Please stay on topic. Please don't be asses.
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 nose of campaign management?
What for? You think there's maybe a conspiracy at work? That maybe Chelsea's the secret master of the campaign? Frankly, your asshole notions would have made more sense if you were arguing for snapshots of her vagina. As it is, you're not far from it.
"And if she 'no comments' them, then I think there's justification to look for answers elsewhere. And not up her fucking vagina."
Oh, because there's obviously a FUCKING CHELSEA CONSPIRACY. Which entitles the press to look everywhere but up her vagina, because obviously she's violating your UNWRITTEN RULES OF THUMB pulled out of your ass for the purpose, and this makes everything else about her fair game.
Your so full of it your eyes are brown.
I think the new role she is playing in the campaign is worthy of discussion.
Why? Because she called Joy Behar and some of the women on the View?
I'm with Skeptic -- I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. Campaign staffs have dozens of people trying to rope influential people into the campaign. Who on the Obama team reached out to Kerry or Kennedy? Who's been negotiating with Richardson? Who was his liason with Oprah?
Who cares? What does it matter? Why does the press -- and you, apparantly -- only care when it's Chelsea and not anyone else on any campaign?
Bob from Pacifica, listen to this, see if it gets through:
"Let's not get too far away from reality. "Nigger" this or that has been part of the vernacular for decades. Of course, there are rude racial connotations, it IS a rude racial comment, but did anyone here actually think that Chelsea was being used as a drug dealer? Did anyone think that Shuster actually meant that Chelsea dealing drugs?
No, Shuster used a rude street vernacular, but let's not pretend that he was accusing anyone of using their daughter to sell crack.
And Shuster isn't the first commentator to connect politics with race. I suspect everyone here has seen that analogy expressed before, and maybe used it his or herself."
Some things are just not okay. Misogyny is just not okay. Period.
Earth to Donutd1967:
Whatever your past connection to people forced to work in the degrading field of sex, nowadays you can hear "pimp" all over the airwaves, in the grocery stores, etc.
There is a TV show called "Pimp My Ride." It's been on for a few years now. Where are all the protesters for that?
I guess we've exhausted the subject. Now does anyone want to talk about the upcoming primaries and caucuses?
Bollox Relief: "a sign of desperation". Yes, winning California, MASS, etc. and raising 8 million in two days...oh the desperation.
Shuster's comment "obviously bizarre" not at all..just run of the mill for msnbc.
Bob in Pacifica: hitting every comment section that he can from TL to TLC to Digby, like a drunk careening from bar to bar repeating his little bob in pacifica mantra, which always boils down to "get over it bitch". what is it, bob, with you guys like Sullivan and Aravosis? Psychological issues?
As far back as I can recall, Bob in Pacifica, women have been protesting the violent misogyny, the emphasis on 'Bitches and Ho's in Gangsta rap.
Despite this, the virulent misogyny of gangsta rap has found itself a place in modern culture, and the term 'pimp', 'pimping', 'pimp out', etc. have found currency. 'Pimp my ride' comes from that same place, Robot Chicken parodied the phenomenon with a short called 'Pimp my Sister.'
It doesn't make it okay. Trust me on this.
By the way, Bob in Pacifica: Donutd1967 has it right.
You're making up your own goddammed rules of the game
Yeah, because the Romney kids and Cate Edwards are actually figments of the imagination, and weren't at all campaigning over the past months.
Oh.
And did she shoot John F. Kennedy? What fucking nonsense.
Quite. You're the one spouting it. Thanks for showing that you've left the planet. Come back down when the hot air's blown out.
I'm trying to find a synonym for 'hysterical' that doesn't have sexist connotations. 'Overwrought exaggeration' will have to do.
Please, though, come up with another fourteen thousand things that I haven't actually fucking said. Paint a red circle on your ass and dance around doing it if you like, because it won't make you look any sillier than your past few comments.
Hillary Hatred goes straight to the "Culture Wars" and the role of women in politics and society. The culture warriors hate Hillary as a feminist who helped beat down the doors of the all male law schools and supporter or the equal rights amendment. Hillary is hated as a symbol of the "equal partnership in marriage" rather than the "wife should obey her husband" school. Hillary hatred is most intense among the angry white males. For them, Hillary is a surrogate for their own wives who divorced them and collects alimony.
Skeptic, "pimp" does not equal that word that you just used in outrage content. I can go downstairs to a room full of women and ask one what she's pimping and no one would bat an eye. But if I called anyone that word that you just used I would be a social outcast.
Perhaps you live in a circle where using the most vile racial epithet is okay, or at least equal to using "pimp." I live in a different world. Try it yourself. Go down to the grocery store and use the two words. See which one gets you spit on.
Did you actually believe that Shuster was saying that Chelsea Clinton was being sold sexually?
There is no show on television called "N.... My Ride."
I would suggest that before you ride your outrage off the cliff you be careful what words you use. I forgive you that you used that racial epithet, but maybe you should be suspended for awhile.
Note to self: never come anywhere close to implying that a Democrat who had all the opportunities in the world, but instead went to work for a hedge fund, is a whore. Oops, I just did that. I hereby suspend myself.
Bollox Relief: "a sign of desperation". Yes, winning California, MASS, etc. and raising 8 million in two days...oh the desperation.
rzz,
1. It's Bollox Ref (as in bad decision by the ref in a football game).
2. If it's not desperation, why has Chelsea all of a sudden (as far as we know) started calling around?
3. Carry on.
The sad thing is that MSNBC is one of the better media networks... well, I guess I'm only saying that because Fox News is so incredibly Fascist... All of the media outlets are terrible in these regards, they are almost propaganda machines doing their mega-corporate masters bidding. Why isn't the state of mass media conglomeration a big issue? Because it conflicts with the interests of the aforementioned conglomeration who just so happens to control the airwaves and printing presses and seem to be tirelessly trying to "take over" the internet?
Pseudonymous in NC, the Romney kids, the Bush twins, Lesbian Cheney, Jimmy Carter's daughter, Pat Nixon, etc. aren't figments of the imagination.
Your bullshit 'rules of thumb' are figments of the imagination. Specifically, they're figments of *your* imagination. You make up all these goofy little rules, and then you adjust the rules as you go along, and call this 'rules of thumb' and 'principles' or whatever. You create this artificial imaginary obligations that don't have any basis except your fevered masturbation.
In the end, you got nothing. You are wasting everyone's time. You have some idea that if you repeat your bullshit often enough, it'll be worth something.
Newsflash: It isn't.
ROTFL
Who on the Obama team reached out to Kerry or Kennedy? Who's been negotiating with Richardson? Who was his liason with Oprah?
All questions that are legitimate campaign reporting. And have been covered in legitimate ways. Narratives of campaign operatives doing campaign things.
Why does the press -- and you, apparantly -- only care when it's Chelsea and not anyone else on any campaign?
Because six weeks ago, Chelsea's role in the campaign was apparently a) appearing in public meetings; b) telling 9-year-olds that she doesn't do press.
Now, Dyspeptic apparently thinks that I want a camera stuck in Chelsea's cervix, along with all manner of things that say much more about him/her than me.
It just shows the kind of craziness that has got into this comment section of late. Fuck that for a lark.
You create this artificial imaginary obligations that don't have any basis except your fevered masturbation.
Says the one who brought up Chelsea's vagina.
It is to laugh.
Sad, sad Dyspeptic, go and rave to the mirror for a while.
Bob in Pacifica, I think you are letting your sexism and misogyny blind you.
"I can go downstairs to a room full of women and ask one what she's pimping and no one would bat an eye."
Really. And if you accused one of those women of 'pimping her daughter', or a father of 'pimping her daughter', if you accused an employer of 'pimping his secretary', they'd all be okay with it.
Maybe on some other planet. I'm glad that you are enlightened enough to realize that nakedly racist terms are no longer okay. Obviously because you are afraid of being spit on or beaten up. But you seem to think its okay to use patently sexist and degrading terms replete with misogyny. Obviously, you aren't as afraid of women as you are of black men. But that's not an excuse. And its not to be tolerated.
Let me get this straight. It's okay to talk about Chelsea's vagina? Or it's okay for Skeptic to talk about Chelsea's vagina? It apparently is okay for Skeptic to use that most vile racial epithet.
I asked you, Skeptic. Did you think that Shuster used the word "pimp" to describe the Clintons actually selling the use of their daughter's thingie, you know, that word you used, in trade for some political advantage? Did you think that Shuster used the word literally?
This really isn't that hard. And have you had a chance to look up Robin Morgan's sexist insult yet? Just asking.
Pissonymous in NutCae (really its easy to play that game, so what?)
"All questions that are legitimate campaign reporting. And have been covered in legitimate ways. Narratives of campaign operatives doing campaign things."
Really? So show us all that big time coverage of campaign reporters grilling campaign workers. Once again, you're making it up as you go along to justify your bullshit.
"*Why does the press -- and you, apparantly -- only care when it's Chelsea and not anyone else on any campaign?*
"Because six weeks ago, Chelsea's role in the campaign was apparently a) appearing in public meetings; b) telling 9-year-olds that she doesn't do press."
Note that you haven't actually answered the question in a rational way. You've merely parrotted your standard talking point. By your standard, any slight shift in any campaign workers role is the stuff of news.
But more than that, in this case, this slight shift in activities invokes some NutCase 'gotcha' principle, whereby the 'rule of thumb' creates open season on Chelsea. Or some sort of requirement that she now submit to interviews, so they can ask her who she calls, how many calls she makes, who assigned her to calls, what she says on calls, how she's doing on calls, etc.
Fuck that for a lark. ROTFL.
I think Matthews is right that they'll go after Hillary even more than they would a male Democrat. I think it's partly misogyny and partly that, like predators, they seem to attack prey that seem vulnerable (the two things are related). Hillary is vulnerable to this crap partly because has been put down so much that there is no doubt a group norm that one can say whatever they want to about her. And after a while a lot of people, including media people, come to believe that the criticisms are established truth (as in, everyone knows how cold and mean she is - summarized with a b word and a smirk).
The person who uses that most vile racial epithet writes: "And if you accused one of those women of 'pimping her daughter', or a father of 'pimping her daughter', if you accused an employer of 'pimping his secretary', they'd all be okay with it."
Skeptic, so you truly believe that Shuster DID ACCUSE HILLARY CLINTON OF ACTUALLY, LITERALLY PIMPING THEIR DAUGHTER.
No wonder you're so upset. Let me put your mind at ease. He didn't. Feel better?
Bob in Pacifica. Thingie? What are you? Foolish? You seem to feel that pimp is an acceptable term of use on public television, but here you are going 'thingie'?
To be a fool is one thing. Fools are okay. I have a cousin who is stupid, great guy. But dishonesty is something else. I'm really starting to wonder about your integrity. Do you really think 'pimp her out' is an all right term.
Are you seriously actually making the argument that as long as Hillary didn't actually whore her daughter out sexually, that its okay to use the term. That without the literal and actual act, there is no metaphorical or contextual significance? No one could be that stupid.
As your argument disintegrates you seem to cast about desperately, looking for collateral issues to cloud the matter. The 'N' thing, the 'V' thing. You leap back to Robin Morgan, the only part of your original post that wasn't utterly discredited.
Evasion is not a proper debating tactic. Rather it seems a tacit admission that you understand how untenable your primary argument is. You're losing, you know it, you aren't even convincing yourself, and so you throw up this nonsense. None of this speaks to integrity on your part.
Bob, you're in danger of disgracing yourself. Our conversation drifts dangerously towards incivility. Go away while you still have some dignity.
No one I know uses "pimp" or "pimped" in casual conversation. Perhaps it's where I live, in the middle of the country in a smallish city and not in a large urban area or the coast, but out here we consider it rude, sexist, and insulting to women. I have two college aged children and neither one of them has ever used it in my presence. Shuster was speaking to the whole audience and not the young and hip and as woman who came of age as a hairy legged feminist back in the 70s I'm very glad he's gone.
Call me a crazy romantic, but I believe the world would be a better place if every time one of these scumbags opened his mouth he'd have some real fear of getting punched out of his chair by an outraged friend of the offended party. Heck, Bill's available and he's a pretty big guy. I'd love to see Schuster cowering from him.
Sorry, rzz, I had to sit around the house all day waiting for the FedEx truck.
Ready to talk about the primaries and caucuses though. But glad to see you read my comments. You can even comment on them if you like.
What I want to know is, when did the naked contempt come into play/display on television? These people don't even pretend to maintain civility. These people act like our lords and masters, and they despise their audiences.
Call them on it, and they are outraged that anyone would even dare to question their fitness to pass judgment.
Chelsea Clinton refuses to talk to the press. That's it. She dissed a TEN YEAR OLD working for Scholastic News. The rest of the bunch try to be nice to the press and generally are treated nice in return.
Got it.
I'm a total partisan political hardwired Democrat, simply cause I've been paying attention to politics, since about 1982. So I don't care who wins in the primary.
I didn't vote.
But I'm just blown away by this. Hillary said what was that he said about my daughter, go get the vicious piece of crap AND her crew did AND she was able to push back against "pimping" AND against MSNBC? AND she won? Wow!
Now I wish I had voted for her.
My sexism and misogyny, eh, Skeptic? I'm a sexist because I talk about Chelsea's sex organs? No, that's you, the one who feels free to toss about racial epithets.
I don't think you're a racist. I think you are ignorant. Someday you'll learn that that word you use is offensive to many people. May you still be in possession of your teeth after you use it in public.
They need to do some serious thinking over there about this problem.
They have, and Matthews et al are doing exactly what GE wants them to do: elect Republicans. So they sacrifice one of their own once in a while for appearances sake, so what. There's no limit to the number of sellouts out there(Rachel Maddow among the latest).
Expecting them to change is naive.
Glad to see someone else notices the outrageous bias of MSNBC but you are wrong that it's narrowed to the people above that you mention. From the time I get up in the morning and we are tuned into the daytime bimbo, after Joe is over, the right wing nonsense is blatant and endless and everywhere. If they think they have a (totally lame) story to (try) to smear Clinton with, they run it approx every 7 minutes. The latest one being the loan Hillary gave to herself (a month ago and they keep calling it this week), and the media makes a mountain out of this. They've gone overboard so many times and in the many emails I send to them regularly complaining about the bias, I have offered to sit with them and just watch these tivo'd programs and point out the tone of voice, the sneers, the facial expressions, the words they choose to project when talking about anything regarding the Clintons.
I can't say I'm flabbergasted by all this anymore because I'm used to it. But the media's manipulation of all viewers is very real and a 24/7 hour approach at getting you to think the way they want you to and vote the way they say.
Fox, forget fox, who in their right mine watches fox and thinks they are real? CNN, bad too, but no where near as bad as msnbc.
Shuster made that comment because he felt comfortable making it, because the entire network runs on Hillary hate. It's rampant. We bloggers are glad for the suspension and his unfelt apology, but it's not good enough. We want Matthew's head on a platter.
The thing is Joe's an asshole but he's an out in the open right wing asshole. Chris on the other hand voted for Bush and people make the mistake of thinkng he's a liberal when he's not.
The cable news media (and I use the word "news" lighly here) are 99.9999% right wing, and no matter how much they whine it's liberal, won't change the fact they are all republian bent.
Which has left me, bent out of shape.
I want Matthew's head on a platter!
Thanks Digby, it is nice to hear a few voices of reason in the sea of sexism that many sites have become.
You'd think Hillary had made Shuster insult her daughter from what they are saying on Daily Kos and others. Their sippy cups are full of kool-aid and they will never catch on, and I'm sad to say this is true for many of the young women there too. They know if they spoil the kewl kids fun, their former buddies will turn on them too!
Shuster's behavior was wrong and he should be ashamed. His apology was NOT his idea and it showed. He deserved the suspension, as do others at MSNBC.
I think the network heads should take responsibility, apologize for the behavior of their people and then clean house. Getting rid of Imus was the way to go, but it didn't solve the problem, the boys club still persists, thumbing their collective noses at women everywhere.
I'm still amazed that there is not a single woman on MSNBC with her own show. Just the sexist boys. Abrams is the only one I wouldn't turn off the TV if I saw him... but I don't plan to be watching either MSNBC or NBC unless I see real change, rather than insincere apologies. And I'm contacting their sponsors with my views.
Ah, Skeptic, you are claiming that Shuster was actually accusing the Clintons of selling their daughter sexually. You used an example of me accusing someone of actually (I believe you actually used the word "actually") pimping their daughter.
But you know that Shuster wasn't "actually" accusing the Clintons of "pimping" their daughter, right? You are creating an analogy that doesn't equal what happened in the real world.
Yeah, it's bad that Shuster used the word "pimp." Even though it's in the vernacular, even though the word is used in the title of a TV show, you want to inflate your outrage by claiming that Shuster actually accused the Clintons of selling off their daughter. What a crock of shit. You are dishonest.
I was mocking you when I avoided using the word vagina. Don't tell me you didn't understand that either. You are both dishonest and stupid. You should be a Republican.
As far as racial epithets, I really have no patience for phony progressives who use them. You are dishonest, stupid and toss around racial epithets. Shame on you.
As far as being evasive, you have avoided making any comment on the sexist comments by Robin Morgan being celebrated around the Hillary blogosphere because you don't want to admit that feminists can be as insulting, sexist and wobbly-headed as Shuster. Maybe worse, in Morgan's case. Add evasive to the list of words describing you.
Maybe you can't admit to sexism in the Clinton camp as long as you refuse to look at Morgan's comments. Great. That's why I don't watch the political talking heads on TV. Maybe you shouldn't. Then we can talk about these upcoming primaries and caucuses.
The Fed Ex guy has arrived.
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. -pseudononymous nc
I've enjoyed many of your posts at atrios & here but I can't make any sense of your view that it is important that Chelsea not be given a pass for doing work on her mother's behalf. This is common in all presidential campaigns. All candidates have people button holing superdelegates & notable people. I find this insignificant.
Why Chelsea needs to be questioned on this is beyond me. It is her prerogative to say I'm not a spokesperson for the Hillary campaign & thus don't take questions from reporters. I'm sure that if McCain had offspring talking to superdelegates it would never be worthy of examination by MSNBC or Shuster.
They need to do some serious thinking over there about this problem.
I found Olbermann's brief but forceful apology about this tonight interesting for two reasons:
1. It shows Olbermann is now considered the "conscience" - the "Cronkite," if you will - of MSNBC, and
2. It indicates that he's dumping Shuster's head in Tweety's lap, Col. Kurtz-style, as a warning.
The points are that 1) if this would have been about Hillary or Bill, say calling her a "Vaginal American", she couldn't have complained because that would make her a "shrill whiny desperate candidate bringing out the claws", 2) the "pimp" comment is just the first step of bringing Chelsea into the anti-Clinton dialogue - I'm sure we'd hear Chris Mathews & Maureen Dowd soon reveling in seamy fantasies of Chelsea in whatever White House scandal of the 90's, 3)as I think Bob Somersby pointed out, you can bring any sports commentator onto TV politics programs and not miss a beat - the meaningless sports banter that fills time and means nothing is exactly what the talk shows are about, and tied in is the sports world sexist "ho's on the bus" or "like to see her on the pole" type language that not just Imus revels in, 4) as Digby points out, Schuster's an enabler for others and in this case didn't have clue enough to apologize quickly and thoroughly, and 5) if nothing else, in a campaign with the first potential woman president, the press should finally learn to deal with female candidates with most of their sexist expressions put away in the bottom drawer and with women coming out to the polls in record numbers, maybe they'll start pushing back on the networks in record numbers as well.
I'm guessing Shuster's eyeing some Nantucket property, and the only way to live on sugar-daddy Jack Welch's island is to make comments like the one he made.
MSNBC has a long history of implying, speculating, and sometimes stating outright, that women they report on are whores, groupies, sluts, and deserve whatever happens to them.(unless they are dead and pregnant)
In this particular case, they went after someone who had the ability to affect their bottom line.
That is the only reason they took any action whatsoever.
Remember that study they did some years ago about how often men think about sticking their dick in something? Thinking about it every few seconds is one thing. Talking about it on a cable news show every few seconds demonstrates an astonishing lack of self discipline.
Shuster was right on the mark!
You did not see Chelsea next to Mom until AFTER her drubbing she took in IOWA and Hillary decided she needed more "youth appeal". It was actually Hillary doin' da pimpin' of her own daughter in NH.
The Clintons (not Chelsea) are dispicable, they should fold up their tent and go home.
I wonder what's wrong with Josh Marshall. Why did he turn out to be such a nut, when I thought he was pretty okay? It's creepy.
Caught Tweety this evening. He was very subdued in his comments. I think he's digesting the Schuster incident - its sort of a shot across the bow by MSNBC honchos, letting him know there are boundaries to his nasty comments. He still painted McCain in rosy terms & went negative on Hillary but the fire in the belly wasn't there. It shows that progressive comments to the networks do make a difference.
I have two high school kids and the phrase pimped out is slang for "to use".
That's right Fred, and "nappy headed hos" is just slang for women basketball players.
And of course being raped just means losing the game.
Get a clue.
Great post, Digby. Absolutely spot on.
For a network that has done more for the free promotion of keeping the "The Candidate"'s name on everyone's tongue more than any other, I find that suspending Shuster kinda a pimped out response.
I was watching when DS made those comments and I sure didn't see where he was coming from but then I don't really speak the pimped out language of "pimp my" whatever so ..... whatever.
He absolutly was wrong in using that to characterize her campaigning for the parental unit since its a pretty natural thing for children and spouses to do. I didn't get what he was getting at.
And, really isn't The Candidate's response another opportunity at self promotion for free? I think so. Bonus: it scores points for her sponsor network.... rupert. Now, how many suspensions we got going on over there after years of outright abuse?
So yep, DS, really used some very unforturnate currently acceptable slang. Inappropriate choice to be sure, but not personal. Not worthy of being suspended.
Watching Olbermann tonight, there was a segment on a young woman "hitting on" various officers at the police station, video showing them in compromising positions. While there may have been a newsworthy point, they nonetheless got to show blurry yet provocative shots of this woman.
Juxtaposing this "playful" piece with the apologies to the Clintons for Shuster describing Hillary as pimping out her daughter suggests MSNBC still doesn't get it.
Bob in Pacifica,
FedEx yourself a clue overnight, even Saturday Delivery - we can use controversial language away from context without being controversial.
If I'm talking about whether Pluto is a planet, I can say "let's call a spade a spade" without raising eyebrows. If I'm talking about Obama, I better pick another expression and leave "otay" for another day. It's common sense, or should be. Tying in language related to prostitution with professional women is simply not okay, whether the idea is Chelsea pimping Hillary or Hillary pimping Chelsea, whether it's a figurative or literal implication - and certainly "pimp" in such context cannot be considered positive in any way.
I don't know if you get invited to many cocktail parties, but here's a suggest: never ever ever use the term "pimp" in reference to someone's family member unless perhaps you're at the Playboy Mansion (where it might not go over well either). You seem to have a bevy of forgiving women "downstairs", but most places in public it's not okay.
Schuster is a media figure, Robin Morgan is a feminist activist, bloggers are bloggers. They have very different roles - once again, language and comments have appropriate context and inappropriate context. If you're a diplomat, you can't talk like you're working in a car wash.
But in terms of Morgan's comments, well, perhaps if JFK and his brother RFK hadn't set the gold standard of White House as whorehouse, we wouldn't have wasted so much political power on the Monica scandal in the 90's (not that Bill's behavior was as egregious as the Kennedies'). Not everyone thinks of the Kennedies as icons of good taste and political wisdom, and there's nothing wrong with a feminist pointing it out. And no, that didn't tie Obama to Marilyn Monroe's death. She tied JFK to it.
And I was wondering when Jello Biafra was going to step up and speak for the Dead Kennedys.
If I hear one more time that Obama is a better candidate because he won't be hated like the Clintons I'm going scream. Why would anyone vote for Obama simply because Hillary is hated by the right wingers and want to avoid the fight? All polls say that she is more presidential, more ready to take charge on day one and solve the problems facing the country. Why do so many voters kowtow so readily? I don't understand it because the same people who are afraid of the hate mongers want the Democrats to stand up and fight the Republicans.
rzz wrote to me: "hitting every comment section that he can from TL to TLC to Digby, like a drunk careening from bar to bar repeating his little bob in pacifica mantra, which always boils down to "get over it bitch". what is it, bob, with you guys like Sullivan and Aravosis? Psychological issues?"
Don't want me to comment? Tough. I like Digby's blog. If someone writes something stupid (like saying that Shuster actually claimed that the Clintons were really selling their daughter into sexual slavery, like Skeptic is saying according to her analogy) I shouldn't comment? Sorry, rzz.
And I shouldn't be offended by Skeptic's repeated use of racial epithets? Maybe you think that Skeptic's repeated use of racial insults don't need to be condemned. If you do, feel free to jump in on that.
I didn't say "get over it bitch." You said it. Again someone here is using crude language and then assigning it to someone else. Sorry, it doesn't wash. Those were your words. You own them. Why not add a racial epithet to your total, rzz?
What I said, and which you cannot seem to grasp, is that outrage should be proportional to the outrageous act, not to your candidate's relative delegate count. How many outraged people here have written to MTV to protest "Pimp My Ride"? Skeptic? rzz? Why not? It been on the air for a couple of years. If the word "pimp" were so greatly offensive to you one would imagine that you would actually try to get a TV show to not have it in their title. But the word "pimp" and its use wasn't an issue until it became an issue in the Clinton campaign you didn't give a damn. That makes you another hypocrite, rzz.
The fact that I have the patience to keep asking dullards like Skeptic the same question until she answers it honestly should not reflect negatively on me. Rather, it reflects on Skeptic's refusal to respond honestly.
I have seen references to Sullivan and Aravosis. Don't read them. Don't know who they are. Is Sullivan the Republican with AIDS? So again you try to associate me with people I don't even know. Instead of the ad hominems, try dealing with what I actually write.
And try to discuss things honestly. And stop making a fool of yourself.
Once again, I am deeply disappointed in you Digby. I agree with your criticism of Matthews and Carlson - they have issues. But Shuster is a damn good reporter and a progressive to boot. What he said was not well said, but was an apppropiate question. (Read Jane Hamsher's thoughts. She says that she herself has used the same expression many times and does not feel that it is particularly loaded.)
I think that for any politician to ask their child to call super delegates and beg for their votes is at the very least tacky and unseemly. I think it says alot about their character,
Campaigning is something else, altogether. This is creepy both in terms of how Hillary exploits her daughter and the turgid lengths to which she will go to pressure the super delegates.
I also resented your blocking comments, but after you printed some, I sympathized. You should not tolerate abuse, but you must listen to other opinions or you devalue your own - which is usually very spot-on. I think the hyper-partisanship of the primaries has torn us apart somewhat, but I hope you will come to realize the limitation of Clintonian politics and jump on the Obama bandwagon someday. I will always respect you even when you infuriate me.
I seriously doubt a show called "Pimp My Daughter" would be considered acceptable.
Susan: "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."
There is a name for it, and, oddly enough, it is sort of an obverse of direct marketing: payback.
.
I've noticed a number of people accusing the Clinton's of 'manufacturing' their outrage over Shuster's remarks.
It's kind of weird. In '88 (and to this day sometimes), Dukaksis was criticized for not reacting strongly enough, when a debate question asked how he would respond to his wife being raped.
Seems like a no-win situation.
.
I saw some of the offending comment, and I agree with you. But what struck me was not just the double standard for the clintons. He seemed most bothered by the fact that she would contact superdelegates and the ladies on the View, but not submit to a cross examination by the likes of him.
I think the "wierd" thing (to Shuster) about how the Clintons "pimp" their daughter was not that they had their kid on the team (which everybody but Giuliani does *snort*), but that they let her get away with not talking to Shuster and his ilk. How perverse!
It's like in the movies in the olden days (like before 1980) when a girl put out for one boy (for love of course). Once she was known to put out, she was considered fair game by many other boys, some of whom would insult her sexual mores if she rejected their advances.
I'm not saying Shuster is that kind of psycho boy (never heard of this guy before as I almost never watch TV. So I'm always amazed and pleased that someone with such gay mannerisms can actually get on TV in a noncamp way.) It just seems that's the way his professional instincts seem to work, and I would imagine that's how a lot of journalists look at it too.
I saw something the other day by a reporter or pundit that slimed Chelsea for responding to a little boy reporter's question by telling him that she doesn't make comments to the press (the slimer omitted Chelsea's friendly remarks to the boy to make her sound like a cold bitch). I wonder how long this anti Chelsea thing has been brewing in the press.
"I also resented your blocking comments, but after you printed some, I sympathized. You should not tolerate abuse, but you must listen to other opinions or you devalue your own - which is usually very spot-on. I think the hyper-partisanship of the primaries has torn us apart somewhat, but I hope you will come to realize the limitation of Clintonian politics and jump on the Obama bandwagon someday."
Maybe you missed the post where she confessed to voting for Obama? I was kinda disappointed in that, not that I'm enthusiastic about Clinton either.
But christ on a crutch, Digby, don't listen to TIM about jump on ANY bandwagons. I think all those middle of the road Americans who have deserted the personality cult of Bush are migrating to the cults of Obama and Ron Paul. If someone could get Obama to show some fight and leadership between now and November, I'd be glad to support him myself (like I said, I aint too enthusiastic about Hillary). In the meantime I will resist the Obama-tardization of the Democratic party with every ounce of my keyboard, and I urge you to do the same. What profiteth a man or woman to win the nomination and the presidency, and lose the soul of his party?
"in the olden days (like before 1980)".....
whaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaa
I demand an apology and you should be suspended!!!! /snark
MimiKatz: "Why Shuster and not Matthews?"
Several reasons. I suspect the four most prominent are:
A) It was a repeat offense by MSNBC. After the Matthews apology, MSNBC had to adopt, and enforce, a zero-tolerance policy.
B) Shuster slimed the Clinton's daughter. Bill and Hillary might concede that they are 'fair game', but they won't let their daughter be compared, even rhetorically, to a prostitute.
C) Shuster, arrogantly, refused to apologize when the Clinton campaign called him on it. That forced them to take to the next level and make it a network matter.
D) Finally, Shuster's remark was clearly insensitive, irresponsible, and inappropriate. More importantly, the remark makes it clear that Shuster knew what he was doing; it wasn't just some random political use of the word 'pimping'.
SHUSTER: "But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
Note the clauses 'sort of' and 'some weird sort of way'. Shuster's trying to soften the blow, vague up the rhetoric, and redirect the insult to a metaphorical 'sort of way'. He knew what he was doing, and it wasn't just a slip of the tongue. It was willful trash talk.
It's sad. Shuster was one of the better reporters at MSNBC, and one of the few interviewers who would criticize, to their face, people who relied upon and repeated factually false Republican talking points.
I liked Shuster's work. But I suspect his career is probably over, at least at MSNBC. The Clintons can't settle for anything less than Shuster's firing without inviting a similiar disregard about their daughter from the rest of the pundit class.
.
But Shuster is a damn good reporter and a progressive to boot.
Progressive? Based on his current job helping Olbermann bash Bush and his coverage of the Libby trial, maybe, but his history at Fox doesn't support that assertion. From wiki:
"During the Bill 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."
And one more piece of how his history is tangled up with the Clintons from wiki:
"Shuster left CNN in 1994 to become a political reporter for the ABC affiliate KATV in Little Rock, Arkansas, covering the Whitewater controversy."
Bob in Pacifica, you ignorant little boy. Tell me, did you ever stop for a second to wonder if I was black. What, I wasn't speaking jive for you? Proper english written carefully, and you just assume that I'm some midwestern white boy? My teeth are fine, Bob. Why don't you walk into some place where there are a lot of women, and throw the word pimp around when you talk about them. Let's see how that works out for you.
I tried to warn you, but you disgraced yourself.
All I can say is there are more than a few people who'd better buck up because this is nothing compared to the general. Nothing.
Pick yer battles. Rest up.
Why the heck aren't we battling against this proposed "arrangment"? Now, that's insulting! Why the heck aren't we battling against this "Daddy DNC Knows Best" superdelegate ace in the hole business on premise? Like Howard Dean and Terry McAuliff are some genius winning presidential campaign strategists.
Errrr..... I think the voters have a better track record than these two. I don't care if one candidate has 1 more actual delegate tied to the actual vote. That declares the winner. Period. This "sharesies" business is crazy. This isn't kindergarten! Why aren't we talking about this?
Jes sayin' .... 
The vile MSNBC crew is acting like a fraternity whose charter was revoked after Tweety drugged and raped Hillary
Digby,
What they're objecting to is that Chelsea is good looking and charming, and they think the Clinton campaign is using her sex appeal to nail down superdelegates. You know, the hot, young chick calls the old dude up and he can't withstand the temptation to offer up his vote because he's a victim of a pretty young woman - that's what that comment was all about.
They're objecting to what they perceive as Clinton relying on Chelsea's sex appeal - which is considerable - to get her votes. What else would qualify as her pimping her daughter out?
It makes perfect sense. It also explains why Shuster was so incredulous when he made the comment and why he refused to apologize initially. To his mind, he's making a real statement. Chelsea's teh hot and she's asking for super delegate votes, therefore any super delegates votes Clinton gets through Chelsea are corrupt. The delegate isn't offering up their vote because they think Clinton is the best candidate - they're offering up their vote because they want to bop Chelsea. Wouldn't that qualify as pimping?
I'm enjoying the attempts to downplay the remark because it's just contemporary slang, the type of thing high schoolers use casually.
Hey, great standard!
So if David Shuster said, "I can't get an interview with David Axelrod, what is he, some kind of fag?" then that would be totally fine, because "fag" doesn't literally mean "homosexual," it's just a phrase that means "cowardly" or "pusillanimous."
PinNC: "How does it make her somehow different from Cate Edwards and the Romney kids?"
Because their parents weren't accused of pimping them out.
.
If it hasn't been said, digby, Bob Somerby, Pam Spaulding--for naming the problem, and Media Matters deserve the lion's share of the credit for any changes we may see at MSNBC. Digby and Somerby in particular have been isolated voices among the netroots directly confronting the pervasive sexism against Hillary Clinton at MSNBC (at the cost of Obama's supporters' scorn, as digby notes). If not for their diligence watching and recording this nonsense, there would be no pattern of sexism on which to take Tweety or Schuster to task.
Looking to digby's post earlier on the Super Tuesday coverage, she rightly included Keith Olbermann in the sweeping critique of MSNBC. Unfortunately, I think too many commentators failed to understand why digby included Olbermann in her criticism. Progressive talk radio is just as saturated with former Edwards or current Obama supporters who not only tolerate but parrot the anti-Clinton hyperbole and MSM memes on Air America. The nascent progressive media and blogoshere are all too often just another echo chamber for th RNC's anti-Democratic Party smears when the target is Hillary Clinton.
Sadly, while digby and Somerby continue the the old netroot's fight to defend the Democratic Party--the whole Democratic Party--the *postpartisan* netroots have made strange bedfellows with the MSM bi-partisan and anti-Clinton borg. Sadly, the "crashers of the gates" fail to see that they already entered the establishment through the front door.
I often wonder if our *postpartisan* friends recognize themselves any longer, or if perhaps they became their own worst (and former) enemy:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5...5/20/84453/
9712
I hear that argument a lot Bob.
Women are used to being called derrogatory names, I could go down and call them names right now and they wouldn't turn a hair, so that makes it just fine to call them derogatory names.
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that you are an asshat, but I would be willing to bet that all those women downstairs know it.
Is GE the ultimate owner of MSNBC? If it is, then GE would be the appropriate target of a global boycott
and a global shaming campaign until it
is forced to disinfect and decontaminate MSNBC. Why global? Because GE operates globally and only a global boycott would hurt its global
bottom line. Also, even though MSNBC reaches mainly only an American audience; when MSNBC infects and contaminates the mass-mind of America,
MSNBC infects and contaminates the decision-making process of America. And America is still strong enough that infected and contaminated decision-making processes which lead America to make bad decisions harm the
whole world. That is why a boycott against GE should be global until GE disinfects and decontaminates its network. A global boycott against GE is just global self-defense.
I suppose at this point no one will read this. My fault for arguing with dishonest idiots.
But it occurs to me that the battle is on.
It strikes me that if no one had objected, then "pimp" and "pimping" would have smoothly transitted into the language as a way to describe Democrats and Democratic actions. Not the Republicans of course, there'd be hell to pay. But Democrats? Man, the word would be mainstream.
Seriously. Remember how hard the Republicans worked to demonize the very word "Liberal"? Remember Newt Gingrich and his Orwellian lists of words to use when describing Democrats? Remember the Right
Wing's concerted effort to make Clymer a synonym for "asshole."
So the question is, if a word like this gets used to describe a major Democratic candidate on a national news program... and passes by unremarked and unobjected... Does anyone actually think the right wing would not have picked it up and ran with it. They wouldn't have made a big deal about it. But it would have entered their toolkit, it would have stayed there, and they'd have been free and freer with its use.
Of course, now that the objection is framed, the war is on. I expect the right wing to just jump right on this.
Expect to see the Right wing go nutsoid about this. There'll be lots of outrage over the martyr to political correctness or Hillary's vendetta. There'll be passionate arguments on Little Green Footballs and Free Republic that 'pimping' is exactly the right word to describe it.
There'll be douchebags like Pusdripper in Ng and Dolt from Somewhere to com in and argue that (a) the word isn't that bad; and (b) the word is terrible but Hillary was doing something awful that sort of has to be objected to and described. Their job will be to run cover for the right wing, sort of soften up the ground for making "pimping" an acceptable and appropriate word. Not that these guys are actual Right Wing operatives. Maybe they are, but most likely, they're useful idiots... serving as Republican wedges with their 'independent thinking.'
But the issue isn't with them, not really. Just count on this sort of language being all over Little Green Footballs, Captain's Quarters, Free Republic, etc. Expect some asshat like Jonah Goldberg to pontificate at length about it.
I think they'll fail. It's like the Terry Schiavo thing. Some things are just too stupid and hateful to countenance. There's a lot of women out there.
But expect them to give it the old college try. Because they are stupid, and hateful, and terribly terribly predictable...
Olbermann’s is the only program I ever watch at MSNBC. And he's the only one who offered up any kind of sincere apology either. Have you ever watched him when he co-hosts with Matthews? The body language is very telling. The man leans so far away it's like he's trying to exit the building. I can sympathize. The minute I hear Matthews voice I want to leave the room as well. Thank god all it takes for me is to change the channel. Olbermann’s forced to endure it hours on end. I’ll bet he secretly amuses himself by imagining Matthew’s as Tweety Bird. I know that works for me!
Adolescents? Do you really think it is that harmless? Will they grow out of it?
Blathering about adolescent behavior is rather naive or willfully blind...You may think it your obligation to be a moderating force...but in fact you do a disservice to your readers. The fear to offend...makes you weaker not stronger.
This is not adolescent behavior...this is deliberate narrative constructed knowingly with a purpose in mind. And the purpose is subversive of democracy itself. In fact, what we are witnessing is adult behavior. Very dishonest adult behavior. The adolescents are people like you who accept it with relative equinimity, afraid to offend, so you intellectualize it. Meanwhile, IT is laughing at your impotence. Laughing.
That's why it continues. People like you are unable to muster sufficient outrage to change anything. That's why Obama is still successful at masquerading as an equally credible Democratic candidate, despite nothing but the same stump speech and a less than impressive record of accomplishment and leadership. The media continues its dishonest fawning...and one sided bashing of the female with credible experience, intelligence and policy...and you want to be reasonable and fair...and discuss it as a problem of adolescent behavior...while nearly the entire blogosphere is engaged in one big lie that bolsters the MSNBC narrative. Who are you kidding? Yourself?
Bill Clinton should have made a big deal of this. Remember when Kerry even mentioned Cheney's daughter and referenced her homosexuality in a respectful way? It was true and not at all offensive, especially since it highlighted the hypocrisy of the Republican platform...but the very mention of it was unacceptable...and the Rethugs attacked Kerry brutally. Mary was campaigning for Bush and her father and a member of the campaign team...but this was off limits and deserved national outrage. Can you imagine if Kerry had used perjoratives? And all the liberals were meek...gee...no wonder the Republicans and Republican media get away with it...Liberals and progressives are such wimps.
Bob of Pacifica....of course you are right on the money...but progressives have a profound defect...they don't really want to fight...they don't want to take the gloves off...they want to intellectually rationalize...or engage in profound dialogue...But people need actual leaders who are willing to fight not just talk about fighting. Take risk. Stay true to common ideals. There are many people out there who will follow...and they are looking around...feeling helpless while the liberal elite educated pontificators...wilt in the face of a diabolical, determined ruling class .
Ever wonder what happens to the intellectuals in other countries...when they have not sufficiently mastered the idea of power politics?
The way Matthews talks about Republicans "beating up" on Hillary also reminds me of wife abuse--and he seems to think it would be the appropriate order of things. There is something very sick about these puppies.
To amplify my point...Shuster was suspended temporarily while Matthews continues with his rant and all the guests...mimic in one way or another the general anti Hillary theme. The public was thrown a bone...whie the primary narrative continues unabated. And some here are thankful that at least Shuster was suspended? Thankful that we had some little impact? If we nominate Obama and follow the right wing directive and dumb Democrats...we will have another Republican in the White House. The forces of evil will have gotten the prize while those here will still be congratulating themselves on Shuster's suspension.
Ironic.
I was agreeing with Pacific John at 4:53pm not Bob of Pacifica. My mistake.
Bob in Pacifica, I don't know you, never met you, but from your comments on this blog...
Yeah, I'd say you're expressing some pretty sexist attitudes.
Maybe "pimping" someone's daughter isn't as offensive as the N word...but who the hell are you to tell me what I should and should not find offensive?
The misogynistic pile-on is offensive. The stuff that's being said about Hillary Clinton is offensive . These aren't legitimate criticisms of her record, these are frat-boy insults based on nothing but her gender.
Yeah, I'm offended. Big-time.
I liked KO's apology today and felt that it was quite sincere. Shuster could have defused this situation a long time back had he come up with a similar sincere apology when initially contacted, instead of trying to bluster it out. After reading through the Media Matters files on him, it was clear that he was angry when his bud, Tweety, was forced to apologize to Hillary (another insincere apology, btw), and that fueled his moronic insinuation this time. I have felt for a long time that KO and Shuster didn't like each other very much; the camaraderie just wasn't there and their interactions seemed forced. Could KO's success have led to an anti-KO clique made up of Tweety, Scarborough and Shuster? Other than for KO's news hour (well, half hour perhaps), MSNBC is toast to me and I hope that Hillary sticks to her threat to eschew further debates on NBC; unless their overtly biased coverage noticeably changes.
otherlisa, I fully agree with your comment to Bob in Pacifica.
Thanks SueN.
I'm really fed up.
pseudonymous: It's not treating someone "with kid gloves" to respond with outrage when a major media figure refers to a woman as someone being "pimped out" by her mother. You're getting dangerously close to Nice Guy (TM) territory with that comment.
What Shuster said was indefensible. He said it on national tv about an adult woman who is trying to get her mother elected. If this had been said about Michelle Obama, he would have been fired. Immediately.
I emailed MSNBC to express my outrage. However, I think that he has apologized, and I don't want him fired. He is a fine young reporter. A career should not be ruined over a tasteless, stupid remark.
It would be a smart public relations move for the Clintons to accept the apology. They have won, and now this story needs to die. Otherwise, it will be said that the Senator is milking it for sympathy.
Besides that, accepting the apology is the right thing to do.
I think Chelsea is 28, right. Strangly, reactions seem to have the tone that she is still this little girl as we saw her in the 1st Clinton Administration.
"pimped out" bad choice of course. I must say that I would take this whole thing more seriously if I heard the complaint from Chelsea. Everyone acts like she is this poor defensless little girl at the same time the concept of strength of women should be elevated. But this deal certainly has got a lot of free coverage
Thanks Charlie, would you say your position is that of the 'nutless democrat' or the 'stealth republican.'
Do you think Chelsea being 28 makes it okay for her to be pimped out? Who has the right to object to pimping? If Chelsea didn't object herself its okay?
Do you feel this whole thing was a plot by the Clintons to gain publicity? Or do you think they're simply taking advantage of an innocent slip up? Aren't the real aggressors the Clintons for making such a big deal about it? How dare they object to a cheap shot!
There's an old saying in Italy, It's as important to have someone to hate as it is to have someone to love.
That in mind,Please consider a third context for the NBC/MSNBC attitude toward the Clintons.
1. They hate Hillary, need to trash her.
2. They love to hate the Clintons, and electing Hills gives them someone they love--to hate.
but my own idea, #3 is this...
Neutron Jack Welch loves him some McCain--EVERY Ef'n Sunday it's McCain on Timmeh's Meet the Press. McCain McCain McCain, it's like NBC is a McCain version of Fox News.
I was a reporter. I've seen that mindset take hold in a Newsroom because of a publisher. In 1984, my newspaper BANNED Paul Simon(the senator, not the singer) from our news pages. It was like Pravda, A U.S. Senate candidate declared an unperson.
Except for Oberman, looks to me like hate-Hillary/love-McCain has become the mindset of Welch's NBC news department.
PS--the voting public in our circulation area, in its collective wisdom, saw the blatant censorship and unfairness--and voted 65% for Paul Simon! The radical news staff (me and a couple of others)wore Simon bowties to the office the day after election. BWA HA HA HA HA!
"Olbermann offered a straightforward apology on MSNBC's behalf tonight. Good for him."
The most offensive clown creature on TV apologizes, and you think it's ok?
Where are his apologies to Mary Katherin Hamm? His apologies to Rush Limbaugh? His apologies to Bill O'Reilly? Where are his apologies to President Bush? Where are his apologies to Vice-President Cheyney?
Where are his apologies to Holocaust survivors, Jews, women, African-Americans?
The perfect description of Keith Olbermann is one from our history:
“He’s like a dead mackerel in the moonlight. He stinks and shines.”
- John Randolph
N. O'Brain, isn't there a child you'd rather be molesting?
Interesting to see skeptic that you are able to raise the class of verbal discourse above the fray with such terms as "nutless Democrat" and "stealth Republican" certainly much less pejorative terms than "pimped out".
I guess the use of name calling or argumentum ad hominum is not restricted to reporters.
Skeptic, who cares if you are black. You used a racial epithet. If you are now going to say it's okay that because you are black you can use a word offensive to other blacks, to people all over the world, then why are you arguing about "pimp"? Why is it suddenly a big deal now when it wasn't when MTV began using it, or when it's been used in public discourse for decades? The deciding point? It was used against a 28 year-old woman, the daughter of a Presidential candidate whom you support. Was it rude? As I've said over and over, yes, it was rude.
I've pointed out a worse example of sexual slander from within the Clinton support system against another daughter of another President, but you won't go there. That makes you at least a hypocrite.
But, really, you have added nothing but ad hominems for your most recent posts, so I guess you're done discussing your choice of words.
anotherlisa, you can be as angry as you want. If you're angry in public the people who see you make a public display of your anger can observe it and comment on it.
How many letters have you written over the years to MTV about "Pimp My Ride"? Hmmm. So it's not the word "pimp," but rather that it was directed against the adult daughter of the Clintons. Skeptic used an analogy that Shuster was actually accusing the Clintons but you and I know that's not true. So your anger is that Shuster suggested that with the Clintons, politician equals prostitution. Have you ever, every heard that before? Think hard. Rude? You bet.
I didn't bring up racial epithets, Skeptic did. More than bring them up, she used them.
I suspect that you really don't know what I think about a lot of things. You want to think you know so that you can file me away. I've found Chris Matthews repugnant since the late eighties, when he wrote for Hearst's SF Examiner. How long have you hated him?
You use code words like "frat boys." You have no idea of my background. So what does that make your accusations? Ignorant, baseless lies.
I wonder if this will float to the top of the punchbowl...
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
-- Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998
Skeptic writes: "Do you think Chelsea being 28 makes it okay for her to be pimped out?"
This is why you are having such a hard time,poor Skeptic. Chelsea wasn't pimped out. You get it yet? Chelsea wasn't pimped out. It was a figure of speech. In order to continue your outrage you need to believe that someone actually thinks that Chelsea was pimped out.
Repeat. Making the argument that it's terrible that someone pimped out Chelsea only works if you have someone as inatuse as yourself reading your posts.
Repeat. Chelsea was not getting pimped out. She was doing political work.
You did this before, in analogy you created to argue with me.
There is a difference between someone using "pimped out" as a figure of speech to denigrate Chelsea's work for her mother and someone actually performing sex work. You keep wanting to blur the distinction. You are not that stupid. Rather, you are dishonest. You would do better to be honest in your arguments than to keep pretending that anyone actually believed that anyone was being pimped out.
Now what about someone accusing Caroline Kennedy a daddy fixation for her support of Obama? Pretty ugly, eh? I'm sure you'll get on that one real quick. That is, unless some daughters of Presidents are less equal than others.
Skeptic: "It strikes me that if no one had objected, then "pimp" and "pimping" would have smoothly transitted into the language as a way to describe Democrats and Democratic actions."
There is a TV show using the word "pimp."
I have witnessed throughout my existence many terms originally used to describe sex acts, prostitution and other tawdry things being used to describe politics and politicians. Using sexual lingo to describe politicians long preceded the founding of our country.
Perhaps in your sheltered life this is the first time you've ever heard it. Or you are being dishonest.
In your dishonesty, you are a fool.
Bob, you're embarrassing yourself. While I'm getting quite a laugh out of you, I do feel obligated to suggest you go home. I mean, its too late for you to save a shred of dignity or integrity. But it's not necessary for you to shame yourself to this degree.
Now, why don't you run along and pimp out your mother.
Charlie, I think that 'stealth republican' and 'nutless democrat' are harsh but accurate terms. So which are you?
And yes, its much less pejorative than the term pimped out. I think that you'd agree that if I called or implied your mother a 'whore' that would be pretty sexist and pejorative. Suggesting that you might be a 'stealth republican' is just not in the same league.
Now, if you can get over your 'oh so carefully wounded' dignity and man up, I left some questions for you. You going to answer, or you going to dodge? For ease of reference, here they are again:
"Do you think Chelsea being 28 makes it okay for her to be pimped out? Who has the right to object to pimping? If Chelsea didn't object herself its okay?"
"Do you feel this whole thing was a plot by the Clintons to gain publicity? Or do you think they're simply taking advantage of an innocent slip up? Aren't the real aggressors the Clintons for making such a big deal about it? How dare they object to a cheap shot!"
Step up or back off, its all the same to me.
I don't really care about Shuster or Matthews. I care that NBC/MSNBC gets away with this behavior and appears to act without much restraint. They are a political action committee, and they need to be stopped. What can we do? Let's figure out something to do.
Nothing like a good "flaming war". Let's see attack manhood. Use "stealth Republican" as less pejorative than "pimped out". Somehow the "nutless Democrat" phrase was left out.
Suggest you click on my homepage to get the answers to your questions.
Yes it is Myspace and you would have to request to be my friend to read my blogs, many of which are replications of articles by others to distribute amongst my friends. I use the request format to keep out people less than 18. I will allow you in.
I suspect you really don't want answers; but would rather argue. So if you want answers go there.
You will have the last word as I will not respond to any further personal attacks by you on this page.
I respect Hullaballo too much to continue this brickbat.
N. O'Brain, isn't there a child you'd rather be molesting?
Skeptic | 02.09.08 - 10:09 am | #
Classy, real classy.
You're a small and pathetic creature.
Not that you need another guy telling you, but you are absolutely right about the totally shameless ugliness of MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic primary struggle.
Not just Chris Matthews but especially him.
Like some others of your readers, their hatefulness has been so awful I find myself shifting toward Hillary and away from Obama (I was previously for Edwards).
Unfortunately, the disease is spreading and even CNN is now sounding more and more like you'd expect the Fox nitwits to sound in covering Hillary.
N. O'Brain, takes one to know one, ROTFL.
Riley, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Why isnt anyone pointing out just how treasonous this talk is. If just being Democrat is unpatriotic how is is patriotic to speak of a plan to undermine the POTUS just because they are not your party? This is their ball but that doesnt mean they can take it away when they want to. Nor that we cannot use their rules against them.
possibly they were just trying out a new slime tactic and are still not quite realizing how hugely it is backfiring.
Chelsea is a cultivated, independent and intellegent woman. She has a humble star quality that is powerfully attractive, and she is a capable activist.
so they called her a hooker
N. O'Brain, takes one to know one, ROTFL.
Riley, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Skeptic | 02.09.08 - 12:46 pm | #
You're a mindless child.
The fact that you admire KO is proof enough of that for me.
Now go wipe Keith's cum off your chin.
I think we've gotten all we can out of this argument. Give it a rest.
Monica Crowley on ABC radio. Clinton's have created mock outrage over the comment about Chelsea. They ARE pimping out their daughter. Where is the same outrage over Iranian comments about the US? She is extorting using the comment as a threat to pull out of debates. Everything is about them.
N.O'Brain, and you're a ball-less eunuch. You whimper and whine that I'm being mean to you, ROTFL.
I could give a rats ass about your pathetic obsession with Olberman, and your tinkertoy attacks.
ROTFL. Yeah, he should apologize to Bill O'Reilly. Because a two bit loudmouth like O'Reilly who sexually harasses women he employs, lies continuously on the air and cuts his guests microphones so they can't answer while he heaps invective on them deserves an apology.
Sure, why not. If Olberman can apologize to the nation on behalf of a reporter who goes on about pimping, then surely he can apologize to O'Reilly for telling the truth about him.
And surely he can apologize to Rush Limbaugh for telling the truth about Rush.
And he can apologize to Dick Cheney and George Bush for reporting on their lies and crimes.
ROTFL. You're such a moron. Now run along and play. You're nothing but a third rate troll, with a fourth rate shtick.
Piss off to Free Republic and tell everyone there that Skeptic was mean to you. LOL.
Skeptic: "...if I called or implied your mother a 'whore' that would be pretty sexist and pejorative. Suggesting that you might be a 'stealth republican' is just not in the same league."
Thinking... thinking....
Which is worse, to be called a Republican or the son of a whore?
I don't know, Skeptic. It's really kind of a toss-up.
.
Wow, 213 comments, and not one from me! We should all have such luck!
Bob in Pacifica - I never called you a frat boy. I objected to frat-boy attitudes and the sexist pile-on (e.g., what's going on in the media, and frankly, on a lot of sites like Kos).
As for my having lived a sheltered life - believe me, buddy, you don't want to go there.
As a p.s., your continuing to defend the indefensible - "oh, everybody uses 'pimp' - it's the hip, young thing to say!'" - makes you look...well, not very hip.
Every American troop that is killed, is recognized and counted. Quickly.
As it should be.
With the "contractors", not nearly as much interest from the MSM.
Ergo:
Privitization; bush's last refuge.
Plus, that $16 billion that Halliburton has gotten, and the war profits to the rest of the corporate "saviors" of Iraq, just keep getting bigger and bigger.
The break for me, in MSNBC's trashing of Clinton, is that I support giving them hell for it, but I do NOT support giving her the democratic nomination because they're doing it.
Prabhata says:
"I don't understand it."
Maybe putting this up again will help:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...in1600694.shtml
And, there's more, where this came from. :o)
Can I please suggest everyone do their best not to pull out names on each other? We try to be cool, clever and biting, but there's still a huge difference between dissing a particular statement or opinion vs. getting into direct name calling et al.
Really, once it gets that far, simply find something else to do, don't respond.
And it's not Digby's or your mother's job to let you know when you've gone too far - police yourselves in a good way - personal responsibility and rationality and common sense.
Bob in Pacifica,
Thank you so much for your
Fresh! Manly! Wisdom!
I think we have all been sufficiently schooled now on what sort of behavior you consider to be perfectly acceptable.
John Cooke says:
"They will nail Obama to a rugged cross."
Only, he says it on a thread about how the MSM goes after Clinton like a bunch of starving Rottweiller's surrounding a tender little rabbit.
I'm gonna steal this:
"If the democrats are stupid enough to nominate Clinton, the republicans will rally around a ham sandwich."
That's whatcha-call bottom line.
:o)
And, SueN says:
"...I hope that Hillary sticks to her plan to eschew further debates on NBC."
As opposed to agreeing to a "debate" on FauxNews, which, in their nearly 12 years of existence, has savaged she and her family, and progressives and democrats in general, 'til hell won't have it? :o)
Sue, if you keep hanging these curve balls for me, I'm gonna keep swinging. :o)
Media Matters highlights MSNBC as of late:
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...2080011?
f=h_top
The real reason Hillary supporters are so outraged by Shuster's comment is that it is TRUE. The truth hurts, even if it was not meant to. Shuster should be given his own show! Ditch that dipshit Tucker Carlson.
"If the democrats are stupid enough to nominate Clinton, the republicans will rally around a ham sandwich."
Whether or not Clinton is nominated, the Republicans will rally around a ham sandwich if that's all that's on offer, and especiially if someone is standing behind it with a dog-whistle.
I'm going to make one last freakin' attempt here. Shoes4Industry and the like - if you want to criticize Hillary Clinton, go for it! No one is stopping you or objecting to a fair critique.
We are angry - VERY angry - that so much of the "criticism" isn't fair or reasoned. It is sexist, misogynist, women-bashing.
The truth hurts, you say? Do you honestly believe that Chelsea Clinton deserves to be called a whore for doing what candidates' children have been doing on campaigns for decades? Do you, really?
It's a very sad commentary if so.
tanbark: Sue, if you keep hanging these curve balls for me, I'm gonna keep swinging
And missing....
Right now NBC is a lot more hostile to Hillary than FOX News is. And if you don't believe me, there is an independent media watchdog report circulating on the internet that details how unbalanced NBC/MSNBC has become.
Besides, Obama doesn't seem to mind being interviewed by FOX or having his ads run there, does he? If he were the democratic nominee do you think he'd refuse to debate on FOX and miss out on an opportunity to reach to the red-state audience? Isn't he supposed to be a uniter and not a divider.
This is the equivalent of GHW Bush unloading on Dan Rather.
The opposite is Dukakis wimping out on protecting his wife.
No way that Hillary can back down from this one. Reminds me of the movie Alien. The audience goes nuts because Sigourney Weaver protects the child. If Hillary won't fight for her own child what makes the voters think she will fight for our country? Fighting Dems are winning Dems.
otherlisa, some people's hatred for Hillary blinds them from reason. This used to be the domain of the Republican right-wing, and ironically sparked the creation of Move-On in the first place. It is sad to see that this blind hatred of the Clintons has eclipsed some Obama supporters too (unless they are Republican trolls). I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Clintons on principle or policy, but to attack them so unrelentingly for matters that no other candidate or their family are subjected to is unhinged.
For the right wing Christian Republicans out there who remain fixated over Bill's personal peccadilloes, and feel that this allows them to savagely mock his spouse and child, remember Jesus's admonition; let he among you who has never sinned cast the first stone. The sanctimonious hypocrisy during Bill's impeachment took down many "upright" Republican leaders at that time, and the vast majority in the country felt great revulsion over this whipped-up hysteria and gave Bill a very high approval rating when he left office.
Otherlisa-
We are not blind to the fact that what Hillary did was just what Shuster said she did, she USED (ergo "pimped) her daughter to further her own political ambitions.
This is not about "hating Hillary", it's about hating her sleaze ball tactics!
THAT is a "sad commentary."
At this point in the process you have to either be a Republican troll or insane to support Clinton. They call it "Move-On" for a reason...let's!
Hillary hatred is rooted in the "culture wars". It is about angry white men displacing their anger at women in their life onto Hillary. These people will try to dispatch Hillary because they are threatened by feminism. After Hillary has been dispatched they will turn on Obama. Obama can only be helped if Hillary can shame the media into better behavior.
NO, it's not! It's based on her despicable political tactics and and a rejection of the past. Let's build a abridge to the 20th Century...
Give angry white men a break, they are certainly no worse than "angry white women"!
" At this point in the process you have to either be a Republican troll or insane to support Clinton. They call it "Move-On" for a reason...let's!
Shoes4Industry"
I think I've just been called insane or a GOP troll. :-(
Sorry Allen, nothing personal, but it's the truth. Clinton is simply the wrong candidate, at the wrong time. In your heart you know we're right.
"AlleEN", sorry.
I don't beleive anyone is saying that Chelsea Clinton should be treated with "kid gloves", but calling her a whore because she made political calls on her mother's behalf is going a bit too far, doncha think?
"In your heart you know we're right?"
You know where that comes from, don't you?
Chelsea campaigned for her mother last March in New York, in December in Iowa, and New Hampshire, in January in Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere.
The premise that Hillary just pulled her out recently (post-Super Tuesday) is wrong, as if this is a justification for referring to mother-child campaigning as "pimping".
But if people want to mindlessly support MSNBC and others for being sexist jerks...
Shoes4Industry...
No offense, but how old are you? I'm guessing early 20s, because my sense is, you don't have much understanding of history. Children of presidential candidates have been campaigning for their parents for...well, I'd like to say for the last 100 years, but I have no way to prove that, so I'll say at least for the last few decades.
There is nothing weird or exploitive about Chelsea Clinton campaigning for her mother. Nothing. The fact that it's been made into some weird pseudo controversy speaks to how distorted our political discourse is.
And, Digby...*snork*!
Yeah. In my heart, I know he's right.
After the last few weeks, I am beginning to believe that many progressive/liberal websites have been infested with GOP rat-fuckers.
These trolls pretend to be Obama supporters while bashing Hillary with some of the vilest attacks, and if anyone defends her they attack and insult that person too.
The reason I believe that this is true is that these trolls don’t seem interested in extolling the virtues of Obama, they just want to attack Hillary and her supporters. And their attacks not only rely on right-wing meme’s, they don’t sound like any liberals or progressives I’ve ever heard.
They sound like wingnuts, and they all use almost identical language, like they were repeating talking points. They rarely bash Bush or the GOP either.
If I am correct, it’s a two-fer for the Rovians. They get to bash Hillary while pissing her supporters off at Obama. They are hoping to splinter our party, because if we're united they lose.
I’m sure there are other trolls doing the opposite, pretending to be Hillary supporters while bashing Obama, but I haven’t noticed any.
If it sounds farfetched, think about when that madrassa smear first appeared. They were trying to slime Obama while framing Hillary for doing it.
Let me make myself clear - I don’t think every Obama supporter or every critic of Hillary is a GOP rat-fucker. And I am not blaming Obama for anything.
But looking through the comments on various threads about Shuster's comments on Chelsea there is more slime than I’ve ever seen in Left Blogostan. Way too many commenters make gratuitous slurs and insults on Hillary, Chelsea, and anyone defending them.
I first noticed it a few weeks ago on another site when every time I tried to defend Hillary I was personally and rudely attacked by an alleged Obama supporter. I have been a regular denizen of Left Blogostan and I’ve been commenting for a couple years now, and I was never attacked as often or as viciously as I have the last few weeks.
Now that was on threads that were basically discussions of the two candidates, and I assumed it was just over exuberance on the part of some Obama supporters. But it was starting to turn me against Obama.
This thread (and similar ones on other sites) doesn’t concern Obama and is an issue of basic liberal orthodoxy (sexism = bad) and yet look at the venom being spewed.
We'll always have trolls, at least until someone invents a TrollZapper.
But don't assume you know whose trolls they are.
"In your heart you know we're right."
As I recall from my childhood, the rejoinder to that was "In your guts you know he's nuts."
We are talking about McCain here, right?
Chelsea Clinton owes NOBODY a damn thing unless she chooses to speak. She gets to make that choice, not you, not anybody, and not any "reporter". She's so smart she knows not to trust "reporters" or anyone that thinks it's OK to call her a whore or her parents pimps and worse. Who malign and twist anything they would say anyways. That includes the Sexist Blozos in Blogistan. Look what has fetidly piled up here already as proof.
The full PUBLIC is who immediately contacted MSNBC and GE about the pattern of gross misogyny they wallow in and foment. Right then on the spot and we're still going strong two days later. Democratic, Independent, Green, Republican, Libertarian, and non partisan WOMEN of all ages and stripes are offended and outraged. That includes the men who love and support us and our grandmothers, mothers, daughters, granddaughters, grandsons, grandfathers, fathers, and brothers. How sickening it isn't the first time and this continues unabated.
It isn't about who said it. It is about WHAT, where, and how it was said. Women all over the country recoiled. Real men recoiled with us. Their female staff recoiled. If this is what it takes to wake up America and the deranged corrupt Media then so be it. We've said from the beginning the big story this year is Sexism, not the race issues that Obama more than pushes and won't be solved until women are equal and respected first. Odd the quick TV stats to the exit polls include just whites and blacks percentages but not gender. Of course that's on purpose in this historic year of finally having the first woman to run, to marginalize us and her further.
Within hours thousands of us had been emailing back and forth to the major women's organizations like EMILY'S List and NOW who were preparing formal statements to release and the actions they were taking coming up to address this seriously. Several protest petitions sprang up. Lists of phone and emails of executives and honchos of MSNBC, GE, and their sponsors and advertiser CEO's were posted everywhere that actually cared what happens to the women in this dark ages country we still find ourselves in. Those filled up quick and they had to put up a special line at GE alone to handle the onslaught. Hillary finally released a statement and a short impressive letter to the head of the network. We had no idea what or how she was going to do with this situation since we were a tad busy taking matters into our own hands. David started this. Hillary didn't start anything, but we're certainly going to end it.
You think we pitifully begged "Don't sexism me bro!"? You think we bothered emailing David Shuster? Oh hell no.
They are dealing with seasoned hardcore intelligent caring women who know better. Many own stock. We do purchase most things for households by the way. Families own collectively more. We started at the rotting fishhead TOP and we're working our way down. Loudly. No nonsense. No tolerance. We're Done. You're Toast.
Then we got up the next morning and worked harder. Since then we've seen halfassed forced apologies that didn't mean shit. We've now seen the entire clueless heels-dug-in-denial email exchange between Shuster and Clinton staff. It was that unacceptable obstinance and attitude that caused the position of finally saying perhaps we don't need to debate there under these eyeopening incredulous circumstances afterall. We don't blame them a bit.
In fact us women are demanding some type of intervention and a women's groups sponsored debate instead, in a new venue. MSNBC has forfeited their right to it. We want all the other candidates that ran or are still in it on record if they "approve of Shuster's message". Are all the other candidates and their familes whores and pimps and may we broadcast that on National TV from now on? Great photo-op potential and all as First Family Motherfucking Sluts. We do want to know if Obama plans on honoring this Boyzcott to stand up for women and Democratic Party principles of fairness now that everything has changed again and new rules are going to rule. We're going to need his response in writing too.
Males don't get to decide what sexism or misogyny is against women. We know not to trust boyz, especially weak ass boyz, to fight our sexism battles for us that they sinfully impose and inflict upon us in the first place. Imagine that.
So while we were doing the right thing, drawing the line, taking serious action, and taking a stand that we won't budge from, trust us on that, it seems everyone else has been pissing their time away cherry picking rumors, falsehoods, and insults to bravely hide behind or pile on as excuses. There is no excuse. Cowards and wimps. You wonder why we're pissed at all of you and the disgusting media. And then you run here and think it's cool to beat up on Digby or any other woman. Not on our watch. Seriously.
I think myiq2Xu is on to something. The Republicans are in complete disarray.
The GOP has been DirtyTricks-R-Us ever since TrickyDick and his pack of plumbers, burglers and henchmen. The GOP inserted spies and agents into liberal groups in the 60s trying to disrupt the groups, spread internal dissent and get them cross the line into criminal activities that could be used to take them down. There were lawsuits over these practices that were filed and won by left groups and people smeared by these tactics.
We know the GOP DirtyTrickers wrote nasty untruths against Muskie that got him out of the race against Nixon. The MSNBC behavior looks a lot like GOP DirtyTricks of the past.
If anyone thinks the GOP will not turn their DirtyTricks on Obama, they should talk to the chumps that thought a military hero like John Kerry could not be attacked on his military service. He was.
If the GOP dirty tricks squad is not infesting liberal web sites I would be shocked.
How does anyone feel that they can vote for someone who voted to cluster bomb civilian populations and still consider themselves anti-war is beyond me.
If you vote for someone who has supported the war, you are pro-war. Hillary Clintons actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear a word she says.
And you probable think I am brainwashed.
Shez, er sheeeez, do you think you might be overreacting a bit?
What Shuster said was the truth, plain and simple. Clinton is USING (ergo "pimping") her daughter for her own political ends. If that doesn't speak volumes about her character, what does? This has nothing to do with being a woman, it has everything to do with being a person of character, a leader and a decent parent.
"But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General's skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of 'the planted last question' at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no **right** for your opponents or critics to as much as **respond**.
That, Sir, is not only un-American -- it is dictatorial.
And in **pimping** General David Petraeus, Sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming **radioactive** demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray **your** party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it."
-Keith Olberman
Source:
http://tinyurl.com/2z4wf4
So, when does Keith get suspended?
Issue an apology?
Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?
myiq2Xu, I do think that you are on to something. I really can't believe the Obama supporters would be this hostile to Hillary. OTOH, on FDL there are clearly Obama supporters who appear to be quite deranged when it comes to Hillary. Go figure.
As for KO stating that Bush "pimped" Gen. Petraeus, I was unaware that the Gen. was one of W's children. There is a humongous difference between, say, KO insinuating that Jenna Bush is being "pimped" by W when she "wrote" a book, and KO taking up the unsavory aspect of W hiding behind a 4 star General. Besides, this statement from KO would only aggravate a Republican. A no brainer!
Although David Schuster did a fine job of reporting the Bush administration's naming of CIA operative V. Plame Wilson, I have since noticed his misogynistic tendencies in other contexts.
One specific case I can remember occurred after C. Matthews, MSNBC, obvious misogyny and specific hatred for H. Clinton finally got some publicity. Subsequent comments that the hosts of The View made were being discussed on Scarborough's morning program. Schuster rolled his eyes at a reasonable comment that J Behar had made and made some inane comments about her being somehow stupid or unqualified and how dare she comment on politics. I don't watch The View, but short comments I have seen indicate that Behar has lots of common sense and good sense period. In contrast, Schuster's response was pure sexism.
MSNBC personel seem to have sexism issues. Maybe they can get a group discount for the major counseling so many of their employees clearly need. Or maybe they could hire people who understand that all humans have rights regardless of their gender.
I only watch Olbermann on MSNBC. Everything else is an odious waste of time.
I am picturing a house full of cats...perhaps Birkenstocks or Crocs with socks. 20-30 pounds of excess wieght and a hot herbal tea on a coaster by the keyboard...
WASHINGTON Friday, February 8th, 2008 - Chelsea Clinton, who hit the trail in Nebraska Thursday, is taking an expanded role in her mom's campaign.
She spent about an hour answering questions at the student union at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, then stopped by a downtown coffee shop.
She's also recently started calling superdelegates to pitch her mom, and even called three of the four hosts of "The View" before Super Tuesday to ask for their vote.
The 27-year-old, who works for a Manhattan hedge fund, has traveled to a dozen states so far, mostly targeting young voters on college campuses.
"Why do I think you should support her, or what do I think you can see in her record? As to why you should trust her - because she does what she says she will do," Chelsea said in Nebraska Thursday.
A Clinton spokesman said Chelsea Clinton will be campaigning through March 4.
Why only 3 out of 4 hosts?
"pitch"="pimp" Shuster is only guilty of telling the truth.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I want to know how Chris really feels about this.
MATTHEWS: Come on, Mika, that's the weakest line. Come on, Mika, that is so weak and so below you, how I really feel. That is so yesterday.
BRZEZINSKI: It's so yesterday?!
MATTHEWS: I mean how I really feel. You know how you tell how I really feel, Mika? Listen. [protracted silence]. But you and I agree on so many things sub rosa. I don't know why we're arguing.
BRZEZINSKI: We're not arguing; go ahead Willie.
MATTHEWS: Some things, because in the brilliant light of day, I know we see things [similarly?]. But you're just trying to encourage me, aren't you? I know what you're doing.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm goading you.
Now why didn't The Daily Show bring back that great segment, "Great Moments in Punditry", during the writers' strike? I miss that bit.
The Obama supporters I know, the ones that are helping his ground game and going door to door for Obama all speak very respectfully of Hillary Clinton. Whoever these Hillary bashers are on this board, I don't think they are true Obama supporters. Whoever the Dems nominate, the Party and the left will be behind them. Too much is at stake not too.
What is to respect about the Clintons at this point?
Unless it's like speaking respectfully of the dearly departed. (and in this case, not soon enough.)
Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?
CNN and MSNBC have just called Maine for Obama, giving him another sizable victory in a state that was supposed to act as a check on his momentum after yesterday's trio of landslide wins. Instead, tonight's outcome gave him another burst of forward motion in a month that's shaping up as a very dark one indeed for Hillary.
With 70% reporting, Obama had 58% to Hillary's 41%. The surprisingly big victory for Obama came on the same day as the Hillary campaign signaled a recognition of its travails by announcing a shuffling of their inner circle, replacing campaign manager and longtime loyalist Patti Solis Doyle with longtime Hillary confidant Maggie Williams.
Stick a fork in her, she's done.
"Dark month" indeed, lol. It writes itself...
Was that N. O'Brain who was featured on the latest edition of "Dateline: To Catch a Predator." That screen name sounds very familiar. Has anyone got Chris Hansen's email address so we can confirm?
Chelsea's first post college job was working for McKinsey, a consulting group that advises American companies to move overseas. Check their web site: http://www.mckinsey.com/
clientse...outsourcing.asp
Then in 2006 she moved to a hedge fund.
Chelsea didn't need a pimp to become a corporate ho.
No, I don't support giving Hillary the nomination because some idiot made an incredibly sexist and rude comment about her daughter. (Sidebar: You may wish to consider, however, as you are obviously an Obama supporter, how you'd feel if someone in the media threw a racial slur at good old Saint Barry of Chicago. I can guarantee it's not gonna happen, though. Racism is anathema in this country, but sexism seems to be good T.V.!)
So, no, I wouldn't vote for Hillary because of a rude comment --- I'll vote for Hillary because she'll make a much better President than Obama. Period.
Idiosyncratic speech--that is what happened on the air.
I miss David Shuster on MSNBC. He was a welcome progressive who countered rabid right wing remarks and disinformation about the administration.
I fully hope he returns from the suspension.
Humans should not have to disappear because of faux pax speech.
And I am a progressive female saying this.
The Clintons' self-reighteous hysterics are completely out of proportion. They are ferociously tough people. It is about time they woke up and realized that if they are going to dish it out, they have to take it too.
Shuster has already apologized and been suspended. What more do they want?
They won't be satisfied until they have stripped him of his pinstriped suit, his Hermes tie and his Ferragamo wingtips and have him begging forgiveness, barefoot and bearded in a sack cloth. It is ridiculous.
14 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
