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.
My last comment seems to be in limbo, so I'll try once more with a short version:
Karl, google the terms "fair game" plus "rape" and start with the first five hits.
Marlowe, please allow for the possibility that there's a difference between mainstream Obama supporters like myself, and the people you denounce. Your last paragraph does a lot of generalizing.
Why is welfare reform considered racist? Why equate welfare with "black"?
The so-called "race flap" hit the airwaves when Bill Clinton said that Obama's record on the war was a "fairy tale." The Obama campaign put it out that Bill was calling Obama himself a "fairy tale." Additional sub-text: Bill Clinton is saying that a black person being elected president is a "fairy tale."
Then, Hillary said that Lyndon Johnson deserved credit for getting the 1964 civil rights bill passed, making the point that movement energy needs to be converted into actual legislative accomplishment.
This was spun as Clinton dissing MLK, which is blatantly absurd, but added a little more fuel to the fire.
And, well, Jesse Jackson DID win the 1988 South Carolina caucus, and I was glad he did. I caucused for Jesse in '88. Jesse Jackson later said that he took no offense at Clinton's remarks, and why should he? It was a statement of fact.
Then, there was Obama's campaign running a Spanish-language ad in Nevada that slammed Hillary Clinton's connection with Latinos.
But nobody said anything about that one.
This whole controversy has definitely swayed my vote: I now vote this the most inane, manufactured outrage of the 2008 campaign.
The comment was slimy and indefensible, and if it gets the guy fired, good.
But it's worth considering that this kind of thing is only a sliver of what we'd get for years on end if Sen. Clinton came to occupy the WH: this ridiculous circus/cycle of the constant fusillade of BS from the media and the right wing, followed by more of the posture of victimization from the Clintons and the further dramatization of Them Vs. Their Enemies, reported/abetted by the media because it's Exciting! (and sells their product), and on and on. Whatever merit there is or isn't on either side, I'm fucking tired of that shit.
Nomad: I'm tired of liberals and Democrats saying they're tired.
Fight back or STFU. They idea we should decide who to vote for because Chris Matthews will call every move HRC makes a "striptease", and David Broder will pray for a 100-0 vote in the Senate on a core Demcoratic issue is insane.
These people hate liberals. Oh, they're mostly 'pro-choice' and some of their best friends are gay, but they will give no quarter on taxes/spending/war. You're kidding yourself if you think so.
If Obama is President, it will get ugly soon. Let's try and make it as hard as possible to prevent that from happening. Now.
The GOP has been doing it for 30 years ('working the refs').
Remarkable mind-reading skills on your part, Andruw. I'll just note that "tired of" is not the same as "tired." And "fighting back" sometimes turns into pointlessly spiraled escalation. Nonetheless, I largely agree with you. esp. your last 3 paragraphs.
Steve - if you don't think female family members should be compared to prostitutes, than stand up against it NOW. Don't wait - it doesn't matter who the candidate is or who the family member is, it's wrong. Full stop. Without qualification. If you can't do that, don't be surprised when this crap eventually hits your candidate because it will. (Provided your candidate is a democrat.)
Steve - if you don't think female family members should be compared to prostitutes, than stand up against it NOW. Don't wait - it doesn't matter who the candidate is or who the family member is, it's wrong. Full stop. Without qualification. If you can't do that, don't be surprised when this crap eventually hits your candidate because it will. (Provided your candidate is a democrat.)
I'll note that googling "rape" plus "fair game" gets fewer hits than "rape" plus "Colin" ("fg" + "whore" gets even fewer and "fg" + "prostitute" fewer still) but I suppose I could have been more explicit in explaining that I meant she is a legitimate target of the media. I'm sorry if my clumsy words upset your delicate sensibilities. I do not feel that there is anything what-so-ever wrong with Chelsea working for her mother's campaign, and I personally would have as much interest in watching a interview with Chelsea as I do in watching a FOXNews interview with Jenna Bush. Which is to say, I wouldn't watch either one.
nomad: point taken, there is a difference.
Still stand by my larger point, although I may have been projecting media apologists here on you, it worries me when Dems give in to this dynamic. Trust me, I was for Edwards for in no small part due to the media hatred of all things Clinton (bonus: best platform), but it is a fine line between acknowledging this, and accepting it.
Just Karl: Now that we've cleared that up, what do you mean by "fair game"?
SAT scores? Number of lays? How many drinks a week? Position on immigration?
What is your point, in other words, invoking the phrase "fair game"? In the context, of course, of a blog post referencing a story in which she was called a whore.
How would that manifest itself in regards to a daughter supporting, in an entirely positive manner (i.e., not quoted calling Obama a terrible person), her mother?
What hard-hitting question would you challenge her with for supporting her mother?
Columbia I don't see *any* qualifications in Steve V's postings. And the Obama campaign stood up.
Obama is not responsible for trolls and journalists.
Josh Marshall points out over at TPM that Schuster gets suspended over one lame comment, while Chris Matthews is apparently too high on the totem pole to even get censured over his repeated lame comments about Hillary.
Double standards?
Personally, I see this as ridiculous. Schuster clearly wasn't calling Chelsea any kind of "whore"; that interpretation is just literal and stupid. He was using a metaphor about the candidates using their children in the campaign.
I mean, I have a joke about Jim Corr being disappointed at having three baby sisters, then having a light bulb go off in his head when they're teens and working in McManus' pub and attracting all the male students in the area: "Gee, I'll pimp my sisters out as a rock band and get rich!"
I obviously don't think either that his sisters are whores or that he actually thinks that.
Schuster's comment was no different than that.
You can argue about whether candidate's children should or should not be campaigning for their parents, or how in this case, but suspending Schuster for an unfortunate choice of words is clearly overreacting.
Not to mention that a good case could probably be made that anybody campaigning for a politician is a "whore" in some sense.
And now we have posters here going on to "second order overreaction" by claiming that the term "fair game" is the same as "rape".
Please. Get a grip.
Thanks computerproblemsolvedcheap (aka, RSHack).
The issue is no one else's children are talked about in this manner.
Only one family is trashed this way, on MSM outlets, all the time.
But, to get specific...
"Not to mention that a good case could probably be made that anybody campaigning for a politician is a "whore" in some sense."
Sorry for this messy thing called democracy.
I mean, I have a joke about Jim Corr being disappointed at having three baby sisters, then having a light bulb go off in his head when they're teens and working in McManus' pub and attracting all the male students in the area: "Gee, I'll pimp my sisters out as a rock band and get rich!"
In what sense is that a joke? It certainly isn't funny.
I'll just pose the questions: Why not just acknowledge that this remark was over the line, gratuitous, mean-spirited, and just plain dumb? Why must people in this thread, and others I've seen at MyDD and TalkLeft, spew some argument about the Clintons being losers/whiners and this is all part of their clever plan to distract our attention from the upcoming primaries? Attention, assholes: I'm going to vote for Obama next week in Virginia, and I'm no fan of HRC's campaign, but it takes very little to recognize that the MSM have hated the Clintons since the 90's and that MSNBC is ground zero for a lot of the frat-boy towel-snapping BS hurled at HRC over the years. I want Obama to beat Hillary too, but I want him to do it for her stupid hawkish line on Iraq and Iran, not because dumbasses like Shuster want to continue their fucked-up sex/gender obsessions with the Clintons. Again, why can't we all just unite in saying that this crap has no justification, give a big F-U to the MSM pushing this slime, and move on to arguing the goddamn merits? OK?!
Scott, well said.
What Just Karl said upthread, except that 'fair game' is not the phrase I'd use. 'Fair game' is a loaded phrase: we know who has used it. We know the context in which it is used.
Her backroom role in the campaign is now open to reporters' enquiries. She is not just set-dressing for public events.
Mitt's kids went on record, to the amusement of many liberal bloggers; Cate Edwards went on record; Chelsea Clinton 'no commented' the Scholastic kid reporter in Iowa.
Chelsea can't expect to be able to make calls to superdelegates and celebrities on the one hand, and blank the press on the other. She can 'no comment'; reporters can then ask their sources about her role. If you're in the campaign, beyond appearing at public events, then you're in the campaign.
Shuster's remark was way over the line. The reaction from the Clinton camp is heading over the line, especially if it makes Chelsea Clinton's role a taboo subject. And so the Clinton campaign gets to have it both ways. That her mother is looking for a Fox News debate also suggests she's being somewhat selective in pushing back at the cablenews outlets.
Very well said Scott.
In fact perfect.
Good nighht, gonna watch AI destroy Wiz.
I am deeply disappointed in you Matt. Shuster is a damn good reporter and a progressive to boot. What he said was not well said, but was an apppropriate question. (Read Jane Hamsher's thoughts. She says that she herself has used the same expression many times and does not feel that it is particularly loaded.)
I think that for any politician to ask their child to call super delegates and beg for their votes is at the very least tacky and unseemly. I think it says a lot about their character,
Campaigning is something else, altogether. This is creepy both in terms of how Hillary exploits her daughter and the turgid lengths to which she will go to pressure the super delegates.
I am deeply disappointed in you, Matt. Shuster is a damn good reporter and a progressive to boot. What he said was not well said, but was an apppropiate question. (Read Jane Hamsher's thoughts. She says that she herself has used the same expression many times and does not feel that it is particularly loaded.)
I think that for any politician to ask their child to call super delegates and beg for their votes is at the very least tacky and unseemly. I think it says a lot about their character,
Campaigning is something else, altogether. This is creepy both in terms of how Hillary exploits her daughter and the turgid lengths to which she will go to pressure the super delegates.
By the way, FOX "News" -- you know, the network Hillary wants to debate on -- recently said this:
From the July 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: And coming up: Did a close friend of Hillary Clinton commit suicide, or was it a massive cover-up? It's the mysterious death of Vince Foster in this week's "Clinton Chapter."
They have a freaking "Clinton Chapter" dedicated to the covered-up murders and rapes committed by the Clintons, yet the far greater outrage is an idiotic and tasteless comment about Chelsea's role in the campaign on MSNBC. Obviously, this is just one example out of about 40 billion on FOX.
Someone explain the calculus here.
And, no, I'm not defending what Schuster said. But this orgy of solemn condemnation is not exactly insightful.
Tim: "think that for any politician to ask their child to call super delegates and beg for their votes is at the very least tacky and unseemly. I think it says a lot about their character"
How precious and thoughtful of you, protecting a 28-year old "child". And "beg" is cute too. Of course Obama has no one calling super-D's, certainly not some 28-year old bi***, I mean woman.
More Tim!: "This is creepy both in terms of how Hillary exploits her daughter and the turgid lengths to which she will go to pressure the super delegates."
Is Michelle Obama creepy?
Of course, you're quoting Fox, and think you're clever, right? Matthews had 2 women on that accused Bill of rape and HRC of murder.
Here's the calculus, moron:
MSNBC has had debates, and talk shows, more offensive, believe it or not, than anything on Fox. Matthews HATES HRC. Get it?
To me the super delegate issue is the key to understanding Chelsea's role in the campaign.
Ignore Shuster and his dopey comments for a minute.
The issue of the super delegates and their role in selecting our nominee is going to be the most important political story of the year, one that has the potential to rip the party in two if we are not careful. When I first heard that Chelsea was calling the super delegates the other day, I was surprised. That implied a much stronger role in the campaign than simply bringing donuts to poll workers. I am not saying that it is wrong, just that I was surprised by it. One would think this sort of job would be outsourced to some of the heavier political hitters in the campaign. But the fact that she was calling them was instructive. A call from Chelsea is less onerous than one from Patti Solis Doyle.
If she is making these calls, she has an intimate hand in the campaign and needs to be treated as mark Penn or Howard wolfson are. Reporters should be allowed to ask her real questions about the campaign.
That does not give a reporter the license to use terms like pimping, but her role in the campaign is proving to be far different than the Bush girls or GW back in 1992.
What Schuster said was stupid and over the line.And I give credit to the campaign for that. They're telling the press, "Do not fuck with us like you did back in the 90s, or we will fuck you. Hard."- The Hillary campaign is trying to exploit this for all it is worth.
I presume that after this aired, the Hillary campaign called up MSNBC threatened to throw the MSNBC staffers from the moving campaign bus if they didn't suspend Shuster right then and there.
"In what sense is that a joke? It certainly isn't funny."
To somebody with an excessive amount of political correctness in their genes, maybe not.
I'm not so afflicted.
That wasn't my point, anyway. My point was that simply using the word "pimp" doesn't automatically mean that in the speaker's mind the individual referred to is a "whore". That is an excessively literal interpretation. The actual words are a metaphor. with broader meaning.
And excessively literal interpretations reflect a personal bias.
This applies to the notion that "nobody else's family is talked in this way except the Clintons." Excuse me, but the Bush daughters got plenty of flack from the press over being "party girls" some years back. So that statement simply isn't true.
Also excuse me - Bill Clinton used to be President. Hillary Clinton - his wife - was extensively influential during his Presidency. Considerable attention was paid even to Chelsea (mostly because she was relatively homely at the time, which was clearly mean-spirited, but there it is.) Today we have the roles reversed. Hillary is running for President and Bill Clinton - her husband - is running his mouth for her and raising controversies over his statements.
So naturally some news type who discovers that Chelsea has been set to calling superdelegates is going to comment on that. His choice of phrase may or may not indicate a political bias on his part. I don't know the guy, so I can't say.
But suspending him over that choice of phrase is an overreaction - unless you can establish a pattern of his that would justify it.
Especially when a much more obvious asshole - Chris Matthews - was allowed to make many more allegedly egregious statements about Hillary.
I can see, to some degree, that targeting the Clinton's children might be considered "low." However, the fact that Chelsea is 28 and campaigning for her mother would seem to indicate that, as others have said, she's an adult and thus subject to the same level of discussion her mother and her father are.
Calling that fact "fair game" and then equating that phrase to "rape" is just ridiculous.
Not to mention again that it hasn't been established the Shuster is part of some "vast right wing conspiracy" to target the Clintons' children.
Scott: "Again, why can't we all just unite in saying that this crap has no justification, give a big F-U to the MSM pushing this slime, and move on to arguing the goddamn merits?"
Fine with me. I wasn't the one who raised the issue over Shuster's lame remark in the first place.
That is my point. Shuster's remark is not worth the polemics - or his suspension - over it. Move on.
But some people want to make it a huge issue of political correctness, feminism and "Clinton bashing".
Bullshit. Those people have their own agenda.
They're telling the press, "Do not fuck with us like you did back in the 90s, or we will fuck you. Hard."
Indeed. Which is why Chris 'I'm not obsessed' Matthews is now looking for work. Oh.
To be honest, it's admirable as, well, political hardball. The Dem networks now need the candidates to show up much more than the candidates need the networks for free media. That's why Clinton is courting Fox News while threatening *NBC with a boycott.
It does leave a slightly nasty taste in the mouth: Shuster is a better reporter than a host, and he let his mouth get the better of him on this one. While he has a couple of weeks of gardening leave, though, Chelsea Clinton will continue to place calls as a non-operative operative. Which brings me to Andruw's point: obviously, Obama's campaign team and supporters are making calls. They are, however, subject to press coverage on their work.
>>Here's the calculus, moron:
Name-calling is not helping your case.
>>MSNBC has had debates, and talk shows, more offensive, believe it or not, than anything on Fox.
I select "not." You are honestly arguing that Chris Matthews trumps the entire FOX News network? Next you'll be saying that reality has a well-known anti-Hillary bias.
>>Matthews HATES HRC. Get it?
No, I don't, since the Clinton campaign is using this Schuster comment as the basis for rejecting debates. And in any case, are you honestly arguing that Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the wingnuts on FOX don't HATE HRC? Why does she dislike being HATED by Chris Matthews so much more than the entire FOX network?
Lastly: 70% of the country HATES HRC. She will lose against McCain. Get it?
If the Clinton campaign quietly contacted MSNBC to express their perfectly justified outrage, that's perfectly understandable. But Wolfson broke off a rant about how this was indicative of larger gender bias, everyone hates Hillary, yadda yadda yadda. It rings false that it's the reaction of a genuinely enraged parent. Why Mummy would be so protective of a 28 year old who can solicit the votes of super delegates is also annoying to those of us of Chelsea's age trying to make it in the workplace on our own. The fact the campaign employs someone as smarmy as Howard Wolfson does not speak well to the judgment of the candidate. After his comments with the Michigan and Florida "delegates," he's not someone who exudes credibility.
John Petty also surely knows that "welfare" has been right-wing dog whistle for "black" since at least Reagan.
What would any of you say if someone on tv said your daughter was a whore?
Actually David B., I was responding to someone--might have been you--who, in a discussion of the "race card" used Bill's welfare reform in making the case that Bill's record on race wasn't that good.
I asked: Why cite welfare in the discussion, unless you are equating "welfare" with "black." I know right-wingers do it. I don't think liberals should.
This is really simple. You can investigate the Clinton campaign's contacts with superdelegates however you want, just like you can investigate the Obama campaign's contacts (which no one seems to be investigating). Just don't get all goofy and say Chelsea is being "pimped" or suggest there's something weird or nefarious about it. I mean sheesh, I'm an Obama supporter, but why do people have to go into fits just because the Clinton campaign understandably defended a totally out-of-line slur against HRC's daughter? MSNBC could have made this real easy by not being assholes, but they seem to love going beyond normal reportage and dropping all these stupid gratuitous innuendos with the Clintons. I would love to hear about the campaigns' wooing of superdelegates ... could someone just report on that without being scummy?
Marlowe said:
"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."
This deserves to be repeated. There is a Coulter-esque tone heard from many Obama supporters, and frankly, it isn't helping their candidate.
This episode reminds me of the Dan Rather/Forged Documents story on CBS shortly before the 2004 election: Although John Kerry had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the story and was completely innocent, he was the one who was punished in the end because people felt sorry for George Bush. I hope Obama isn't similarly punished for something that isn't his fault.
And I'm not sure why Clinton supporters are at all upset about this. You guys ought to be ecstatic. David Shuster just handed you an absolute gift.
I wonder what percentage of the men who support Hillary secretly wear their wife or girlfriend's underwear and fantasize about doing other dudes?
My guess is a pretty significant chunk 'o them!
"I am strong, I am INVINCIBLE, I AM WOMAN"!!
Vote for Hillary '08! Protect the Sisterhood! Hillary will promote women friendly policies and put men in their place! Go Hillary!!
I think some Obama supporters might be expressing a little cynicism and skepticism about this controversy because they were accused of being over-sensitive by Hillary people follwing Bill Clinton's disgusting race-baiting comments after the South Carolina primary.
Moonlight, exactly what race-baiting comments are you talking about?
Leon:
I wonder what percentage of the men who support Hillary secretly wear their wife or girlfriend's underwear and fantasize about doing other dudes?
I assume you think there's something wrong with that. If so, please explain.
CJColucci: While I don't pretend to speak for "Leon", I interpret his comments to mean that many male Hillary supporters seem to be deeply in touch with their feminine side. From what I've encountered, I'd tend to agree.
Shame on Shuster. Maybe he can freelance for Fox while he's on suspension.
They're telling the press, "Do not fuck with us like you did back in the 90s, or we will fuck you. Hard."Indeed. Which is why Chris 'I'm not obsessed' Matthews is now looking for work. Oh.
Josh Marshall made the astute observation that MSNBC is likely under a lot of fire from the Clinton campaign over Matthews, and throwing Shuster under the bus was probably MSNBC's way of making a peace offering.
John Petty, I'm talking about Bill Clinton's gratuitous comparison of Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, which was obviously an attempt to dredge up latent racism among white Democrats in future primaries. I personally find that to be disgusting. I'm sorry you approve of it.
Fake Susan said:
""I am strong, I am INVINCIBLE, I AM WOMAN"!!
Vote for Hillary '08! Protect the Sisterhood! Hillary will promote women friendly policies and put men in their place! Go Hillary!!"
Your childish behavior is not helping your candidate. Maybe your mommy should restrict your
computer access.
I wonder what percentage of the men who support Hillary secretly wear their wife or girlfriend's underwear and fantasize about doing other dudes?
Do you think that many people have switched from Romney to Hillary already?
What a lot of fuss and bother over nonsense. The MSNBC shows are gladiator fun stuff. Shuster was exhausted, out of his depth, and screwed up. He apologized -- enough said.
Hillary cries, Hillary rages, Hillary threatens not to participate in MSNBC debates -- Please! Lucy Van Pelt anyone?
I'm a woman and middle aged and suburban. I know what it is to work in a man's world and put up with all kinds of career crippling bother. And I wish HRC would grow up and get on with it -- but, no, there's a news cycle to be exploited just before primaries and caucuses.
And, oh yeah -- It would be easier to stomach all these over the top arias over poor "Chelsea as whore" business if Bill Clinton were at all capable of respecting other people's daughters! And if Hillary herself had not enabled him in such endeavors.
The problem with this how dare you argument on the part of the Clinton machine is that it reminds many of us of how deeply irresponsible they are in handling their own impulses.
What are you talking about "Susan2"? Are you an Obama supporter? If you are you're no better than a female Uncle Tom! Hillary to the end!
Hillary and Bill the Bull are pimping out Chelsea, but so what ? In this society, where looks youth and fame are more highly respected than any sort of intelligence; how can you blame them ? Chelsea being young, beautiful, and famous, is out there like it or not, to try to rack up the votes that her mommy cannot.
If any American is seriously against this, then there truly would be no more Chinese Buffets around because people would go for substance and a satisfying meal rather than an all you can eat but disappointing result at the end.
Personally, I am far too refined for Chinese Buffets. I went to one recently, and unfortunately, found myself puking, and wretching, on the toliet, all afternoon ! I even missed, by favorite art show over this ! Now I have deep regrets over this, and it just goes to show, taking the easy way out, leads to diarea.
Now the comparisons to Chelsea should be shockingly apparent to all...... HRC and Bill are taking the easy way out, sending out a darling daughter who is above all media criticism. She can say anything, no one can say anything about her. And then when someone does say something about her, the Clintons in their criticisms try to have their cake and eat it too. Soon they will experience what I did at the Chinese Buffet, as they may be forced to vomit over their own words
What are you talking about "Susan2"? Are you an Obama supporter? If you are you're no better than a female Uncle Tom! Hillary to the end!
Posted by Susan | February 9, 2008 3:05 PM
______________________________________________
Let me just say that I am so excited to have my own personal troll. Really, it's too much. I don't deserve such an honor. And we have the same name! Even better.
"What would any of you say if someone on tv said your daughter was a whore?"
Bullshit. That wasn't what Shuster said or meant, nor is it an appropriate interpretation of what he meant.
He was specifically using a (fairly dumb) metaphor about a candidate using their children as political operatives while simultaneously denying the press access to those children.
He specifically said in his email that Chelsea was quite polite in refusing reporters questions. He had no problem with that. His problem was with the Clinton campaign "coming down hard" on reporters who sought access or questions on Chelsea's political activities for the campaign.
It had utterly nothing to do with any sexual innuendo. The mere fact that the term "pimp" comes from the sex trade is irrelevant here. It is a metaphor for "using someone else to get a benefit for oneself." Which is precisely correct in the context Shuster used it in.
And people who don't see that have their own agenda about this issue.
Obviously he should have thought twice about using the term, given the likelihood of it being misconstrued (deliberately or otherwise). But his usage of it was correct in context.
Here is the funny thing….Clintons own Press Sec did not even know what the term “Pimped Out” meant!
Riddle me this…How can you be upset about a term that you don’t understand???
If the Press Sec googled the term the 1st hit reads…….
From-Urban Dictionary: “pimped outpimped out cool pimp awesome tricked out nice phat pimpin ride … By the amount of bling-bling he was flashing, we knew he was pimped out. …”
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimped+out “
“cool” “awesome” does not sound bad to me….
Now we all know there are other connotations but why take the low road? Maybe Hill wanted to play the sympathy vote??
Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.
David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being “pimped out” ? It’s absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?
I just don’t get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What’s the problem.
Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Here is the funny thing….Clintons own Press Sec did not even know what the term “Pimped Out” meant!
Riddle me this…How can you be upset about a term that you don’t understand???
If the Press Sec googled the term the 1st hit reads…….
From-Urban Dictionary: “pimped outpimped out cool pimp awesome tricked out nice phat pimpin ride … By the amount of bling-bling he was flashing, we knew he was pimped out. …”
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimped+out “
“cool” “awesome” does not sound bad to me….
Now we all know there are other connotations but why take the low road? Maybe Hill wanted to play the sympathy vote??
Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.
David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being “pimped out” ? It’s absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?
I just don’t get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What’s the problem.
Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
H is for how Hilarious your finely tuned wit is
I is for how incredibly Intelligent you are
L is for the Loving feelings I have for you
L is for my desire to Lay down beside you
A is for the Absolute stunner that you are
R is for how Regal you look after a victory
Y is for how Yummy you must taste
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!!
Comments closed February 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
However, it does seem like the media whores are pimped out every day.
Posted by The Fool | February 8, 2008 4:31 PM