MSNBC's Carlson mocked Clinton for her comments about gender discrimination
SUMMARY: After airing a video clip of Sen. Hillary Clinton talking about "gender equality" during a Democratic presidential candidates debate, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson stated: "It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination."
On the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson responded to a video clip of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) speaking about "gender equality" during the January 21 Democratic presidential candidates debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, by stating, "It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination." Carlson then asked his guest, former White House counsel Lanny Davis, "Can you believe she said that?" In the clip, Clinton stated:
CLINTON: We obviously still have problems of gender equality. You know, equal pay is not yet equal.
[...]
CLINTON: A woman makes 77 cents on a dollar and women of color make 67 cents. So there is a big agenda waiting for the Democratic Party. And we feel so passionately about this because we not only are running for office, but we each in our own way have lived it. We have seen it. We have understood the pain and the injustice that has come because of race, because of gender.
Davis responded to Carlson by stating, "Well, first of all, she's a role model for a lot of women who have experienced discrimination. I remember Hillary when she was one of the few women at Yale Law School, an all-male, fairly egotistical environment. And as a woman she has had to struggle her way through both law firms as well as her career." Carlson then stated:
CARLSON: But you just said she went to Yale Law School. So that's almost a self-canceling sentence. She's a victim of discrimination at Yale Law School? She's one of, you know, 100th of 1 percent of Americans, much less people who live in the rest of the world, who gets to go to Yale Law School. She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?
Responding to Carlson's claim about Yale Law School, Davis said: "The fact that we have a disagreement about being one of the few women at Yale Law School and actually not only surviving all those male egos, but doing very well there, I always appreciated. I think most women watching your program know what I'm talking about." Describing her own experience at Yale in her autobiography, Living History (Simon & Schuster, June 2003), Clinton wrote, "When I entered Yale Law School in the fall of 1969, I was one of twenty-seven women out of 235 students to matriculate. This seems like a paltry number now, but it was a breakthrough at the time and meant that women would no longer be token students at Yale."
In his biography of Hillary Clinton, A Woman in Charge (Alfred A. Knopf, June 2007), Carl Bernstein wrote that following former President Bill Clinton's failed run to represent Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District, "Their grand vision seemed to be derailed, and she was left with choices she had not wanted to face: remain with the man she loved or strike out on her own, either in New York, practicing law (which meant yet another bar exam to study for) or moving back to Washington, which, compared with Manhattan or even Cambridge, was still tea-pouring country when it came to welcoming strong, able professional women" (emphasis added).
Following Bill Clinton's election as governor of Arkansas in 1979, the Clintons moved to Little Rock. Here is how Bernstein described Little Rock at the time:
Little Rock was a state capital but not really a big city, "an insulated big town, a place that ran according to unwritten rules," in the words of its mayor from 1979 to 1981, Webb Hubbell. He noted that "Rule I might well have been: Little Rock women don't have careers."
After her arrival in Little Rock, Clinton interviewed with Rose Law Firm. Describing her potential hiring by the firm, Bernstein wrote:
But the most powerful and hushed argument against Hillary joining the firm was that she was a woman. "How will we introduce her to our clients" an associate asked Foster and Hubbell. All of Rose's important clients were male. "What if she gets pregnant?" The firm's partners were all white men, most of whom were already wealthy and graduates of the two Arkansas law schools. Hillary, with her Wellesley and Yale credentials and her view of the law as an instrument for social reform, would be a radical departure."
According to Living History, Clinton was hired by the firm and became the only female among the firm's 16 lawyers.
From the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: I want to play what I thought was the least-noticed and yet maybe most remarkable line of last night, of the whole thing, more than two hours. This is Hillary Clinton at the very end of the debate explaining why she is a victim. Watch this.
[begin video clip]
CLINTON: We obviously still have problems of gender equality. You know, equal pay is not yet equal.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Right.
CLINTON: A woman makes 77 cents on a dollar and women of color make 67 cents. So there is a big agenda waiting for the Democratic Party. And we feel so passionately about this because we not only are running for office, but we each in our own way have lived it. We have seen it. We have understood the pain and the injustice that has come because of race, because of gender.
[end video clip]
CARLSON: "Each in our own way has lived it." It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. Can you believe she said that?
DAVIS: Well, first of all, she's a role model for a lot of women who have experienced discrimination. I remember Hillary when she was one of the few women at Yale Law School, an all-male, fairly egotistical environment. And as a woman she has had to struggle her way through both law firms as well as her career.
CARLSON: Wait. Lanny, Lanny, Lanny, I don't -- I mean, look, I know you're trying. But you just said she went to Yale Law School. So that's almost a self-canceling sentence. She's a victim of discrimination at Yale Law School? She's one of, you know, 100th of 1 percent of Americans, much less people who live in the rest of the world, who gets to go to Yale Law School. She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?
DAVIS: The fact that we have a disagreement about being one of the few women at Yale Law School and actually not only surviving all those male egos, but doing very well there, I always appreciated. I think most women watching your program know what I'm talking about.
But the big picture last night [laughter] -- maybe you don't, but I think most women do.
CARLSON: Look, OK. What you're saying -- look, let me just say, if Americans believe that Hillary Clinton --again, one of the most privileged people on planet Earth -- is a victim, I don't know this country as well as I thought I did. I mean, maybe you can sell that, maybe you can't.
DAVIS: Well, victim's your word. I think she talked about women of color earning 67 cents out of every dollar compared to black men and women who are white earning 74 cents or 73 cents out of every dollar. Every woman watching this program knows that there isn't a level playing field as there isn't a level playing field for African-Americans. I think it is an absolute miracle that the Democratic Party has two such strong candidates, one who's a woman, one who's an African-American.
CARLSON: Well, considering America is so sexist and racist as you've just said, she's done pretty well. I guess that is a miracle.
DAVIS: And so has Barack Obama. And I don't think we're sexist and racist. I think there's a reality in the marketplace and that's a reality.
CARLSON: OK. OK. Well, that's -- no, but that's what you're saying. Is we're sexist. The mean white men are being mean again, not surprisingly.
DAVIS: You use words I never use, Tucker.
CARLSON: Come on, that's what you're saying.
Hey Tucker,
Let me let you in on a little secret. Just because she's white, well off (now), has gone to law school at Yale, and is running for President of the United States, as well as being a Senator, doesn't mean that she isn't discriminated against on a daily basis based on her sex.
Tucker, you're a dunce. Go back to the corner.
Also, I think this is very telling on Tucker's part... you see, in his world, folks ONLY get to Yale Law School by way of nepotism or being a legacy or some other free pass...
Hey Tucker? Ever heard of being somewhere on merit? No, you haven't.
During this same interviw, he also told Davis that "usury laws are just as bad as slavery." This came up when Davis started talking about regulating credit card companies, etc., and then defended this by saying that usury laws "are at least a thousand years old."
Carlson replied, "yeah, so is slavery, but that doesn't make it right."
These guys are really unbelievable. But, that's what we've got as a country, and that's probably what we deserve.
Hey Tucker? Ever heard of being somewhere on merit?
We all know that Tucker did not get his MSNBC gig based on merit...
"you see, in his world, folks ONLY get to Yale Law School by way of nepotism or being a legacy or some other free pass..."
How did she qualify to go to Yale? Was it her grades? What are the 'other' ways of getting into Yale, if not the 3 you listed?
I'm not entirely sure... But, most people get into a place like Yale based on merit, test performance, grades... If you look at Hillary's education and career... she is certainly industrious and ambitious. A hard worker. One cannot deny that.
Take GWB for instance. That's a Yale legacy 'free pass' at its finest. By Bush's own admission, he was an 'average' student.
Yes Tucker, just because a person overcomes obstacles in their way doesn't mean the obstacles don't exist.
This is a vital leg to the Rightwing's CLASS WARFARE stool.
If you've made some money, you can't comment about being poor.
If you got a job, you can't comment on others who are discriminated against, or the discrimination you faced on the way up.
If you've gained a position of power, you can never again advocate for those less well off, those without power.
If you've gained a voice, you cannot speak for those who have no voice.
Tucker follows these rules religiously.
It's the CREDO of the Rightwing's WEALTH CLUB. You will be ridiculed if you are white, wealthy, and successful, and then go counter to the NeoCon platform.
Those who defy Republican policy are TRAITORS to their CLASS, and will be excoriated and ridiculed!
Excellent observations, Tex - and right on the money! [pun again intended]
I hope Solonswine soaks this one in a bit.
So, in other words Tex, condescending and pandering is a classic leftwing leg, and below is the actual truth if you were honest;
If you've made some money, it is flat out condescending to pander to others how they need government's help and can't make it on their own......how incredibly insulting.
If you've got a job or been discriminated against, how incredibly condescending to sit there and tell others that they can't overcome it just as you did without government's handout, and they can't possibly do it on their own......what an amazing insult.
If you gained a position of power or a voice, it is staggering and elitist and downright condescending to stand there and tell those who you are pandering to vote for you, that they are helpless victims and haven't got the smarts that YOU have to attain that power, or that voice......if that isn't the ultimate insult, I don't know what is.
Leftwing rules.
Tommy, your little rant there discounts the fact that people are not inherently equal. Your premise would be true if people started off on an equal footing. Then, pushing policies aimed at the poor would be a farcical idea. Laughable, at least.
Sometimes I think you have some sense, and then you throw out posts like these...
DB, It has nothing to do with being equal, or course people are born of different circumstances, that is not the point.
If I am poor, or a minority, and I am listening to a politician's speech about how they "made it", despite tremendous odds, and at the same time they are sitting there telling me that even though they "made it", that I somehow cannot......at least not without their help in jump starting some program or leveling the playing field somehow to help me, because I just can't do it, for whatever reason. I would be incredibly insulted, as they condescendingly talk down to me.
Sorry, if you can't see the pandering insulting tone of that, I can't help you.
I do see the pandering tone in that. That's a given. But are politicians doing that? Is universal health care insulting to Americans? Raising the minimum wage? Holding corporations and lobbyists responsible? Because those are the things the Democratic candidates are pushing for.
When you have a government who enacts policies in direct contradiction to the goodwill of the people, the people will want different politicians that support the goodwill of the people.
You're talking specific policy issues, of which I have no problem with politicians making their case on the merits of those issues while laying out facts and specific details about why they advocate them, how to pay for them, etc.
Speak to us like adults who can make informed decisions, not pander to our emotions and fears while pitting one group against another in an attempt to get votes.
Snoop, I don't see the connection at all - religious wing? My point had nothing to do with that whatsoever. And I am not saying all liberal policies persay, I am speaking about how some politicians frame the debate - it's us against them, working families against the evil corporations, the rich CEO's against the hard worker in their employ.......I want candidates to speak to all about what is best for all, not target certain constituents for votes based on their skin color, or their gender, or their ethnicity, or whatever -it's sickening.
That being said, some Republicans do the exact same thing to evangelicals and Christians. I find that equally offensive.
Well, if you are being more specific instead of throwing out generalizations, I understand.
I still say, on a non politician level, many of these religious heads push that line and others because these programs cut into their gravy train. I should have been more explicit when I said religious wing, though it can be said a lot of the politicians could be called Pat Robertson's biatchs!
How do you pull “condescending” out of bringing people up? What, was this your “word for the day” in English class? The only thing condescending is the put-downs of “the poor pitiful” underprivileged by the Republican elites. You rarely hear socially condescending comments from liberals – no matter how you try to twist it. Get real, Tommy.
They're not saying they are ONLY out to screw them. They are telling people that they ARE screwing them. Right now. Hard.
If you can justify CEO's making millions while a family living off the minimum wage can barely feed themselves, and the Republican party is actively working to give those CEO's more money, then you may have a point.
Please show me a quote where Hillary tells any group that they “NEED government’s help to succeed”. She advocates giving government assistance where historically figures show some demographic group has been left on the short end of the stick, and you turn that to make it sound as if she is telling them that it’s impossible to make it on their own. You have a way of twisting other peoples words.
Let me know Lynn,
I need to get my mail forwarded and cancel my subscription to TV Guide (who needs that with no cable?).......and then I will need good walking shoes to climb all the stairs of my walkup, if I don't have any I will go to a relative, or my local church and ask for a pair, even if I have to work a few extra hours at my minimum wage job it's cool, I need shoes and I am not going to ask for a handout. And I will get another minimum wage job if I have too, with no cable TV I have plenty of time on my hands, I am not about to sit around and complain how my life is crap, that is for sure.
Let me know Lynn, when that wand is up and ready to go.....
Forgive me if i'm not following this banter.... but are you saying that if you were in a position of poverty, you wouldn't waste your time saying how hard it is to get out of poverty, you'd just work on getting out of poverty? and you wouldn't expect the government to help you?
i went to a low decile school in a poor neighbourhood, and sorry for being cliche, but I know poor people. And they don't waste their time, on the whole, complaining about having to feed a family of ten on minimum or close to minimum wage, they just do their 70 hour weeks on an excavator and bring the money home. In fact many send it back to Polynesia where their extended families live...
none that I know, however, would find it condescending for a successful politican to promote a government structure that will help them financially, or alleviate their problems with increased wages etc. These people are the hard workers, the labourers and the factory hands, and they deserve some recognition by elected officials.
The problem i think libertarians have (and i've had this discussion on campus too many times to count) is they equate wealth with hard work. And that's fundamentally flawed.
TOM:
You bring up a great point.
Tommy says it's "condescending and insulting" to say government should help those citizens in need.
Yet, our government currently is STEEPED and positively LOUSY with helping specific persons and entities. To understand HOW MUCH "the System" is geared towards providing this governmental help, aid, handout, bailout, or bonus ... one need only look to K-Street in Washington, where thousands of lobbiests hand out billions of dollars to affect law to benefit THEIR CLIENTS.
And, while the overall economy is not a ZERO-SUM game, in each individual instance, a benefit garnered by a big corporation or a CEO, is a benefit that is TAKEN from workers. When the government sides with management against Unions ... as it certainly does when the GOP is in control ... then that lobbiest wins a change in law that gives MORE power to management, and LESS to workers. This formula has been accelerated in earnest over the last decade.
Likewise, when the government sides with BIG OIL, the weight of that benefit/bonanza falls on everyone who gets gas at the pump. Average Americans get ever poorer, with MORE taken from their stagnant take-home pay "disposable income", and BIG OIL posts record profits in the tens of BILLIONS. It's a direct cause/effect. And it's RIGGED, with governmental enforcement.
Tommy might have a small point, if the government was a neutral sideliner, picking no winners and awarding no no-bid contracts, and NOT constantly pouring more money into the pockets of the already very wealthy while simultaneously running up the nations DEBT. But, alas, that is not the case. The government is a BIG player.
The government can go either way. It can set rules, regulations, tax policy, and law to benefit the very wealthy, or it can be concerned with helping EVERYONE, including the wealthy, the workers, and those in need. Tommy obviously likes it when the government is heaping its "condescending and insulting" attentions on those who already have MOST of the advantages in life.
I'm sure Halliburton doesn't feel insulted and talked down to when they cart away billion dollar contracts. I'm sure Exxon is able to get over being insulted and pandered to as the nation's ENERGY POLICY is written behind closed doors with Dick Cheney ... resulting in the biggest PROFIT windfalls in history (and the American People cannot know what went on in those meetings!!).
So it's equal parts comical and pitiful for Tommy to pull that "condescending, insulting" card when it comes to a single mother with three kids, but that same emotional trauma does not afflict all those wealthy receivers of governmental largesse, who not only happily cart away the loot, but send a pile to their lobbiests to make sure they get ever MORE and MORE.
It IS NOT an "even playing field", not even in the same universe. Those WITH advantages fight tooth and nail to retain those advantages, garner ever GREATER advantages, and to DENY any advantage to anyone else.
Tommy's OK with this "status quo," and that makes the heart ache.
Luckily, big changes are coming, and Tommy's (and the GOP's) Marie Antoinette "let 'em eat cake" act will see its final curtain.
Actually Tex, Marie Antoinette stated, “Let them eat brioche.” Containing eggs & butter, brioche is an extremely, far more nutritious baked item than the oft-cited, daily flatulence of irregularities emanating from both the odorous GOP and that covertly seething, faux-Libertarian prattler, the Gollum-like figurehead…Tommy.
TOMMY:
Be sure to check out my post addressed to TOM, farther in this thread. It's a detailed response to your "message" here.
I'm reminded of the movie/book "Serpico"
It was about an honest cop in a big city (played by Al Pacino) who just wanted to do his job.
The entire precinct was "dirty", and took payoffs to "turn the other way" on various crimes. Pacino wouldn't take the money, but the "dirty" cops couldn't allow him not to join them. WHY? Because having HIM be dirty TOO was their PROTECTION. If he wasn't corrupt like them, then he couldn't be "trusted".
Tucker's WEALTH CLUB operates under the same calculus.
I wish I watched more Hollywood movies so that I could come up with better analogies to provide a bigger picture that most people would understand. Seriously, I get it.
"Well, first of all, she's a role model for a lot of women who have experienced discrimination." Lanny Davis
Perfect comeback. Tucker can be such a twerp.
Terminally terrible Tucker is a twit AND a twerp. Terminate Tuck for telling torpid tales of tedium and being a talentless talker.
Snoopy’s snipes seem so sarcastically stimulating, sounding somewhat symmetric so certain surreptitiously scattered satanic symbols surrounding special syllables seem to subliminally circumvent superstitious souls so sentences sound sensible.
Hey this is fun! - o.k. I quit - I'm afraid we'll open a can of worms.:)
She is a victim!
The specter of spousal emotional abuse that has haunted her throughout her marriage makes her a victim. Imagine having to hitch your wagon to a guy that time and time again has humiliated her in public with his sexual antics.
We all have known people who have allowed themselves to become pathetic creatures because of their inablility to escape from destructive relationships, even when others recognize the damage and encourage them to act constructively. These victims should be pitied, not marginalized.
She would have been a great guest for Oprah for sure, if only Oprah hadn't endorsed Obama.
She is a victim!
She may be, but even (or especially) the victim usually hates that label - unless your someone like Nancy Grace, who has made a career of it.:)
I have been a "victim" of violent crime, yet it is something I never discuss for fear of appearing weak. But when the facts are already out there in public, such as with Hillary, it's hard to play it down.
We all have known people who have allowed themselves to become pathetic creatures because of their inablility to escape from destructive relationships, even when others recognize the damage and encourage them to act constructively. These victims should be pitied, not marginalized.- proudconservative
Exactly, Proudcon. That's why we like the Republicans who post here.We pity you, but we love you, and want to help.
What is wrong with MSNBC? Why are they still on the air with this rubish? In their zeal to get ratings they became worest than FOX.
WHat a nightmare. We need real honset reportesr not those guys on MSNBC (or even NBC).
Hillary is relying on misleading people with the use of statistics to make the case that women are discriminated in terms of wage income.
The difference Hillary cited does not take into effect the fact that many women opt out of the workplace to have children or take less demanding jobs that pay higher so they can have more time at home with their families.
Part of the wage gap is due to welfare reform where many single mothers went off welfare and back into the job market. Unfortunately many of these women have little education and find jobs at the bottom of the pay scale. That skews the statistics. When one looks at young unmarried professional women, the gap dissapears. I saw one statistic where women actually made more than men in this age group.
There is a gender gap in that fewer women want to be CEOs than men so do not go after the same jobs or work the same hours as men.
So you have to go beyond simple statistics. In my opinion, Pandering to a feminist trope that has long since been reversed does not help Hillary win over any new converts.
That being said, Carleson could easily have made his points by exposing the misleading nature of Hillary's statistics.
People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005. Obviously, when millions of people's incomes nearly double in a decade, many of them move up out of the bottom income bracket.
Most Americans, including women, do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
What that means statistically is that looking simply at the wage gap over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.
All of this holds true for women as well as "the poor". There are always new poor people, generally young and umarried, but as time goes on, they move up and make more money. I read that
Hahha.. Yes I did read it...
Sorry for the confusion at the end. I was going to toss more statistics to explain my point about women's income statistics as cited by Hillary are misleading, but I hit submit. I'll let it go for now.
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
You remind me of the parent who screams at his child after the kid has taken a fall, "You're not hurt!"
The kid knows if he's hurt or not, and your screaming doesn't change a thing.
Women know what has befallen them in their lives, their income, their competition in the workforce, how the costs of gasoline and health care affect them and their families, as it compares to other women they know.
It's all about PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, AA, and bless your heart, you cannot "statistic" these women into believing that maybe they are WRONG and should not believe their eyes, their ears, their pocketbook, their circumstances, or anything else except what you TELL them.
If a politician says, "Wages are stagnant", and the listener knows for damn certain HIS or HER wage has been stagnant, that politician is listened to as someone who knows the real problems. If another politician says, "Quit whining. You've never had it so good. STATISTICALLY, I can show where everything is working great for you ... and especially for ME." ... that politician's garbage will fall on deaf ears.
In fact, you have an object lesson taking place right now. Sean Hannity is telling his viewers every night that the economy is doing GREAT. Who, do you suppose, BELIEVES him ... other than the CEO of Halliburton?
Rightwing "conservative" bromides have run their course, and nobody's buying. Republicans have SHOWN what they can do ... and the nation HATES it. And you can't "statistic" your way out of it.