Wash. Post suggested Clinton camp's "outrage" over Shuster comments is inconsistent with Chelsea's continued role
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article stated that Chelsea Clinton "is continuing to campaign for her mother despite the campaign's outrage over a remark made by an MSNBC host, David Shuster, that she is being 'pimped out' by the campaign on her mother's behalf"; the article did not explain how the two facts are inconsistent.
In a February 10 article, Washington Post staff writers Michael D. Shear and Anne E .Kornblut wrote that Chelsea Clinton "is continuing to campaign for her mother despite the campaign's outrage over a remark made by an MSNBC host, David Shuster, that she is being 'pimped out' by the campaign on her mother's behalf." Shear and Kornblut did not explain their suggestion that Chelsea Clinton's continued role in Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign is somehow inconsistent with the "campaign's outrage" at Shuster's comments.
During the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing Chelsea Clinton's work for her mother's campaign, Shuster asked, "But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Shuster subsequently apologized and has since been suspended by MSNBC for the comments. In a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Sen. Clinton wrote: "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient. I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language."
Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and Don Imus are among the MSNBC hosts and reporters who have made controversial comments about women on MSNBC broadcasts in the last year, as Media Matters for America has detailed.
From the February 10 Post article:
Former president Bill Clinton also has stops in the D.C. area today, starting out by attending church in Southeast before visiting Upper Marlboro, Catonsville, Baltimore and Silver Spring. Chelsea Clinton is scheduled to appear at a "Hillary Speaks for Me" event at Ultrabar downtown tonight.
At the Richmond dinner, Clinton did her best to appeal to a crowd filled with Obama supporters in a state that her campaign has not given up on but is bracing to lose. Asking the audience to envision the day a new president is inaugurated in 2009, Clinton said: "Our task tonight is to make sure that president is a Democrat."
"Because after seven long years of George W. Bush, seven years of incompetence, corruption and cronyism, seven years of government of the few, by the few and for the few, the next president will face tremendous challenges," Clinton said, eliciting boos as she mentioned President Bush. "As the president walks into the Oval Office, waiting there will be two wars, an economy in trouble, the health-care crisis, the energy crisis, all of the problems that I hear about every day from all across America."
The former first daughter is continuing to campaign for her mother despite the campaign's outrage over a remark made by an MSNBC host, David Shuster, that she is being "pimped out" by the campaign on her mother's behalf. Shuster apologized on the air and was suspended, but yesterday, Clinton sent a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus complaining about a "pattern of behavior" on the cable network.
Clinton's campaign has launched a coordinated effort to discredit Chris Matthews, the host of "Hardball," and has also criticized "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert for his aggressive questioning of the candidate during a Democratic debate earlier this year.
"I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office, and I will always be a mom first and a public official second," Clinton wrote.
"despite"? Despite WHAT?.
It seems clear that the WAPO is hell-bent on raising a stink where nobody's farted.
Either the authors and their editor(s) are grammatically challenged or they just can't bring themselves to write anything about the Clintons without creating a controversy, even if they have to squeeze it out of thin air.
Or both.
"despite"? Despite WHAT?.
Despite this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4273078&page=1
It appears Shuster was right after all. His being spot on was the reason Hillary reacted the way she did. I thought she protesteth too much.
Who was denying that Chelsea was campaigning for Hillary? That was never the point. What is illegal or unethical or even unusual about this?
Here's a quarter. Go buy a clue, will ya?
No one ever said or even suggested that it was illegal or unethical. It's simply smarmy.
They use her as a prop.
Oh, lookit Chelsea standing here on the stage with us. We're one big happy.
Just don't ever...ever ask her any questions, cuz she's not allowed to speak.
What...you're a superdelegate??? Why Chelmsea...why don't you go and spend time with this nice young man. Remember...don't do anyhting I wouldn't do
Then who cares? Why is it a story? If it's not unethical or out of the norm, then what the hell is the point?
I guess you don't see your contradiction. In order for Schuster being "spot on" to be the cause for Hillary's protest, there would actually have to be some sort of negative aspect there. Do you understand? If he's not pointing out anything anyone cares about, then that in itself doesn't make much sense as a cause of outrage.
I guess you don't see your contradiction. In order for Schuster being "spot on" to be the cause for Hillary's protest, there would actually have to be some sort of negative aspect there.
Something unseemly does not have to be unethical or illegal. Again, Chelsea was used as nothing more than a prop. They refused media access to her and even had a muzzle put on her (no that's not a family dog reference, so please save the faux outrage) after she gave speeches so she could not be asked questions.
During Hillary's speeches they would put her up on stage and not say a word. They told her to just stand there and look pre...er, just stand there.
Only when it fits their specific needs, ie, a superdelegate near her age, is she allowed to meet with someone without the script. In other words, they control her behavior completely.
yeah..she was being pimped out, and yeah...it's very unseemly
So a campaign effectively uses someone to their advantage, and that means it's "unseemly"? Your argument is that Hillary is upset because there is actually something sexual going on here, otherwise there's nothing unseemly about it. Of course people are going to identify with people closer to their own age, and so their message is more effectively carried that way.
Your argument is that Hillary is upset because there is actually something sexual going on here, otherwise there's nothing unseemly about it.
That's my argument? Really? When did I say that,
Reread what I wrote. It's about maintaining complete control over her daughter...telling when she can speak, to whom she can speak, about what she can speak,
It's about shielding Chelsea, unless political expediency dictates otherwise. It's about telling the press to back off where Chelsea's concerned, but then putting her out there with puppet strings saying "dance, Chelsea, dance"..then using those strings to yank her back in when the little puppet show is over.
"Here Chelsea...here's your script..tell the people what you think. When you're done...shut your trap and get back into the trunk...and don't get out until the next performance."
Actually...I heard from friends that had a niece that went to school with Chelsea that she wasn't the sharpest of tools.
"What...you're a superdelegate??? Why Chelmsea...why don't you go and spend time with this nice young man. Remember...don't do anyhting I wouldn't do"
No, there's no sexual implication there, of course not.
Whether they think Chelsea is immune from criticism is neither here nor there. I would say she can be criticized. Why does she need a script to support her own mother? What is there to suggest she doesn't want to help?
I have yet to see what is unseemly here. How is it when Romney's sons were working for him they weren't "puppets" or on a script, supposedly?
I would be delighted to have my kids ( grown now ) helping out mom and dad on current projects and i would insist they would do that not for a sense of loyalty/ payback but out of curiosity/belief. I don't know how well mr David Shuster knows the Clinton's personally but most likely not, as evidenced by the ice cold comment. If this pattern continues I am predicting a cleanup of personnell at MSNBC and others looms in the near future
Rather than predict that a "cleanup at MSNBC looms in the future" as if that were something terrible, I'm looking forward to it. Indeed, if the company dropped its M (Matthews), S (Scarborough), B (Brzinski) and its C (Carlson) it might become a credible N (Network)!
I noticed that there wasn't one bit of criticism over Mitt Romney's sons campaigning for him. In fact, I've never heard criticism of a candidate's kids campaigning for the candidate until this year, and then, just with Chelsea.
And now, we are being told that there's something inconsistent with Chelsea campaigning for her mom EVEN AFTER she was criticized for doing so by the All-Powerful and All-Knowing Media! The NERVE! Didn't the Clinton campaign get the memo? Chelsea is supposed to go away now!
The NEWS:
"The former first daughter is continuing to campaign for her mother"
The "TURN"
"...despite the campaign's outrage over a remark made by an MSNBC host, David Shuster, that she is being "pimped out" by the campaign on her mother's behalf."
The IMPLICATION:
Chelsea should NOT continue to campaign for her mother.
The REASON:
Because Hillary's campaign was "outraged" at the "pimped out" comment.
The ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION:
The "outrage" somehow CONFIRMS the charge.
This newspaper believes the comment was TRUE, that Chelsea was being "pimped out", and so the logical response from the Clinton camp would be to STOP Chelsea's campaigning, lest it be a continuation of the "pimping".
In every way, this "news" report is FAR WORSE than what Shuster said in the first place. It confirms the charge, FURTHER criticizes the Clinton campaign for CONTINUING the practice, criticizes the Clinton campaign for being "outraged" but not taking the proper action, and suggests that the "pimping" should cease by stopping Chelsea from campaigning any more.
These "reporters" belong in jail.
Yep, the deception is in the wording. The clear suggestion is that Chelsea continues to campaign in spite of the campaign's outrage over a comment, when the correct formulation would be that she continues to campaign in spite of the scurrilous comments by media bobbleheads that the campaign is justifiably outraged about.
This seems like pretty typical stuff, and it's caused by the way conservatives define responsibility. It goes something like this: "If you don't want my kid bullying your daughter, then take responsibility for your kid and get her off the playground." Simple.
If Patrick Henry had been a modern conservative, he would have said, "Give me liberty or I won't eat my vegetables."
It does seem to be a strange logic and twisted wording, to say someone...
"is continuing to campaign... despite the campaign's outrage over a remark made by an MSNBC host, David Shuster"
In particular, the word "despite"... it doesn't fit, or even make sense in it's context. It would seem the word "despite" would make sense in this matter, if for example it were used like this:
"MSNBC host David Shuster is continuing to broadcast, despite the outrage over a remark he made on-air"
I know that's not what's happening, but it's simply an example of a correct and sensible use of the word "despite", versus the strange and twisted use of it, in the item's citation of the Washington Post article.
A good editor would have spotted that immediately.
It may have been a typo. Perhaps they meant to say: "The former first daughter is continuing to campaign for her mother. We despise the campaign's outrage over a remark made by an MSNBC host, David Shuster, that she is being "pimped out" by the campaign on her mother's behalf."
"Clinton's campaign has launched a coordinated effort to discredit Chris Matthews... and has also criticized Tim Russert for his aggressive questioning of the candidate during a Democratic debate earlier this year"
--Michael D. Shear and Anne E .Kornblut, Washington Post staff writers
Gee mike and anne, are those facts or are they opinions?
"a coordinated effort to discredit..."
Is that true? What does that actually mean? Gee I don't know, mike and anne, but it sounds like you're putting a few too many spoonfuls of paranoia on your breakfast cereal in the morning.
"for his aggressive questioning of the candidate..."
If that's not opinion, then I don't know what is. "aggressive questioning" sounds like a pat on the back, an investigator's virtue...
As though it were Truth that was being aggressively sought, by the aggressive questioner and their aggressive questioning.
Bull.
The guy's "questions" weren't questions at all, but statements of political opinion of some sort, that the candidates were then supposed to embrace deny or otherwise struggle with, without any fair warning and from the seat of their pants.
That's the problem with the foolish "questions" from these hack "moderators" in these so-called debates: Their "questions" aren't questions at all, but political statements meant to bait and/or booby-trap surprise the candidates... as if it were all about tim russert, and the things that he says.
It had nothing to do with "aggressiveness". That's just yet more spin to put on it ("spin" being another word for opinion, mike and anne).
Besides the "discredit" remark, there's the comment about how the Clintons want to "discredit" Matthews. Weren't they simply criticizing Matthews' misogynistic remarks? To discredit someone is to try and destroy their reputation. I don't believe that is what the intent was.
"Besides the "discredit" remark"
Oops-I meant to say 'besides the "despite" remark'.
I wonder if there's any conceivable way that a conservative will try to defend the Washington Post for their ridiculous insinuation. Or find some way to make Chelsea's participation reflect poorly on the Clintons.
It was a strange part of an otherwise straightforward election analysis.
Bill,
If you wanna see folks defending Shuster's remarks take a trip over to HuffPo & read the support they are giving him while spewing nasty remarks about Hillary & Chelsea. Now here's the shocker, MOST of them are coming from Obama Democrats. It's incredible!
It's not hard to find defense of Shuster. There's been some of it here, mostly of the "leave him alone because he's a liberal" or "what he said wasn't that bad" kind. It was entirely the idea of defending what came from the Washington Post that I wondered about.
Some people get far too emotionally involved in their candidates, with the need to hold a grudge against anyone who dares to compete against him/her. It's completely a human trait that, from what I've seen, can be found in about equal proportions throughout the political spectrum.
I haven't been that way in many years. I can't say I've ever felt as though I was choosing the lesser of two evils, but if I found myself in that position that's exactly what I'd do. I'd choose the viable candidate who was least distant from my ideal. This year won't be that way. I actually like both Clinton and Obama and think either would be a good president. I placed my caucus vote for Obama because I think he would generate more excitement and have more of a coattail effect on other candidates. I'm not going to hold the over-exuberance of some of his supporters against him.
Shocker? I hope you're being ironic. What appalls me about the Obama supporters is their irrationality, let alone their group nastiness.
As to Huffpo-- don't forget-- she supported the insane Gray Davis recall in California, and actually ran for the job (talk about la la land) and then when Schwarzenegger inevitably won, she immediately proceeded to be outraged about him!!! Like surprise, honey-- what'd you expect?
She ain't the worlds' greatest brain.
Shocker? I hope you're being ironic.
Yeah Carl it was basically said tongue in cheek ;-)
My point of course was that while one might expect Conservatives to jump in & excuse Shuster's remarks because so many of them have a long history of distain of the Clintons, I thought it was rather telling that MOST of Shuster's defenders & Hillary bashers over at HuffPo were in reality Liberal Democrats who are supporting Obama.
It will be interesting to see if this somewhat bitter divide between the Obama & Clinton camps can be repaired.
My favorite is when MS13 smears and attacks the Latin Kings on Lockdown.
Seriously, did MSNBC turn you down for a job at some point or something?
It's not hyperbole. Check out the first hour of Morning Joe-- where-- by the way-- Shuster the day before bashed and ridiculed Chelsea (so much for his America's sweetheart line-- I mean lie..)
A more vile, nasty crowd could not be imagined. Let them all tumble down.
And no, that's not a defense of MSNBC commentators.
"A more vile, nasty crowd could not be imagined"
I don't have to imagine. If I want really vile and nasty, I can watch Fox News, with Hannity and Coulter. Or tune-in to Gibson's "My Word". Or listen to Rush Limbaugh's show or any one of dozens of right-wing radio shows on any given day.
Shuster and MSNBC deserve the critique. But they hardly have a lock on "vile and nasty".
I didn't say Coulter worked for Fox, I said I can watch Coulter --regularly-- on Hannity's Fox tv show.
And I didn't "defend" MSNBC, contrary to your bogus claim. Read. I didn't say they didn't have a problem. I said they deserve the critique.
We know you continuously bash MSNBC while with Fox you look the other way. But in any case, just a few examples only from Hannity:
There was Hannity's weekly feature, "Enemy of the State" (always a "liberal", of course. Hannity charging Obama with wanting a "segregated" church. Accusing Hillary of having a "frightening laugh". Accusing Obama of not being a patriot because he didn't wear a flag pin. Refused to disavow his "friend" Ted Nugent's remarks about Obama.
That's just from Hannity. I won't even get into Gibson's gay-bashing among other things, and among other Fox hosts. But the record is all there, on this site, with a simple search.
Dave
I tend to have issues with MSNBC myself, and I also have major issues with FOX but I think Sue has a mild point. What has been happening at MSNBC the past year is an outrage , it started with the Imus debacle, they said they would change and they have not. The culture is bad.
Doris,
Part of Sue's "point" is to claim, falsely, that I didn't have a problem with MSNBC, which is totally mispresenting what I'd said, which was that MSNBC deserves the critique they are getting.
My post responded to someone who said it was hard to imagine anything as vile and nasty as MSNBC.
Anyone who has watched Coulter on Fox knows she wrote the book --literally-- on "vile and nasty". She is a regular contributor and guest on Fox, repeatedly. She is a "good friend" of Hannity's. A list of her vileness would overflow this post.
My point is simply that MSNBC hardly has a lock on the vile and nasty, as the examples I listed show.
We know you continuously bash MSNBC while with Fox you look the other way. But in any case, just a few examples only from Hannity:
That is just a lie, I have been very critical of FOX from the OReilly Shawn Hornbeck disgrace, the OReilly lies. But to compare what Hannity said in your examples to Nappy Headed Hoe, Die of AIDS , Matthews , Carlson and the gay bashing and now the "pimp" comment is ridiculous. Face the facts that MSNBC is a sleeze network. Just because FOX is bad does not give MSNBC free blanket to spew vile hate.
For the second time, Sue: I have already said MSNBC deserves the critique.
My comments about Fox are intended as an addition to the "vile and nasty" list, not as a replacement for MSNBC.
Kindly stop misrepresenting what I said.
I also find it funny that you have an issue with "There was Hannity's weekly feature, "Enemy of the State" (always a "liberal", of course." but its ok to have "worst person in the World" and no issue with the "pass the guacamole" talk.
http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/185
I agree with the Post.
Hillary swaps her Mommy hat and Pimp hat when she sees fit.
This is the biggest bunch of nonsense about nothing that I've ever seen.
Anyway, David Sirota has a response for this dynamic that has working class people indentifying with Hillary.
http://action.credomobile.com/commentary/2008/02/the_democrats_class_war.html
Also, if people want specifics on policy, not that there is a ton of difference between the two, they can check the respective campaign websites.
Now I know violence isn't supposed to really solve anything, but I still think Bill maybe should ought to have an upclose personal conversation with Shuster, but I guess that wouldn't be presidential. Except Harry Truman once popped a reporter for making slighting remarks about his daughters piano recital, so maybe it would be. Just saying.
Where was the outrage when commentators referred to Fred Thompson's marriage as cradle robbing and intimated that she looked like a stripper?
If Chelsea is out there campaigning, she needs to answer questions, even from an elementary aged kid and stop the whinning. If this term is as tough as it gets, then she needs to go hide.
I don't approve of what was done but c'mon, is this the best MM(very little) can come up with? Is this the only thing that the Clinton's are facing in terms of media coverage or is MMvl just whistling past the graveyard that is the state of their campaign?
ulast,
I wasn't whinning, because there was little outrage about Mrs.Thompson's understanding that as a grownup in a political campaign, it might not be nice but you certainly do not overreact to the comment either.
My other observation is that this story has taken up alot of space when it could be focused on more important issues like the lack of stories on global warming and record cold, how bad things are in Iraq or why the congress recently approved of a tax cut only for citizens who worked in the last year. Tax cuts for the rich once again! C'mon step it up MMvl!