idea of liberalism of which I came of age with is being perverted by some to the level of authoritarianism. A strange sight to behold, indeed.
"What it boils down to is that the specific folks in that thread would like to have this site be nothing but a haven where like minded individuals exchange like minded ideas and dissent be damned."
Did you read that thread? All of them expressed a willingness to discuss things with those who disagree. You're putting words in their mouths where there are none.
I have disagreed with Tommy many times here, but I still respect him as a poster (most of the time ;)) The focus was not solely on Tommy, but on all of the more respected conservative posters who come here. Mary may not care for Tommy, but Col. doesn't care for AA, and it's all relative anyway. We respect dissent and as long as you are factually correct and logically sound, your opinion will be welcomed here.
DB,
The focus shouldn't have been on any of us, that is riduculous - talk about cluttering up a thread with derailing nonsense, good points or bad, complimentary or not, what was the point? Was the thread by Mr. Foser about any of us? No.
As for derailing threads, yes, I have gotten into silly irrelevant "cat fights" with certain posters and certainly accept my portion of the blame for that, it is tedious and cumbersome to read for sure. But when a poster attempts to derail a thread and NOBODY responds, then it dies quickly. So the fault for any thread derailment is as much the respondent's responsibility as the one who "started" it.
Speaking of logically sound and factually correct posts, do you afford the same level of scrutiny to those posters who only come to verbally assault the media person in question with no relevance to the topic except to let off steam and haul out an insult? Those posts are devoid of either of your benchmarks, but are rarely, if ever, questioned.
Thanks for the compliment, even through our disagreements, I respect your opinions and the way you convey them as well, most of the time :)
I understand your sentiments, but I was only referring to that little bit in Achrispage's post about how they only want one way of thinking. I agree it was unnecessary, but to me, there aren't really any unnecessary posts. I try not to subscribe to the "let's stick to the topic please" that some here do, as I feel all opinions and voices have a right to be heard. Just my MO, not saying anything about anyone else. I hold this forum as a way to argue and deliberate on the topic at hand, but sometimes there's just not that much more to say, and when you're bored at work, I don't see the harm in going off on another topic. It happens all the time, and more often than not it's more fun than whatever misinformation MMfA highlights at the time.
"I’m saying the charming-Right here hunts by poisoning the waters. They have damaged and continue damaging the ecosystem/environment for optimal progressive commentary and debate on this board. I believe that absent them, over time, a snowball effect of positive growth would occur naturally as the board became easier to read and people were less inhibited, thereby energizing everyone. Better and more honest commentary and debate would begin to fill the board which would invite more of the same, and so on. This would also result in better insights and ideas, and eventually increased readership."
"This board is interactive and by its’ nature dependent on good group dynamics to spark ideas and insights. As social animals our best thinking comes out of communication with others. Perhaps this rubs against the grain of some rugged-individualist right-wingers, I don’t know. Perhaps some need to work up their own courage to come to grips with what they are--- lowly humans dependent on others for their very survival and the full expression of their humanity.
DBEDEN,
Look, you can take the above comments and see them as you will. This was just a small snippet of the ridiculous conversation in which Tommy was called stoopid, narcissistic, and so on. All I'm saying is that those specific people have adopted the notion that an alternative point of view is not needed here but damaging to the site itself. There are folks like you and many others with whom I have agreed and disagreed numerous times with here. They seem to welcome discussions in which an alternative point of view is presented. My interpretation of that thread stands. The difference between you and them is that you don't cling to locker room gossip about someone else in their absence. I knew you had a lot of sense when you stood firm in your support of Obama and challanged the disgusting tactics of Hillary in this forum. Should ones overall political persuasion disqualify them from putting forth varying opinions here? Some obviously think so.
DB,
I just read the thread from the other day.
I find most of the posts fall into two categories:
1. To express personal views regarding the issues and defending those views.
2. Flaming.Sometimes both #1 and #2 happen in the same post. Many times most of us try to ignore the flames but sometimes get caught up in it. It is my opinion that the threads always are dragged down when posters engage in #2.
AnotherAmerican you are right on target. If we all engage in #2 , the threads get way out of hand. I have not been posting as much lately but I read as much as I can and I am seeing many engaging in attacks again.
As far as this issue, this is yet another Tucker Carlson classic just like his gay bashing. Why did MSNBC not go one step further and give him the complete boot ?
Doris,
At last we agree on something! :-)
We can agree and get along ;-)
DB,
Not to be demeaning or anything, but I think you need glasses. :-)
I wasn't posting the other day although apparently we get confused with each other (which I find flattering, Julia ;-)
I think that whenever a few people start obsessing about someone else's bad grammar or spelling, or argue whether the thread should be here, it is as entertaining as watching paint dry.
As far as the "conservative/libertarian" vs liberal debate: I'd welcome some reasoned arguments based upon factual information. Unfortunately, as was said earlier, a lot of the righties that come here have their facts wrong and insist that a list of their misinformation be addressed. This isn't what I have in mind as serious debate.
Bruce,
I read that thread this morning over my first cup of coffee & laughed my arse off.
Most Dem/Libs I've encountered here in are more than happy to welcome opposing views. That this handwringer Eddy & her motley crew carped on & on about us charming evil doers was actually amusing. And their lament about threads being pulled off-topic by certain Cons was even funnier as they ventured off-topic to discuss this.
File under: Paranoid Moonbats
My sweet Julia I was a tad sad that you didn't separate me from Eddy's list of evil doers, but hey I know you love me [most of the time] so I didn't take any of it too personally.
It's always funny to find yourself mentioned in a conversation you're not a part of...
Hardheaded? Moi? I beg to differ...but oh what the heck. If that's worst you can come up with, I'll take it ;-)
Jeter,
I called out your actions (posting while stubborn). I did not insult you personally. I AM glad to insult Tommy anytime. Not because he's special. He's decidedly not special.
But here's the rub. Even if you didn't like the posts, they had validity. And it's really kind of hard to gossip behind someone's back when they can read the thread on a public posting board. You and I have had discussions of posters who weren't there at the time.
But you have been chaistened. Repent. If you are Catholic, you know you need to ;-). And Tommy is a derailer/post hog. That is a fact. I don't respect that behavior. I do hope some of the better posters come back. At least I learned from them.
This is a post script thankyou for the New Yorker link in what appears to be turning into the infamous "media matters" line of demarcation thread.
Good read.
I first read it from a cut and paste here, http://www.thebigjob.org/ by a poster named sundog (I think it's the same sundog who used to write some good stuff here).
Anyway, I really wanted to say thanks and ask you to check out the big job.org. It's the progeny of Lakoff's former progressive think tank rockridge. It's a collection of rockridge participants taking up the call to carry on the job of framing issues in progressive language.
It may not float your boat but that's alright, I like the fact that the site is the quintessence of grassroots politics.
I agree Doris. I'm not sure how it got started [I'd have to go back & peek] but like I just wrote to Julia, it's funny to read a thread you haven't posted on & find there's a conversation going on in which you're mentioned.
I think we're like a big happy [well usually] cyber family here, & just like any family we sometimes squabble.
I did think Eddy was out of line blaming every ill on this forum exclusively on the Cons that post here. Or suggesting this would be a better site if the Cons weren't here. Leaving out the fact that there are a handful of Dem/Lib trolls [like Gov] that are often the instigators of threads gone wild.
Doris you've always been fair & polite even when we don't agree.
You are one of my favorites here :-)
I'm glad to see you posting again. I was wondering where you went.
Thank you Jeter, I feel the same about you ;-) Thank you so much for the kind words.
I have been busy with my Grandkids , but I miss my free time with my laptop, ice tea and cable news stations and my MMFA. I hope to spend more time this summer reading and posting .
All of this love and kindness being thrown around makes one wonder if this is real MMFA....or is it a Rovian plot to bring civilty on-line? Say it ain't so.....let the disagreements return to a heated level. Do not let the FORCE take over. Turn back to the DARK SIDE.
Just a thought.....I'm saving this thread for future use, just so you all know. Cynism and sarcasm don't really fit this line of thinking.
The fact is that you sat at your computer and exchanged sophomoric gossip about Tommy, Jeter, AA, Bruce, Wesley, and SUEBOB in some halfwitted attempt at psychoanalysis while ascribing motive to Tommy. And that makes you above the fray....how?
Chris you make a valid point, I read that thread the other day and was floored at some of the charges. I have been posting for awhile and Tommy, Jeter , AA are long time posters, I have disagreed with them are many issues but they make points and I think they have no motive other than they enjoy this site. To further inflame the board by saying Sueeld is Bob is just plain weird. Just because Sueeld is a strange bird( sorry Sueeld) does not mean she is Bob (who I really do not know). However Sueeld has been here for awhile I started posting in late 04 early 05, and she has positions that we agree and disagree with. To start fanning flames on a holiday weekend was odd.
Just because Sueeld is a strange bird( sorry Sueeld)
It is ok Doris, I have been called worse on here ;-). I have given up on many posters here, they act all high and mighty with English lessons and try and be cute yet at any chance will turn the focus of the thread from the subject to a particular poster. I forget what thread it was last week but one poster started mentioning me and I was not even involved. I know I post alot , but am I that important?
I was gone for the better part of 2 weeks but looked at some threads. I was really missing a lot I have to say. Sueld was being outed as Bobthep (Bob the pill, primate, perv?) and T and J and G were going at it in a pedantic manner with "what is the meaning of is" type of posts.
Obviously I am not above it all. I insult and trash talk with the best of them. But it gets to a ridiculous tipping point and I was not the only one to take notice. Sorry if that upsets anyone, especially you Crispy who has never had a kind word but has repeatedly made unprovoked attacks on me 'cause you would like it better if I stayed in my place.
No bother. I expected some flack. Carry on.
Oh and to use a Jeterism, I guess this caused you cons to go off your nut :-0) Ha.
especially you Crispy who has never had a kind word but has repeatedly made unprovoked attacks on me 'cause you would like it better if I stayed in my place.
You did what you did. If you want to justif that kind of behavior by transferring it and making it about me not being kind to you because I am some kind of sexist then fine. That is almost as strange as insinuating that Tommy works for some kind of firm and gets paid to post here. How do you expect me or anyone to take you serious when all we get is unsubstantiated assertions? Your memory is fading though, I have complemented you on occassion and have apologized to you for being wrong and boneheaded. Bottom line is that I found your diatribe about Tommy to be objectionable, gossipy, and sophomoric at best.
Considering you were the gossiper in chief in that thread of drivel, it's not surprising you would swoop here to defend its relevance, perhaps you should examine your own level of boredom or what your "job" is, when you can spend the better part of thread dissing other anonymous posters, when it's clearly transparent what it is that has you so irritated, an opinion that is different from yours.
But one thing we do agree on, our mutual disrespect.......so that's something.
Have a pedantic day......
One of the things that disturbs me the most is what really does upset people. I mean, REALLY upsets people. Getting upset about people talking on the internet is one thing, but what about what the government is doing in our name? You may disagree with our being in Iraq, but does it make you weep?
When the post is about the post,
then unless we're all myopic
it's proof that we're way off thread
or certainly well off topic!
-4.25 in both eyes, but I wear contacts ;)
In truth, I'm looking at this from a center-left position, and I can understand where you'd feel more slighted coming from the right persuasion, as there are not as many of the non-inflammatory Righties on here as I believe there should be. Not anyone's fault really, just how it is. Though Col and Mary and JJ and the others in that discussion are slightly more liberal than me, I do believe that they welcome open discussion of issues based on facts and analysis. This coming from past experiences reading many threads on these boards. They, and I, on occasion stand to be corrected, as does most everyone. On a side note, could this be considered de-railing the thread? ;)
Interesting interactions and non-interactions here today Julia. You seem well immune to the trainers (ignoring fraternization with a certain C-R). I’m very favorably impressed.
But Julia, if you don’t mind, let me use this space to address some stuff from other commenters, etc.
I went to the thread in question last night and was disappointed to not be able to make a correction in my last post there. I meant to say “intentionally superfluous posts”, not “intentional and superfluous posts”.
I’ve expressed at least twice in the past my admiration for the non-Charming Right which posts here like TruthJusticeUs and all those guys. I like their straightforwardness.
In my first response to BruceAce on that thread I began explaining my theory by saying, “I think part of what’s happened is that…” I didn’t wish to be taken as trying to explain the decline here as all resulting from this one single dynamic. I’m aware of the Obama/Clinton election and race based friction. I also think the dry story selection by MMFA (considering the material available on the radio) plays a part. But I didn’t want to blunt by point by bringing any other possible factors up.
The decline I refer to is very real to me. I used very much to enjoy Tex’s, Solon’s and Dan Grady’s posts. I never got friendly with them—it’s not like that. But I learned a lot from them. I used to look forward to seeing a long Tex think-piece or a Solon insight that came out in furious reaction to one of the non-charming rights incredible assertions. Dan Grady could always be counted on to make me wonder why I didn’t think of that. Somebody, maybe Dorris, said it seemed in bad form to have this discussion on a Memorial Day weekend. It was the nature of the holiday which put it into my mind in the first place. I thought the topic fit the spirit of the holiday.
Before I forget, Julia took a lot of heat today for the thread but she was mainly replying in reaction to my comments and was not entirely in agreement with me either if you read it for yourself. Obviously there are hard feelings between Julia and Tommy. I don’t share any personal animosity towards him or any others of the charming Right or for that matter anyone here. I try to keep it impersonal in my head as much as I can.
I am aware I treaded on Mr. Fosers’ article. Not that he cares, but my apologies to him. Guilty as charged there. I felt strongly about what I had to say. I’m aware of the incongruity.
I’m no expert but I do know there‘s a growing industry of companies which hirer people who are knowledgeable in various areas to blog about their clients as a form of marketing. It seems reasonable to me that there are political bloggers for pay out there also. If you put a gun to my head and said “yes or no”, I’d have to guess that there are GOP paid bloggers on this board. Sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings---just one person’s guess. There could also be paid Dem bloggers. Now that I think of it, I would think one would take that accusation as a compliment, especially if you weren’t one.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Tommy also decry the “tedious and cumbersome” ”catfights” as this was at the heart of my beef.
Contrary to how some took me, I agree with the following very last post on that thread---without getting into the motivations as I did.
-------------------------------------
“I very seldom post on this site, but do try to read most of the threads. I will admit that the tit-for-tat non-sense becomes laborious and I quickly move to another topic. I feel most of the avid posters do try to stay away from the name calling and stick to the relevancy of the topic. This site would be quite boring without valid counter-arguments. However, I still think what is missing is just that; valid counter-arguments. Instead of weeding through the WITH and word-parsing that goes on; actually post a valid argument countering the topic. On the otherhand, I think some post simply because they like to see their handle in the threads. Is there a prize for highest number of posts?”
- DeminTX / Monday May 26, 2008 1:53:46 PM EDT
LMFAO
PAID BLOGGERS? Gimme a freakin break man. I've been reading this site for at least three years since migrating over from David Corn's page and I can assure you that NO ONE here is getting a dry nickel and if they are they aren't earning it.
Tommy has actually come a long way over the years, Christ, he may even vote Obama as long as he doesn't make the foolish error of taking Hillary "It's all about me" Clinton onto the ticket. I hate the WITH nonsense as much as anyone else but to suggest that Tommy is some paid blogger is BS, I mean really, who is he convincing to change sides? If anything he blunts the impact of the trolls by sucking the wind out of their neocon talking points. I'm slightly to the left of Michael Moore and I have battled with Tommy many times and have never found him anything but fair and civil. Some of the cats taking potshots at him right now cannot say the same.
As for Jeter I am perplexed at his recent love affair with the Hillary Clinton he has disparaged for years. That said I also feel Jeter is a fair and easy going person who usually adds something to the discourse that otherwise might not be there.
The garden variety trolls, Copius, Truth...they are all Jay Severin and clearly not getting paid, most of what they type is transcribed from talk radio with little sense of spelling, grammer or even basic logic. If they are getting paid then someone is getting robbed, they are not converting anyone here to their views.
Solon, Grady and Tex may be on vacation, they may be otherwise occupied or they may be a little weary of the Neverending Primary, who knows? I hope to see them back too. Yes you too Tex. In the meantime I suggest giving props to the Pearlenes, Roundhouses, Chrispages etc. (my memory is bad at 7am, didn't mean to leave anyone out) who have been fighting the good fight and taking a principled though unpopular stance against the Clinton campaign and it's repugnant tactics. These posters are not getting paid either but did take a lot of personal abuse from so called friendly posters that were more interested in pants suits than 3 am fear mongering attack ads. Cheers to you all...friendly cons, trolls, and Lib warriors...those present and those on vacation.
P.S. I'm totally getting paid
EDENSCAPE:
Vacation AND changing out computers (daunting bringing the new one up to speed). Oh, and YES, weary of the Media having MONTHS with nothing new to report so making stuff up nonstop to fill time in this primary.
But I'm BAAAACK. Missed you guys.
Thanks for the shout out, Edenscape!
Love ya, Mary59!
thanks
of course I'm getting paid, aren't you?
see you on the threads
It is certainly a sad spectacle to watch this woman succomb to her own ego in the national spotlight.
Yes, how sad. It's even sadder for the Obama-maniacs to ponder the fact that she has all the big states wrapped up but for one--Illinois. And more popular votes, too-- even including those phony caucus state spectacles that are not representative of all the voters there.
Obama, of course, he has no ego. He's pure selflessness- the messiah.
I admire Hillary for her strength and determination and intelligence, but many of us are troubled by her campaign tactics. Nevertheless, she would be light years better than McCain and the stupid remarks about cat in a box and so on are just that...stupid remarks by people who are far inferior in their intellectual development to her.
Can someone please explain how Clinton's reference to RFK's nomination bid going into June until he was assassinated, an historical reference to past Democratic primaries running late into the year is "deplorable" "machination"? Randi "the whore" Rhoades spent all day today slamming Clinton for what she termed "Rovian" tactics! If they were actually Rovian Clinton would be winning!!!
People have manufactured another negative about Clinton as they have been doing for the entire preceding year! Her reference to RFK was NOT "deplorable" and she was NOT making some veiled threat to Obama or some veiled suggestion that lightning might strike him! JEEEEZUSSSS PEOPLE!! COme on! Can we say media constructed reality?
Can someone please explain how Clinton's reference to RFK's nomination bid going into June until he was assassinated, an historical reference to past Democratic primaries running late into the year is "deplorable" "machination"? Randi Rhoades (who has said truly awful things about Clinton) spent all day today slamming Clinton for what she termed "Rovian" tactics! If they were actually Rovian Clinton would be winning!!!
People have manufactured another negative about Clinton as they have been doing for the entire preceding year! Her reference to RFK was NOT "deplorable" and she was NOT making some veiled threat to Obama or some veiled suggestion that lightning might strike him! JEEEEZUSSSS PEOPLE!! COme on! Can we say media constructed reality?
Hilary's reference to RFK is reminiscent of Henry I's off hand rhetorical question--"Will no one rid me of this man?"--result in the untimely demise of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett. Of course, the King denied that he had that in mind. That's one good reason that political leaders refrain from discussing such matters in either public or in private lest they be interpreted as wish-fulfilment.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in a 1998 position paper/manifesto, stated their desires for the United States to use force to solidify American power in the world, force to include military invasions of Iraq, Iran, and other nations deemed ripe for the establishment of "American Hegemony".
PNAC's members became the Who's Who of George W. Bush's Administration, and defined the "NeoCon" movement; Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitx, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams to name just a few.
With PNAC's goal being world dominance and global hegemony by the United States, and a core mission outlined in the 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" being to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," they also realized their warmongering imperialistic unilateral plans might be resisted by the American People. They lamented, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."Less than one year later, the avaricious power-mongers of PNAC -- most now esconsed in positions of power (and secrecy) within the Bush Administration -- were delivered their "new Pearl Harbor" in the form of the attacks on 9/11.
It was what they HOPED for; it was their deepest wish, to begin to implement their global plans. It was a dream come true for the NeoCons, the 9/11 disaster -- a "catastrophic and catalysing event" freeing their hands to imposing their will.
So, perhaps it's true, people should be careful what they say, lest following events be seen as not merely coincidence or fortune, but instead engineered according to stated plans, with goals unachievable without that event. Means, motive, and opportunity, the trinity of law enforcement detection of culprits.
Goober.
I guess it could be worse. At least Tucker doesn't want Hillary dead like Liz Trotta wants Obama dead, "and now we have what ... uh ... some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..uh..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor] ...well both if we could [laughing]"
It's very sad that Hillary feels that she must lower herself to such drivel and backhanded attacks.....
Up until about 2 months ago I would have happily voted for Hillary, had she become the nominee..... I still would, because she would still be a better option than McCain..... but lately.... even that is hard to believe!
And for Hillary manager McCauliff to claim that Barack was the one making things worse about Hillarys RFK comment is at best disingenious and at worst dispicable.
If you enjoy Clinton bashing then MSNBC is your network. From it's hosts, to it's invited columnists, & it's MSNBC analysts, this is the place to be if you want 24/7 Obama bias/Clinton loathing.
Now having said that... as far Tucker's two analogies go, while they may sound insulting to Hillary Clinton, I think he captured what many Dem/Libs & the biased media are feeling about Hillary. They want her to stand down. Get out. Go home.
The cat thing, well it's a tad over the top. But Hillary to many is like the party guest that won't leave.
Personally, I like Hillary, & still believe that out of the 3 remaining standing, she probably would have been the best President.
Matthews was on Morning Joe this morning also. They showed a clip of Bill Clinton complaining about the shoddy treatment of Hillary during this campaign. None of the idiots, Mika, Mike Barnacle, Willy or Matthews seem to know where Clinton was addressing his remarks or to whom. They began, poking fun, suggesting he was talking to himself or as Matthews put it 'is he talking to his "Harvey"'
Yeah no bias here [cough cough.]
Had they done their homework they would have known Bill was addressing a crowd at a campaign stop in South Dakota.
The cat thing, well it's a tad over the top. But Hillary to many is like the party guest that won't leave.
And nothing says "party guest that won't leave" quite like a screeching cat in a box.
hi Jeter, I agree with you mostly
I love Obama however and feel he will do a better job , but Hillary has gotten the wrong deal from MSNBC. This is a network that has gone out of its way to go after her from Tucker, Matthews, the disgusting comments about Chelsea Clinton by that jerk David Schuster. The Olbermann rants about how horrible she has become. It is clearly been a sight to see. I ask my self, what did she do that was so bad to the people as MSNBC to have been treated like this? Bill Clinton is right when he said "No Candidate has ever been treated with this much disrespect". MSNBC has led the way against her in the media.
So, I think the real problem with MSNBC is not so much that they love Obama.... it's that they, like CNN, will do anything to avoid covering real news, or anything embarrassing to the Bush Administration.
The one exception is Kieth Olbermann, who has his faults, I know...... but at least he's not afraid to call out President Numbnuts for all the crap he's dumped on our heads.
Nerzog,
MSNBC began really hammering Hillary Clinton around the time of Obama's win in Iowa. They did insert the Wright controversy [as all news programming did] but did not let up on Hillary. She just wasn't their entire focus.
Other than Joe & sometimes Pat Buchanan, most of the crew & guests over at MSNBC are Hillary bashers. They tread lightly around Obama these days when they aren't out & out gushing over him.
Personally I feel rather badly for Clinton [though she does deserve some of their ire on occasion.]
One of those long time ago things I read, showed that every fourth U.S. president came to be attcked physically. Sucessfully asassinated in too many cases. The next one will be the fourth since Reagan took a bullit.
Obama is sightly more preferrable to me right now. I'm fine with Hillary sticking in. Bit disappointed with her, but what the hey running for president is not something you do comonly do. There's no Idiots Guide for Running For President, is there?
The MSM news is pretty bad, some info from a study out Monday from Harvard's Kenndedy School of Government with US NEWS & World Report.
"The more important the American people believe an area press coverage is, the less they say the press is providing coverage of it."
Institutional Esteem of a scale of 1 to 4
Military 3.15 Supreme Court 3.02 Education System 2.84
Religeous 2.8 Business 2.75 Congress 2.53
Press 2,26
83% are concerned by corporate influence in the media.
- - eweston8542983 / Tuesday May 27, 2008 1:17:03 PM EDT
I think Chapter One is "So You've Lost the Popular Vote: Stopping the Florida Recount".You know, it's not that hard to get a cat into a box, here's a great example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxa0mnDj0bs
(goto: 0:50)
Well I guess we can rule out asking little Tucky "who's a good kitty?" Seems he's had some practice making that noise. Sounds kinda kinky if you ask me. Besides why are these unrepentant idiots trying to put cats in boxes.
I hope the lot of them won't be too disappointed when they don't have Hillary to kick around anymore. All of them are behind the curve if they think attacking Obama in a similar manner will yield good results for their fave righties. I can't wait for the Obama match up with McCain when he asks him about the recent cracks he's made regarding terrorism.
OHMYGOD!
It just never ends.
I just have to kind of laugh at this in the utter moronic, idiotic ugliness of it and his continuing frat boy insistence.
Finally someone admits the press loves Obama... no qualifications.
AND he states unequivocally that the MEDIA and the DNC are the hosts of the party not the American people.
I Just LOVE IT!
And I bet he has no idea about the sexism in the "cat" remark. Women = catty etc.
Can someone post how to get in touch with them... I mean the big wigs not the Scarborough show.
I cannot find anything on their site for specific comments despite searching.There is a generic thing that looks irrelevant to me.
I'd like to see a campaign against Tucker like we did against Castellanos.
I wonder if Scarborough would be outraged if Tucker was made to apologize as he was when Matthews was.
im not sure which image makes me laugh more: the drunk party guest or the cat in the box.
clinton should have packed her bags a while ago.
The media are in "cahoots" with the Republican Party and they are afraid of Hillary winning!
The reason they want Barack Obama to win the nomination it’s because they very well know John McCain has a better chance of winning against him! That's why they manipulate the facts to their convenience!That's why they manipulate “the people”
Obama is succeeding, in large part, because he has taken his message to the grassroots and the people have embraced him for it.
But to think that McCain defeats either Democrat is unbelievably ignorant. Republicans, even Republican-lites like McCain, are damaged goods. They are out of ideas, out of creativity and out of favor.
But wait and see! - "IF" Obama becomes the candidate, then . . . the media will turn their back on him and start manipulating "the people" again! - They will start talking about his lack of experience and attack, attack, attack his image! - On the other hand they will start talking about McCain's experience and pump, pump, pump up his image, till they convince “the people” that he is "the best choice"
The press are doing what they do, they are dysfunctional and cannot be counted upon to be fair. They are nothing if not a GOP subsidiary.
If you want to place blame, put it on yourself for allowing conservatives to over-run our culture and control the terms of the public debate.