MSNBC's Shuster falsely claimed he said "Americans should be proud of" Chelsea Clinton before his "pimped out" comment
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Addressing a remark he made about Chelsea Clinton's work on her mother's campaign -- "doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way" -- MSNBC's David Shuster stated that "last night, I used a phrase -- some slang about her efforts. ... [T]o the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then I'm sorry." However, Shuster never mentioned the specific "slang" he used in reference to Chelsea Clinton's campaign work, and he falsely claimed that, during the same segment in which he referred to her "being pimped out," he said "Americans should be proud of [Chelsea]" and that "everybody, all of us, love" her.
On the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, correspondent David Shuster addressed a remark he made about Chelsea Clinton on the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker that "doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way" by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign. On Morning Joe, Shuster said of his comment: "Well, last night, I used a phrase -- some slang about her efforts. I didn't think that people would take it literally, but some people have. ... [T]o the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then I'm sorry." However, despite saying he "apologize[d]" for the remark, Shuster never mentioned the specific "slang" he used in reference to Chelsea Clinton's campaign work that he claimed had been taken "literally." Moreover, Shuster falsely claimed that, on Tucker, he also said that "Americans should be proud of [Chelsea]" and that "everybody, all of us, love" her.
Just prior to issuing his "apolog[y]," Shuster stated: "Well, last night, on Tucker's show ... I said a lot of wonderful things about Chelsea. I praised her; I said Americans should be proud of her; I talked about how [Republican presidential candidate] Mike Huckabee has praised the Clintons for how they've raised her, and the fact of the matter is, as I said last night, everybody, all of us, love Chelsea Clinton." But, while Shuster did note on Tucker that "[p]olitical opponents like Mike Huckabee have credited the Clintons for raising such a poised and self-possessed young woman," he did not say "Americans should be proud of [Chelsea]" or that "everybody, all of us, love Chelsea Clinton."
Specifically, while discussing Chelsea Clinton's campaign work with nationally syndicated radio host Bill Press and online columnist and former CNN correspondent Bob Franken on Tucker, Shuster asserted: "For most of the Bill Clinton presidency, then-teenager Chelsea Clinton remained out of public life. Political opponents like Mike Huckabee have credited the Clintons for raising such a poised and self-possessed young woman. Now, just shy of her 28th birthday, Chelsea is out and about on her mom's behalf, campaigning in Nebraska as Saturday's caucuses approach. What is the Chelsea factor?" Shuster then said to Press: "Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea is out there calling up celebrities saying, 'Support my mom.' And, apparently, she's also calling these super delegates." After Press responded, "Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad," Shuster asked: "But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" He then said: "I will give Chelsea Clinton a break when she sits down and gives an interview to somebody like ... Bob Franken, because if she ... wants to do all this stuff, then she should face the questions, right?"
A few moments later, when Franken stated that "apparently, the strategy is that she [Chelsea Clinton] can go out there and neutralize" Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) support among young people, adding, "More power to her," Shuster replied: "Well, I say more power to her. But I also think that the collective Washington media, which has respected these sort of unwritten rules of staying away from Chelsea, not asking her questions, that that is now out the window." Shuster had previewed the segment by asking: "Is Chelsea Clinton her mother's best weapon against Barack Obama?"
Following Shuster's "apolog[y]" on Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist stated: "[I]f you know anything about David Shuster, you know that he was not being pejorative in that ... remark." Co-host Mika Brzezinski added: "No, no. ... But, you know ... you do a lot of live television ... we have to be transparent, and when we don't hit a home run, we say it." Shuster concluded: "[A]s I said last night, America has a lot to be proud of in Chelsea Clinton ... and the way the Clintons have raised her ... and I hope that point wasn't lost in this."
According to a February 8 report on the Washington Post blog The Trail, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote that Shuster also "plans to apologize tonight on 'Tucker,' the 6 p.m. show on which he was filling in for host Tucker Carlson yesterday."
From the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SHUSTER: Can I take care of a housekeeping matter?
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, please. Go ahead, David.
GEIST: Sure, David.
SHUSTER: OK. So, you know how yesterday we ran this clip of women from The View. Chelsea Clinton had called them?
GEIST: Yes.
SHUSTER: Well, last night, on Tucker's show, we ran the same clip, and then out of that, I said a lot of wonderful things about Chelsea. I praised her; I said Americans should be proud of her; I talked about how Mike Huckabee has praised the Clintons for how they've raised her, and the fact of the matter is, as I said last night, everybody, all of us, love Chelsea Clinton.
But we also talked about the fact that Chelsea Clinton, as the campaign has acknowledged, she's making calls to these super delegates to try to help get Hillary, her mom, the nomination, which can be, as I pointed out, the unseemly side of politics. Well, last night, I used a phrase -- some slang about her efforts. I didn't think that people would take it literally, but some people have. And to the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative about the actions of Hillary -- of Chelsea Clinton making these phone calls -- to the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then I'm sorry. So --
BRZEZINSKI: All right, fair enough. Fair enough.
GEIST: And if you know anything about David Shuster, you know he was not being pejorative in that --
BRZEZINSKI: No, no.
GEIST: -- remark.
BRZEZINSKI: But, you know --
SHUSTER: But, you know --
BRZEZINSKI: -- you do a lot of live television, and you have to --
GEIST: That's true.
BRZEZINSKI: -- we have to be transparent, and when we don't hit a home run, we say it.
SHUSTER: And again, I mean, as I said last night, America has a lot to be proud of in Chelsea Clinton --
BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely.
SHUSTER: -- and the way the Clintons have raised her --
BRZEZINSKI: Lovely girl.
SHUSTER: -- and I hope that point wasn't lost in this, a little bit.
BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely, fair enough. David, thank you very much.
From the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
SHUSTER: Still to come: Is Chelsea Clinton her mother's best weapon against Barack Obama? The 28-year-old makes inroads with young voters, breaking into Obama's strongest growing base. We'll get to that in just a moment. But first, here's a look at your headlines.
[...]
[begin video clip]
JOY BEHAR (co-host, The View): The phone rings and who is it? "Hi, this is Chelsea Clinton." So, I said, "Really?" ... And then I get a call from you five minutes later.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG (co-host, The View): Yeah, five minutes later: Ring, ring. "Hello?" "Hi, this is Chelsea Clinton."
[...]
SHERRI SHEPHERD: She was like, "Hi, this is Chelsea Clinton." ... "What you doing now?" She's like, "Well, you know, I'm really proud of my mom." And I was like, "Talk up! I can't hear you."
[end video clip]
SHUSTER: For most of the Bill Clinton presidency, then-teenager Chelsea Clinton remained out of public life. Political opponents like Mike Huckabee have credited the Clintons for raising such a poised and self-possessed young woman. Now, just shy of her 28th birthday, Chelsea is out and about on her mom's behalf, campaigning in Nebraska as Saturday's caucuses approach. What is the Chelsea factor?
Here, again, are nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Bill Press and online columnist Bob Franken. And, Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea is out there calling up celebrities saying, "Support my mom." And, apparently, she's also calling these super delegates.
PRESS: Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? I mean, during the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it's great. I think she's grown up in a political family; she's got politics in her blood. She loves her mom. She thinks she'd make a great president. Michelle Obama's out there for --
SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like she's being --
PRESS: -- her husband, so --
SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?
PRESS: No. She's there -- listen. If she didn't want to be there, she wouldn't be there. I mean, give Chelsea a break. I think it's great. Again, Michelle Obama's out there for her husband. What's the big deal, David? I --
SHUSTER: Well, here is the big deal. I will give Chelsea Clinton a break when she sits down and gives an interview to somebody like --
PRESS: Oh!
SHUSTER: -- Bob Franken, because if she --
PRESS: Oh, yeah!
SHUSTER: -- wants to do all this stuff, then she should face the questions, right?
PRESS: Well, yeah Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, did Oprah give an interview to Bob Franken? Did Caroline Kennedy give an interview to Bob Franken? I mean, come on!
SHUSTER: I don't know, let's ask Bob Franken. Bob?
FRANKEN: No, and I'm feeling very, very left out here. But I would be -- to be very honest with you, I would think it was much more remarkable if Chelsea Clinton came out for Barack Obama. Of course she's going to be out there campaigning for her parents. They seem to have a nice relationship. And, why not? And of course, what is really at the base of all this is the discussion about Obama and his young support. He is leading what we can cynically call, I suppose, a children's army, with his message of change and a generational change and all that -- not bad for a guy who's almost 50 years old. But the -- apparently, the strategy is, is that she can go out there and neutralize that a bit. More power to her.
SHUSTER: Well, I say more power to her. But I also think that the collective Washington media, which has respected these sort of unwritten rules of staying away from Chelsea, not asking her questions, that that is now out the window. That it's now fair game, that when you and I, Bob and Bill, when we see Chelsea out there at these campaign events, there's nothing wrong with going up to her with a microphone --
PRESS: No, that's --
SHUSTER: -- and saying, "OK, which super delegates did you call?"
FRANKEN: Well, with one teensy, weensy --
PRESS: That's true. That's true.
FRANKEN: One teensy, weensy problem: She has Secret Service protection, so it gets a little bit dicey.
SHUSTER: Yeah, I mean, the logistics are complicated.
PRESS: David, I would just say. David, I would just say: You can ask her a question, but she doesn't have to answer.
SHUSTER: All right. Let's turn now -- let's turn to Barack Obama: a couple of stories today that suggested that there's a certain burden of expectations now that are on the Obama campaign. Bob, is that fair?
UPDATE: NBC News president: Shuster suspended for Chelsea Clinton comments
Real liberals don't talk about Chelsea Clinton that way.
I've spent enough time in Democratic forums to know.
This is about MSNBC having a policy that anything is acceptable when it comes to bashing the Clintons and Al Gore.
What's completely dishonest about Shuster's "apology" is that when they first aired that Joy Behar clip, they were totally making fun of Chelsea Clinton that morning. The whole point was to play her off like a jerk.
Soooo.... it wasn't perjorative? Yeah, and 'context' isn't 'context', either, I guess....
Shuster is a Democrat/Liberal & really doesn't try to hide it. So there goes your right wing mumbo-jumbo ;-)
Also Thomp is correct, Shuster is rooting for Obama. Watch Morning Joe, it's soooo obvious it's funny.
In fact I'd say most of MSNBC has fallen under the spell of Obamamania...
Gov,
Have you been asleep? The Dem/Libs are clearly not united. They are for Obama or Hillary. Some, but not all will support whoever finally comes out on top.
So yes one can be left of center & still put down either Obama or Clinton depending on which team they happen to presently be on.
Some, but not all will support whoever finally comes out on top.
Hey Jeters, I've heard quite a few Obama supportes say that they wouldn't support Clinton if she beats Obama. Have you heard any Clinton supporters say they wouldn't support Obama if he wins? I haven't.
I've heard the same thing Thomp. Very interesting eh?
I get the feeling that some of the Obama supporters are gonna be real bad sports if things don't go their way. It's like they figure the nomination rightfully belongs to Obama.
Agreed, especially the younger folks, just gettin involved in politics
I'm really worried about these Obama supporters. I think they're going to try to blow apart the convention. Their level of arrogance and self-righteousness is unbelievable.
They're gonna blow this election, for sure.
As for Shuster, it's about time. All those MSNBC dudes-- from Olbermann on down-- need their heads examined about women. The have become unwatchable.
"Is Nader running as an independent?" - Atheist
Yeah, that's just what the country needs, isn't it? One more run from that egocentric, dissembling hypocrite.
With an annotation of sources: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
"It's the arrogant Obama supporters, who do nothing but mindlessly parrot "hope" and "change" slogans and bash Hillary and never objectively discuss issues, who make me want to vote for anyone but Obama in the general election if he gets the Dem nomination. Is Nader running as an independent ?"
That's thoroughly consistent, no hint of hypocricy whatsoever. I'll tell you what makes me sick. It's the narrowly focused Hillary voter who believes she is beyond criticism. It's the BooHoo Obama is uneletable, Hillary is our saviour, she is the only one who can win mentality.
Me? I could care less who gets the nomination. I will support the nominee, proudly.
Have some damn perspective already, there really isn't that much difference between Barack and Hillary. If there is, lay it out there. I'm happy to have that debate. All this, " I don't like Obama because his supporters suck," is a crap reason to oppose a fellow Dem and you know it.
What I'm saying is make a cogent argument as to why you're for Hillary not hysterics over why you don't like Obama supporters.
Sorry to be a jerk, but I had to get that out there.
Roundhouse, thanks for trying to inject a little common sense into the discussion, but I'm afraid it's a total waste of time.
Obama is a fellow Democrat and has garnered almost the exact same amount of delegates and percentage of votes as Hillary yet there is this constant pitiful whine:
"I'm really worried about these Obama supporters. I think they're going to try to blow apart the convention. Their level of arrogance and self-righteousness is unbelievable. They're gonna blow this election, for sure.
or
It's the arrogant Obama supporters, who do nothing but mindlessly parrot "hope" and "change" slogans and bash Hillary and never objectively discuss issues, who make me want to vote for anyone but Obama in the general election if he gets the Dem nomination. Is Nader running as an independent?Does that sound like someone who's really concerned about the election and the direction of this country? Does that sound like someone who fears 4 more years of Republicans? Or is it simply fear that their candidate will not get the nomination? Does that sound like a older, mature and wiser Hillary supporter? Or does it sound like someone who will vote for anyone but Obama.
LOL Pot calling the kettle black.
While I have my concerns about Obama's liberal credentials I currently lean toward him based totally on the first debate after Edwards' departure. Maybe after the next debate Hillary will show something I can appreciate. But since I can't find much daylight between them on issues, for me it's a matter of leadership approaches. They both have qualities that are well suited for the presidency, I just happen to prefer Obama's call to get involved in the process. I like that he promises to conduct the people's business in the open. I like that he wants to surround himself with people unafraid to tell him no. This isn't to say that Hillary is the opposite, it's just an acknowlegment that Obama said it.
Hillary's approach seems to be more of a Lyndon Johnson (no slam here Johnson was an underappreciated president), take charge political wrangler.
That's how I see it. I welcome honest critiques.
The Morning Joe crew are pretty transparent. Shuster & Mika are pulling for Obama. Joe S. has a thing for Huckabee. Sometimes Joe & Mika praise McCain, or as they constantly refer to him as...the maverick. Shuster & Joe S. rarely have anything positive to say about Hillary.
They're shameless. The other morning they started making fun of Hillary's finances.
An hour later they were still at it!
Of course, it's obvious that they're shilling for Republicans. Never trust millionaires-- they ain't your friends and they didn't get that way by playing fair.
Yeah, they even started having "Mama's for Obama" Stephanie Miller on a semi-regular basis.
They need some more Hillary supporters on there.
Bruce,
I was never a huge fan of Hillary Clinton but I find myself wanting to defend her against the constant bashing she gets over at MSNBC. Hell, I voted for her on Super Tuesday :-O
Shuster is one of the most obvious about his dislike for Hillary & support of Obama. His remark about Chelsea did surprise me though because he usually manages to keep his fangs hidden even when he's dissing Hillary Clinton's campaign.
I supprt Hillary this year. Mainly because I bet a buddy of mine ten bucks a few months ago that she was going to be our next President. I have Hillary, he has everyone else which is now McCain/Obama. I figure if she beats Obama, I have the wager locked up.
I like to gamble, I'm a Bennett conservative ;-)
"I was never a huge fan of Hillary Clinton but I find myself wanting to defend her against the constant bashing she gets over at MSNBC."
I'm in the same position. But anyone with a sense of fair play can see what's going on with that MSNBC crowd and must respond to the unfairness.
Yesterday, within a two hour period, they,
1-- Speculated about something Hillary could or could not do, without evidence, and then spent the next hour condemning her for the posssibility of doing it,
2-- Pumped up the idea (Olbermann, enthusiastically) of having a complete re-do of the Florida and Michigan primaries-- while deliberately ignoring the moral, ethical, and political questions involved in just throwing out people's votes, and
3-- Castigated the Dem. party (Abrams) for having superdelegates worth more than regular delegates, condemned the "morality" of it, and then stated (Abrams again) that any candidate picked under the system lacked "credibility," and would be"illegitimate." Of course, they made these dictatorial statements telling the Party how to run itself, knowing full well that Hillary would be the likely beneficiary of such rules.
In other words, they're already setting Clinton up. It's a deliberate angle. Not only is MSNBC telling us what candidate to choose, they're also telling the Democratic Party how to run itself-- or else.
That's news reporting?
In fact I'd say most of MSNBC has fallen under the spell of Obamamania...
Expect Dan Abrams and Craig Crawford, both who lean to the left. In fact, one could make a great case that Dan Abrams is far more a Hillary Clinton supporter and less critical of her than the others at MSNBC. He's a lot more critical towards Obama and the media obsession with him than the others, that's for sure.
Preston,
You're right about Dan Abrams and Craig Crawford, & you can throw Pat Buchanan into that group as well. I don't know that they are so much Hillary cheerleaders, just more fair & balanced about covering her. I wouldn't call any of the 3 of them Obama bashers though. I think they simply try & calm down the Hillary bashing led by Matthews [worst offender] & most of the crew over at MSNBC. And attempt to temper the Obama gushing that goes on there as well.
I'll be honest with you, I like Obama, but have really been turned off by the over the top fawning, not just on MSNBC, but by the media in general.. I feel the same about the adoration the media bestows on McCain as well.
I'll be honest with you, I like Obama, but have really been turned off by the over the top fawning, not just on MSNBC, but by the media in general..
I totally agree with you. I have my issues with Obama on many things, but I believe another reason why I can't force myself to get behind him if he's the nominee is that the whole idolatry is nauseating. It's almost as to support him is like joining a cult, if that makes sense. Maybe it's not entirely his fault why the media rolls the red carpet out and treats him as if he's Martin Luther King, JFK, RFK, etc., all rolled into one, but I'm someone that is not too fond of people treating politicians like celebrities at Oscar night.
It is rididculous that so many folks here who claim to make their decisions based on the facts and issues are basing their preferences for a candidate because of media unfairness. That is crazy, absolutely crazy.
What's up, Roundhouse, good to see you. Of course I won't bite your head off: you're one of the coolest, most knowledgeable people who posts here. In fact, I'd say that you and I tend to agree with each other 99 % of the time since I think our politics tend to be about the same.
I guess I can see where some people are coming from with the whole Obamania because it can get a little over-the-top. While I can understand the excitement he brings and why so many people are mesmerized by his speeches (which, to me, are not really that different than the self-help-believe-in-the-impossible sermons I heard growing up in church), I find it quite nauseating how some people are treating Obama, as if they never witnessed an inspiring, eloquent, political black figure before. I will say, however, that my distaste of Obama has more to do with the neoliberal policies he's proposing, corporate donors, his center-right economic advisers, etc., than his personality and following he has created. I'm also a bit disappointed that this was a chance to elect a true progressive to lead us out of the Bush era, and all we're getting is another centrist who'll continue to roll back many of the progressive gains made during The New Deal and The Great Society. So my indifference towards Obama has a lot to do with his platform and what he's offering -- which isn't that impressive, in my opinion.
If he was offering something completely different than Clinton, policy-wise, I would ignore the idolatry his campaign has created, for the fawning would be well-deserved. His message of "change" from the "old ways of Washington" would be admirable if he wasn't pushing the same agenda as Hillary Clinton. But I view this campaign season as identity politics outweighing policy and leadership, and that's a dangerous position to be in since this election is the most important in my lifetime.
The ugliness of identity politics probably is at the heart of this divide. That's a shame too because it isolates us and deters us from uniting under the common cause of beating back market fundamentalism, militant foreign policy, for profit healthcare and all the other Republican blunders we oppose as a matter of moral decency for the future of the country. While we should pushing our candidate to follow our lead we are bickering over the cult of personality. It's too bad.
I guess you're right about the Obamania being over the top. I don't watch much corporate media so I don't see the fawning and can't speak to it. I have to sayWhat I do see in chat rooms and in comments sections on blogs is absolutely incendiary rhetoric coming out of both camps. I get it, I understand the personal nature of politics. It's just so unneccessary.
I guess the ferocity dumbfounds me considering both candidates are essentially Republican lite when it comes to kitchen table issues. I don't see either one making progressive arguments on economic justice; they surrender in advance to the conservative notion that markets exist for the sake of profit and not for the sake of nurturing the communities that support them.
I'll quit complaining now and start focusing on things to be thankful for.
Good night Preston, thanks for the nice exchange.
He also lied about what went on that morning with the mocking, Joy Behar clip. Their whole intent was to ridicule Chelsea Clinton. And that's what they did.
Comeuppance is so sweet to see.
GEIST: And if you know anything about David Shuster, you know he was not being pejorative in that -- remark"
I'd like these frat boys to explain how saying someone is being "pimped out" isn't a perjorative any way you try to slice it.
n. A disparaging or belittling word or expression.
Exactly which part of "pimped out" isn't disparaging or belittling?
Similar to when Bush "pimped" Genna and Barbara in 2004?
Or when Lynn Cheney suggested that Edwards "outed" their daughter, even though it was a well-known fact that she was gay? (Actually that might be considered "pimping")
"I didn't think that people would take it literally."
David Shuster implies that people offended are so stupid that we thought he meant it literally.
"To the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that."
He's not apologizing for using pejorative language, just for the perception.
"He needs to buck up and offer a real apology."
Indeed. A real apology is straight-forward and clear, without the weasel-words, "if anyone was offended, etc."
Hey, David, here's a template: "What I did/said was wrong, and hurtful. I should not have done/said it, and I sorry both for the act itself and the pain it caused."
You can do it, Davey boy. All it takes is more character and less ego.
David Shuster is part of the MSNBC execution squad whose main purpose at this time is to destroy Hillary Clinton. Even Keith Olbermann has tipped his hand on occasion, going way overboard and exaggerating or ditorting events and using loaded language to discredit her. The only MSNBC figure who tries to be fair and even-handed is Dan Abrams.
I have stopped watching MSNBC, but there's no easy place to go. The only time I watch MSNBC is when Pat Buchanan is on one of the programs. I never thought I'd live to say it, but it's Buchanan who gives the most disinterested, fair evaluation of the campaign.
As an Obama supporter, I'm willing to give Shuster a pass on that comment about Chelsea - I mean, when you consider what a 'pimp daddy' Bill has been in this campaign.
By the way, have you noticed how quiet Bill has been lately? Thank God Bill listened when Rev. Al Sharpton told him to shut up!!
Schuster appears to be in his mid-40's and definitely not the street slang kind of guy. But he, if he's just using street slang, then why not call Obama "n*gga" as a term of endearment, because I hear that on the street. >:-)
I don't think he's in his mid 40s, I thought he's in his late 30s, if I'm correct. Either way, he still comes from a generation where Hip Hop and black popular culture dominated the mainstream, so him saying "pimped out" -- while I understand offends some -- doesn't really strike me as a way of insulting someone.
As far as him saying n*gga, well, most whites who say that as a term of endermeant to other blacks know when to say such a thing in the right place in the right time. Surely you're not suggesting that sexism is more acceptable in the media than racism, are you? Sounds like you bought into that article Gloria Steinem wrote in the New York Times a few months back. An article which made many historically inaccurate statements. She should have known better.
LL, I feel what you're saying, and I'm not trying to justify his remarks here. I believe someone in his position should not be using inappropriate words in a news setting. He’s a journalists and a commentator, and he has certain standards to which he should abide by. I guess I can see both sides of this here because I'm not quite sure he meant "pimped" in such a literal sense. Perhaps Shuster saying "pimped" was poorly executed since the person in question was a female, but I believe what he meant is that the Clintons were shamelessly sending out their daughter to seek votes from celebrities. Not that I agree with such assessment, but I’m wondering if Shuster would have used “pimped” if the person was a male and not female. It kind of reminds me how some writers in liberal publications such as The Nation and The Progressive back in the 90s wrote how some Democrats “pimped” and “excused” Bill Clinton and some of his policies like NAFTA, even when such policies did not push a progressive agenda. Maybe that's how I'm seeing Shuster's remark, however, I could be wrong.
Anyway, as I said, folks have every right to be angry with Shuster for such word usage; yet, I don’t think he was attempting to be as draconian as some believe. I've watched Morning Joe for some time, and it's one of those shows that have a freewheeling, comfortable environment where the commentators let their hair down and gab away. I think Shuster slipped here and said something that one would say in conversation with a drinking buddy. I don’t think he meant to disparage Chelsea Clinton in a sexist fashion, though taking his statement at face value looks that way.
Ok, I looked him up. He's 40. :-) And he's from Bloomington IN.
Surely you're not suggesting that sexism is more acceptable in the media than racism, are you?
To me, no, I think they are both horrible. But the media and the general public seems to not have any problem with making sexist remarks but they would dare not make racist remarks. (Well, most of them wouldn't.) And I wonder why that is.
I didn't "buy into" Steinem's op-ed, I already shared her opinions. I'm female, I've experienced sexism in every form, from most subtle to most blatant. And now I'm witnessing the sexist bashing of Hillary ... the "humorous" nutcrackers, tear-gate, comments about her appearance (she's apparently not allowed to have any fat on her body despite the fact that women are genetically predisposed to having it), and as MMFA just documented, surprise that people would think she can be the most effective Commander In Chief. It's appalling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-shearer/sex-race-and-presidentia_b_84730.html
Sex, Race, and Presidential Politics
:
The U.S. press seems much more sensitive about so-called racial comments than about sexist ones. The overheated coverage of Senator Clinton's historical reference to LBJ's important role in passing civil rights legislation is but one example. Numerous liberal friends of mine have been quick to accuse the Clinton campaign of playing the "race card." I have heard few defenses by these same friends of the often sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton by the mainstream press.
It was also striking that in the Democratic debate at the Kodak Theater Senator Clinton was questioned forcefully about why she can't control her husband. Senator Obama was not asked about some of the controversial and racially charged remarks that his very bright and feisty wife Michelle has made in his support. The fact that Michelle made Barack quit smoking before she would let him declare for president, is never mentioned as a sign that he might be under her thumb or a weak man.
:
Did you see that they asked Obama for comment on Hilary's reported $5 mill personal injection of cash into her campaign ? They asked him if he would like to have her make her tax returns public, and he took the bait and said he would. He said he doesn't have $5 mill to inject into his campaign ... but he and his wife have a $2 mill house they made nearly $1 mill last year in income. So he's not exactly the common man.
Obama is naive, falling for the Dem-diviiding tactics of the right wing and MSM. Remember he fell for the Novak rumor ? DailyKos Obama supporters (which make up the bulk of the participants on that site's message boards) are having orgasms over this latest Hillary pseudo-scandal. They too are naive.
NBC News president: Shuster suspended for Chelsea Clinton comments
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know, I'm glad Shuster is suffering some kind of consequences, but what he said is tame compared with what Chris Matthews says every five minutes (and the cast of Morning Joe is not much better). I guess because Shuster is more of a "straight news" reporter rather than a pundit he's held to a higher standard, which is good, but I'd like to see Tweety suffer some humiliation -- suspension, public scolding from the MSNBC brass, whatever -- for his nonstop sexist spewings. And I wish Keith Olbermann would have the cojones to make Matthews worst person in the world just once (multiple times would be better, of course). And as part of the punishment his compadres would be prohibited from saying afterward that "Chris is a great guy and everyone's being mean to him."
I can't believe Shuster would accuse Chelsea of 'pimping' for Hillary. For him to claim that he didn't realize anyone would be offended by his remark is even more ridiculous. I will never again watch any program he is a part of. As far as I'm concerned, Shuster is another Big Mouth that is Finished.
It is well past time for television and radio gabbers to be forced to watch what they say. It is okay for them to favor one politician over another as long as they are honest and fair about it, but there is no excuse for outright lies or baseless insults. I am especially disgusted when lies and degrading, insulting OPINIONS are aimed at a politician's spouse or child.
I'm VERY surprised MSNBC hired a loudmouth like Schuster ; )
I don't think Shuster's comment was all that bad, it wasn't very professional. Chelsea's an adult now, she's fair game. To be accurate, she's pimping her own mother.
Also, his Bahar imitation sucked.
Shuster is a brilliant and talented reporter, he's one of the best in the business right now so I have nothing but respect for the man. Granted he's still young, he may have been hearing how great he is and started getting a bit cocky and loose. It's good that he's been roped in a bit.
Let's move on, shall we?
Imus, Chris Matthews, now Shuster. MSNBC=Misogynistic Scumbags at National Broadcast Company. Sandbags would probably work better against the tsunami of independent web news that is coming... and that people will eventually turn to for the truth. I am now thinking this will be happening sooner rather than later. Oh, and it will be anyone BUT the big 5 that they turn to, so name your new sites cleverly in the coming years, fellas...
Garbage such as that which spews out from MSNBC rolls down hill from the top. So it's probably unfair to blame the idiots hosting your entertainment shows that masquerade as news and informed opinion. The good news for you is that most TV-addicted Americans are so consumed with their own greed and corruption, they don't even notice or care.
And it would be unfair to single out MSNBC as the only purveyor of misinformation and biased egoistic malcontent all designed to keep from losing their profit margins and tax cuts. I used to think Fox news was such a joke. Now I think they are just one of many bands of jolly rich men laughing all the way to the bank. For now, anyway. The tide is turning among those of us still able to think... have the big boys noticed? Probably. A better question would be, "Do they care." I already know the answer to that.
ABC has RNC's Gibson, CBS fired the last good man standing, CNN is akin to ET, and NBC basically is FOX, only served with Brie instead of cheddar.
They are PART of the problem. Good night America, and GOOD LUCK!! (or should I say "Good BYE, America, it was a good run...)
Ronan Walker
Nashville, TN
Where is the center if everyone is either left or right of it? The age of unreason is not coming to a close. It is only beginning.
Yin and Yang... it's the space BETWEEN them where reason lays waiting for us to enter.