David Shuster: "doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
Me: No, it doesn't seem like that at all. It seems like Hillary Clinton's adult daughter is campaigning for her in much the way you would expect.
« Competition and Insurance | Main | Still Broken »
Question of the Day
08 Feb 2008 04:21 pm
Comments (155)
It is kinda strange she's not plugging for Obama, though, given that she's a young voter and I heard her dad was black.
I can't believe Shuster hasn't been fired for that yet.
If I didn't know better, I would think MSNBC is TRYING to get Clinton elected.
David Shuster has been suspended:
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
.
A little context please...
He was referring to Chelsea calling Super delegates to twist their arms. That was the pimping in a weird sort of way reference.
Think about it. She's calling them not Mark Penn or Howard wolfson. They have to be nicer to her and it puts them in a uncomfortable position. That is what is weird about it.
Cmon Matt, you fell for this crap too?
Sure the comment was bad, but why is SHE calling super delegates?
That is a fair question.
have there been any candidate in this election who have adult kids who ddn't have their kids working for their campaign?
other than 9iu11iani's kids, of course.
Whoop, sorry about above.
Shuster' been suspended:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/shuster_suspended_for_pimped_out_comment_77059.asp
What would be helpful here is a table showing possible permutations of the gender/race of the purported pimpee vs. the gender/race of the one calling the subject a pimpee. Aren't there some permutations that would be acceptable? Would there be outrage if Oprah said that Bubba was being pimped out? I realize being able to recognize such things is second nature to "liberals", but not all we members of the Patriarchy are so attuned to the fine points of "liberalism".
On the issue of Chelsea's campaigning, this is not the way I would have expected.
Shuster has been suspended.
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Shuster has been suspended.
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Hillary's playing the victim card again. When are we going to see her tears next?
Sure the comment was bad, but why is SHE calling super delegates?
1. how is that "pimping"?
2. uh, to build her political career?
Sometimes, you send junior personnel to deal with higherups to build their connections.
.
I think Shuster's comments were really stupid and very much out of line. However, I do have a hard time working up much sympathy for the Clintons, who have been dog-whistling race since before New Hampshire. Oh, and the newest version of that is (as posted earlier today) a supporter sending around e-mails of the "Obama is a black afrocentric christian (but possibly muslim, too) who is likely anti-semetic and won't support Israel" variety to prominent Jews. Wake me when this is over.
When are we going to see her tears next?
I am way too busy pimping out your bitch-ass children to care.
.
Should have pointed out that the post about the e-mail was on Ben Smith's blog, not this one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Pushing_the_Israel_angle.html#comments
This is certainly one of the weirder comments of the campaign. I thought it was fairly routine for candidates' family members to campaign alongside the candidate.
Chelsea should serve in a more useful way, like the Romney Boys.
Seriously, these MSM/cable TV hacks have spouted so much garbage about the Clinton's and HRC for the past...gazillion years that they don't even know when they cross the line, because so often there is no line . Matthews being the worst offender of course.
Shuster probably though he was being hip. White guys on tv/radio shows should probably stop the gangsta talk.
Shuster should have suspended, so good. Now if they'd just suspend Tucker.
What they really need to do is stop mixing news coverage with polibabel.
He was referring to Chelsea calling Super delegates to twist their arms. That was the pimping in a weird sort of way reference.
Think about it. She's calling them not Mark Penn or Howard wolfson. They have to be nicer to her and it puts them in a uncomfortable position.
Why would they think they have to be nicer to her?
In these negotiations, you either do them yourself, or deputize someone with enough loyalty to you that it outweighs their personal ambition. It isn't a job for a paid hack.
Funny, I hear far more offensive and stupider comments every day from the likes of Tweety and Maureen Dowd.
Sounds like Hillary needs to suck it up and act like a man. (I mean that in the good, non-misogynist way, of course)
Chelsea is a 28 (I think) year old woman working for her mom's campaign. WTF is unseemly about that? It's not like they've got the 12 year old Chelsea calling super delegates. I have more of a problem with Shuster's analysis than the word "pimp".
In retrospect, I can't believe I actually wondered whether or not the media would once again allow the Clinton Campaign to pull the crying head fake on the eve of another voting day. Of course the media fell for it again.
Oh well. At least this time we are just left to imagine poor Chelsea crying, somewhere off stage.
The 'indignant mother' posture before an election reminds me of Lynne Cheney's press attacking Kerry for saying her daughter, Mary, was a lesbian.
Kerry won the debate but lost the news spin.
I'm kind of surprised that this is all you have to offer on this "controversy," Matt. There are two issues here that are not mutually exclusive:
- What Schuster said was stupid and over the line.
- The Hillary campaign is trying to exploit this for all it is worth. Her whole campaign strategy now seems to be to play the victim -- all of this "crying" and spousal outrage, now with some motherly outrage thrown in -- this is family psycho-drama masquerading as a political campaign for president. Every bit of it is orchestrated.
Obama's responses to the "race card" were also orchestrated. That isn't the issue. This is an attempt by the Clinton campaign to drum up sympathy and above all change the coverage, which has been going in Obama's direction since Tuesday.
The idea that Hillary won't debate on MSNBC because of this stupid comment is hilarious - and completely disingenuous - given that she wants to debate on FOX. Let's create a list of outrageous comments on FOX about Hillary and her family -- oh, we can't, the internets aren't big enough for that.
Mitt had Tagg and Josh double-team Limbaugh to get Limbaugh to bash McCain.
The extra income Mitt made on the deal was a bonus.
If That's pimping what do you call what Mitt's kids were doing?
If That's pimping what do you call what Mitt's kids were doing?
Well, now that they are exploiting their own outrage at this comment to win sympathy and votes, you could see it as exploiting Chelsea in an indirect way.
Accurate statement by Shuster. Reasoning:
Bill Clinton as "the first black President" is a pimpin' poppa. Clelsea was acting at his behest. She was therefore being "pimped" out by pimpin poppa, Bill.
No, it doesn't seem like that at all. It seems like Hillary Clinton's adult daughter is campaigning for her in much the way you would expect.Matt, you have to understand that Rudy Giuliani's family sets the standard--and his kids weren't even going to vote for him. From that perspective, of course it looks weird.
doesn't Schuster just mean that Chelsea was pimpin' the HRC candidacy?
yet another episode in "why old people should not try to talk like young people"...
Shuster is suspended -- took just one day once the complaints started rolling in (didn't matter who one supported in the campaign -- everyone thought it was repugnant). See taylormarsh.com.
What Shuster said was slightly out of line. An apology is in order. But as a feminist, I am not pleased to see the Hillary camp pretending that the Clinton women are being abused more than other families with presidential ambitions. They seem to think they win when they can get people to feel sorry for her. They're probably right--but that's not going to work in the general election. And it's the opposite of feminism.
The guy should be fired.
HRC's daughter can call anyone she wants. There is nothing unseemly or even unusual about it.
Whatever you think about HRC's merits as a candidate (I back Obama) or about the merits of her campaign, this is a clear matter of principle. The HRC campaign stirs up some very creepy misogyny and we have to be absolutely firm that it has no place in public discourse.
But those Romney boys...ooh, those hunky, hunky Romney boys. I'd like to Tagg the hell out of 'em.
Well yea, Matt, sure. But aren't they roughly analogous? What's next, non-family members campaigning for Clinton? It will be the biggest prostitution racket not frequented by David Vitter.
I'm glad to see someone finally pay for all the sexist bullshit that's been thrown their way in this campaign.
That said, I feel slightly sorry for Shuster in that Matthews has done far worse on repeated occasions (though not directed at Chelsea as far as I know) and gotten away with it, so how was he supposed to know you couldn't denigrate women at MSNBC?
To all that are calling for Shuster's firing, shouldn't Matthews have been fired long before this? And why has Clinton let him off the hook?
Um, as a feminist, I'm not fond of the "blame the victim" meme. More to the point, the Clintons HAVE been subjected to worse treatment than any other political family in my lifetime, with the possible exception of the Gores, who were tarred by their association with the Clintons. As one of the previous commenters pointed out, the Shuster comment is just one of many crazy, mean-spirited, personal attacks on the Clintons that have been all the rage in the MSM since way back. So why shouldn't they take full advantage of a clearly objectionable comment like the one Shuster made?
Having said all that, I will also say that I did not vote for HRC in the primary, but would certainly support her in the general election. (What else am I going to do -- help McCain get elected?) It would be nice if people could deal with their problems with Hillary Clinton's political career without internalizing the media's Clinton hatred and sexism.
By the way, it actually didn't matter what Matt wrote about this: either way the Clinton Campaign would get what it wanted out of Matt. He happened to support the Clinton's approved narrative, which is fine, but if he had instead questioned the sincerity of their outrage, he would just have become more evidence of the Vast Patriarchal Conspiracy.
So, in short their head fake worked as soon as Matt reacted by making this his "Question of the Day". And apparently counting on people like Matt to react to these head fakes is a very safe bet.
> A little context please...
>
> He was referring to Chelsea calling Super
> delegates to twist their arms. That was the
> pimping in a weird sort of way reference.
>
> Think about it. She's calling them not Mark Penn
> or Howard wolfson. They have to be nicer to her
> and it puts them in a uncomfortable position.
> That is what is weird about it.
>
> Sure the comment was bad, but why is SHE calling
> super delegates? That is a fair question.
A little context please...
George W. Bush had the same assignment for his father at about the same age in the Bush I campaign. Odd that. Guess it was OK 'cause he was a guy; in Texas that is real MAN'S WORK.
Cranky
Yes, fire Matthews too.
But I don't want to be caught in this squirrely game of working through every other comparable case. Crap is crap.
To all that are calling for Shuster's firing, shouldn't Matthews have been fired long before this? And why has Clinton let him off the hook?
(1) From Wolfson's comments it looks like Hillary's camp is cutting MSNBC dead, so I think Tweety's shit does enter into it.
(2) Which is easier, to forgive something said about you or to forgive something said about your daughter? I can understand why they've had it.
And all you Hillary-haters who think that their reaction to this is just political calculation: You are sick, sick people.
I never thought I would hear progressives and Democrats defend someone calling another Democrat a "whore". Thanks for proving me wrong folks!
Remind me again how objectifying women and equating them with prostitutes is ok because it's Clinton we're talking about.
All this from the "liberal" blogosphere. I mean why bother going to RedState when I can hear folks sexualize politicial campaigning by a female right here!
Joe Klein's conscience,
Well, obviously the last thing in the world the Clinton Campaign would want to do is actually force Matthews off television, since they are getting so much mileage out of his coverage.
Ironically, that is what makes Shuster such a suitable target: his coverage has otherwise not been as helpful in generating outrage, so he is expendible.
I heard the comment and the lame-ass apology. Shuster plainly doesn't get that he was wrong, and his colleagues seem to think he made a verbal blunder, which we all would now and then on live TV. But who, raised to be a decent human being, or, to use a fusty, old-fashioned term, a gentleman, would have even engaged in the type of thought process you'd have to engage in to blurt this out by accident? Maybe if his mother hadn't been peddling her ass in the streets and had spent time raising her boy right, this wouldn't have happened.
Chelsea is a 28 (I think) year old woman working for her mom's campaign.
As I understood it, Shuster was commenting on the Clinton family attempting to say that Chelsea is off -limits to the press. I see this as Hillary again wanting things both ways. Chelsea can talk with anyone she wants, but no one can ask Chelsea what she's doing. As you point out, she's not some 12 year old who has no say in the fact that her father/mother hold public office. If she's actively campaigning, she's fair game.
I can't believe we put up with these media vermin
David Gregory talking about "sloopy seconds" at a White House press conference?
references to people being pissed - off; all the personal banter on TV; the drunken ravings of Maureen Dowd - Jeez
who elected these vulgar blowhards? I wish we had politicians that would simply cut these bastards off, deny them their press credentials, etc. The Washington crowd kowtows to these media scum and this is how we have debased debate
Do we really need debates with internet questions? Why don't we let American Idol contestants debate the candidates (that's 2012!)
This country has gone to hell! and in so many ways...
Fuck the mute Clinton kid. Caroline Kennedy the daughter of two real luminous icons is out there on the stump talking like a normal fucking human being. As far as Matthews and Maureen Dowd go - they're not kissing HRC's bad calves. Big fuckin' deal. Calling her "Nurse Ratched" or "Girlfriend" is being satirical. And satire is essentially desecration.
By the way, of course the Clinton Campaign isn't "cutting MSNBC dead". MSNBC is just an offshoot of NBC, and the Clinton Campaign has no intention of doing things like boycotting debates moderated by NBC or refusing to appear on NBC shows like Meet the Press. So while of course they will keep attacking Matthews and MSNBC, they have no intention of imposing serious consequences on NBC.
What the hell do you mean, "fair game," Karl?
Are there, or are there not, standards of decency?
Who gives a monkey's whether HRC's daughter talks to the press or not?
Caroline Kennedy the daughter of two real luminous icons ???
She was adopted?
Well, the Clinton campaign has reported some impressive post-Super-Tuesday fundraising :P
The ridiculous Obama-team vs. Clinton-team sniping is taking over every thread in the liberal blogosphere. Each team simply talks sh*t about the other team, no matter what the situation. When that kind of grade-school jawboning hits an issue like this one, which is really pretty straightforward (i.e., Shuster was totally obnoxious and MSNBC overall has been obnoxious), it's just beyond stupid. (Equally stupid, of course, is the other side in these blogospheric spats attributing things said in comment threads to the candidate him/herself.) So, even though I'm an Obama supporter ... well said Matt, Mary, etc.
Great point, Cranky. Bush does it, cool; Chelsea does it, she's a whore. She's a freaking adult, people. She can take whatever role in her mother's campaign that she chooses to.
Obviously the campaign is milking this for all it's worth, but in this case I say, good for them. If you're a politician and someone implies your daughter's a whore, you *should* milk it. Good strategy, too: Any voter with a daughter will sympathize, and more generally it knocks the media back on its heels. The Bush administration was very successful, for a long time, at playing the bully with the press and look how much breathing space it won them. Now obviously such 'space' can be used for evil, but given how slanted the press has long been against Clinton I would cut her a bit of slack if she intends to make a habit of this.
The larger problem Steve is that you get extreme sexist trollery when these things come up -- I would doubt that most of the upthread swine like "Trevor" or "Karl" are Obama supporters. I sure hope not.
Steve V,
But it is important to note this sort of sniping isn't just happening naturally. It is being deliberately encouraged by certain people for political gain.
What the hell do you mean, "fair game," Karl?
I mean the press may investigate to whom she is speaking, what they have spoken about, how long the conversation lasted, etc. etc. They may contact her directly for quotes about her opinion of things. She can be treated like her father or any other volunteer or campaign worker. It's up to the press to decide whether anyone gives a monkey's [ass].
I agree that Shuster was out of bounds with the pimp comment, but his larger point stands.
DTM: I seriously doubt there's a lot of political gain to be gotten from random comments on blogs. On the other hand, I constantly suspect that the campaigns send trolls out to comment threads to make the other team look like assholes, but it's just impossible to know.
Colin: good point! It's a lot of my-team vs. your-team, but it's also attracting an awful lot of misogynists, as well as racists, Clinton conspiracy-theorists, etc. etc.
9iu11iani
This is the most awesome use of l33t-speak ever. Too bad it didn't catch on while he was still in the race.
On the larger issue, all decent people (which, thankfully, seems to include NBC executives) recognize how unnacceptable the pimping line is. First, Chelsea's role in the campaign is perfectly normal, and more ot the point, you jjust don't go on TV and call somone's daughter a whore.
There's not a shred of ambiguity here.
Colin,
Your calls for decency seem utterly disingenuous when they are immediately followed by insults.
Steve V,
The given comments on a given blog are trivial, of course, but they are just a part of a much larger pattern of discourse, a discourse which is undoubtedly being carried out not just on the Internet but also in workplaces, homes, and so on.
Are we sure he meant "pimped out" in the sense of pimping hos and not in the sense of wearing fly clothes and bling bling? The latter really isn't so offensive.
Look, Shuster's comment was boneheaded. Probably not malicious, but definitely boneheaded. This is partly the result of the word "pimp" becoming fairly ubiquitious without people stopping and thinking about what awful people pimps really are. Still, there's no journalistic value in talking about Chelsea no matter what she does, which is where he went off the rails in the first place. But Wolfson took it a bit two far when he tried to loop in the campaign's issues with Chris Matthews. He's the bad lawyer asking one question too many.
In this debate between Clinton and MSNBC, the only one who comes out looking good is Obama, since it just reminds people of how much we need to move beyond these non-substantive media events that dominate our discourse instead of having politicians who see attacks on their kid and think about how to score points.
A little context please...
He was referring to Chelsea calling Super delegates to twist their arms. That was the pimping in a weird sort of way reference.
I'm not clear on the terminology of the sex trade. But if Chelsea Clinton is arm-twisting Super Delegates isn't this, rather than an example of Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out," an example of Chelsea Clinton "keeping her pimp hand strong," or perhaps "keeping Hillary's pimp hand strong"?
Since we *must* discuss Chelsea, remember that the Republican nominee is John McCain of the "her father is Janet Reno" comment. So, the plea goes out for intramural liberal peace and love.
But if Chelsea Clinton is arm-twisting Super Delegates isn't this, rather than an example of Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out," an example of Chelsea Clinton "keeping her pimp hand strong," or perhaps "keeping Hillary's pimp hand strong"?
Is Chelsea Clinton gonna have to choke Super Delegate?
Possibly you were just clumsy in your use of the term "fair game," Karl, but do remember that the *context* (that is the posting up top) was the propriety of calling someone a whore.
Your reasoning about journalism is odd. Journalists have the right to ask questions. But folks are under no obligation to respond. A journalist may be frustrated that someone doesn't return their calls, but that's life.
I've been pretty open about supporting Obama over Clinton, but I think the Clinton campaign's reaction here is justified. It was a pretty crude slur and totally unwarranted/unprofessional. No one should defend this sort of stuff.
Chelsea can talk with anyone she wants, but no one can ask Chelsea what she's doing. As you point out, she's not some 12 year old who has no say in the fact that her father/mother hold public office. If she's actively campaigning, she's fair game.
It's pretty obvious what she's doing. They haven't tried to hide that she's been an active campaigner or that she's been attempting to persuade superdelegates (so has Bill). It's not some dark conspiracy deep within the bowels of the Clinton campaign and there's nothing AT ALL unseemly about the role she's playing. And while she's fair game as a campaign surrogate, there's certainly terminology that is way out of bounds.
David Shuster is a great reporter, but perhaps not just yet a great host.
Sometimes people say stupid shit on TV.
He was hosting Tucker Carlson's show - and Tucker Carlson says inflammatory crap all the time, and he doesn't have to apologize, never mind get suspended.
Maybe Shuster was trying to stir up stuff in the manner Tucker does.
Who knows.
But suspending him is silly. Apologize, sure. The comment made no sense at all. But live TV news is live TV news. Stupid stuff happens.
This is small potatoes. We need to grow up and move on. Or have some host say something silly about Obama's family to make it even.
And Wolfson's response is just pathetic.
Colin, I don't think Shuster was calling her a whore, he was referring to her "being used" as a tool for someone else's motives. Whether or not that's true is open to interpretation. It certainly wasn't the best phrase to use and if you have teenage kids they've probably heard or used that term before. It's common slang in our city and it's not meant to be denigrating nor is it used specifically with one gender, it's just a harsher way of saying someone is being used.
Obama does not come out looking good at all. He never attacks misogynistic comments by his supporters or by the media. I agree with him about the war, but I have looked in vain for any assurances that he gets it about sexism.
Even as a matter of campaign strategy, rather than principle, his silence is wrong.
Obama does not come out looking good at all. He never attacks misogynistic comments by his supporters or by the media. I agree with him about the war, but I have looked in vain for any assurances that he gets it about sexism.
Even as a matter of campaign strategy, rather than principle, his silence is wrong.
Obama does not come out looking good at all. He never attacks misogynistic comments by his supporters or by the media. I agree with him about the war, but I have looked in vain for any assurances that he gets it about sexism.
Even as a matter of campaign strategy, rather than principle, his silence is wrong.
Obama does not come out looking good at all. He never attacks misogynistic comments by his supporters or by the media. I agree with him about the war, but I have looked in vain for any assurances that he gets it about sexism.
Even as a matter of campaign strategy, rather than principle, his silence is wrong.
Or perhaps, Colin, you were jumping to conclusions. In what context is the term fair game ever used to describe whores? You need to settle down.
You're absolutely right that folks are under no obligation to respond to a reporter's questions. But Hillary has no right to demand that reporters respect her wishes to keep her daughter out of the media and then send (or allow) her daughter out to actively campaign for her. She can't have it both ways.
It's not for Hillary to decide what has journalistic value and what does not. If no one watches Chelsea on TV, or reads about her in the paper, then no reporters will ask her any more questions.
he was referring to her "being used" as a tool for someone else's motives. Whether or not that's true is open to interpretation.
She's being "used" by her mother? Here's an idea: How about writing Chelsea an email and ask her if she's being "used" by the Clinton campaign?
Redstocking, Obama's consistently praised Sen. Clinton's accomplishments, and where he's criticized her, it's been over the issues. In contrast, our apparent "first black president" couldn't wait to slime Obama on racial grounds, and Hillary won't let an acknowledgment that Obama can even do the job come out of her mouth. Obama's got more important things to worry about than MSNBC, like keeping the Dems from debating on Fox.
I can't believe there are comenters her suggesting she is fair game, whatever the hell that means, because she is fucking campaigning for her mother .
I guess, you know, she was asking for it.
Most Obama supporters here I recognize are correctly identifying the twisted behavior of certain MSNBC personalities. Others, unfortunately, are indeed sick, sick people.
To them: I'm sure you would have the same response if Michelle Obama was called a whore. Goddamn "liberal" hypocrites.
How exactly did the Clinton campaign "slime Obama on racial grounds"? Please supply evidence for this bogus charge.
Please stop pretending to be ignorant.
Karl, the phrase "fair game" is used to justify assaults on women all the damn time.
--
Redstocking, "silence" is unfair. The Obama campaign was clear on this latest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_el_pr/msnbc_clinton
"Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, called Shuster's comments "deplorable" and said they had no place in the political process."
I'm not sure what else you want them to do. They can't police trolls on forums like this, or swinish journalists.
Redstocking, I've noticed before this double standard you have on Obama. You seem to expect, even demand that he denounce any possible misogyny regardless of where it comes from, yet don't require Clinton to do the same with either possibly or overtly racist comments. By the way, Obama has actually taken action on such comments generating from his campaign and has made a point not to seize the various opportunities the media keeps trying to offer him to belittle HRC on sexist grounds. Really, whether Obama or Clinton, I think that is all that should be expected.
As an Obama supporter, I think Schuster was out of line and the suspension is appropriate. I am amused, however, that the Clinton campaigns disgust with MSNBC doesn't seem to extend to Fox or McCain.
cxs nee idabw
Redstocking, that's nonsense. Obama isn't remotely involved in this little skirmish. If someone asks him about it I'm sure he'll say Shuster's remark was insulting, out of line, whatever you want. But this isn't the kind of thing that demands an unprompted denunciation from him.
David B., I'm sorry that you think I'm ignorant, but let's just say, for purposes of argument, that you are right, and that I am, indeed, very ignorant.
Please supply evidence that the Clinton campaign "slimed Obama on racial grounds."
I think Redstocking was responding to me -- I made a comment about how Obama looks better b/c his style of politics doesn't involve a smug dirtbag like Howard Wolfson spinning it to advantage. If anything, Wolfson's concerted attacks on the network trivialize what Shuster said by putting it into the political sphere. If candidates and their campaigns act like grown-ups, maybe the media would follow suit.
I watch MSNBC, and I emailed them to complain about it. Apparently a lot of people did. It was out of line and wrong. If he had said that about Michelle Obama, he would have been fired. It was just a dumb thing to say-about anybody.
I don't want him fired, though. He's a good reporter.
John Petty: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064875.php
Of course, you already are aware that Bill Clinton tried and failed to trivialize Obama's victory by saying that Jesse Jackson won two non-contested caucuses over 20 year earlier (and despite Jackson's own role in saving Bill's presidence from his decision to perjure himself back in 1998). And you know that Sergio Benedixen thought it wise to say that Hispanics wouldn't vote for a black candidate, even though Obama's made up considerable ground and got La Opinion's endorsement. And I've been following this race long enough where various Clintonites were out saying Obama wasn't "black enough" to appeal to working-class African-Americans. You might remember that, as well. Now, it's "Obama can't win Asians," which is sure to go to sleep after the Washington caucuses.
I also remember when Clinton secured his re-election bid by signing a draconian welfare reform bill into law, prompting Peter Edelman to resign in protest. (Sen. Clinton, nonetheless likes name-dropping his wife.) I remember in 1992 when my parents stopped supporting him after he flew back to Arkansas to sign a death warrant for an African-American inmate so brain damaged he saved parts of his last meal for later. To Clinton's credit, the Justices he appointed were crucial votes in making Rector's execution unconstitutional today. I remember when Clinton lifted a comment from Sister Souljah out of context to appeal to racial tensions that were pretty high after the Rodney King riots. I remember when as President he lacked the courage to send the troops that could have stopped a genocide in Rwanda. But even as a skeptic of claims that Clinton's record on race is worth much, Bill's comments in S.C. were pretty shocking.
David B: "various Clintonites were out saying Obama wasn't "black enough"
Frankly, no one cares how long you've been "following this race", this is a BS assertion with no cite. Can I quote Obama supporters on blogs are call them "Obama-ites", and tell them they can't vote for Sen. Obama?
In terms of the Latino and Asian voting trends, apparently if you cite them=you're a racist. But is that really the Clinton campaign playing the race card? Wolf Blitzer, you're a racist!
Welfare reform: Obamabots invoke this all the time. Question: Has Sen. Barack Obama proposed repealing this "draconian" law? If not, is he also racist? As you may know, he has been in the United States Senate for several years now.
But wait....here it is...I just find precious the heartfelt defense of Sista Souljah! Bill Clinton opposing the week of white killing proves that HRC in 2008 is using Race to defeat Obama....alrighty then.
Karl, the phrase "fair game" is used to justify assaults on women all the damn time
Colin, if it's used all the time, then finding a single concrete example shouldn't be difficult. Hillary supporters demanded examples of Clinton's numerous racist comments and David B did a nice job of providing them. If you cannot come up with an example of fair game being used in the same context as "she was asking for it", then I would appreciate an apology for being called a pig and a sexist.
What Shuster said was crude, unprofessional and out of line both for his language and substance. And it was so representative of the media's pathological hatred of the Clintons Not only would he never have used such language in connection with any other candidate (well, Gore and Kerry are not running), go behind it to the nonsensical point that he was making. He was (to put it in his coarse vernacular) pimping the story that there was something untoward and unhealthy--ethically and psychologically--in Clinton's adult daughter working in the campaign on her behalf. This is commonplace and his objection was ridiculous and fact free. Sounds like a John Solomon print story.
However, what bothers me even more are the Obambots here and elsewhere that dismiss this because the Clinton's are, well, the Shadow rising in Mordor. They don't like Clinton, so it's OK for the press to dislike her also. Can't they hear themslves? The sound like wingnuts defending aspersions cast on liberals by the likes of Coulter, DeLay, amd Malkin. Aside from the fact that such biased coverage is wrong in itself, I wonder what their reaction will be when, if Obama is nominated, the media turns their jaundiced anti-Democrat eye on him. We need to pushback against this type of coverage because it is the right thing to do and it also helps Democrats in general.
Frankly, this is largely why I voted for Clinton this week after Edwards dropped out--the Obamabots just set my teeth on edge. It's bad enough that they claim he is not running the vacuous, Broderist pandering campaign that is obvious to me (and is either grossly naive or Clintonistically calculated). Worse, out of one side of their mouth, they sing kumbaya, the great Obama will turn the world on with his smile, unite us all, and carry Utah. Out of the other side, they spew vile wingnut bilge about the Clintons. To be an Obamabot, much like being a Republican, is to live in an irony free zone.
Marlowe: "They don't like Clinton, so it's OK for the press to dislike her also. Can't they hear themslves?"
No.
Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
As an aside, despite my somewhat aggressive attacks on the Obamabots for not getting it on this fundamental issue of MSM misconduct (they will soon enough, of course, if he is the nominee; guess what, too late), I have not written a single negative comment on this blog or any others about Sen. Obama. Why? Because he would be an excellent nominee, I just prefer Clinton. God forbid.
Excellent point, marlowe. Obama supporters forget that once the bar is lowered for one democrat, it's lowered for them all. Ok calling chelsea a "whore" now and you are implicitly approving calling michelle obama a rhymes with witch in six months. If we're not united in the face of coarse sexist remarks, we'll reap what we sow.
And that jackass mccain will win.
Excellent point, marlowe. Obama supporters forget that once the bar is lowered for one democrat, it's lowered for them all. Ok calling chelsea a "whore" now and you are implicitly approving calling michelle obama a rhymes with witch in six months. If we're not united in the face of coarse sexist remarks, we'll reap what we sow.
And that jackass mccain will win.
Excellent point, marlowe. Obama supporters forget that once the bar is lowered for one democrat, it's lowered for them all. Ok calling chelsea a "whore" now and you are implicitly approving calling michelle obama a rhymes with witch in six months. If we're not united in the face of coarse sexist remarks, we'll reap what we sow.
And that jackass mccain will win.
Marlowe, anyone who claims to have chosen Clinton based upon the online conduct of an unknown number of Obama supporters was never seriously considering voting for Obama. This is oh-so boring tactic #658 in the online spats: "I voted for the other candidate because of your obnoxious blog comments!" Look, just own up to your reasons for voting for Clinton. I don't know what this fainting-couch nonsense is supposed to accomplish.
Both candidates have truly obnoxious supporters online. But almost as annoying as the stream of bile is the resulting stream of "this comment thread just cost [Clinton/Obama] my vote. I will never vote for [Clinton/Obama] in the general election because of the crassness displayed here." Good grief.
And columbia, "Obama supporters" don't all think that the female family members of the candidates should be compared to prostitutes! Thank you very much.
However, it does seem like the media whores are pimped out every day.
Posted by The Fool | February 8, 2008 4:31 PM