Clinton campaign takes on MSNBC over ‘pimped out’ comment

If you missed it, MSNBC’s David Shuster has drawn the Clinton campaign’s ire over a very dumb comment he made on the air last night. This video, from TPM, shows the remark and Shuster’s efforts to explain/apologize for it this morning.

For those of you who can’t watch videos online, the clip shows Shuster discussing Chelsea Clinton calling superdelegates on her mother’s behalf, urging them to support the Clinton campaign. Shuster initially asked Clinton supporter Bill Press if the efforts were “unseemly.” When Press pushed back, Shuster asked, “Doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”

This morning, Shuster backpedaled. “Yesterday we ran this clip of women from ‘The View,” Chelsea Clinton had called them. Well, last night on Tucker’s show, we ran the same clip and out that, I said a lot of wonderful things about Chelsea. I praised her; I said Americans should be proud of her; I talked about how Mike Huckabee has praised the Clintons for how they’ve raised her; and the fact of the matter is, as I said last night, everybody, all of us, love Chelsea Clinton. But we also talked about the fact that Chelsea Clinton, as the campaign has acknowledged, she’s making calls to these superdelegates, to try to help her mom get the nomination, which can be, as I said, can be the unseemly side of politics. Well, last night, I used a phrase, some slang, about her efforts. I didn’t think people would take it literally, but some people have, and to the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, about the actions of Chelsea Clinton making these phone calls, to the extent people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then, I’m sorry.”

The Clinton campaign is not only understandably livid, it’s practically going to war with MSNBC.

Clinton aide Howard Wolfson hosted a conference call this afternoon, and didn’t hold back.

This is really something. The Hillary campaign is going to war with MSNBC, dispatching a top Hillary adviser to launch a lacerating attack on the network on a conference call with reporters.

On the call moments ago, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson suggested that there’s a “pattern” of reprehensible comments by MSNBC personalities, and said outright that the Hillary campaign could no longer “envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made.” […]

Asked about Shuster’s “pimp” comment, Wolfson denounced the comment as “disgusting” and “beneath contempt,” adding: “It’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network.”

Then Wolsfon added: “You have to question whether or not there is a pattern here on the part of the network.” He added: “Is this part of a pattern? I don’t know, but [it’s] beneath contempt.”

One really gets the sense MSNBC producers need to send a memo to the on-air talent: stop making misogynistic jokes about the Clintons while talking to a national television audience. Chris Matthews’ bizarre remarks about Hillary were troubling enough, but comparing Chelsea Clinton’s legitimate campaign efforts to prostitution is just ridiculous. What are these guys thinking? (It’s not just misogyny towards Dems, either — remember Scarborough talking on the air about Fred Thompson’s wife “working the pole”?)

As for the debates, the Clinton campaign is prepared to reject debates on MSNBC, and the Obama campaign won’t debate on Fox News. CNN must be thrilled.

I was about to say the Clintons should stop whining so much about the chatterboxing, but then I saw the clip. What an unbelievable dickface.

Go get ’em!

  • If this comment, for which a quick — though lacking — apology was offered, is going to send the Clinton campaign to war with MSNBC, then how can they justify now wanting a debate on Faux News, which has been using the Clintons as a pinata since it went on the air?

  • Why should the Clintons continue to put up with these remarks! The misogyny, so blantant on msnbc is just the icing on the cake. Senator Clinton is the only candidate for which obscene comments are routinely acceptable in the media. Why can be she be called a c.u.n.t. whereas n.i.g.g.e.r. would be consider grounds for firing? Both words are ugly, horrible insults. Now her daughter is attacked and she protests? NO other children of candidates have endured this treatment,; but for the Clintons, it is ok?

  • I thought Chelsea was going to stay out of this campaign? I guess we have learned never to trust the word of a Clinton.

  • The first drizzle of the feces-storm that will be launched against the Democratic candidate for president.

    But do you think Fox “News” would apologise for doing something like this?

    This is going to be an ugly year.

  • It’s telling the way Shuster waits to get the pimping comment in, making it apparent that this is not a spontaneous turning of phrase. One wonders how many MSNBC execs sit around at night thinking up these “controversial” questions, then massaging into them the most offensive references possible. This is aside from the meaninglessness of his insinuation, even after Press rightly stated there is no difference from campaigning by the Bush twins, Shuster pushes with it again yet never gives any indication exactly how this is “pimping”. Is money being exchanged? Are sexual favors being granted? Is Chelsea perhaps wearing flamboyant attire? I think the correct description would be to say that Shuster is pandering.

  • If this comment, for which a quick — though lacking — apology was offered, is going to send the Clinton campaign to war with MSNBC, then how can they justify now wanting a debate on Faux News, which has been using the Clintons as a pinata since it went on the air?

    Agreed. The campaign protests too much.

    Smacking down Matthews was justified, but Shuster is generally incredibly pro-Clinton in his commentary and I believe that this was just a slip of the tongue.

  • MSNBC’s Clinton bashing has long since gone way past irresponsible. They deserve no slack on this.

  • Gerald, I would ask, “what made you think that?” Then again it appears the question overestimates your abilities.

  • Interesting to note: I stopped defending Hillary and shifted to Obama after one too many racial comments coming from surrogates. I didn’t like seeing Hillary go after Obama with that or Rezko, and it really turned me off. Then the Hillary-hate of Dem on Dem action, when most Hillary supporters seemed to admit both were good candidates, I was disgusted again. Maybe the Clintons have figured out that Dems hate seeing Dems smeared, and rally around them when they are?

    Want to show you’re tough? Don’t want to tick of Dems? Attack the media, which has the added effect of working the ref and pushing back against the rediculousness.

    Hillary has figured out that character assassination backfires, and that she can appear tough by hitting the real targets that need to be hit.

    Wonder how long it takes the haters to figure out we want to rally together as a party, and see someone able to take it to those who deserve it?

  • Shuster pushes with it again yet never gives any indication exactly how this is “pimping”. Is money being exchanged? Are sexual favors being granted? Is Chelsea perhaps wearing flamboyant attire? I think the correct description would be to say that Shuster is pandering.

    Are you retarded?

    He was talking about Chelsea Clinton calling the female hosts of The View. She wasn’t in person, she wasn’t sexual, and she sure as hell wasn’t offering Barbara Walters sex for money. Only someone being willfully stupid — or crassly opportunistic, like Wolfson — would ever think otherwise.

    This is common slang that Shuster got careless with. The campaign may think this sort of whiny, tendentious victimhood is going to win them sympathy, but all it’s doing is leaving me cold. I doubt I’m the only one.

  • Maybe I have the fortune to live in a rarefied circle and don’t experience how coarse culture has become, but I was shocked not only by the Shuster comment, but by the fact that Emily Bazelton of Slate – who I normally agree with – wrote Is this use of pimped out inherently offensive?

    Um, yes. “Nappy headed hos” in reference to the Rutgers womens basketball team is inherently offensive. And “pimped out” in regarding to the Clinton’s daughter is inherently offensive.

    Is it really that hard to see?

  • Gerald @ 4

    I think you must just stay informed by listening to Drudge and Fox because when Hillary was ask long ago if Chelsea was going to help out Hillary stated that that was entirely up to her. Grow up and have a heart, how would you like someone saying you were pimping your child out.

  • I suppose the MTV show “Pimp My Ride” is all about having sex with cars then.

    Sweet Jesus. Someone get the smelling salts for Capt. Kirk.

  • then maybe everyone under 60 should be put on a small faraway island until they grow up. suggesting parents “pimped out” their daughter is inherently offensive. in any non-Bizarro world this is objectively, inargubaly, inherently offensive. seriously.

    sexism is alive and well. yet another reason we need to break the glass ceiling.

  • Wonder how long it takes the haters to figure out we want to rally together as a party, and see someone able to take it to those who deserve it?

    Tough to rally behind a Clinton. They are very polarizing people.

    Obama is easy to rally behind.

  • Yeah, I watched the clip too. Did you notice how long he laughed after making the comment? His apology was forced and even then he says “the unseemly side of politics” as if there was something “unseemly” about Chelsea’s activities. He just doesn’t get it. He knew exactly what he was saying when he made the comment…you could tell by the laugh afterward he meant it compare it to pimping.

    Someone needs to tell these guys that it’s not entertainment tonight and these aren’t showgirls they’re referring to.

  • Perhaps all remaining debates should take place over at Walt Disney’s place. It’s probably a safe bet that Mickey, Donald, and Goofy could offer a more civilized moderation of events than the excrement-peddlers at FOX and MSNBC.

    And lest everyone forget, CNN has demonstrated symptoms of knuckle-dragging, proto-human stupidity, as well….

  • Is it really that hard to see?

    It depends on who you ask.

    For those of us that use the phrase more colloquially such as in:

    “Damn, your car is all pimped out!”

    “Hey honey, you are looking pimpin’ in that outfit!”

    “If I can manage to pimp some more ads, I’ll be set!”

    It isn’t really that big of a deal. Hillary just made herself look REALLY old by protesting so much over this, because most people under the age of 35 aren’t going to get so vexed over this use of terminology. This isn’t to say that I think Shuster’s remarks were copaseder – personally, I don’t think slang like that belongs in our discourse. However, he was merely using the parlance of our times in an awkward fashion.

  • How come it is ok for the Clinton’s to disparage others but are incensed when they are disparaged.? If the Clintons use their daughter for campaignng then that places her in jeopardy for media / public quips. David Schuster apologised. The Clintons are just using this for more media hype to gain free air time. This family has been through worse with the Lincoln Bedroom , Monica Lewinsky, etc. The Clintons are viscious politicians and should expect viscious reponses while campaigning. What the Clintons put out they will receive 10,000 fold.

  • The comment was dispicable and utterly tasteless. That said, the Clinton campaign should take the high road here and instead of making a huge issue out of it, just demand an apology, demand that the person responsible be dealt with by the network accordingly, and move on.

  • Zeitgeist i couldn’t agree with you more. Its hard to beleive that most of Obama’s backers are college educated and don’t know the difference in a sleezy comment and a slip of the tongue. I like Schuster the best on MSNBC and I would’ve been more convinced of a slip of the tongue had he apoligized to Chelsea instead of some people.

    I’m sick of the Clinton haters in both parties and in the middle.

    How well would it go over if the news referred to Barack as a half breed. Not to well I suspect. Not that I woud say that but just as an example.

  • I didn’t think people would take it literally, but some people have, and to the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, about the actions of Chelsea Clinton making these phone calls, to the extent people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then, I’m sorry.”

    He wasn’t praising Chelsea for making the calls, so why did Shuster think people misinterpreted what he said? Were we suipposed to think he meant the term as a compliment?

    The problem is that Shuster’s intent was to criticize Chelsea for being involved in the campaign, and to criticize her mother for allegedly assigning her the task of calling superdelegates, and the best phrase he could come up with was “pimp out” – it is clear from the context that he meant it to mean that she was being prostituted by her own mother. It wasn’t just the phrase that was offensive, it was the premise for using it.

    I have to think that this was a phrase he used off-camera, probably in conversation with Chris Let-me-sniff-your-panties Matthews, and Matthews urged Shuster to find a way to use it in the interview/conversation with Press.

    Aside from the fact that it was a poor choice of words, there isn’t anyone from any of the campaigns who would have deserved to have any member of their family referred to this way, and I would hope that the criticism directed at MSNBC would be coming from more than just the Clinton campaign.

    [And enough of these “I’m only sorry if you were offended – if you liked it – high fives!” non-apologies. It doesn’t need a qualifier – it’s not “I’m sorry IF” – it’s “I’m sorry.” Period]

  • The “pimping” comments aside, I’m concerned over the Clinton campaign’s threats to refuse to debate on MSNBC. Refusing to debate on Fox was a principled stand against a radically biased network, but MSNBC is pretty mainstream. Refusing to debate on that network because you didn’t like something said by one of their talking heads smacks of “well, I’ll take my toys and GO HOME!!!” That’s not very “tough” behavior. Tell me again how much better prepared Hillar is to handle the rough and tumble of the general election?

  • For those of us that use the phrase more colloquially such as in:

    “Damn, your car is all pimped out!”

    “Hey honey, you are looking pimpin’ in that outfit!”

    EXCUSE ME?!?!

    I mean, come on! I use the phrase “pimped out” all of the time to refer to AN OBJECT like a car. It has the meaning of “what a pimp would drive” or “what a pimp would wear”. I tend to use the phrase ironically, but whatever.

    But when you use the verb “TO PIMP” in reference to “employing a young woman to do something on your behalf” that is a different meaning of the word. It’s a meaning that, to most people over or under the age of 60, means “whoring out”.

    Jeebus people – this isn’t hard at all. You don’t have to be a Clinton supporter OR over the age of 60 to see that this is offensive – personally offensive, in fact, to both the Senator AND her daughter. Do we really need to point out that the phrase “your daughter is a whore” is offensive?

  • It was a nasty comment, and Shuster should apologize personally to Chelsea.

    But the Clinton campaign has really jumped the shark on this. It sounds completely paranoid to suggest that the entire network has some sort of dark plan to freely slander the Clintons at every turn.

    I think they’re losing their minds.

  • Zeitgeist, what is your problem? You almost like Hillary just because you like to defend her sins. Get a freaking life.

    Hillary is not as qualified as Obama to lead this nation. The sooner you realize that, the better. Understand?

  • John S – a 20-something woman is not a car.

    REALLY??? I had no idea. Thanks for making that observation.

    Of course you do realize that the use of the term can simply mean ‘to work for free or for someone else’s benefit’, right? Or that it can also mean ‘to strongly promote and support a certain thing’. If these definitions are unfamiliar to you, try the Urban Dictionary.

    Like I said, it was a poor choice for Shuster to use, but seriously. Get a grip.

  • ***Anne C.*** “…Tough to rally behind a Clinton. They are very polarizing people.”

    Never miss a chance to smear a Clinton eh Anne? People are always polarizing to a polarizer. Opinions are not truths, they’re just opinions. Heard on man on the train say, “these people are nuts. You can’t trust a ni…(better make that ‘a black man’). Guess that would make Obama ‘polarizing’ too…or not. If it were said on National tv show, would that still be your comment?

    “… “…Tough to rally behind a (Clinton) Obama. (They are) He is a very polarizing (people) person.”

  • But when you use the verb “TO PIMP” in reference to “employing a young woman to do something on your behalf” that is a different meaning of the word. It’s a meaning that, to most people over or under the age of 60, means “whoring out”.

    After you get over your outrage, you should also check out the Urban Dictionary online.

    Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

  • Listen to talk radio, they call Obama all sorts of crap. I heard Halfican yesterday. I saw Shuster live yesterday when he said it. It was no slip of the tonge, he was waiting to pull out that line. I think he’s one of the better ones on MSNBC, but he’s hanging with the boys club now (Scarboro and Mathews) I really think they are rubbing off on him. Which is to bad.

  • ALL OF YOU HILLARY APOLOGISTS NEED TO GET A LIFE.

    YOU ARE ALL JUST LIKING TO ARGUE BECAUSE YOU ARE TO STUPID TO KNOW THAT OBAMA IS THE GREATEST AND HILLARY IS EVIL AND BELONGS IN JAIL FOR KILLING VINCE FOSTER!!!

    GET A LIFE. GO PET YOUR CATS OR WHATEVER IT IS OLD POOR LADIES DO WITH THEIR SPARE TIME.

    UNDERSTAND?

  • As someone said on DKos, indignation fatigue has set in for me. Looks like the Clintons have found a way to rev up their support – claim discrimination so people will feel sorry for Hillary because of the way those mean men are treating her daughter. I could see it with Chris Matthews, but I don’t see it here. I see it as more of a slip of the tongue.

    Besides, the word “pimp” doesn’t have the strong connotations it used to have. Doesn’t anyone remember that “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” is a 2005, Academy Award winning song?

    Much to do about nothing.

  • I’m 43, and I know that — for better or worse — this is a common expression and there wasn’t the slightest sexual meaning attached to it. Get a grip.

    If the clinton campaign folks keep huffing about this, they can kiss goodbye what little of the under-40 vote Clinton has. They might as well change their slogan to “Hillary: You Damn Kids Better Get Off My Lawn!”

  • @ Marc,
    ****************
    Um, yes. “Nappy headed hos” in reference to the Rutgers womens basketball team is inherently offensive. And “pimped out” in regarding to the Clinton’s daughter is inherently offensive.

    Is it really that hard to see?

    “If you’re under the age of 60, yes.”
    ******************************
    You forgot to add:

    And a TROLL, then yes, it is hard to see.

    Please, find another place to for your hapless comments. Any using the analogy of pimping when it comes to anyone’s daughter, especially on national television, has no sense of propriety whatsoever. Period. (Though I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if someone made that reference to YOUR daughter or your Mama, now would you?)

  • 1) “Pimping out your daughter” is not analogous to “pimping out your car”. I refuse to believe that I’m just not hip enough to get it. He wasn’t suggesting that were adding some cool customization to her, for crying out loud, he meant “they’re profiting off her services doing something illicit”

    2) What is unseemly about Chelsea calling anyone on behalf of Hillary’s campaign? I don’t get that, and so it makes it really indefensible to use the slang “pimping out”.

    3) MSNBC does have a historic problem (I’m looking at you, Matthews) on how they refer to women in politics. This doesn’t help their cause.

    4) Shuster’s apology seemed genuine enough, I don’t know if I’d advise going all-out on the warpath against his network. (Although if it was really genuine, he should personally have apologized to all of the Clintons in addition to the on-air).

  • What David Schuster said was stupid. Of course she is going to campaign for her mom. Look at Mitt Romney and his five sons. But if Hilary is going to make a big deal out of this she is going to seem old and uptight. If Chelsea is old enough to get into the game then she is old enough to stand up for herself. Her mom should back off and let Chelsea fight her own battles.

  • Why don’t you all go cry like Hillary after a tough day in Portsmouth New Hampshire.

    Booo Hooooo

    Hillary cries, why don’t you?

  • So in some people minds if you send your daughter to the sore for you to pick of milk it would be okay with you if the man next door ask you if you were pimping your daughter out.

    Not in my world and as for your urban dictionary goes how much english language is in there.

  • Here are some samples from the Urban Dictionary:

    “Pimping the interns and medical students was a given during rounds.”

    Definition: The act of singling out one person of the group and testing their knowledge by asking them a series of intense, difficult questions in front of everyone.

    “Tiffany was pimpin them bitches at summer school.”

    Definition: Having lots of friends.

    “Shawn spent the night pimpin at da club” or “he on the phone gettin’ his pimpin’ on”.

    Definition: To make new female contacts.

    Like I said, not a big fan of slang on the news, but some of you should actually check what other people think the word means before screaming “IT CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING!”

  • I’m not defending Shuster, but watch Tucker a few times, and ask what is the most offensive thing you see. It’s pretty darn unlikely this would have made the top 100.

  • Though I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if someone made that reference to YOUR daughter or your Mama, now would you?)

    No, I wouldn’t. Because I’m not a fucking moron. Because I understand the use of slang. Because I don’t think for a second that Shuster meant it sexually.

    But you know what I am? I’m a former Edwards support who lives outside Seattle and still didn’t know who I was going to vote for this weekend. But you just made my mind up for me, Final Notice. I’m voting for Obama because I’m sick of this victim card they keep playing and I’m sick of the condescending shits like you who support her.

    So thanks!

  • Maybe the Clintons have figured out that Dems hate seeing Dems smeared, and rally around them when they are?

    (sigh)

    Make that non-Obama supporting Dems hate seeing Dems smeared and want to unify as a party and attack those who deserve it.

    Don’t worry. I’ll still be out there defending Obama from Madrassa smears, even though it’s not reciprocal.

  • It’s always the people who act like fucking morns who have to insist that they’re not fucking morons,.

  • When “Pimping for Jesus” tops the list of 637,000 Google pages under the same or similar rubrics, it is, it seems to me it is at worst a slightly offensive, mostly stupid breach of decorum to inquire if Chelsea is “pimping” for her mom. Pimping has become a national pastime, fer chrissake. Is any of us not pimping something? The guy should probably get demoted down to the TeeVeeLand minors, Dubuque, or Deadwood, or Barstow, like that, and that be the end of it…

  • It’s always the people who act like fucking morons who have to insist that they’re not fucking morons,.

  • Its no wonder Barack attracts the 18-29 group he speaks their language. He’s like a blow up doll put a little dent in him and all his air comes out. Just because he can speak down to you doesn’t mean he is going to do anything for you.

    I for one love to here his orations but as far as substance there is none.

  • Jim
    ” for one love to here his orations but as far as substance there is none.”

    I suppose you are wereing cloths as you talk down to us?

  • John S, if you want to have a semantics debate, it’s ludicrous to suggest that the Urban Dictionary is a better guide than a standard dictionary for understanding the connotation meant by someone speaking on a national newscast.

    from M-W.com

    Main Entry: pimp
    Function: verb
    Date: 1636
    intransitive verb
    : to work as a pimp
    transitive verb
    : to make use of often dishonorably for one’s own gain or benefit

    One *hopes* that Shuster didn’t literally mean that the campaign was selling her into prostitution, but if you’re arguing that no one should be offended by the suggestion, you’re reaching hard.

  • Of course you do realize that the use of the term can simply mean ‘to work for free or for someone else’s benefit’, right? Or that it can also mean ‘to strongly promote and support a certain thing’. If these definitions are unfamiliar to you, try the Urban Dictionary.

    Did you watch the video? It is very obvious Shuster wasn’t using it in either of those contexts. He was suggesting there is something unseemly or immoral about Chelsea helping with her mother’s campaign. He even laughed at his own joke because he thought he had phrased it in a fresh and interesting way.

    Has it really only been a few months since liberals (including me) thought Shuster should get his own show? He seems to be as misogynistic as Matthews or Imus once allowed free rein to speak his mind.

  • You must be a real blast at parties, Final Notice.

    Seriously, to all the outraged Clinton defenders — you’re not doing your candidate any favors.

  • “Pimping for Jesus”

    I use the phrase “pimped out” all of the time to refer to AN OBJECT like a car. When you use the verb “TO PIMP” in reference to “employing a young woman to do something on your behalf” that is a different meaning of the word. Clearly this means “whoring out” and then giving the money to Jesus!

  • this thread saddens me as much as anything the Repubs have done lately.

    if this is what progressive thought thas become – defending the national media’s use of sexually demeaning terms against a candidate’s daughter – then the battle is already lost and there is nothing left to save.

  • If a candidate’s son called delegates on behalf of his father, no one would call it “unseemly.” Of course Chelsea is going to campaign for her mother.

    And another thing, 30 years from now when Chelsea runs against Jenna Bush, Chelsea is going to lead us to victory! 🙂

  • John S, if you want to have a semantics debate, it’s ludicrous to suggest that the Urban Dictionary is a better guide than a standard dictionary for understanding the connotation meant by someone speaking on a national newscast.

    Learn how to read. I do not want to have a semantics debate, nor am I implying the Urban dictionary be substituted for Webster’s.

    I think what Shuster said was stupid, but I think the outrage over it is equally stupid.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  • ***great comment Anne***
    John S….what a load of crap…trying to justify the incident as insignificant as another means to attack Clinton. You know exactly what he meant. You make Obama supporters look like HS twerps by such games. You don’t have to continually smear Clinton to support Obama.

    Comnment #31. your opinions are just that…opinions based on subjective assumptions. People don’t have to agree with them because you think them. You project your point of view on your candidate without even knowing what he really stands for or you would know that he is not any more “qualified” than Hillary to be president….Understand? Understand a wanna be authoritarian follower getting belligerent by using the word ‘Understand’. Is “get a life” a phrase for stop disagreeing with me and accept my opinions as your own. What an angry self-absorbed personality issuing demands on someone whose been commenting here long before you trolled over. Start acting like an adult instead of a Bushie with another candidate. Talk/discuss…and listen doesn’t include demands.
    These guys, like reporters, get together and share a lot of attitude over drinks so when several of them working at the same station start referencing events with that same attitude it doesn’t mean the station is behind it but they do need to correct it.

  • I’m not defending Shuster, but watch Tucker a few times, and ask what is the most offensive thing you see. It’s pretty darn unlikely this would have made the top 100.

    Luckily no one watches Tucker so he has lost the ability to be offensive. (why is he still on the air with such anemic ratings?)

  • Shuster was a real idiot to make that comment. I personally am an Obama supporter, but I wholeheartedly agree with the Clinton campaign for taking Shuster to task on this issue. The relatives of candidates– especially the children– are not fair game for mockery. Doesn’t matter whether they are legally adults or not; it is to be expected that a decent person whose parent is running for office would help campaign for that parent. If there were any justice in this world, and any substance in the media, the networks would’ve been all over the fact that Giuliani’s kids don’t even talk to him. But instead, it’s the same old pile-up-on-Chelsea. They always seemed to have a real issue with Chelsea, and never really piled on the children of other candidates (including the Bush twins, whose alcohol-related escapades invite much more scrutiny than anything Chelsea has ever done). Maybe it’s just the fact that I am the same age as Chelsea, and I, too, was an awkward teenage girl during the 90’s, so I took it somewhat personally when the media heaped on her. But to this day, even as I support Barack Obama for president, I have to say, STUPID MEDIA, LEAVE CHELSEA ALONE!!!

  • I remember when this blog was kinda sleepy and very few people came in here screaming.

    sigh.

    BTW, I agree with lampwick in #30. Nasty comment, paranoid over-reaction.

  • Make that non-Obama supporting Dems hate seeing Dems smeared and want to unify as a party and attack those who deserve it. -memekiller

    Please don’t lump the ever growing mass of inanity in with actual Obama supporters. I, for one, certainly don’t want to be included with them.

  • For those that the shoe fits.

    Hey I have said all along whoever the Dem is I will vote for them and when Bill Clinton made snide remarks equating Barack to Jesse Jackson I critized his remarks.

    It’s very offensive to try to apoligise to people listening being offended when he should if have apoligsed to Chelsea first on air

    Race nor gender have no business in this race.

  • Pushback works:

    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.

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/msnbcs_shuster_suspended_after.php

    I love it when we can finally pushback against the rightwing narrative (as a team?).

  • if this is what progressive thought thas become – defending the national media’s use of sexually demeaning terms against a candidate’s daughter – then the battle is already lost and there is nothing left to save

    I see.

    Well, I don’t really see anyone DEFENDING what Shuster said. I see a lot of people saying that what he said wasn’t nearly as big of a deal as many of you are making it out to be.

    If liberals truly have turned into the PC police, getting bent out of shape over every perceived slight when there are so much more important things to worry about, then I’ll be the first to dance on the grave.

  • I for one love to here his orations but as far as substance there is none.

    I, uh, “here” that all the time from Hillary supporters, but it’s a shallow answer.

    Honestly, have you actually read his position papers? Have you gone through the website issues pages? There’s ton of detailed programmatic reform listed there in depth. You may not like the details, fine. But stop pretending he’s some empty-headed pretty boy. You don’t get named the editor of the Harvard Law Review by being a flake.

  • You make Obama supporters look like HS twerps by such games. You don’t have to continually smear Clinton to support Obama.

    Jesus, there’s a 180 if I’ve ever seen one.

    You Clinton supporters always have to find a way to make Clinton’s neverending dramas somehow relate to Obama, don’t you?

    Sheesh.

    Why don’t you head over to Michelle Malkin’s place. She is Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage, after all. You’ll fit right in.

  • Doubtful,

    I won’t.

    As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to Madrassa’s, haircuts and Tapper smears, there is no primary. It’s hypocritical to gripe all year about the MSM, then run to its defense when it’s self-serving in the short-sighted near term.

    Glad they’re an anomaly. I was starting to worry.

    Never thought I’d see a rally defense of the MSM on any of the blogs I frequent.

  • Those of you who think this is harmless must not have daughters, and so cannot possibly know how offensive this comment was. And on top of that, it was gratuitously offensive, and his giggling over what he thought was his cleverness made it worse; Shuster could have criticized Chelsea and Hillary without making one of them a whore and the other her pimp, don’t you think? I mean, if Shuster is a serious reporter, and MSNBC is a serious media outlet, what does it say about them that they have to sink to that level on a story that the world could have lived forever without ever learning?

    Language matters. Aren’t you Obama supporters who think this is no big deal always reminding us about how good he is at oratory? Well, that’s language that matters to you, language that you put on a pedestal as being a big selling point for Obama. Are you all so blasé about Shuster’s language if it’s directed at your candidate’s wife? If Shuster had done that, we would not just be having a discussion about the offensiveness of it, we’d be adding racism to the mix.

    And I can guarantee that the Clinton supporters would not only be joining you in your offense – as some Obama supporters here had the class and maturity to do – but Hillary Clinton would have been the first one to take Shuster and MSNBC to task and speak out in defense of Obama’s family member.

    Too bad more of you can’t do the same.

  • I love it when we can finally pushback against the rightwing narrative (as a team?).

    What the hell does this even mean?

    Shuster is hardly a conservative flamethrower, so how the hell is he part of a ‘rightwing narrative’? He made a stupid remark. It isn’t a grand conspiracy (or is it)?

    I really don’t get some of you…like a room full of Don Quixotes, tilting at windwills.

  • to #63

    I have read all his issue statements and heard them a thousand times but still can’t find any substance. On trade hes Bush lite, on the economy hes Bush lite need I say more. Wheres his jobs program, ehat exactly he going to do for education. State run colleges are the responsilility of the state not the federal government. In state tuition is not an issue there are state grants, frederal grants. If you chose not to go to college near enough to your home to live there get a job your tuition and books will be provided. Why should taxpayers pay for other peoples children to stay in dorms on campus that is why its called choice.

  • This isn’t the first time nor the last time a politician’s family was put thru the MSM meatgrinder. What Shuster said was really dumb and a very poor choice of words. On the other hand, if politicians keep trying to put their kids (especially adult ones) and spouses into the public spotlight then they should expect that crap like this will happen.

    I think this is a leftover of the (well deserved at the time) anger caused by jackasses like Rush who picked on a 12 year old girl who had nothing to do with her parents follies.

  • I commented at length about my “rational” distrust of Hillary Clinton.

    However, this issue does not make the list. The guy used language that deliberately applies a double-standard. Did this commentator accuse the Bush’s of “pimping out” their daughters when they helped their father in the ’04 election? What about George H.W. when his son, George W., worked in his father’s campaigns? At the same time, this commentator created a disturbing and undeserved misrepresentation of Chelsea’s intelligence and behavior.

    The Clintons are right to call MSNBC out on this. (Still supporting Obama though).

  • I love it when we can finally pushback against the rightwing narrative (as a team?).

    What the hell does this even mean?

    Narrative is the wrong word. I mean the general atmosphere that allows the constant, casual tossing away of lines like this — and when you collect one scalp, everyone else starts to tread more carefully. Don’t be so short-sighted. If Obama is the nominee, he’ll benefit from this. If you refuse to pushback against a media that consistantly and casually insults Democrats and treats Ann Coulter like a respectable member of the discourse, but not non-Republicans, you have what we’ve had the for over a decade now: there is nothing off-limits you can say about a Democrat.

    Being able to pushback is vital to our party. You undermine our ability to effectively fight the right-wing bias in the media if we rush to their defense for short-term advantage in a primary, and it leaves us looking like hypocrites when we try to do it in the general with whomever wins. Whatsmore, it becomes impossible for places like MediaMatters and ThinkProgress to counter the bombs that will be thrown at campaigns during the primaries from a McCain camp trying to set the narrative. You’re allowing your personal loyalties to one campaign to be exploited when the GOP knows all they have to do is find some wedge smear that Obamaites will run with because it’s self serving, or vice versa.

  • I do think it was offensive. But Shuster has recognized that and apologized for it (even if forced) so we should let it go.
    EXCEPT for the fact that it is part of a pattern at MSNBC (mainly led by Chris Matthews but not his sin alone) to denigrate everything the Clintons have done and give a tongue bath to Obama (they just ignored Edwards).
    Forget the comment and look at the context.

    Press was telling Shuster that “hey candidate’s families are always out there campaigning for them- look at the Bush twins they did it and nobody said anything.”

    Instead of accepting that Shuster made a comment that was intended to show there was something sleazy about what Chelsea was doing.

    The push back shouldn’t be about the comment but the fact that MSNBC have clearly lost their objectivity.

    That is the problem.

    And trust me the Obama supporters like it now- but since McCain is Matthews true love- just wait until he turns his ugliness upon Obama. It will happen.

    We should be demanding that these so called journalists either be real objective journalists or else admit their biases publicly so its clear where they are coming from.

  • I see a lot of people saying that what he said wasn’t nearly as big of a deal as many of you are making it out to be.

    If liberals truly have turned into the PC police, getting bent out of shape over every perceived slight when there are so much more important things to worry about, then I’ll be the first to dance on the grave.

    From John S-stands for making the world safe for Sexism.

    Good to know.

    But I’m guessing every post you make anywhere on the blogosphere is another woman deciding to vote Clinton because she realizes more than ever how important the symbolism is, so by all means, keep it up.

  • John S – I know how to read, and I’m not stupid, thank you very much.

    I get that you don’t think it was offensive comment. I disagree, so do a lot of people. (I agree with you only insofar as I think it’s quite possible for the Clintons to overreact based on that- a sincere apology ought to pretty much close the matter). But if you keep being insulting, this is the last polite response you’re going to see.

  • I would find it offensive if David Shuster declared that Michelle Obama was “being pimped out” for some role she might play in her husband’s campaign (I will grant that this analogy ignores the additional inflamatory elements of such a comment about Michelle Obama could engender). I am simply trying to point out that Shuster’s comment was, IMO, gratuitous. It was a “men’s club jab” made at and at the expense of Chelsea Clinton – and her mother, the ostensible “pimp.”

    Shuster showed crappy judgement, and the transcript of his apology is not very satisfying to me. Like so many apologies by media talking-heads, it is an apology without accountability. “If I offended / then I’m sorry.” John Gibson used this same formulation for his outrageous comments about Heath Ledger. I would have preferred that Shuster (whose reporting I often enjoy) would have said, “I made a mistake using a potentially offensive slang phrase to describe Chelsea Clinton’s role in her mother’s campaign. I apologize to Chelsea, Senator Clinton, and any viewers whom I offended by using this language.” I hope Rick @36 is not right about Shuster, but his take on this little episode also crossed my mind.

    That said, this is another troubling example of the Clinton campaign using a sledge hammer to deal with a cock roach (I do NOT in any way mean to equate Shuster or MSNBC to a cock roach). I think the campaign is correct in demanding an apology; the threat of a boycott seems an over-reaction.

    Finally “Zeitgeist Get A Life”: Love the ironic handle!

  • Language matters. Aren’t you Obama supporters who think this is no big deal always reminding us about how good he is at oratory?

    Jumping Jesus…another one.

    Obama’s supporters != Obama.

    Shuster made a stupid remark – he did not eat a live baby on television. But him making an ass of himself has nothing to do with Obama.

  • And trust me the Obama supporters like it now- but since McCain is Matthews true love- just wait until he turns his ugliness upon Obama. It will happen.

    Could you please point to a single Obama supporter here who “likes” what Shuster said? It seems to me that everyone here is saying Shuster said something stupid; we’re just not all sharing the over-tyhe-top outrage of the Clinton campaign. (And really — they want to boycott MSNBC over this, but are still chummy with Faux Noise?)

    Sorry, but I have a hard time believing this is sincere and not yet another calculated ploy for pity.

  • But I’m guessing every post you make anywhere on the blogosphere is another woman deciding to vote Clinton because she realizes more than ever how important the symbolism is, so by all means, keep it up.

    Oy vey smear!

    Yes, huge misogynist that I am, I leave a wake of charred female corpses behind everywhere I tread because I won’t shake my fist at David Shuster vigorously enough!!!

    P.S. Despite Clinton (and her fans) best efforts to do so, not everything is about gender.

  • Mountains and molehills. MSNBC has Olberman, and Abrams, and Maddox, who provide some of the best political discussions I’ve heard on the TeeVee. Most of the time Shuster is fine, and a capable foil to RW Joe (who is not fine) and Tweetie – who is certifiable.

    Shuster screwed up here, badly, but he apologized about as well as he could, short of abject groveling. Tweetie is the biggest problem on MSNBC – and most of the objectionable conversations wheel around and are catalyzed by him. Can anyone doubt the toxic environment regarding Hillary he creates there? It must follow him like a cloud, drenching everyone he passes.

    I can certainly see Clinton refusing to have a debate on MSNBC that Tweetie is anywhere near. She would have the absolute high ground to make that perfectly clear and I doubt anyone here, even the most virulent Hillary Haters, would find that objectionable.

    But then she goes and loses credibility by agreeing to a debate on wingnut central, where everyone is Tweetie, and the audience is sculpted from CDS clay.

  • And, I might just add, Obama’s people might be getting played here, but haven’t realized it yet. I imagine the Hillary people are smart enough to know how Obama’s supporters are turning people off who were flirting with the idea of Obama and then were sent running for the hills with their blind Hillary hatred, and are riding another New Hampshire reaction. So, they used an opportunity that they knew die hard Dems usually rally around — a chance to shoot down a persistent conservative wisdom bias in the media — and have Obama supporters further alienate wavering Democrats when they come rallying around the dreaded MSM and crusades against political correctness, which I don’t even think Limbaugh uses any more.

    So, if you want to make this about primary politics, Hillary supporters should be very happy with this thread so far, with the exception of some like Doubtful who is refusing to reinforce doubts the undecided Dems have about the Obama people’s commitment to our party.

  • Hooray! The circular firing squad is here again!

    Thanks for once again letting your eye drift off the ball, Democrats!

  • “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.”

    That’s fantastic. David Schuster has been the only person on MSNBC who would have real substantive reports. I actually felt better informed after watching him. Thankfully all those other gasbags will still be on the air. You want to know why young people watch comedians for news, because of shit like this.

  • I get that you don’t think it was offensive comment.

    No, obviously it was offensive. Look at all of you…offended up to your eyeballs! Just because I wasn’t personally offended doesn’t mean I don’t think it was offensive.

    It’s just that from my limited view as a thirty-something male (who obviously hates women!), it didn’t seem all that nefarious as many are making it out to be. And it certainly has nothing to do with Obama. This is just a blip on the silliness radar as election fatigue sets in and people get anxious for Bush to leave office.

  • Obama’s supporters are turning people off…with their blind Hillary hatred

    If anybody is “blind” or “irrational”, it’s those who make remarks like this.

  • memekiller,

    you are turned off by the idea of nominating a candidate who we can be proud of? why?

  • John S – what part of “Language matters” do you not understand? It’s only two words, after all. Funny how you can do a doctoral dissertation on two other words, “pimp out,” but have trouble with “language matters.”

    Since you will not be getting your doctorate in language any time soon, let me explain. Again.

    When you listen to an Obama speech, his language delivers more than just the words – it delivers a feeling, a message, and creates an ambiance. His language has power – positive power.

    Understanding the power of positive language ought to mean that you understand the power of language with traditionally negative meaning.

    Are you any closer to getting it?

  • What has Obama said about this? Is he, like some of his fans, advocating not pushing back hard on the MSM? The Clintons are fighting the fight that needs to be fought fiercely. If someone doesn’t get mad then this media crap will go on forever.

  • She’s playing to the gallery here. This whole thing should be worth a nice swing in Clinton’s favor in tomorrow’s contests. Sigh, it’s not that they’re wrong because he absolutely should not have said it, but they do seem to be playing the victim card an awful lot and it seems, to me, to be a pretty crappy way of winning the nomination.

  • I’d like to thank memekiller #83 for expressing it so well.

    I would hope that if Barrack is the nominee, Michelle is not accused of “being pimped out” for campaigning for him. I would also hope that she is not routinely referred to as a bitch, a whore, a whoremongerer or worse. I would hope that we all ask for respect for all candidates.

    My suspicion is that Hillary would not have been so upset if the derogatory comment had been directed at her. She’s used to it. But having her daughter treated this way – Michelle would feel the same.

  • memekiller, that is a stirring speech, and one of fear tactics that makes me laugh.

    there is no way that i fear people jumping from obama to hillary because of too much hillary bashing. the hillary apologists already support her. obama is pulling in the independents and moderates. hillary has tapped out her fan base, obama is just rolling.

    don’t act like, “i would have voted for obama if you all weren’t so mean to hillary…” as we know that is all BS and you are a die hard Hillary apologist.

    get a life

  • memekiller,

    you are turned off by the idea of nominating a candidate who we can be proud of? why?

    I am not turned off by the idea of nominating either candidate. That’s the point. I like them both, and will support either, and think both will win and be great, and will defend any Democrat from any idiotic MSM smear, which, apparently, makes me a Hillary supporter.

    What will turn people off is seeing a bunch of supporters for an optimist like Obama rushing in to defend the MSM’s crude comments about Chelsea because of a short term political gain that benefits them.

  • What will turn people off is seeing a bunch of supporters for an optimist like Obama rushing in to defend the MSM’s crude comments…

    That would turn me off too. Where is this “bunch of supporters” for “an optimist like” Obama that are “rushing in to defend” David Shuster’s comments?

  • Okay, if Obama pushes back against the Madrassa smears, is he playing the victim card? I didn’t buy that when the Dems pushed back against FOX and refused to do a debate on their network. There’s a difference between playing victim and refusing to be someone’s bitch (another sexist slang for you). When Obama pushed back against FOX for their smears, as Hillary is doing, I cheered, and I cheer now.

    I jeer the Obama supporters hypocrisy.

  • Speaking as a successful entrepreneur, mack daddy and pimp, I’ll remind everyone what Three 6 Mafia said best: “It’s hard out there for a pimp.” If the Clintons, or any other candidates for that matter, intend to push their way into my territory, I will lay into them with a quickness. Word.

    On the other hand, in my professional opinion, I don’t think what the Clintons are doing qualifies as “pimping” any more than what Shuster is doing qualifies as “informing.”

    Just sayin’.

  • John S – what part of “Language matters” do you not understand?

    The part where you flail wildly about to connect David Shuster to Obama via people that support him and post anonymous comments on blogs.

    The best explanation thus far (which most closely resembles my own POV) is TuiMel at #87. Sure, this little incident is some sort of underhanded dig at Clinton – a cheap shot if you will – but it’s nothing to get the vapors over, although don’t let me stop you from getting out your fainting couch.

    And please, you better keep some condescension reserves in store. You’re going to need them to continue treading these threads with that lofty superiority. Don’t waste it all on me.

  • This is the problem. Hillary cries foul about a very bad taste remark and the continuing smears of Chri Matthews and she is playing the victim card.

    Obama sees racism and won’t go on faux news because of the Madrass comments- and he is the strong men fighting the good fight.

    There is a disconnect there.

    Some see it as a sexist disconnect- i,e, women get battered for doing thr same thing men do.

    Some see it as blind support for Obama.

    Me- I supported him over the madrassa comments and I support her over these comments.

    The media should be held accountable in all cases.

    But you lose credibility when you only support him and accuse her of “whining” and making mountains out of molehills. That is offensive to those of us who see the hypocrisy.

    If you truly did support about what Obama supposedly stands for- you shouldn’t denigrate her.

    And as a practical matter- you are pushing Edwards supporters into her camp.

    I would assume you would be smarter.

  • Pimping your car out means you are decorating to the nines as a pimp would. Pimping yourself out means you are dressing up to the nines as a pimp might. Pimping your daugther out (or your wife, or girlfriend or mom out) is selling her as a pimp would sell his prostitute – selling her body for money.

    There is no excuse for that remark and that poor slob who said it needs to be put off the air until the election is over. what a sexist schmuk.

  • I’m shocked that most of the posters here who don’t think this is a “big deal’or (my personal favorite) “get a grip” appear to be men.

    Keep it up.

    Keep spouting your dumbass misogyny, consciously or unconsciously.

    You create more support for Hillary when you do.

    And John S.

    It is better to be remain silent and be thought a dumbass, than CONTINUALLY posting drivel, and removing all doubt that you’re a dumbass.

    If you equate a bright, articulate, college educated woman, campaigning for her mother to be the first woman President, to a car, I feel sorry for the women in your life.

  • The part where you flail wildly about to connect David Shuster to Obama via people that support him and post anonymous comments on blogs. -John S

    That isn’t the point Anne is making, I believe. I think she’s simply saying that there is an inherent hypocrisy in supporting Obama because of his oratory skills while simultaneously giving Shuster a pass on his choice language. She is urging consistency of position when she uses the phrase ‘language matters.’

  • I’m firmly in Obama’s camp, but I fully understand why Clinton is really, really pissed about this reprehensible comment. Look, if this was a guy who speaks in slang all the time, then I think it could be shrugged off as more of the same. But Shuster only made one slang comment in a slew of regular TV prose. It’s not hard to see that this comment was meant to shock, that is, to draw particular scorn over what Chelsea’s doing. BTW, if my mother or father was running for president, I’d be more than happy to make a few calls to people on their behalf. There’s nothing unseemly at all about having Chelsea campaign for her mother with all the zeal she can muster. It’s not like she’s being used as an attack dog against the Obama campaign, so there’s nothing even remotely unseemly about the way she’s campaigning.

    Fellow Obamicans, just let it go, please. I doesn’t even concern our candidate. We should all be able to condemn this comment. We’ll want all Democrats to condemn the foaming right every time “Halfrican American” is used against Obama in the general, and we’ll want any such comments to be on the public radar, so they can generate the appropriate level of sympathy for our candidate and disgust for the perpetrator whenever he’s slandered.

  • Murdoch must love Hillary going after MSNBC this way.

    I used to like MSNBC but found all of them, including Olberman, unwatchable on Super Tuesday night.

    CNN is the big winner–back to being the most trusted name in news.

    Really sad, what with Blitzer and the other clowns.

  • Anne: “Those of you who think this is harmless must not have daughters, and so cannot possibly know how offensive this comment was.” I have a daughter, and it certainly would make me furious, and I’m furious alongside Bill and Hillary on this one. But Shuster doesn’t have a pattern of this kind of behavior (that I’ve seen), so the response is not reasonably proportional. His being taken off the air is absolutely no help at all – because he is one who gets it right most of the time.

    Also not proportional is all the screaming that’s been going on here at Steve’s Place of late. As Karl Rove (93) said above: “Hooray! The circular firing squad is here again! Thanks for once again letting your eye drift off the ball, Democrats!”

    The real Karl would be so pleased. A good newscaster off the air. Dems yelling at each other, balkanizing themselves into ghettos.

    To me it is simply and deeply depressing that we can’t seem to have rational discussions here anymore.

  • You know, all of you Hillary fans have forgotten one very important angle to this incident which is also worthy of histrionics (sorry, I realized this is a sexist term) theatrics:

    In insinuating that Chelsea is “pimping” for her mother, Shuster inadvertently refers to Hillary as a ‘pimp’. And since almost all pimps are men, Shuster is blatantly trying to masculinize Hillary! And by extension, this feeds into the meme that Hillary is an emasculating figure…because that is how she acheives her masculinity – through castration!

    That settles it. I need to vote for Hillary to defend her womanhood. That’s what is important in this election – preserving gender identities. Otherwise, next thing you know we’ll be a nation full of sex-industry hermaphrodites…

    And yes, I am completely full of shit.

  • What will turn people off is seeing a bunch of supporters for an optimist like Obama rushing in to defend the MSM’s crude comments about Chelsea because of a short term political gain that benefits them.

    Yes, that certainly would turn people off. If any such thing like you’ve described had happened.

    1) Can you point to a single comment here where an Obama supporter is defending this? The universal view here is that it was a stupid thing to say, but some poeple seem not to have their outrage sensors turned all the way up to eleven. That’s the only difference here.

    2) Can you point to a single demonstrable benefit the Obama campaign would get from this? Every time Hillary gets to play the victim card, her polls go up, her vote totals go up. This doesn’t help Obama, it helps Clinton, and both camps know it. That’s why Wolfson is going apeshit over it.

    Before I’m denounced as a mysogynistic Obama fanatic, I’m a former Edwards backer trying to make sense of where I go now. (I live in Ohio, so I have some time.) Clinton appeals to me when she stresses her experience and competence. But this sort of hyperventilating sense of persecution doesn’t, frankly.

  • How are the madrassa comments the same as Schuster’s remark? The madrassa comments were lies. This is something else. Is Hilary using her daughter to gain votes because Chelsea is more appealing than her? Yes. Pimping is the wrong phrase to use to describe it because that word offends people, but it is still true. As for the victim card, I don’t remember Obama trying to get anyone fired for spreading the madrassa lies.

  • Really sad, what with Blitzer and the other clowns. -Mimikatz

    Blitzer’s droning voice is the equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

    I can’t stand him. I repeat, I can’t stand him. As some you with us learned a few minutes ago, I can’t stand Wolf Blitzer.

    Now imagine I typed that at full volume, just like Wolf would have said it. Gah.

  • I think she’s simply saying that there is an inherent hypocrisy in supporting Obama because of his oratory skills while simultaneously giving Shuster a pass on his choice language.

    That would be a good point if I had EVER mentioned I support Obama because of his oratory skills. Or if I was giving Shuster a pass.

    As it happens, I support Obama because I am anti-oligarchy. And I think what Shuster said was stupid, crude, etc. I just happen to think the incredibly high level of outrage over it is a bid misplaced. I am perfectly willing to concede that I don’t see it because I am not a woman. This does not mean I deny other people their right to object strenuously.

    Mostly I’m just taking a piss at them and laughing at the reactions which vary between me being a misogynist and a Clinton-hater (of course). I apologize for having a laugh at other people’s expense on this, but I couldn’t help it. My wife accepts your deepest sympathies in regards to her, as does my mother, who have considered me to be quite the bastard for some time.

    Okay, I made that last part up. But the rest is sincere.

  • You know, I recall back in the Clinton years they were weirdly overly-protective of Chelsea, like a china doll, carefully managed, never seen. Justly so. Anyone with a half-a-synapse could see why. She’s a wee bit homely-looking.

    Remember Amy Carter?

    Neither would a pimp’s dream. The Bush twins on the other hand…

    Now she’s older than Monica Lewinski and out in the limelight, she’s fair game kiddos. Public life is public.

    Lock and load.

    Michelle Obama’s Got Back!

  • More sleazy personal attacks on the Clintons by the media ! What else is new? So Chelsea is being “pimped” now, real nice slander towards women, wow, you “reporters” should be ashamed! this is very common with these tabloid quality reporters on MSNBC and CNN too. They should ALL be suspended like Mr. Shuster, what a hack.

    GO HILLARY!!!

    WE LOVE YOU CHELSEA!!!

  • To me it is simply and deeply depressing that we can’t seem to have rational discussions here anymore.

    Lets not use Broderian false equivalancies, however. Lets call it for what it is.

    I still do not believe I have seen a single Clinton supporter/defender say anything other than that they would back the Democratic nominee in November, period.

    I have seen about a dozen Obama supporters say they would sit it out, and some – wholly illogically if policies mean anything at all – say they would vote McCain.

    I have seen about 2 pro Hillary trolls, and either about 15 pro-Obama trolls or one very very productive one who has a name generator and hasn’t left his mom’s basement for days on end.

    When HRC had states come in as wins I don’t recall any gloating or getting in Obama-supporters faces about it. Do you even want me to count the contra examples from Obama supporters?

    I’m sorry if it seems this lumps people like doubtful in, which I don’t mean to do; and I lament that dajafi got frustrated enough that he went back to his own blog. but this is what messianic movements foment. there is nothing party building — or even uplifting and politics-changing – about a group of people routinely insulting or dismissing 50% of all primary and caucus voters to date and a majority of Democrats reflected in current polling. Newsflash, Obama-ites, when you say “most people hate Hillary! most people think she’s unethical! you are simply and demonstrably wrong. You speak for a minority. 72% of Democratic voters polled would be supportive of Hillary regardless of who they support for the nomination.

    Get over yourselves already.

  • Jane Hamser finished a long post about seeing this as a tempest in a teapot, andended with this update: “I guess we can safely conclude I’m often a minority opinion on these things and frequently out of the mainstream, but I have to believe he’s largely paying for the sins of Matthews.”

    That sounds about right.

    Oh, and BlitheringIdiot (121), yes, you are. Just go away.

  • Chrenson #107 — LOL!

    Can you point to a single demonstrable benefit the Obama campaign would get from this? Every time Hillary gets to play the victim card, her polls go up, her vote totals go up. This doesn’t help Obama, it helps Clinton, and both camps know it. That’s why Wolfson is going apeshit over it.

    Look, by all means, ignore me. Everyone always ignores me. I warned Deborah Howell what an embarrassment Solomon would be. I screamed to the rooftops about Tapper before he became a household name as Washington-Times Editor-in-Waiting, I told Friedman he was going to embarrass himself, I told everyone I knew Gingrich had no intention of term limits and line item vetos, and would dirty Congress, not clean it, and that Clinton would be re-elected once they saw what they were really like. I thought Bush was going to be a new level of awful as President, and thought the Iraq war was a really, really, bad idea. I said the 2004 election would be decided by a lie when Kerry took the high road and responded to the SBVs by taking the high road and asking MoveOn to remove their factual ads.

    But who am I? Just some dork on a blog, and no one ever listens to me. Why do I bother? The only reason I can think of is that I feel an obligation to tell someone when they’re slipping their neck in a noose. So I’m telling you, as a fellow Democrat, you’re sticking your neck in a noose. Yes, Clinton knows every time the haters come out, her numbers go up, and the haters are coming out in droves, like lemmings off a cliff. Be thankful the vitriol is limited to Internet because if this was happening out in the open, we would be witnessing the complete unravelling of the Obama campaign on a major scale. There’s something deeply poetic about a campaign as hopeful and inspiring as Obama’s would have hate be its undoing.

    So, you’ve been warned. My conscience is clear. Do what you want with the information.

  • Blitheringidiot,

    Do you remember the press saying anything about the Bush twins? It was like a giant bubble fell over them and they vanished. They were not on the radar, regardless of what they did.

    Chelsea has been attacked since she was a little kid. If the media bastards attack Obama’s children the way they attacked Chelsea, I hope everyone gets up in arms.

  • Get over yourselves already.

    Strong words coming from someone about to go overa cliff because the progressive movement is dead on account of some people who wouldn’t chastise David Shuster more vehemently than you would like.

    But seriously, I agree with most of what you said.

    I simply cannot fathom people who say they would vote for Obama but would rather vote for McCain than Clinton. That just doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Then again, I’m not a Clinton-hater, so I guess I can’t understand where these people are coming from.

    This just isn’t my day to be empathetic.

  • on Zeit’s “false equivalancies” you are exactly right, but that doesn’t make it any more pleasant to be here.

  • Umm, is it Fair Day at the Retard Ranch?
    Good grief, all this infighting and foaming at the mouth. Any Repug reading this site must be clapping their hands with glee.

    It’s a damn shame, that for the first time in decades, we have not one, but two, very strong, able, Democratic candidates who would do a fine job of cleaning up the mess this place has become. It’s sad this has become such a bitch fest between the factions.

    All of you, go to your rooms, no ice cream for you, until you can act like grownups.

  • I can’t stand him. I repeat, I can’t stand him. As some you with us learned a few minutes ago, I can’t stand Wolf Blitzer.

    Now that’s funny.

  • I’m really shocked that Shuster would say something so dumb. Would he say the same thing about the Bush daughters campaigning for their dad? Or the Kerrys? Tsk, David. I expect so much better from MSNBC.

  • WE LOVE YOU HILLARY!!! YOU WILL WIN IN 2008!!

    Obama needs to learn to take a back seat to Hillary. It is Hillary’s time!! Hillary is the future!!!

  • 126:

    Oh yes, and how scary it was that Jenna turns up last year as a missionary!

    Praise the Lord

    I ax you: just who’s playing whom? The Clintons are masterful we all know that and they’ll take every chance the spin the wheels no matter how much shit is slung and no matter who gets splattered with it.

    Another day – another play.

    Oh, and 124: but aren’t we all?

  • John S: I like you, keep talking. I find you very sexy, attractive, masculine, and exciting. Chris

  • Zeitgeist wrote, “…there is nothing party building — or even uplifting and politics-changing – about a group of people routinely insulting or dismissing 50% of all primary and caucus voters to date and a majority of Democrats reflected in current polling.

    Exactly. So why would Zeitgeist completely contradict himself by insulting Obama supporters by writing “this is what messianic movements foment”?

    If people think Clinton plays the victim, she’s got nothing on Zeitgeist.

  • Thank God David Schuster is gone. Now Tucker Carlson can come back and remind people that he has to cross his legs whenver Hilary Clinton speaks. Congratulations Hilary, I hope she goes on Fox News to celebrate her victory over sexist scum David Schuster. I mean, out of all the terrible shit; the cleavage talk, the cackle remarks, the crying stuff, out of all that crap this is what gets someone fired. Using the word pimp? Score one for women everywhere.

  • …there is nothing party building — or even uplifting and politics-changing – about a group of people routinely insulting or dismissing 50% of all primary and caucus voters to date and a majority of Democrats reflected in current polling.

    If somebody writes something about Hillary Clinton that Zeitgeist doesn’t like, he calls it “insulting or dismissing 50% of all primary and caucus voters.”

    Hillary lied about her Iraq vote. (That’s an insult to 50% of all primary and caucus voters.)

    Hillary should have read the NIE. (That’s an insult to 50% of all primary and caucus voters.)

    Hillary broke her pledge regarding MI/FL voters. (That’s an insult to 50% of all primary and caucus voters.)

    Hillary is overreacting. (That’s an insult to 50% of all primary and caucus voters.)

    I call b.s. on Zeitgeist. Defend your candidate, but please stop your fucking whining?

  • Another good point from Atrios. It’s not the term “pimp” so much as the double standard of making a scandal over a non-Republican family member participating in a campaign, as all political family members do.

    Another good reason to have him gone, though again, it’s Matthew’s sins.

  • DKN

    I believe your comment (and certainly those of others) was also that Hillary’s supporters especially the ones commenting here were overreacting and making a mountain out of a molehill.

    And for at least some of the above commenters it definitely took a turn about being too old or too sensitive a woman- so that was clearly an insult to the a lot of the females here and by implication a good portion of the electorate who has found these kinds of comments offensive.

    So don’t try to pretend the conversation was something different by listing a lot of things that were never mentioned in this conversation and aren’t relevant.

  • I like you, keep talking. I find you very sexy, attractive, masculine, and exciting.

    Er, thanks?

  • DKN,
    Those points are totally legitimate ones to raise, and don’t in any way refer to exploiting one’s daughter because they work on a campaign as any family member of any politician does. What I think Z refers to is the very Republican black/white approach to their candidate that breaks the world into good and evil, and views anything you say about Hillary is true. I can defend Obama from Madrassa comments or jokes about his name, yet, we’re sort of left to wonder when Obama supporters would defend an attack on another Democrat that wasn’t directly self-serving in some way.

    I think this quote illustrates the point beautifully: Can you point to a single demonstrable benefit the Obama campaign would get from this? Every time Hillary gets to play the victim card, her polls go up, her vote totals go up. This doesn’t help Obama, it helps Clinton, and both camps know it. That’s why Wolfson is going apeshit over it.

    Uh… I don’t know how it helps Obama. It helps the Democratic Party, though, when we are consistant in our pushback on GOP narratives, smears and double-standards. It will help our candidate in the generals, and plus… it’s the right thing to do. So what if it doesn’t help Obama get nominated? The point here should be to elect a Democrat, the best Democrat, but to remove a destructive, corrupt and selfish movement, and start fixing the country.

    If this isn’t a red America and a Blue America, as Obama says, couldn’t we also say this is not a Hillary Party, or an Obama Party, but the Democratic Party? I don’t know. If Obama were to do the Statesmanlike thing and stand up for her, it might benefit him. It makes him look like quite a decent bloke, I’d think, if that’s all that matters to you, but that’s not why he should do it. Democrats should do it because we don’t leave Dems out to dry when the media goes after them. Isn’t that enough?

  • Truthsquad —

    1. Read the post I was responding to.

    2. See if you can find the double-standard throughout CB’s site and among the comments of Zeitgeist and others (hint: “Obamaites”, “messianic movements”, “Kool-Aid drinkers”).

    3. Observe that most posters are currently arguing Hillary Clinton herself overreacted (I’m sure you can find exceptions in to provide evidence for your over-generalization).

    So don’t try to pretend that anger or disappointment with Clinton is sexist. I call b.s. on that one too.

  • First, let me say that I am an Obama supporter and I found the comment to be completely tasteless, rediculous and beyond defense.

    I also find comment #37 from ZEITGEIST GET A LIFE to be completely juvinile and absurd as well. This person absolutely, positively does not represent my view or the views of most Obama supporters, I suspect.

    I wish people would grow the hell up and communicate in an intelligent, dignified manner.

  • Democrats should do it because we don’t leave Dems out to dry when the media goes after them. Isn’t that enough?

    Uh-oh. It sounds almost like you’ve been drinking Magic Unity Pony tears.

    You’re right, though. I am now even rather turned off by the constant viewing of everything through the lense of Obama/Clinton. I already voted in the primaries, and it didn’t count anyway, so what do I care?

    May whatever candidate that gets the nomination whoop McCain’s sorry ass in November.

  • I find this debate fascinating because it’s definitely showing a generational divide. Those of us from the MTV generation can see what Shuster meant, whereas the old folks are determined to paint his comment in the worst possible way. Dave Shuster shouldn’t be punished for dirty old minds. But since the Baby Boomers who have ruined the planet control everything, a talented reporter is being suspended from his job.

  • doubtful – wherever it was way upthread, where you interpreted my “language matters” for John S – yes, that is exactly what I was saying. Thank you. We may not always agree with each other, but I think we speak the same language.

    memekiller – thank you for trying to keep the focus on what really matters, even if there aren’t many who get it. Being able to see all sides of something is not the same as being all things to all people, which shows that critical thinking skills are not only in short supply, but not appreciated nearly as much as they should be.

    zeitgeist – please don’t get a life; many of us appreciate your being here.

  • girlygirl

    Its not a genration divide. Its the ability to read in context.
    yes pimp can be used in a way thats not demeaning.

    Shusther however was basically using it in the context of trying to say there was something sleazy about Chelsea trying to persuade people to support her mother.

    In that context, it clearly seems to be demeaning and appears he was using it to invite a comparison to prostitution.

    Again, I would have accpted his apology if sincere but it was MSNBC that suspended him not Hillary.

    And why did they do it- really to protect themselves against the backlash caused by Chris Matthews/

    They don’t have the guts to fire him so they picked a sacrifical lamb. But the problem is the network not those who raise a legitimate point about tasteless comments.

    DKN
    I didn’t call you sexist. What I said was you were trying to pretend insults to women in general not just Hillary hadn’t occurred on this thread.
    To that I call B.S. as would anyone who cares to read the comments.

  • As far as “overreaction” goes, I don’t think it’s up to any of us to decide what the level of her reaction should have been. And for all of those who think she “plays” the victim card too often, I would say that given the frequency with which she is attacked unfairly, I think she has shown remarkable restraint in what she has chosen to be upset about. Showing emotion in the midst of a grueling race is not “playing the victim card;” it is being human.

    As for the MTV generation v. the boomers – maybe the difference is that we “old folks” know crass when we see it. Maybe your parents didn’t teach you any manners, or explain why some things are tasteless, but this 54 yr old made sure her 21 and 24 yr old daughters knew what was right and what was wrong.

  • This just in: MSNBC’s review of Jenna Bush’s wedding!

    Truthsquad: speak for yourself. I am not insulted and I’m a woman. If we as women are going to whince at every little slam that comes our way there’s never going to be progress, only more whining and instance erosion of every inch we’ve gained. You can’t believe American women have made strides and scream foul in the same breath. If you’re moving fast enough beyond the fray, nothing sticks to you.

    Winners don’t whine and whiners don’t win.

    And as a woman, I’m sick of being grouped with status quo esp. with the so-called feminists of these days. It’s time for a new movement with a new moniker. The term “feminism” is as antiquated as “suffragettes”. The current movement is chock-filled with hard-boiled, dyke-haired lesbians in chinos who give lots of us the creeps!

    I don’t hate Hillary. I loathe her ruthless voracious style and all the poses she’s assumed throughout her rise. To me she is the uber-carbetbagger.

    And it wouldn’t surprise me one beep if she actually stuck Chelsea out there AS bait to garner some juicy insults. I’ve never felt sorry for either and never will.

    She’s an animal.

  • Anyone who feels the need in making thier point by instantly equate any feminists with dyke-haired lesbians clearly has a problem that has nothing to do with this discussion.

    I really have no desire to talk for you or indeed have anything to do with you.

    I never pretended to speak like people who can spew that type of garbage and feel rightous about it.

  • Uh-oh. It sounds almost like you’ve been drinking Magic Unity Pony tears.-JohnS

    Ha! I guess I am, and do quite often. I can never decide if I’m a cynic or an idealist. I think I’m an idealist that’s been burned too many times, yet has this deep seeded need to believe again, even though I’m usually let down. Thus, my vascillations.

    Partly, I feel the original worries about Obama not being “tough enough” led supporters too far in the vitriol way, and the stuff leaking from Clinton surrogates really didn’t sit well with me and did more than everything ever said by Republicans to reconsider my perception of them. I’ve since changed my mind on Obama’s “toughness”. I thought what Hillary’s attack proved was that Obama is teflon. There’s no hunger for believing scandal about him. After SC, I had no worries Obama could handle any attack thrown at him. Plus, I just don’t think it’s going to fly — we’re too on top of it. Tapper and Schuster are perfect examples.

    So yes, I do believe in ponies. I just don’t believe in pinning my hopes on winning a fistfight by making opponent feel sorry for how bloody your face is.

  • “As for the MTV generation v. the boomers – maybe the difference is that we “old folks” know crass when we see it. Maybe your parents didn’t teach you any manners, or explain why some things are tasteless, but this 54 yr old made sure her 21 and 24 yr old daughters knew what was right and what was wrong.”

    Bad manners? Was David Schuster eating with his mouth open?

  • I didn’t call you sexist. What I said was you were trying to pretend insults to women in general not just Hillary hadn’t occurred on this thread.

    Speaking of inability to read in context.

    I know you didn’t call me sexist. In defense of Zeitgeist’s silly whining about members of “messianic movements” who insult 50 percent of the electorate, you said, “some of the above commenters…took a turn about being too old or too sensitive a woman…clearly an insult to the a lot of the females”.

    Of course, there’s nothing sexist saying somebody is too old. And contrary to your assertion, I can’t find a single comment in this thread that accuses Hillary of being too sensitive.

    As I said, don’t try to pretend that anger or disappointment with Clinton is sexist.

  • Wow, 155 comments over some jackhat’s stupid choice of words. Berkeley Breathed created a word for this sort of reaction: ofensensitivity.

  • But Truthsquad, despite your protests you so very instantly responded, just as I’m certain you’ll do after this one.

    (‘ll bring you a slightly higher pedestal for next time.)

    Most women I know these days would never call themselves “feminist” for exactly those equations, Chicklet. And feminists who call themselves such give the whole movement a real bad mojo. Which is why Hillary won’t get elected. She in the eyes of many represents the dark hideous fringes of the left with their usual petty complaints which have nothing at all do with the rest of us. Never wins elections but please whine on if it makes you feel better. We’ll all be waiting with baited breath for your next defense.

    Clearly I do have a problem. Clearly I stated exactly what it was.

  • This is not about Obama, but imagine the outrage if a talking head were to say that Barack was “pimping out” Michelle.

    People would scream at the obvious racism in that statement.

    For everyone who says “It was bad, but not that bad” you need to consider that others might disagree, especially women who have been struggling against the sexism in our society. You might think you aren’t defending what Shuster said, but you are. You’re saying it’s no big deal.

    Look how quickly some people were to find racism in Bill Clinton calling Obama “kid.”

    Just because you aren’t offended by a word or phrase doesn’t mean others aren’t. The “n-word” doesn’t offend me, but I’m white. However, I understand how other people, especially black people, would take offense to it.

    This stuff need to stop. It’s not about being “PC,” it’s about eliminating bigotry of all kinds.

    BTW – Shuster isn’t a comedian or the host of a youth-oriented entertainment show. He’s a journalist who is supposed to speak in proper English, not slang..

  • honestly this thread is mind numbing.

    why should i support obama from the inevitable smears that will be launched by the backstabbing dirty trickster republicans when his people won’t stand up for hillary clinton?

    obama supporters are like bush supporters. there is no doubt in my mind that at least to the extent they appear on blogs, people who support obama are simply not rational.

    they support obama for the same reasons bush trolls supported bush, they feel personally connected to him and excuse his glaring inexperience. and they defend obama in the same manner bush trolls defended bush, with irrational hate, derision and glaring double talk.

    it is a shame, but there is no reason in the world that i can see to vote for the guy. you people are just disgraceful.

  • This is not much ado about nothing…this is the straw that broke the camel’s back. If you are not a regular MSNBC viewer, you cannot possibly be aware of the ubiquitous sexist venemous comments about Hillary (and other women). The sole exception is Dan Abrams. And Shuster is a token suspension because they should fire Chris Matthews but do not want to. This is an effort to appease the masses who have complained to MSNBC about their actions.

  • This isn’t about Hillary or Obama. It’s about Democrats. There is a reason that the GOP and their henchmen in the lap dog media do these things. Josh Marshall called it the “Bitch-slap theory of electoral politics.”

    “One way—perhaps the best way—to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves—thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.”

    “Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person’s supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who’s receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.”

    I’m tired of having my candidates (and their families) bitch-slapped.

  • One of the things that has been missiing from this disccussion of Shuster (who I have admired with his defense of the liberal agenda) is that words like ‘pimp’ ‘whore’ ‘bitch’ and other offensive descriptions of women have been slowly workiing their way into the daily vernacular for the last few years. The meaning of these words haven’t changed, but their acceptance by a larger group of people as somehow funny or more lighthearted descriptions of people is on full display by this incident. I accept Shuster’s apology as sincere, but I’m glad in the macro sense that this depiction of Chelsea is being given the full press by the Clinton camp.

  • FOX isn’t good enough for a debate, now MSNBC isn’t Kosher… we’re now down to one cable news network… Soon too, somebody on CNN will screw up and the Dems won’t have anywhere to debate! Remember that slippery slope I spoke about when the Dems first dissed FOX?? What happens when (if nominated) she has to debate McCain???? Does McCain have to follow the huffy, red faced Dems on the Dem’s network of choice?

  • It would appear that the Gone Paul sycophants have found a new toy to play with—a “Barack Obama Halloween Costume Dress-Up Kit”. The evidence of this is that no one in the Obama camp would defend Shuster’s actions—because everyone in the Obama camp knows full well that it only takes a small tweak in Shuster’s “message” to change it to an Obama smear.

  • It was the time delay between the insult and the apology that will hurt David Shuster and MSNBC, in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons similar delays have damaged other media reputations. The delay (and initial refusal to even acknowledge the mistake) clearly implied that Shuster (like Chris Matthews several weeks earlier) didn’t quite “get it” until MSNBC brass explained it to him. If media personalities want to avoid escalating mistakes like this they should take an immersion program in public relations crisis management — the advice they should follow is pretty straightforward: a proper apology, according to http://www.perfectapology.com, should always include the following:

    1. a detailed account of the situation
    2. acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done
    3. taking responsibility for the situation
    4. recognition of your role in the event
    5. a statement of regret
    6. asking for forgiveness
    7. a promise that it won’t happen again
    8. a form of restitution whenever possible

    Obviously perfect apologies work best when delivered to recipients who are prepared to forgive. But when the aggrieved community sees an opportunity to push the hurt a little further then no apology is likely to be good enough. And that is precisely where we are today — we’re in the midst of a political charged election environment where the primary imperative is not to be reasonable but to search for ways to generate support for your side. When media personalities like MSNBC’s David Shuster or Chris Mathews (or MSNBC’s Don Imus, or Golf Channel’s Kelly Tilghman, etc.) screw up by insulting Chelsea or Hillary (or the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, or Tiger Woods, etc.) even perfect apologies may not work, for perfectly rational political reasons.

    The real error in these cases was not the initial mistake but the fact that the best, most sincere and meticulously worded apology was the last one to be issued by those who screwed up. What is so fascinating (and perplexing) about the rising number of failed public apologies over the last few years is that so few public figures (surrounded by public relations advisers) really know how to do it well, or quickly enough.

    Peter F. Goolpacy

  • There’s a huge chasm between what people will tolerate in casual conversation and what they find acceptable in intelligent analysis. No one complains that a dollar hamburger doesn’t taste like a porterhouse steak because the investment and subsequent expectations are radically different.

    Responsible news folks understand that when viewers watch their shows they are acting upon invitation. As such, there’s a level of professionalism that is maintained. It can’t be easily defined other than through process of exclusion.

    Someone in Shuster’s position should recognize his responsibility and be able to determine what his viewer will find offensive without viewer feedback. The great debaters and editorial journalists may be occassionally corrected or call to the carpet for their positions, but rarely, if ever, for their choice of words.

  • It seems as if the Clinton camp is blowing Shuster’s comment way out of context. They are trying to spin this comment in their favor, and play on the ignorance of the American public.

    Shuster was merely trying to sound hip and modern by using slang in his statements. He chose to say that Chelsea was “being pimped out”, instead of saying she was “using her personal contacts for political gain”.

    Its not like Hillary was really trying to pimp out Chelsea.

  • No doubt a wrongheaded thing to say. No doubt most of the people on all cable shows should be fired.

    So now we are all a’flitter going after Schuster who is the ONLY reporter I know of who remotely tells the truth. On a scale of one to hundred he is maybe an 85 in telling it like it really is. FOX reporters – ALL of them – are like a 3 on the same scale.

    So I know let’s all get “smart” and demand Shuster be fired. Let’s vent on the only man we have.

    This dynamic of Clinton v Obama through the summer makes a fertile ground for the wingnut trolls to act like they are supporters of one or the other while they have us eating each other.

  • The fact of the matter is that there is too much vulgarity allowed on TV to begin with. I’m over 60 and over 70 and I think that the media needs to have a little more respect, not only for the people they report on and discuss but for the viewing audience as well. It seems as though the word “respect” doesn’t mean anything anymore to a large majority of Americans and that’s a shame. As far as Obama is concerned, I think he’s very intelligent and very personable and I believe he’s sincere but I don’t think he has the experience that Clinton does and to all the Clinton haters, I just want to say, why don’t you all get lost?

  • Even more objectionable than this “slip of the tongue” is the fact that this term has become common slang. Has this reporter crossed the line? I think so. I thought Don Imus did too but he’s back on the air and people are tuning in. The media and pop culture continue to debase our moral compasses to the point that some people think it’s ok for young children to dress like prostitutes and pimps and use language like this reporter did. Well it is not ok and I applaud the Clintons for standing up to MSNBC and threatening not to work with them. Why is Hillary being vilified for it? Standing up for her morals and convictions and defending her daughter makes me respect her all the more.

  • As far as “overreaction” goes, I don’t think it’s up to any of us to decide what the level of her reaction should have been.

    Gee, and here I thought evaluation of Shuster’s comment and the Clinton campaign’s response to it was what we all were talking about. I think it is perfectly appropriate for “any of us’ to express an opinion about whether Shuster’s comment was offensive and what a proportionate response by the Clinton campaign might be. Hillary Clinton is running for the most powerful office on the planet. How she responds to attacks – fair / unfair, civil / offensive is a legitimate marker of the type of president she might make.

  • What are they taking offense to the term “pimped”? So what, that’s what they were doing by engaging thier daughter. Then to say “she’s and we are off limits” is pure hypocracy. If you don’t want people to comment on what she is doing don’t “use” her in the process. It seems the Clinton’s are just bullying everyone including the press and free speach.

  • Hillary is so 20th Century! If she is so incapable of knowing current, 21st Century American slang, she is simply not presidential material.

    SHAME ON HER FOR TAKING REVENGE ON SHUSTER!

    Obama for president!

    Pran

  • It’s amazing to me that the clinton campaign and for that matter the rest of america doesn’t understand “pimping” her out used in slang. I would never NEVER vote for Hiliary, take her advice, America can’t afford her ideas, and we can’t afford her becoming our president!

    And yes, the Clinton’s will “whore” out anyone who will allow them to. BTW that does not mean exchanging sexual favors for money! Must be terrible to have to be the daughter of a Clinton!

  • Comments are closed.