On the October 22 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, discussing a statement by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) regarding Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani that “sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands,” host Tucker Carlson said: "[L]et me just point out I'm outraged by this. I don't think you should attack Giuliani for philandering." Carlson has previously asserted, however, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) marriage to former President Bill Clinton is "[o]f course" an issue in the 2008 presidential election and discussed the Clintons' marriage on his programs, with references to Bill Clinton's “philander[ing]” and “famous appetites.”

Carlson teased the segment by saying that Rangel “is supporting Hillary Clinton for president, so it's no surprise he's criticizing Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. But not on his credentials, on his personal life. Is that out of bounds?” Later in the segment, discussing Rangel's comments, Carlson asked, “But do we want to go there?”

Similarly, on the September 21 edition of Tucker, discussing a statement by former Iowa governor and Clinton national co-chairman Tom Vilsack that Giuliani “has got a very interesting past. I can't even get into the number of marriages and the relationship he has with his children and what the kind of circumstance New York was in before 9-11,” Carlson asserted: “It is a little much for a Hillary Clinton campaign guy to be attacking the personal life of an opponent. Shouldn't Hillary Clinton be quiet about people's marriages?” Carlson referenced Vilsack's comments again on the October 8 edition of Tucker, and after Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that “I think that plenty of Republicans have attacked the Clintons' marriage on plenty of occasions. And so I think if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, you are going to see this kind of conversation whether -- it probably won't be from a campaign. It will probably be from a third-party group, like a Swift Boat group. But you are going to see it,” Carlson replied: “I think it's ugly. And I pledge right here and now to attack whoever does that because I think it's wrong.”

But on the May 26, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, discussing a May 23, 2006, New York Times article by staff writer Patrick Healy purporting to examine the married life of the Clintons, Carlson replied “Yeah, I mean, I have no doubt,” to the following question by host Chris Matthews: “Tucker, was the Times right to report this big story of something we should be looking at? I think that was the theme of it.” Later in the segment, Matthews asked, “Is the question of their marriage an issue or not in this campaign?” Carlson replied, “Of course it's an issue.” He continued: “I mean, look, if he hadn't been exposed as a philanderer, would she be a United States senator? No, of course not.” Matthews then asked Carlson, “Will she continue to benefit as the victim of Bill Clinton's behavior, Tucker?” Carlson responded: “Exactly. That's -- as [Time columnist] Margaret Carlson famously said, nobody has ever benefited more from sexual favors she herself did not dispense than Hillary Clinton.”

Carlson also discussed the Times article on the May 23, 2006, edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson. He teased the segment by asserting: “Tonight, Bill and Hillary Clinton, they're the Brangelina of American politics. But will Bill's fame and famous appetites help or hinder his wife's run for president?" He opened the segment by noting that according to the Times article, “Hillary Clinton's advisers worry that her husband's reputation could hamper her bid for the White House.” During an interview with former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis, Carlson asserted that “it's complicated that she's married to Bill Clinton,” and asked, “Is it good, is it bad for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy?” Later in the segment, Carlson asked Davis, "[W]hat will Bill Clinton do as first spouse? I mean, what will he do? Is he going to have an issue? Is he going to pick the curtains in the White House? It's going to be unprecedented, anyway. What is he going do?" He concluded the interview by asserting that “it's going to be awfully weird” if Bill Clinton were to return to the White House as first spouse.

As Media Matters for America documented, the 2,000-word Times article was based on the accounts of “some 50 people,” “many” of whom “were granted anonymity to discuss a relationship for which the Clintons have long sought a zone of privacy.”

From the October 22 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: All right. We'll be right back. Charlie Rangel is supporting Hillary Clinton for president, so it's no surprise he's criticizing Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. But not on his credentials, on his personal life. Is that out of bounds? We'll tell you.

Plus, at least a dozen wildfires burn out of control in southern California, more than a quarter-million residents evacuating. More than 100,000 acres burned. We'll get update on what's happening in just a minute.

[...]

CARLSON: Congressman Charlie Rangels [sic] rips into Rudy Giuliani's personal life in this week's New York Observer. Rangel and Giuliani have a longstanding adversarial relationship, and Rangel is holding nothing back now. He's now calling Giuliani a philanderer. Hmmm.

Well, joining me now once again, we welcome The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson and online columnist Bob Franken.

Bob, holy smokes. Let's put the actual quote up here in case there are some out there who don't get the New York Observer at home.

“Sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands.”

Well, I mean --

FRANKEN: Don't you love nuance?

CARLSON: There's not a lot of nuance there.

FRANKEN: No, there isn't.

CARLSON: I guess what I think -- I criticize Giuliani all the time. I just spent two blocks criticizing him, it's totally fair to criticize him. I guess this implies that Charlie Rangel has never committed -- we know that he's never committed adultery, ever. OK? And doesn't know anybody who has, because you couldn't say -- I just think -- let me just point out I'm outraged by this. I don't think you should attack Giuliani for philandering.

FRANKEN: Well, I mean, that's going to be an issue if he's the nominee. It just is.

It's going to be his relationship with his children, it's going to be an issue fair or not. And the Democrats are not going to be -- whoever the candidate is going to be -- is not going to be out there taking the lead on this thing. In fact, the candidate is going to deny it, a la the Hillary Clinton campaign.

CARLSON: This is the second time the Clinton campaign has had a surrogate attack Giuliani for --

FRANKEN: OK, first of all, we're assuming that it is the Clinton campaign having a surrogate. I certainly suspect that.

CARLSON: I misspoke. I don't -- I'm not saying that they sent Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, out or Rangel out, both of whom are kind of outspoken. I'm not saying that they sent them out. I'm just saying both those guys are in -- sometimes surrogates for Mrs. Clinton. That's all I'm saying.

ROBINSON: Yeah. I mean, you know, I would doubt very seriously that the campaign sent Charlie Rangel.

CARLSON: Yes, I agree with that.

ROBINSON: I'd like to say that Vilsack I'm not so sure about. But look, this is personal. Charlie Rangel and Rudy Giuliani have a history going back to years in New York. They don't like each other.

CARLSON: But do we want to go there? Do we want to go there? That's my only point.

Like, you cheated on your wife. No, you cheated on your wife. I mean, well, I thought -- well, maybe we should get Rangel on. I'll just ask him point blank, have you ever cheated on your wife?

And then I thought, you know what? That's disgusting. I'm not going to participate in that. But that's kind of where you get once you start having that conversation, don't you think?

From the October 8 edition of Tucker:

CARLSON: I do think though, if you're Hillary Clinton, how far do you get attacking somebody else's marriage or personal life?

STEVE MCMAHON (Democratic strategist): She's not attacking his --

CARLSON: Well, Tom Vilsack was acting on her behalf, attacked his marriage. Her surrogate attacked his marriage. Do you know what I mean? If we're going to call a truce on the marriage talk, maybe we should stick by it. That would be my feeling.

MCMAHON: Well, if we're going to call a truce on the marriage talk, Hillary Clinton is not attacking his marriage. And by the way, I think that plenty of Republicans have attacked the Clintons' marriage on plenty of occasions. And so I think if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, you are going to see this kind of conversation, whether -- it probably won't be from a campaign. It will probably be from a third-party group, like a Swift Boat group. But you are going to see it.

CARLSON: I think it's ugly. And I pledge right here and now to attack whoever does that, because I think it's wrong.

From the September 21 edition of Tucker:

CARLSON: Very quickly, Tom Vilsack, obviously a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, part of the campaign, comes out and attacks -- let me put it up on the screen -- Rudy Giuliani's personal life: “He has got a very interesting past. I can't even get into the number of marriages and the relationship he has with his children and what the kind of circumstance New York was in before 9-11."

It's a little much for a Hillary Clinton campaign guy to be attacking the personal life of an opponent. I mean, shouldn't Hillary Clinton be quiet about people's marriages?

HILARY ROSEN (MSNBC political analyst): It was -- I think it was wrong for him to say. I think it was cavalier, and, by the way, Senator Clinton 10 minutes later when asked about it disavowed it.

CARLSON: No, she didn't.

ROSEN: Yes, she did. She said, I didn't say it. I'm not going to engage in that kind of campaign.

CARLSON: Nope, she said he can speak for himself. She did not say I wish he hadn't said it.

ROSEN: She said, I am not going to do that. That is not what my campaign is about. You won't see that coming from my campaign.

[crosstalk]

CARLSON: But she did not say she wish she had not said it. And I wish she would have said that. It's so brazen. The Clinton campaign attacking someone's marriage? It's unbelievable.

From the May 26, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Anyway, coming up, how can Hill deal with Bill?

First, the top of the fold -- front page New York Times story this Tuesday. Then a David Broder Washington Post column. Both take on the question that political king makers, political junkies and everyone else can't avoid.

If and when Hillary Clinton runs for president, what will Bill be doing in that campaign? How does the Clinton marriage fit into the long-term political plan here?

The Times article says, quote, “When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up, for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage and how the most dissected relationship in American life might affect Mrs. Clinton's possible bid for the presidency in 2008. Democrats say it's inevitable that in a campaign that could return the former president to the White House, some voters would be concerned or distracted by Mr. Clinton's political role and the episode that led the House to vote for his impeachment in 1998.”

Tucker, was the Times right to report this big story of something we should be looking at? I think that was the theme of it.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, I have no doubt.

I mean, look, this story was written with the help of the staffs of former President Clinton and Senator Clinton. They, you know, they gave facts that the story couldn't have been written without.

So you've got to wonder to what degree this is a calculation on the part of Mrs. Clinton's forming presidential campaign, let's get this out early.

I'm just struck by all the liberals I know -- and I know a lot of them -- how lukewarm they are about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and though they like her husband a great deal, how many of them seem uncomfortable at -- you know, once you start thinking it through, she's elected president and he's in the White House -- what does that mean? What would that look like? It's pretty weird at very least, I think.

NORAH O'DONNELL (MSNBC chief Washington correspondent): Well, Chris, it's the most fascinating story in journalism and politics today.

I mean, this is the most interesting political couple out there. She was a fascinating first lady and now she's the first first lady turned senator and now she wants to run for president. And Clinton is the big X factor in this race.

Is it a legitimate story? Yes. We did a follow-up story on the Today show the next day that I did and I spoke with many Clinton advisers who didn't want to talk on camera about this story, who didn't want to talk really that much about it at all because they don't want Senator Clinton to be distracted in some ways by former President Clinton. And as former President Clinton has said, “I try not to cause any problems,” so he is trying to only be a help, not a hindrance.

But he is the X factor. Because the big question becomes, is it going to be a two for one presidency in 2008? Is he going to help, is he going to hurt? Will he bring along his baggage or will he be an asset?

Clearly he'll be her chief political adviser and fundraiser in chief, but it's fascinating to talk about this. What political --

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: Let's not skip away from the main point here.

The question is, is he creating new baggage as we speak?

Craig?

[crosstalk]

CRAIG CRAWFORD (MSNBC political analyst): I think, you know, it gives them star quality. I mean, as show marriages go, they probably rival Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, but I mean, who cares. They've got a political partnership, that's more foundation than a lot of marriages have. And people are going to talk about this marriage.

But, yes, I think, you know, the more he's out there, he overshadows her. You know, when they were together at the Martin Luther King funeral --

MATTHEWS: I see we're changing the subject again.

Is the question of their marriage an issue or not in this campaign?

CARLSON: Of course it's an issue.

[crosstalk]

CARLSON: But I think it helps her.

I mean, look, if he hadn't been exposed as a philanderer, would she be a United States senator? No, of course not.

MATTHEWS: Great question. Will she continue to benefit as the victim of Bill Clinton's behavior, Tucker?

CARLSON: Exactly. That's -- as Margaret Carlson famously said, nobody has ever benefited more from sexual favors she herself did not dispense than Hillary Clinton.

MATTHEWS: Can't beat that.

From the May 23 edition of MSNBC's The Situation:

CARLSON: Thanks to you at home for tuning in tonight. It's good to have you with us, as always.

Tonight, Bill and Hillary Clinton, they're the Brangelina of American politics. But will Bill's fame and famous appetites help or hinder his wife's run for president? Former White House adviser Lanny Davis talks about a possible Clinton candidacy and its ramifications.

[...]

CARLSON: We turn now to the state of the union: the Clinton union. A front-page story in The New York Times this morning reports that Hillary Clinton's advisers worry that her husband's reputation could hamper her bid for the White House. Hence, the fact the Clintons are almost never seen together in public. And when they are, they don't simultaneously give speeches.

Are the consultants right? Does Bill hurt Hillary? For answers, we welcome now former special counsel to President Clinton. Lanny Davis joins us from Washington tonight. Lanny, thanks for coming on.

DAVIS: Hi Tucker, thanks for (inaudible).

CARLSON: In this piece, there's an interesting quote from Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff to President Clinton. He just says it right out loud. He says “there's no question that it's a very complicated candidacy” -- Mrs. Clinton's potential candidacy -- “for a lot of voters because of the history of that relationship” -- her marriage -- “and what they've been through.”

He just says what everyone knows, but no one close to the Clintons has said out loud that I've seen up until this morning's New York Times and that is it's complicated that she's married to Bill Clinton. Is it good, is it bad for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy?

DAVIS: Well, first of all, Senator Clinton is going to be judged if she runs for president on the basis of her positions, her capabilities to lead this country in the war against terror, and her record in the Senate. That's the primary reason people will vote for or against her.

I think President Clinton's presence by her side will be helpful because he has become, to his credit, almost a larger-than-life ex-president. And his charisma, his ability to be supportive and to describe why she would make a great president have to be an asset.

There are people who don't like Bill Clinton. Among those people, it won't be an asset. But in general, I think it's about Hillary Clinton, not about Bill Clinton.

CARLSON: I would tend to kind of agree with you. And yet, the senator's staff -- Senator Clinton's staff clearly doesn't agree. Here's what the Times piece says, “In choosing to keep the public life separate, people around the Clintons say there is a political calculus at work. People who work for Hillary Clinton believe that a close public association with Bill Clinton hurts her." Why?

DAVIS: I don't know why anyone would say that. Because he's such a popular figure in both the country and around the world. There are Clinton-haters. There always will be. But I think that he's a great asset as somebody who is supporting her.

And when you hear him describe her capabilities and the reasons why she'dmake a great president, President Clinton does a great job as a campaigner, as well as as a husband. So I don't share that view.

TUCKER: OK. And you may be absolutely right. I'm agnostic on it. The piece, though, makes the point that he's this terrific communicator and she's not a terrific communicator. She's wooden by comparison, and when you put them both together, she looks kind of mediocre.

DAVIS: Well first of all, comparing anyone to Bill Clinton is difficult. But Hillary Clinton is a pretty tough act to follow, too. What she's done in New York state, her popularity rating. And most importantly, Tucker, I find Republicans in the United States Senate who I used to be debating during the Clinton years will come up to me and say what a great senator she's been, how she's reached across the aisle, how effective she's been, and how a lot of Republican senators have come to respect her.

So I don't think anybody compared to Bill Clinton is a fair comparison. But Hillary Clinton on her own has been a great candidate. She showed that in New York in the election and she will again.

TUCKER: On her own, I mean, what does that mean? I mean, if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton, she wouldn't be senator. She wouldn't go from being a board member of the Children's Defense Fund to being, you know, the senator from New York. I just don't think -- that wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been first lady, obviously.

DAVIS: Actually, let me disagree with that as a personal historic statement. When I first met Hillary Rodham, then Rodham, I thought she was going be a United States senator after about five minutes. And I always thought she'd be the first woman president before I knew she was going out with Bill Clinton.

She's always been special. She's always been above her generation as a leader. And that's how I first came to know her when she gave the valedictorian speech at Wellesley way back in the '60s. That's how old I am, Tucker.

So I think this is an extraordinary political leader. And let's see if I'm right if she runs for --

CARLSON: Come on. Look, I think she's obviously above average. She's got a lot of talents. I mean, I'm not beating up on Hillary Clinton. I'm merely saying if you're looking for the first woman president, there are a lot of female senators who have a lot more experience and arguably more ability than Mrs. Clinton. I mean, why not Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer? They've been there a lot longer than she has. They've done a lot more than she has. And no one's talking about them. Why? Because they weren't married to Bill Clinton.

DAVIS: Look, I admit my bias because I've known and admired her for about three decades. And I certainly admire the people you just mentioned. I think as a political leader, she's demonstrated electability in upstate New York. She's demonstrated leadership in ability to work with Republicans and get something done with the Senate.

And I think she's one of the best candidates as a public speaker and as someone who can articulate the issues that the Democratic Party has. But as I said, I'm pretty biased in favor of her.

CARLSON: Yeah. Finally, quickly, if she is running, I think she could win. That opens the very suddenly real question -- what will Bill Clinton do as first spouse? I mean, what will he do? Is he going to have an issue? Is he going to pick the curtains in the White House? It's going to be unprecedented anyway. What is he going do?

DAVIS: Boy, I sure look forward to him being the first spouse. I think that he'll be a great adviser to the president if it's Hillary. And I also think that he'll have a great presence in world affairs and relationships around the world. Because he is so popular, especially in third world countries on all of the issues, AIDS and other issues you know, that he and President Bush I have worked on.

CARLSON: Boy, that will be for good or for bad. I'm not for it, but it's going to be awfully weird if that happens. I think we can all agree. Anyway Lanny Davis, thanks a lot for coming on.

DAVIS: Thank you.