Comments are (temporarily) being moderated. Please stay on topic.
Schuster has been suspended by MSNBC.
It's funny but.........the more these media assholes go out of their way to trash Hillary, the more I feel like supporting her (and I'm not particularly keen on her to begin with). You can already see how it's going to be: they'll slime her for the smallest thing (or completely made up things) and they won't touch Bush for some of the worst crimes this country (or planet) has ever seen. Who do you think they work for? Nice unbiased "news", eh?
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Sorry, that link appears to be broken.
Try this one.
Damn!
Way to cut off the tail MSNBC and keep the head (Matthews). Just one less towel snapper to joke with. Maybe they'll convert Rachel Maddow as she's gone on record singing Matthews praises to further her aspirations.
Wow!
Schuster was, on the whole, pretty decent, at least as compared to others, like Tweety. Maybe now, when, and if, he comes back, he'll be better.
As to the examples in your post, remember, IOKIYAR!
Conservatives hate Hillary Clinton with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns. They relish every morsel of hate for Ms. Clinton. They just don't hate Obama with such zeal.
Just reading my comment above, I have to add that a feller can dream, can't he?
Shuster tepidly apologized this morning, but judging from the past, it will only serve to inflame the MSNBC crew even more and we'll soon be seeing even worse coverage of the campaign.
I don't know, digby, but this time it could really be different. The Clinton campaign called the network on their crap, and from what I can glean their phones, faxes, and emails have been swamped.
I never, ever expected Shuster to get suspended. Not only that, but he has to go back on tonight and apologize again.
I still remember when Matthews considered the hypothetical of whether or not Al Gore would accept the Presidency if he won the Electoral vote and lost the popular vote. He posited that he would because Al is "that kind of guy,"
This sleazy partisanship is far from novel on CM's part.
As an Obama supporter but admirer of Hillary Clinton I've got to say I really wish the stupid chauvinists in the media would shut their Hillary-hating mouths!
It's unbelievable the venom carried by these foolish men. Of course, there are also female Hillary-haters but those are generally either Republican partisans or brainwashing victims of the 1990's demonization of the Clintons.
OTOH, all day I've been reading this meme from Clinton supporters about how Obama partisans are a "cult". That's equally offensive and equally idiotic. Here I am, a 45 year-old with a lifetime of learning and experience yet I'm labeled as a blind follower of Obama? Why? Because I'm supposedly fooled by his powerful oration to the point I don't see he's nothing but an empty suit. Uh no. That's not it at all yet that brainless cult charge just gets flung around repeatedly.
Give me a break. Senator Obama is IMPRESSIVE. As is Senator Clinton. They are both fine leaders and fine Democrats and we must see that one of them occupies the White House in January of 2009.
The conservative media will go away as soon as Obama wins the nomination and the presidency. Right?
I have a question that is never clearly addressed: why has the liberal blogosphere, whose central organizing principle until 6 months ago was to push back against right wing influence in the media, adopted the idea that everything will be all better if we are less confrontational?
The pimp comment, or even the word, would never be used by anybody in reference to a Republican child.
That's the point.
Curt M: The cult meme comes many media figures like Oprah calling Obama "The One." Have you seen that "Yes We Can" video? Slate started "Messiah Watch," what, a year ago, because media was treating Obama that way.
No one at all, as far as I can tell, calls Obama's campaign a cult, but the messianic thing is inescapable.
This comes full circle to MSNBC, doesn't it? Not only have they expressed the crudest, systematic misogynistic bias, they have also expressed fawning pro-Obama bias that inflates messianic imagery. They have, in fact, put FoxNews to shame. Amazing.
Media bias is not your friend.
Why has the blogosphere forgotten this?
Now that Chelsea Clinton's campaigning for her mother, as is her right, it's time for the media to ask her what they asked Jenna Bush:
Have you considered volunteering for military service?
If not, why not?
If so, what resulted from your deliberations?
If it's fair for Jenna Bush, it's fair for Chelsea Clinton.
I do think it behooves all of us to be skeptical of news organizations that behave like adolescents, no matter where your political allegiances lie.
Thanks for the spot-on point.
"They came for Hillary, but I wasn't Hillary;
then they came for Obama, but I wasn't Obama...."
Conservatives hate Hillary Clinton with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns. They relish every morsel of hate for Ms. Clinton. They just don't hate Obama with such zeal. Yet.
Fixed it for ya! 
You're right, they'll smear & defame any Democratic president. But they have 16 years of momentum against Hillary. For people under 30 that's more than half their life. With Hillary they don't have to stop to re-tool the message, they just keep right on shouting.
You know I might almost believe that Hillary and Co. were really upset with MSNBC if she hadn't already agreed to be on FOX Noise for a "debate." As if that whole network weren't demeaning and offensive to the entire Democratic Party. But it's different I guess when the comment is about her family than about the entire party she's trying to secure the nomination from.
So, according to Tweety: "Sometimes in bad weather you let the other team have the ball..."? Translation: Bush and his cronies get to trash the country for eight years, and then they get to sit on the sidelines sniping at the Democratic President whose job it will be to clean up the elephant shit after the circus has left town. I didn't think Matthews couls sink any lower.
What mystifies me is that Obama supporters are absolutely convinced that either the media won't turn on Obama or that if they try it will backfire.
Bill and Hillary aren't perfect but they have done nothing to deserve the crap that has been hurled at them for the last 16 years.
Obama is going to get the same treatment, it just hasn't started yet.
And it doesn't matter if he is clean as a whistle, they'll just make stuff up.
Why wouldn't they? Because Obama has magical powers and can bring everyone together. Because Obama is so wonderful and cool and I kiss his poster above my bed on the lips every night. They would never do that to my Obama. He is very, very special.
Every time they trash her, I get the urge to send her more money, and I was never particularly a fan-- and I know I'm not the only one this happens to. There should be a name for that phenomenon, sort of an obverse of direct marketing.
For someone who keeps saying she'll be able to fight off the right because she's been the victim of so many attacks from it and its media enablers, Clinton hasn't actually done much fighting.
I'm glad she, or at least her campaign, has started. Now she should dig up every disgusting thing Chris Matthews has ever said about her and bury him with them.
Why Shuster and not Matthews?
I think it was inappropriate.
This has to do with sexual and other insecurities. And jealousy that the Clintons got there first in the Boomer generation.
I used to like MSNBC but Matthews makes Olberman unwatchable now. I don't think MSNBC supports Obama, just the men there can't deal with Hillary, and Matthews has, as Tom Brokaw said on Jon Stewart, Tourette's on occasion.
I support Obama, but prefer my news straight and think the MSNBC guys (unfortunately now including Olberman) to be really, really childish and unprofessional.
"Obama is going to get the same treatment...."
The left considers conservative hatred of the Clintons an irrational derangement, and the right has the same view of the left's hatred for Bush. The truth is that both sides have justification for their views, and neither is entirely wrong.
But it does not follow from this that Obama will get the same treatment.
Adult children supporting their parents' campaigns is not new at all, but quite the opposite.
How much commentary did they provide to the truly shocking fact about children of politicians who disagreed with their parents? Some of Reagan's kids, for example. Or even the louder and more recent shunning of Giuiliani by his kids?
One expects Rush Limbaugh to be low enough to call a 12 or 13 year old girl a 'dog', but when the MSM piles on with numerous examples (see Shakesville) of hate speech directed at women, it's time to make them stop by hitting them in the wallet, the sole language they all seem to 'get'.
As a side note, I saw your post yesterday about policing commenters using choice insults like the 'c' word. And I think such folks should have their email and IP addresses published by bloggers for hate speech offenses as a regular way of stopping that BS in its tracks.
Why do you people obsess over marionettes like Matthews? The vast majority of the country doesn't watch him, or Scarborough, or Carlson, or really any of the cable heads. You're playing the insiders game, and guess what -- the insiders don't give a fuck what you think! Utter waste of time.
White guys on tv or radio should get it.
I didn't see it, and while I think Chelsea Clinton, who had her father's illicit sexlife shoved in her face by media without ceasing for months on end, can take whatever David Schuster has to toss out, the idea of him saying someone pimped out someone else--well, it does not sound copacetic to me. Sounds like he thought it would be the bomb, and instead, he bombed.
I disagree Cranston. Those talking heads are heard by millions of people, even if they're not a majority. Attitudes are formed or reinforced when everyone looks away and doesn't challenge hate speech.
It's critical to make the point a thousand times over: it's not acceptable, it's destructive to civil societies, and it's a huge issue that will NEVER go unchallenged.
Philly Boy:
I'd bet Hillary's campaign has a nuclear stock pile of op res files. Recall the very last news item before Obama quickly and effectively declared detentes in South Carolina? It was the weird Page Six 99 Problems allegation. And there has not been a flare up from either side since.
If Hillary thinks it is best on balance to nuke Tweety, I strongly suspect she has the weaponry. Anyone who has been around long enough to remember MediaWhoresOnline knows that Chris is a deeply flawed guy.
If a pundit described Michelle Obama or her little girls the way Schuster did Chelsea, everyone would be irate. AND THEY SHOULD BE. My suspicion is that Clinton would not have reacted as strongly if the insult had been directed at her. She's taken worse. But to have her daughter insulted after eight years of the press tiptoeing around the shannanigans of Bush's twins, that had to be the last straw. If anyone said that about Michelle's kids, you know she would go through the roof too. And rightfully so.
I think it's the MSNBC "Hardball" concept that has to be addressed in some way. That's the name of Matthews' show, right?
What does that mean? Hardball?
I guess the idea is to drop ordinary polite conventions about discussing issues and to allow "tough" and "edgy" comments and analysis that supposedly fail to achieve expression otherwise.
I think there's a heavy element of "manliness" in the concept and that you're encouraged to let that quality show more than any other analytical quality.
So, we end up with this nutty macho stuff...I'm looking forward to the post-Hemingway America, where tough-guy stuff gets labeled right away as bullshit.
Maybe we're getting there.
cranston-
It's true that most of America gets its news from the broadcast networks, not cable news shows. What you are overlooking is that Matthews and the rest of the cable news goon squad are trotted out as "special guests" every time they are needed for a soundbite by the broadcast networks.
How many times have these blowhards been on the Today Show, Good Morning America, etc.? And let's not forget the open intellectual sewer that's on every Sunday Morning. Ignoring this kind of borish behavior by the cable news only let's Matthews and his ilk think that it's okay to talk and act this way. They don't magically become intelligent and well mannered because they're on the broadcast networks.
If your dog regularly goes all over the carpet when no one is around, don't expect it to magically become housebroken when company is over.
MATTHEWS: I mean how I really feel. You know how you tell how I really feel, [about HRC] Mika? Listen. [protracted silence]. But you and I agree on so many things sub rosa. I don't know why we're arguing.
How does this on-camera stalker continue to have a forum for his years and years of Clinton-hatred?
I heard Schuster's question live last night and it struck me as plausible if a bit inelegant. First, there are widely used and accepted definitions of "pimp" that are not explicitly sexual, i.e. "to exploit" or "to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit." It was clearly these definitions that Schuster had in mind in formulating his question.
As for this not being different from other candidates' kids, Schuster's point was that Chelsea is blatantly campaigning on one hand, but is being shielded from the press on the other hand. The point was that either she's in the campaign or she isn't but that it's disingenuous of the Clinton camp to want it both ways.
Would I have used the word "pimping" in formulating the same question. Probably not. But this whole faux outrage thing from the Clinton camp is really tiresome. They'd be a much more sympathetic bunch if they just stopped acting like Republicans.
I don't know why we have to start "negotiating with ourselves" over whether its worth our while to "work the refs." We already know that it is. The far right didn't get the respect it has gotten from small and large media personalities by saying "oh, well, lets let bygones be bygones." No. Every single time they could find or manufacture and insult they (and their media pipelines like Limbaugh) have run with it as a source of grievance, a way of whipping their flock into a frenzy, and a way of forcing media commenters into line. Good for Clinton for going for their jugulars and their balls and winning,f or once. She is doing what all democrats need to do--show some damn brand loyalty and make it painful for the media commentariat to parody, smear, and trivialize democrats. Only when its costly will they stop doing it. And stopping them from automatically smearing all dems is important. The obama people had better get with the program on this one because they are going to need a little knee jerk respect when and if Obama makes it through to the general. I had to laugh when I saw Michelle Obama contemptously say she would "have to think about it" when asked if she would support HRC. Who the hell is the first person Michelle is going to call if she gets to be first lady--nancy reagan? Only Eleanor Roosevelt and HRC have been presidential wives of progressives who have received daily doses of hatred.
aimai
Loved Shuster's "apology": "All I said was that Hillary was whoring out her daughter. I'm really sorry if YOU took it the wrong way."
These people need be told this boyz club behavior is unacceptable. I've been doing that for years, but more voices are needed.
pres NBC News
steve.capus@nbcuni.com
Tucker Carlson
tucker@msnbc.com
Producer MSNBC
phil.griffin@nbcuni.com
Chris Matthess
hardball@msnbc.com
cjmatthews@msnbc.com
Producer Hardball
john.reiss@nbcuni.com
Joe Scraborough
joe@msnbc.com
David Shuster
david.shuster@msnbc.com
Mika Brzezinski
mika.brzezinski@msnbc.com
Keith Olberman
countdown@msnbc.com
Dan Abrams
abrams@msnbc.com
viewerservices@msnbc.com
I don't see how the dump-on-Hillary-whenever-possible behavior we see from the likes of Tweety, Scarborough, Carlson, and now Shuster can represent the policy of MSNBC management. After all, MSNBC boss Dan Abrams has his own show right after Olbermann, and one of his recurring topics is the unfair (in his opinion) treatment of Hillary Clinton by the media in general. He defends this position against a lot of guest commentators, many of whom are, shall we say, not very sympathetic and think that Hillary-bashing is just good sport.
I saw that exchange between Tweety and Mika this am, the hair on the back of my neck stood straight up. And she gave some lame-o response. It's not the first time he's gone after her like this. He would have never done that to a man. Like someone else said; that dude doesn't have issues, he has a whole subscription.
"be skeptical of news organizations that behave like adolescents" . . . well that about covers them all, doesn't it?
Here is what Shuster thought was weird:
They are letting Chelsea call the super delegates, which every single person know s are going to be THE story in the crowning of our nominee. I think the inference is why is she making those calls? It does seem perverse when you consider she is not a politician or a political operative. There seems to me to be a feeling that if they put her up to the calls, the superdelegates will be put on the spot in a way that they wouldn't when speaking to a political operative.
As for the pimp comment, it was certainly illadvised, but this is about ginning up a controversy and the Clinton team did just that.
Funny, if the Clintons were "pimping" Chelsea, what the fuck was Mitt-storm doing with his brood?
A few comments:
Shuster has a pretty decent record. This is an aberration, albeit a stupid nasty one. 'Pimp' is one of those words that has been blunted by colloquial use -- e.g. '...my ride' -- but it's still demeaning and inappropriate.
In other news, Chris Matthews is still on the air.
That said, there has been a degree of wanting it both ways in Chelsea's role on the campaign trail. She's not available to the press -- the hoohah about her comment to the Scholastic kid reporter was silly, but if she's making calls and recording messages, then she gives up some of her justification for that embargo.
When mentioning Mary Cheney's sexuality was turned into a diplomatic by her evil mother, the point was made that she was, in essence, not just a public figure and campaign aide, but one whose previous job was tied to her sexuality.
Either Chelsea's part of the campaign, or not. If she's part of the campaign, then she has to make certain sacrifices. These absolutely don't include being described as being 'pimped out'; they do include a degree of accessibility as part of the campaign merry-go-round.
Was it okay for the presenters on The View to joke about getting robocalls from Chelsea Clinton, then getting actual calls from her?
Is it okay for Howard Wolfson to bring down the big stick on MSNBC while Hillary calls for a debate on Fox fracking News, home of Clinton conspiracy theorists?
I think the inference is why is she making those calls? It does seem perverse when you consider she is not a politician or a political operative.
Making those calls makes her a political operative by definition.
It doesn't mean she's being 'pimped out'.
It does means she can't reasonably balk at being treated as a member of the campaign. She can 'no comment' the press as much as she likes, but the press can justifiably report that alongside her role in the campaign, and neither she nor the campaign can really act like it's some kind of terrible incursion.
The suspension of Schuster, after the apologies of Tweety, show that things are moving in the right direction for progressives. The MCM types are now being challenged on their shit & having to backtrack. The next logical step is to get one of these blowhards to lose their jobs. Keep up the pressure.
I don't watch television. Christ, just look what I'm missing. Turn it off, people. It's destrying what remains of your minds.
FYI-
At the top of the Tucker show today, being hosted by Norah O'Donnell, Shuster gave an apology for his remarks about Chelsea and the Clinton family yesterday.
Either Chelsea's part of the campaign, or not. If she's part of the campaign, then she has to make certain sacrifices.
pseudonymous in nc
The main point here is that MSNBC is negatively reporting on Chelsea in a way that they didn't on the Romney boys, W's 2 whorish girls, Cheney's daughter. Progressives need to fight to ensure that there's no double standard for Democrats & taking on Tweety & the gang is a good fight to pick.
They will nail Obama to a rugged cross. and all the idiots cheering on the Village will be crying soon enough.
Justaguy
You are right to point out Dan Abrams criticism of media bias against Hillary. But Dan is very hypocritical in that he rarely points the bias finger at his own network or the shows preceeding his. But then he is the General Manager and alas criticism only goes so far or should I say so near.
Hysterical is all I can say about the response to Schuster's comments and right on sisters and brothers. Now, I want you to all go to your windows and yell "MSNBC, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore. Just saw Schuster's "apology" and Nora's "David" response. Hope he enjoys his time off and thinks about his wife.
This shows that Democrats have finally started to stand up to these bozos and it pays off. Republicans have done this for years, raising a stink whenever their guys got criticised, but Democrats have acted like wusses for years.
As for Obama getting a pass, Gore and Kerry were defeated as a result of the right wing smear machine and the cooperation of the media. How often did you hear Democratic leaders complaining about they way Gore was treated? How many Democrats bothered to complain to the networks when this was going on? From what I saw, a lot of Democrats were actually taken in by all the nonsense and voted for Nader.
The hatred of the Clintons is because the right has not been able to defeat them yet. I would expect any Democratic president to get the same treatment that the Clintons got unless we all speak up about it. The media is finally becoming intimidated by Democrats. It is long past time.
Chelsea may be working for her candidate, but she is still a private citizen as are the rest of us who work for our candidates. I wonder if MSNBC got an unpleasant call from a lawyer this morning.
Even if they didn't, MSNBC is for sure beginning to worry about access for the next few years.
Chelsea doesn't need to be asked about military service because neither she nor her parents are calling for endless new wars to be fought by others. The whole point of Operation Yellow Elephant, as I understood it, was to challenge military-age Republicans who were enthusiastically hyping more and more war while they safely remained home and pursued "other interests."
Puppets like Matthews are distractions. You're buying into the distraction and keeping it going. Do you honestly think that serious social change is tied to obsessing over what "Tweety" said? Or are you simply into electing Dems? If the latter's true, then your love of the distraction makes sense, as the Dems are very much part of this. Which is on display at the moment.
Ann,
She is a public figure. That does not mean people have free license to trash her, but to call her a private citizen is the narrowest of definition.
I'm no lawyer but even I know what NY Times V. Sullivan was about. Any lawyer who called MSNBC today would have been laughed off the line.
I will repeat: his choice of words was bad. But this is nothing more than The Clinton team playing bare knuckle politics. All this outrage is just more noise. They need to drop it or risk overplaying their hand on this.
Progressives need to fight to ensure that there's no double standard for Democrats & taking on Tweety & the gang is a good fight to pick.
But there's a double-standard within the Clinton campaign.
Say what you like about Tagg, not-Tagg, not-not-Tagg, Tagg's brother and the other one, but they've been visible, on-the-record elements of the Romney campaign. Much to TBogg's amusement, in fact.
Chelsea Clinton has, until now, been seen and not heard as part of her mother's campaign. And the press has, more or less, responded to her 'no comment' with non-inquisitive coverage.
Calling superdelegates and celebrities makes her an operative. Calling three of the four View regulars makes her an operative.
Don't get me wrong on this: Shuster was out of line. But his stupid, sexist choice of words has allowed the Clinton campaign to squash any substantive discussion of how Chelsea is actively, personally campaigning for her mother, but doesn't want to be treated like a member of the campaign.
And Howard Wolfson's response -- 'no debates on MSNBC!', after expressing a willingness to debate on Fox News -- has a hint of the Lynne Cheney calculated outrage about it.
I can't afford cable.
The first time I ever heard of Chris Matthews was when I showed up at the mass demonstration at the Republican National Convention in New York City 2004.
He had an island set up at 34th and Broadway to do his show, and thousands of NYC commuters were shunted aside to let him do his shtick. Some, who insisted on going their usual route, had orange nets thrown over them and were herded away by the NYPD.
I'm not kidding. The City of New York is paying bigtime for these incidents to this day.
And this guy is still on the air?
Why? He has a nickname, Tweety, that I don't get?
This must be some inside the blogosphere joke...
Jeez, identify his sponsors, scrutinize your buying habits, and don't buy anything advertised on his show.
Tell the advertisers why.
Do that, and I won't have to read anymore about Tweety, whoever the hell he is...
In the meantime, I've voted for Hillary Clinton in my primary in New York, I've given her back one week's thirty bucks-the exact amount Billary put into my paycheck for fifteen years and counting...
That done..
I click onto the Internet, hoping to find somebody who was awake and alive since 1968?
I mean ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just on television.
In much the same fashion that the democratic party has oozed rightward over the past few decades, so the ever smug MSM has steadily emulated the blowhard tendencies of the right wing media.
I have two high school kids and the phrase pimped out is slang for "to use". It obviously wasn't smart for Shuster to use that terminology and I'm not sure if he'd heard it from kids (his?) or he was just trying to be hip. There are certainly a dozen ways he could have phrased it better and his point was mistaken to begin with, but I don't think it was meant to be denigrating in the way the Clintons are making it out to be.
I'm not convinced it wasn't a sexist remark whether Shuster is "aware" of it or not. The nature of biases with long histories where they've been validated in law, etc. is that people don't recognize they're doing something wrong.
My doubt comes from Shuster's remark about Chelsea Clinton not giving access to journalists. I don't understand how that's at all relevant to his decision to criticize her support of her mother's campaign. Was it just petty payback for the lack of access then? It wouldn't be the first time a woman was called a whore (wasn't what Shuster said but you can't have a pimp without someone being the whore) or bitch because someone didn't get what they wanted from her.
And as far as Shuster being treated different than Matthews and Co., well, life's full of double standards. Ask any woman.
Chris Floyd's thoughts on this very topic. Do Read.
I'm pretty sure that Mary Cheney was involved deeply in her father's campaign and wasn't available to the press. She may very well have made phone calls to important people. In fact, she had an official role.
(I also don't think Oprah is taking questions from the press when she makes public appearances for Obama.)
It's not all that unusual for people who volunteer for candidates to be in "no comment" mode with the press, even those who make speeches on their behalf, hold fundraisers and give them money.
There's certainly nothing "unseemly" about asking them to make phone calls on the campaign's behalf. I got one from Jack Nicholson just the other day.
Clinton is pure sleaze. And no, "everybody is doing it" isn't an affirmative defense.
Why do you keep shilling for them? They made this whole fake controversy up (as well as all the others) to generate sympathy for the "damsel in distress" Hillary. If their poll numbers weren't tanking, this would've been forgotten by now.
They're desperate, and you're just blind. These scumbags do not deserve your support.
They would but it's easier to do to Clinton since they've been digging through the family's trash for years and they're too lazy to start fresh.
I do think it falls into a pattern of slagging the Clintons in ways that you just don't see with other candidates. That said, why the suspension seems to me due to two things: first, Chelsea, having been an adolescent in the White House, has not cast off that "minor" image, and Shuster's remarks have maybe upset more of the MSNBC higher- ups than it might otherwise have done. Second, wasn't the campaign threatening to cut off access? In such a dynamic primary season, that's the last thing MSNBC wants, so logically if it takes disciplining Shuster to avert it, of course they'll do it.
but I don't think it was meant to be denigrating in the way the Clintons are making it out to be.
So Fred, full disclosure, who are you whoring for?
And of course, I only mean that in the "who are you shilling for and what's your price" meaning of the word. Nothing personal.
I wonder if Shuster's opinions of the Clintons is based on any of this:
David Shuster - MSNBC correspondent
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080466/
During the Clinton administration, Shuster led Fox’s coverage of the Clinton investigations including “Whitewater,” the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Starr report and the Senate impeachment trial.
Shuster was also a member of Fox’s “You Decide 2000” political team. He spent four months on John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” bus and was Fox’s lead correspondent for McCain’s presidential campaign.
From 1994 - 1996, Mr. Shuster was a political reporter for KATV (ABC) Little Rock, Arkansas. He led the station’s coverage of “Whitewater,” including the indictments, trial, and convictions of Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker."
Of course the conservatives will attempt to swiftboat Obama if he is the nominee. Someone like Tweety, however, who likes to think he isn't racist when he probably is, is going to be hamstrung in his ability to attack him.
It's unfortunate but true that gender-tinged attacks are palatable to the general public, and that there's a much more receptive, ready made audience out there for Hillary hate.
So yes, there will be relentless attacks by the right wing media against Obama. The MSM are apt to be much more careful with him, though, regardless of how they really feel.
Cranston,
I read Floyd's comment and he could be a bit more precise about who he's slamming for blog triumphalism. Not everyone is running around pounding our own chests that we accomplished something "important."
He misses the point that Matthews was just a symbol of the broad, sexist schadenfruede that ran rampant in the media in the days before the NH primary. He wasn't the only one, just the most blatant. You are free to disagree with that, of course, and hold that Clinton actually stole new Hampshire, but the evidence Floyd shows has been disproved, so it must have been something even more nefarious and underhanded.
I'll go with the supposition that the polls were wrong and there were at least a handful of women who were disgusted by the media's glee at seeing Clinton stomped that they came out to vote for her. Your mileage may vary. Nobody knows.
The MSNBC "talent" (Hollywood slang for sex professional isn't it) is upset because they are EQUALS to the politicians they make a living by talking about, if not in fact SUPERIOR.
They ain't getting the deference they are owed. They will not tolerate it.
But blame McLaughlin for starting this smart ass cool kid approach to civics, which cable turned into an epidemic by cable. "Pimp" was just in guy cool & clever. Dowd may be jealous.
I don't understand how that's at all relevant to his decision to criticize her support of her mother's campaign. Was it just petty payback for the lack of access then?
Because there are certain types of campaigning you can get away with while not providing journalists with access. While Chelsea was appearing and speaking at rallies, that was absolutely kosher.
But putting in calls behind the scenes changes things up. You can argue that that's unfair, but when the Romney boys and Cate Edwards have been giving interviews, that sets a de facto standard for expectations on the campaign trail. You do certain things, you have to put up with certain demands in terms of availability.
Again, Shuster's language was crass, sexist and stupid. But the 'unseemly' bit of his comment reflected Chelsea's have-it-both-ways role in the campaign.
jaysus keerist, these people! maybe they could just, um . . . you know, report the news and quit using MSNBC as a bully pulpit for their lunatic opinions.
truly, the press is the greatest danger to our ability to reclaim this country and our democracy.
but i thought schuster was one of the good ones.
Because special rules apply to the Clintons. Politics is about trying to convince and even smooze and manipulate people to vote for a particular candidate. You don't like it? Grow up. I'm not saying this as a particular Hillary fan. I'll vote for either quite gladly, and I was an Edwards supporter. But I can't stand the kind of Rorschach test Hillary triggers in so many. Far too many people displace all that they don't like about politics onto Hillary.
Swarty: Ginning up a controversy? Listen, if someone said that about my daughter, someone's teeth would be on the floor. Some things are just beyond the pale. I can't imagine what you're on about. Some things you just do not say. Some things are never okay.
Colombo: All the alternative meanings to 'pimping' that deal with exploitation etc., all come back to whoring or sexual exploitation. The use of the word 'pimp' to suggest exploitation is explicitly referencing the metaphor of whoring or sexual exploitation. You can't separate it from its genesis.
Pseudonymous in NC: So if Chelsea was just an ordinary person unrelated to the Clintons, or some distant cousin, you are saying she would be fair game? I really don't understand your argument, but it smacks of hypocrisy.
Joc3: The notion that the right wing hate machine won't come after Obama with the same virulence as they came after the Clintons is so delusional as to be lunatic. Remember John Kerry and the Swift Boats? Remember the campaign against Al Gore? Remember the hatefest against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Remember Paul O'Neil? How about the 'Mayberry Mafia' guy? These people hate at the press of a button. They're good at hating. They don't hold back. So if you think... 'maybe they wont'.' Well, I don't think you're dealing with reality.
pseudonymous in nc:
Nobody is saying that Shuster wasn't entitled to criticize the Clintons, including Chelsea, for campaigning but still trying to claim "amateur" or "civilian" status by not speaking with the media.
What he said is demeaning, unprofessional, and uncalled for, even if the underlying criticism might have been valid. Where I work if I said something demeaning, unprofessional and crude, no matter how justified the criticism, I'd get suspended, too. Can any of you imagine John Chancellor, Sander Vanocur, Jack Perkins, Frank McGee, Linda Ellerbee, or other NBC News on-air journalists of yesteryear making the sort of remark Shuster did? These guys did live stand-ups for years on end while maintaining their professionalism.
Of course! What a fool I was to believe even for an instant that Shuster was trying to denigrate the Clintons.
Everybody knows calling somebody a pimp and her daughter a whore is just your amiable, every-day adolescent usage; and everybody knows Shuster was only trying to be hip, because MSNBC depends so heavily on that high school demographic.
Okay. Rather than rebut (or attack) those posters who want to defend Shuster and MSNBC, let me reach for my humanity and gently suggest that they end their furloughs and return to their institutions.
That way, they can continue to impove their skills with a mop and pail (and finally learn to evacuate in a bowl and wipe themselves with paper) so that eventually they can contribute to society and not be regarded as completely useless.
There's certainly nothing "unseemly" about asking them to make phone calls on the campaign's behalf. I got one from Jack Nicholson just the other day.
An actual live call, digby? If so, kudos.
Personally I think there's a difference between being on the campaign trail and calling super delegates on mommy or daddy's behalf.
Then again, maybe candidates' kids all do it, and Chelsea is just the first one we've heard about.
Anybody know?
And no, "everybody is doing it" isn't an affirmative defense.
But there's NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. This isn't something tawdry or even controversial about it. Chelsea Clinton calling superdelegates? So fucking what? Someone has to. And she probably knows them as well as anyone. Obama has someone calling the superdelgates too and they're not talking to the media either -- what's the crackpot conspiracy saying about that?
Are you that deranged by the Clenis or the Clintoris that you find something nefarious in an action that if anyone else undertook it, it would remain unknown to the cosmos?
YOU are the reason that Clinton might win this thing. The lunatic invective that they engender in people that is so overwhelmingly over-the-top and what average people see is so different -- that it becomes instinctive to rally toward them.
It's not like she can't be criticized about things that actually matter, but folks like you (and the media) prefer the easy, fake, slanders.
Someone should check to see if Shuster's been commenting here at Hullabaloo.
What an idiot! There is no excuse for saying something so stupid and inappropriate. Unseemly for a daughter to campaign for her parents? What universe is Shuster from?
When I first saw Shuster, I liked his energy, but I'm beginning to think that this stuff is contagious. Get too close to Matthews and you start sounding like Matthews (who should have been fired and institutionalized long ago).
Also, Shuster's apology was at least as lame as the original statement. If he has something to apologize for, why not just apologize to the Clintons and to anyone else who was offended, admit it was a moronic thing to say, and be done with it. Instead, it's yet another "To the extent that..." apology.
Please you got the man fired, put your pitch forks away. Let go of those pearls.
Skeptic | 02.08.08 - 7:32 pm
..wow...while reading down the comments, numerous things came to mind, but i'll be damned if you didn't hit on about all of them with your post...allow me to say "ditto"
Lovely commentary. As cogent as always. I concur and do expect that the MSNBC jocks will circle the wagons, put out the mattresses, and get even more shrill and hysterical (isn't that what they are doing?) over Hillary. The attitude shift after Tweety got initially smacked down was very perceptible. For a brief moment before they had the opportunity to be the anti-Fox and anti-CNN; truly fair and balanced and progressive. What a waste. C'est la vie.
HenryFTP: you're right, it's categorically unprofessional. I'm not taking issue with it at all.
What I am saying is that Chelsea Clinton's role in the campaign -- which, apparently, now extends to calling superdelegates and celebrities on her mother's behalf -- may now be treated with kid gloves.
If the choice of nominee comes down to those 700-odd superdelegates, over the millions of primary voters and caucusgoers, then the covert process of getting their support will become an issue. I hope that doesn't happen, because it will tear the party to bits.
Skeptic: I don't know where you've pulled that idea from, but it wasn't from me. My position is similar to that of George Colombo: Chelsea's avoidance of the press becomes harder to justify within the structure of a political campaign when it's no longer just rallies and public events, but placing calls to superdelegates. That's not just because of the type of campaigning, but also because of the precedent set by other grown-up kids during this primary season.
Fred F, the term 'pimp' as in 'pimping' and 'pimp out' comes into the mainstream culture from Rap culture, particularly Gangsta Rap. Gangsta Rap is all about women as 'bitches and ho's as well as about conspicuous consumption and dramatic displays of wealth. The archetype Gangsta is either a pimp or a drug dealer, in either case his girlfriend or any woman he deals with is a 'ho' as her only value as a human being is as a commodity. The 'pimp' is a celebrated player because of his primacy over and control of 'ho' and the wealth this brings him, which enables him to demonstrate his virility, income and power with pointless visual extravagance - diamond studded teeth, excessively ornate expensive automobiles, garish jewelry, clothes, finery, etc. The use of the term 'pimp' relates back to that.
To 'pimp my ride' is to dress up an automobile to the point of garish and expensive excess, the idea is to demonstrate sexual potence and virility to 'ho'. To 'pimp' my girlfriend is to sell her for money. To 'pimp' out a wardrobe is to dress like a pimp, or dress a woman like a 'ho.'
Now that you've had it explained in English, do you understand how unspeakably toxic it is.
If the choice of nominee comes down to those 700-odd superdelegates, over the millions of primary voters and caucusgoers, then the covert process of getting their support will become an issue.
OK, who's Obama got on his calls? When's his or her press conference?
You have raised an entirely different issue -- the role of superdelegates -- than the issue at hand. Both campaigns are already confirming them, I'm sure. Why is it only bad if Chelsea does it? How does that act make her somehow different than what she was speaking at public events?
The bullies went after Senator Clinton's child. She went after them. The bullies cried and caved. Will the rest of the Senators pay attention now? It doesn't take much -just a "NOT ON MY WATCH" moment.
I hope someone remembers who the famous speaker of this was:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
One hint: It wasn't OxyCotin man nor was it O'Fafafel. Nor was it the BugMan.
According to the book Papillion, our "hero", like so many convicts, claimed that he had been framed for murder by the French police. However, he reasoned that he belonged in prison for being a no-good thief and a pimp.
When I was a kid, the word "pimp" was considered one of the most vulgar epithets imaginable.
Times have changed.
I agree with cranston way up the thread. Most people don't watch these jerks.
But I read progressive blogs, which raise questions about the Bush girls, Cheney's daughter, Romney's sons, often in pretty derogatory language. And I pointed out feminist Robin Morgan's essay supporting Clinton (circulating to huzzahs in the Hillary blogosphere), in which Morgan links Obama, through Caroline Kennedy's Electra complex about her dead father, to Chappaquiddick and Marilyn Monroe's suicide. Jeeeesh! Talk about ugly.
It was rude for Shuster to say, but I've seen a lot worse. He's suspended, he's apologized. Clinton got lots of face time on MSNBC from her televised rally this afternoon.
Aren't there primaries or caucuses or something this weekend?
Pseudonymous in NC, I still don't get your argument, and I still think that your position reeks of hypocrisy.
Your notion is that Chelsea's role in the campaign makes her fair game in some way. What role? Is he a key strategist? Is she a covert Karl Rove? Is she a go to person, an organizer, a thinker, what? Is he writing speeches like Michael Gerson? Is she a policy person drafting positions? What?
If she wasn't a relative, then would this mean that the media would be all over her anyway? I suspect that they wouldn't. But if that's the case, then the only thing that makes her special or of attention to the press is the fact that she's related to her mother. Well big deal.
You seem to have this idea that she's got obligations. I don't see that. I don't see that anyone has passed a law or regulation, that campaign finance rules require that children of candidates have to give the press special consideration. What exactly is she supposed to be giving to the press?
Snapshots from inside her vagina? Is she supposed to be discussing her personal life? How many times she menstruates? Does her boyfriend come in her or do they use contraceptives? Does she feel like she's gained weight? What is it that the press is entitled to?
Is he supposed to be speaking to the press about Clinton's policies? Speeches? What?
You may feel that I'm beating you up on this. But frankly, your position makes no sense. It's superficial, and any time I try to go deeper into figuring what you are really about, it breaks down. I don't have any sense that your position is coherent or thought out.
I agree with posters' disgust of Chris Matthews. He needs to get in touch with his own sexuality if he's ever going to be able to get out of the woman-haters' club.
Maybe our next President will overturn all those laws which allowed all those telecom megamergers back in the nineties.
Bob in Pacifica, I can understand your point when you note that derogatory things have been said about Republicans children.
On the other hand, will you meet me half way and concede that there's a huge difference between Chelsea Clinton doing campaign calls on behalf of her mother, and Jenna Bush doing the Butt Dance, drunkenly simulating anal sex on videotape at a party?
Will you meet me half way and concede that there's a huge difference between Chelsea Clinton doing campaign calls on behalf of her mother, and Dick Cheney's Lesbian Daughter trading on her Lesbian Credentials to earn money and maintain a common law, while at the same time her father campaigns against gays and lesbians?
Can you tell the difference between an intemperate comment by an anonymous in the comments section of an online blog... and a remark made by a respected news personality on the air to millions of people?
I think the main point is being ignored:
"Why Shuster and not Matthews?", indeed!
Matthews has been saying infinitely worse things for YEARS and he gets by with a smarmy apology? Shuster's comment, while regrettable, is like a grain of sand on the beach of Tweety's endless sexist, demeaning and twisted utterances. Why wasn't he put off the air like Imus?
There is the supreme injustice, IMHO.
It was appropriate for Shuster to get suspended, but why not Matthews? During Super Tuesday coverage, Matthews was pundificating about how Obama's success was probably due to a backlash from voters tired of Bill inserting some racial negativity into the campaign. He followed that up with the nails-on-chalkboard remark of..."we all know that Bill is an expert at inserting himself." Call me stupid, but that is 10 times worse than Shuster's pimp reference.
Best analysis of the problem at MSNBC I've read. Thanks Digby.
Is this circling of the wagons mentality what's happened to Keith? He seems to have transformed into Tweety's little sidekick in the last few weeks, as if he's now been accepted into the club.
I only watch MSNBC, but have found myself going to CNN just to get the rest of the story. Keith better stop banging on Bill-O about ratings, he may be eating his words before long. Anyone know how I could write him?
who's Obama got on his calls?
If it's Obama's 6- and 8-year-old daughters, I'd find it even more problematic.
How does that act make her somehow different than what she was speaking at public events?
How does it make her somehow different from Cate Edwards and the Romney kids?
I honestly didn't mind Chelsea being 'no comment' in the bog-standard public rally-and-event phase of the campaign, even when other candidates' kids were more willing to speak on record. If you're showing up alongside your parent and doing a bit of boosting, then I don't see any need to talk to the press. It's understood that you're there as human set-dressing.
But this--
JOY BEHAR: Well, I said yesterday that I was going to decide who I was going to vote for, so when I got into the booth, I did. But then I went home and the phone rings. I was speaking to you, then I hung up and the phone rings. And who is it? "Hi, this is Chelsea Clinton." So I said "really?" [laughter] I said "the real Chelsea Clinton?" First I thought it was a prank. Then she said "no it’s Chelsea Clinton and I understand that you are on the fence about who to vote for..bah, bah, bah." And I said "oh Chelsea, nice to hear from you. I want you to know that I’ve been a big champion of your mother’s for many moons on ‘The View’ and so don’t worry about it. You know." And then she says, "okay thank you." And then I get a call from you five minutes later.
I don't see how you can do personal campaigning like this and expect the press not to treat that as a shift in your role, in which 'no comment' becomes harder to justify.
None of this excuses describing it as 'pimping out' Chelsea. It can be described as the Clinton campaign wanting her to be treated as if she's just there for set dressing.
Pseudonymous in nc, I'm still not getting your point. Because she actually opened her mouth on behalf of her mother she's now fair game? What exactly do you want? Do you have a point, or do you just keep repeating the same blather in the hope that the sheer volume of it will gravitationally attract a particle of common sense?
Joe Klein's conscience,
It was the StraightTalkExpress man. Do I get a T-shirt?
"Kids are fair game," who said that?
Sure, Skeptic. But won't you agree that Robin Morgan was way out of line in linking Obama to Marilyn Monroe's suicide through Caroline Kennedy's endorsement?
I don't watch these cable talking heads, and I'd suggest that everyone should buy a copy of Christopher Simpson's THE SCIENCE OF COERCION if they ever in their lives believed anything that people on TV told them. It didn't start this election cycle.
I realize more people watch MSNBC than know that Robin Morgan exists, or reads the op-ed page of the New York Times, where Gloria Steinem deposited her "Women are never frontrunners" piece. That doesn't make their "work" smell any sweeter.
This election cycle offers a field day for sexists and racists. I'm just saying that suggesting that Clinton is "pimping" her daughter, considering the frequent use of the word pimp nowadays, is maybe almost as offensive as saying that Caroline Kennedy supports Obama because of her unnatural love for her Marilyn-murderin' daddy.
I am glad that Robin Morgan isn't on MSNBC and I wish Chris Matthews wasn't.
"Call me stupid, but that is 10 times worse than Shuster's pimp reference."
Spike, Bill is a big boy and can handle his own messes. Chelsea is not fair game to every dweeb reporter with a mike.
I agree with HenryFTP@7:35. In years past, news professionals were able to broadcast live and not call people pimps, whores or similar. The fact that Shuster is not alone in his behavior and that there are other far worse culprits spewing on the airwaves is beside the point. I am happy to see any network reign in this behavior. More standards please, thank you. It feels good not to follow Michael Savage, Imus and Bob Grant into the sewer, and that is reason enough to exercise restraint.
Fred F.
"I have two high school kids and the phrase pimped out is slang for "to use". "
Garbage: Pimped out is exactly what it means, the person being"pimped" is a whore. Period.
And, it unfortunately comes from my community, (African-American).
Schuster is a Freeper. I'm sure he will claim he was the victim of Hillary's vast powers to control the media.
The over reaction to a possible Hillary presidency could match the over reaction to 9-11 and illegal Mexicans. The right wing has succeeded at making Hillary out to be Satan's sister. Most of the guys I know think she is to left left of Stalin and will kill or maim anyone to castrate this country.
Expect witch trials and burnings at the stake.
1. MSNBC has been, is now and always will be the permanent McCain Channel - and it is not the only one.
2. MSNBC is only the temporary Obama Channel, and that will end the moment Clinton loses the nomination.
3. When it comes to every Clinton, for Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC crew, it is always 1998.
4. The only difference now is that the internet can generate immediate and substantial criticism when they say what they were able to say with absolute impunity 10 years ago. They profoundly resent this.
5. This latest craze of open hostility by MSNBC personnel to outsider criticism began with Imus, not Matthews.
6. "Journalistic ethics" has nothing to do with it. The point is to establish MSNBC early as the Fox News of the McCain administration.
7. And if Obama or Clinton somehow actually wins? Well, there's always Olberman.
You seem to have this idea that she's got obligations. I don't see that.
Given the rest of your comment, I'm not surprised. Of course there's no black-letter obligation, but there are rules of thumb established by the Clinton campaign and other campaigns. I had no problem with her 'no press' rule back in December, even with Scholastic's fourth-grade kid reporter in Iowa.
Snapshots from inside her vagina? Is she supposed to be discussing her personal life?
What the fuck?
Don't be so fucking stupid. And if you're going to throw that wild-eyed nonsense at me, you really have a nerve talking about 'coherence'.
The press is entitled to ask her about her role on the campaign: How many people has she been calling? Whose idea was it? What else is she doing for the campaign outside of public events? And if she 'no comments' them, then I think there's justification to look for answers elsewhere. And not up her fucking vagina.
No matter how hard you try to stuff the phrase into my mouth, I do not think she is 'fair game'. I think the new role she is playing in the campaign is worthy of discussion.
Bob in Pacifica, that Robin Morgan stuff sounds bizarre and surreal. It seems less beyond the pale and more 'WTF?'
Because she actually opened her mouth on behalf of her mother she's now fair game?
You keep using that phrase. It's a loaded phrase. We know it's a loaded phrase.
I don't use that phrase or agree with it.
So cut the bullshit.
or do you just keep repeating the same blather in the hope that the sheer volume of it will gravitationally attract a particle of common sense?
Oh, fuck off. But thanks for proving that you either don't want to read it or can't comprehend it.
As my baby boy has been waking up around 5 a.m. for several months now, I've been watching a lot of "Morning Joe," and in the runup to the FISA showdown I was really interested to see how a three-hour-long show about politics could manage to avoid the topic. But they did! More important than covering any aspect of FISA was recycling the same insignificant gossip and horse-race BS over and over and over.
Shuster's one of the saner ones on that show, but he managed to avoid the topic just like everyone else. Three hours! They're all trained seals, barking for their fish, and I couldn't care less what happens to any of them. Especially Tweety.
Let's not get too far away from reality. "Pimping" this or that has been part of the vernacular for decades. Of course, there are rude sexual connotations, it IS a rude sexual comment, but did anyone here actually think that Chelsea was being used for sex? Did anyone think that Shuster actually meant that Chelsea was being sold for sex?
No, Shuster used a rude street vernacular, but let's not pretend that he was accusing anyone of selling their daughter for sexual purposes.
And Shuster isn't the first commentator to connect politics with prostitution. I suspect everyone here has seen that analogy expressed before, and maybe used it his or herself.
He was called on it. He apologized, he was suspended.
Shuster's pimping comment is obviously bizarre and out of bounds.
Still, asking your daughter to call celebrities and super delegates strikes me as a sign of desperation.
Why the hell would anybody care if Chelsea Clinton called? She seems pleasant enough, but hardly merits such significance. (Disclaimer....... I'm not a celebrity.)
Back in the olden days of my youth, I worked around and with pimps and whores, and pimping and whoring are not fun jobs, as far as I could see.
Now we use these words casually and apparently do not seem to realize that these words have a past, a long past, and they have power invested in them because of their past.
Whatever we think of the media, or candidates, or candidates' daughters, or our daughters, or our sons, no one should say they are being "pimped out." The language of the street should not be incorporated into what a person can hope will be a more formal discussion. But I am just an old English major, so you have to excuse me.
Pseudonymous in NC, I'm glad you've taken the gloves off. I was getting tired of trying to make sense of your moronic talking points. Let's get to it, shall we.
"Of course there's no black-letter obligation, but there are rules of thumb established by the Clinton campaign and other campaigns."
Bullshit, and you know it. You're making up your own goddammed rules of the game as you go along to justify the moronic positions you take. It's not calvinball, bucko.
"The press is entitled to ask her about her role on the campaign:"
And what role is that? Check this out:
"How many people has she been calling? Whose idea was it? What else is she doing for the campaign outside of public events?
And did she shoot John F. Kennedy? What fucking nonsense. So the press is entitled to her morning call lists? They're entitled to an itemized list of calls? They're entitled to crawl up the n