Hillary Clinton On David Shuster

By Big Tent Democrat

I wanted to leave this alone, but I can not, in good conscience, do so. Josh Marshall on Hillary Clinton's statement on David Shuster, (see also Shakes' Sis on the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny at Huff Po):

To Fire or Not to Fire (Hint: Option #1)

In his interview with Hillary Clinton, The Politico's John Harris asked whether she really wanted MSNBC's David Shuster fired. . . .

Josh Marshall is saying that Hillary Clinton wants David Shuster fired based on this statement:

JOHN HARRIS: Senator, you were offended the other day for reasons that I think a lot of people understood by comments that were made on MSNBC. And in the wake of that, I heard from some of the people on your staff who say, to their surprise, they actually think that Fox News is giving you a better break than MSNBC. Is that your perception?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, there was some independent study that my staff sent me -- we didn't do it -- but it was some independent study which seemed to suggest that, that in terms of the fairness of the coverage -- you know, look, I'm a mom first. I'm a candidate second. And, you know, I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear.

JOHN HARRIS: Two-week suspension, you said that's inadequate for what was said. What would be adequate? Are you looking for a firing or something more?

SENATOR CLINTON: That's not my job, John. You know, that's the job of the people who run the network. But I think that they need to take a hard look. This is like the third time they've had to apologize. And there are a lot of things that they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one. So I wish they would take a look at, you know, some of the pattern of demeaning comments that are made on their networks.

(Emphasis supplied.) Josh Marshall seems incapable of taking Hillary Clinton's words at their face value. It seems clear that TPM is intent on ignoring the important part of this story, the pattern of sexism at NBC. This remains a very disappointing episode for TPM, both as a question of journalism and simple decency.

< Media Matters Petition: NBC, Change Your Ways | Rendell Makes Out Of Line Remark >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I can't decide (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    if they won't see it because they are blinded by their Obama-love/Hillary-hate or can't see it because they are blinded by their own sexism.  Certainly the idea that Josh keeps floating that Chris Matthews is the only problem is crap to anyone who has paid attention.

    Of course, it's difficult to fight misogyny when even women run blogs publish it.

    Thanks to you guys for staying on this.

    Those (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    Those words certainly sound like an invitation to clean house.  The bold sentences are about in line with the Imus beef.

    An invitation (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    to run their network and look at the pattern of behavior at it.

    It is up to NBC.

    I do not really expect any real concern from folks like you regarding the sexism and misogyny at NBC, but I do, or did, from Josh Marshall. I know better now.


    in plain english, hillary doesns't ask (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    for his resignation. she doesn't ask them to "clean house". she asks them to clean up their treatment and language.

    Sometimes I look (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    Had not gone to TPM in a long time because it makes my blood boil. That was the first thing I see and then took a glance at the comments. My god--they have lost all credibility.

    Josh Marshall was recently (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by brodie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    described by Taylor Marsh as increasingly a "progressive" version of Drudge in things concerning Hillary.  If memory serves, Somerby at the Howler has also called him out a number of times for being one of the many liberal pundits who refuse to fully acknowledge the MSM's war against Gore in 2000.

    Didn't he also favor the Iraq War Resolution in 2002?

    I can't recall how he stood back in the Monica Mania period or where he was being published.  Might be interesting to see how he stood on impeachment, resignation and Starr and the attempted coup.

    Yes (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    He was for the Iraq war.

    I think TPM (none / 0) (#28)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    reflects the engrained sexism of the Obama campaign. It may also be that Dr. Marshall (he has a Phd, right?) is hoping for some kind of favored status (an appointment?) from President Obama.

    Josh Marshall is a smart guy (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by dannyinla on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    Smart enough to understand what Clinton meant - especially since it's in plain English. So, I have to ask myself, why Josh is continually misrepresenting what she wrote in her letter. And I don't like the answer that I come up with.

    I must say (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    I was not going to write about TPM again on this.  told Jeralyn I would not if Josh dropped it.

    He did not.


    Maybe so BTD will link to TPM? (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    Ding, ding, ding! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    He doesn't care WHY people visit his site, only that they visit it.  As Carville pseudo-said, "it's the <ratings>, stupid".

    I think ignoring Josh and letting him wallow in the vaccuum of his own making is the best choice.


    Do TV media stations openly endorse (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST
    candidates like newspaper do?  I have been on the fence for some time on which candidate I would support, but the more Hilary bashing I see, the more I lean toward her.  I would have more respect for shows like MSNBC, Chris Mattews's Hardball if he posted a large sign behind his desk that we all could see that said the following:   I love Obama and I hate Hilary.  Any Questions? Yet two shows after Hardball the Abrams report spends sometime on every airing, showing the unfair Hilary bashing done by the media yet he never implicates his two compadres Chris and Keith that precede him who are the epitome of Hilary bashing. This bit of treating Obama with kid gloves and finding everything wrong with Hilary is just over the top. Until the media scrutinizes both candidates equally they will have many voters making their decisions on who they support by the media unfairness to one candidate vs the other.   I think if Obama sneezed right now they would all jump up for joy and say "He sneezed, God bless him." If they would see Hilary running into a burning building to save a baby they would say, "Ah no biggie"

    If they saw HRC running into a burning (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:46:46 AM EST
    bldg. to save a baby, they's say:  she's trolling for free media coverage.

    In the case of Chris Matthew (none / 0) (#69)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    it would say I love McCain hate Hillary have you ever seen his interviews of McCain?

    I deleted them several weeks ago (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    for the same reason...I also had signed this yesterday and thank you BTD for featuring it here...maybe this petition will do some good as I have alot of respect for Mediamatters...

    your statement (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    and didn't think this was any sort of firing offense.

    is a false argument.  Hillary Clinton did not push this as a firing offense.  She said that it is but one of many examples of biased coverage on the network.

    As for me: I don't really care what other women think.  I care what I think, and to imply that I should not be upset because Wendy Kaminer had a different take is egregiously wrong.

    Well good, because I certainly never implied that (none / 0) (#58)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    I care what I think, and to imply that I should not be upset because Wendy Kaminer had a different take is egregiously wrong.

    I think what I said was that Shake's implying that all feminists think like Shakes or for Arianna to retain her feminist cred with Shake's was wrong.

    I don't know who you are, but I don't think I ever said anything like you need to think like Wendy Kaminer.


    the Clinton letter (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by kimberly on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    I think the discussion here is a bit misleading, here's what Hillary said in her letter to Capus:

    "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

    Her subsequent comments might well be an effort to back away from demanding Shuster's head, but her intent here was certainly to get him fired.

    Aw, you missed the marvelous post (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:18:10 AM EST
    on all the in-between measures that could be taken.

    To which I add: Have him scrub out toilets in the women's restrooms at NBC for two weeks.


    couldn't bring myself to click through (none / 0) (#5)
    by Klio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:48 AM EST
    at TPM.  I had a strong foreboding that they'd miss the point.  I don't understand their intransigence on this.

    Thanks! for doing the reading for me.  Somehow having it mediating in this way gets me less riled up.

    TPM Cafe (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    is now full blown propaganda machine.

    When OPINION Makers Emcee News Shows (none / 0) (#20)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:19:14 AM EST
    your gonna have this problem.
    When/ how did this line get so blurred?
    Pretty sure things will get worse...before they get better.
    For instance-
    MS NBC is gonna have to re think allowing Keith Olbermann chair their election coverage.
    Imagine if FOX NEWS hired AnnCoulter and let her sit along side Hannity to anchor Election Night Coverage??

    BTW (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    Do not go OT again in a post.

    In fact, I am deleting this entire sub thread.

    Keep comments on topic (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST
    Off topic comments will be deleted.

    Thought the Discussion was on MS NBC (none / 0) (#26)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    and their treatment of NEWS/ Politicians??

    It is (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    I deleted FISA comments.

    Muckrakers. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:25:47 AM EST
    TPM is into muckracking, they've even named part of their site TPM Muckraker.  They've always loved candidate controversy, both last year when they showed a decided pro-Clinton bias in much of their reporting and this year when they seem to have swung anti-Clinton.

    There's nothing wrong with the fine journalistic tradition of muckraking, but it's always been a bit of a "throw everything and see what sticks" endeavor.

    The problem is that TPM is also supposed to be an "advocacy" journalism site -- meaning they're supposed to prefer Democrats to Republicans.  You don't see that in their muckraking, however -- they're just as eager (perhaps even more eager) to pursue Democratic muck as Republican muck.  Or perhaps they've now switched over from Democratic / liberal advocacy to specifically Obama advocacy.

    And when one's own side is the target, the "throw everything and see what sticks" concept is suddenly a lot less attractive.

    Due respect (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    Accepting sexism from NBC and to be charitable, "distorting" Clinton's comments, is not my idea of muckraking.

    It is egregious journalism and evidences a lack of decency.


    Hearst is laughing. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    Muckraking requires muck (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    The opinion of a candidate about her egregiously unfair and sexist treatment by a certain network is not muck.  Muck is the egregiously unfair treatment.  Focus on that is the point.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by kberly7568 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:39:19 AM EST
    I think that Hillary is right to say that MSNBC should take a long hard look at what they are doing because they really are attacking her for no reason.  If Obama ends up winning the nomination because of all the rumors and slander that surrounds Hillary, they will go after him next.  Anyway, speaking of the media, check out Michelle Obama on the Larry King show...pretty interesting.


    Josh forgets why we're here (none / 0) (#33)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    Back when the only major bulletin board was Salon's Table Talk, Josh, Alterman and MediaWhoresOnline began writing to push back against the exact media bias that Josh is now defending.

    Somerby, also one of the liberal 'net grandfathers, called out Josh early when Josh would talk to Howie Kurtz acting as if there was no anti-Gore media bias.

    Somerby was right. Josh does not have anything more than casual, situational interest in holding the media accountable.

    Josh has an interest in being Big Josh, (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    a player on the national media scene. He can't do that and write objectively. Which means he can't run an honest blog anymore.
    Of course, John Aravosis is far, far worse.

    I totally agree. Much worse. (none / 0) (#97)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:43:53 PM EST
    It's hard for me to stomach his blog tagline now.

    Deleted TPM From My Bookmarks (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    Refuse to click on his site again and provide him with any benefit after distorting the truth so much on this issue.

    So on talkleft (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    Hillary has the what she meant to say rule.

    Not at all (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    It is Marshall who is playing the "what Hillary meant to say" game.  We are looking to what she actually said: that NBC ought to look into the pattern of sexism at their network.  Claiming that she demanded Shuster's firing is reading a meaning into her statement that isn't in the text.

    There goes 99% of English Literature... (none / 0) (#111)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    Claiming that she demanded Shuster's firing is reading a meaning into her statement that isn't in the text.

    Wow.  Interesting.  I wish I could have used this excuse back in college.


    S. Kaus's bio on Huff Post (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    states he is M. Kaus's brother.  

    We all knew he was Mickey's brother (none / 0) (#112)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:45:35 PM EST
    What does that have to do with anything?  Shakes only mentioned it to help us get our hate on.

    In the past Stephen Kaus has often had very different views from his brother.

    There was no reason to mention it now, except to smear him with his brother's reputation.


    Did anyone protest (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    When Carville was "suspended" from making appearances until the nomination process was over because he seemed to bias?

    And while I don't think he needs the money, those appearances were paid for, so in effect, he lost income because of the suspension.

    And to my recollection, he never personally insulted anyone.  He was just too pro-Hillary for some folks.

    I think Clinton would be wholly justified in calling for Shuster's firing, but it shows the cut of her character that she is not.  She makes it clear that he is only a symptom of a greater disease.  To me, it shows great restraint not to demand his head on a platter.  If someone said those comments about someone I loved, I would be catastrophically, insanely furious.  She just wants a fair shake--nothing more, nothing less.

    Why this isn't clear to any thinking person is beyond me.

    Another example: has the Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    campaign asked for Donna Brazille to be taken off the air re elecction coverage?

    What did she actually say about the two weeks? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    If she really called for more than a two week suspension specifically for Schuster, and then says she is not the person to decide if he should be fired, then come on, she is calling for his firing.

    If she said something like, "it's not a question of a two-week suspension for one reporter, that's inadequate, the question is over the pattern of abuse at MSNBC" that's something completely different and not calling for his firing.

    But I can't find her original comments.  Does anyone have a link?


    She DID say that (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    What is with you people?

    What is with me? What is with you? (none / 0) (#71)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    I didn't say she didn't say it.  I was trying to understand the context she said it in.

    If it was strictly a conversation about Schuster, I think she was calling on him to be fired.

    If the conversation was about MSNBC, then I don't think she was calling on him to be fired.

    I apologize if I am not as brilliant as you are and need to see the context of the remarks as well as the remark itself.


    You wrote she SHOULD have said it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    which clearly means you thought she did not.

    What is with you? and we do not need to repeat our earlier conversation, go tell Jeralyn you want me out.


    Don't fall for this... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Camorrista on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    It's a trap; the comment that started this ruckus was contrived only to get a fight going.

    Every point in it contains a "fact" that you're honor-bound to challenge:

    '...Why does she bother pointing out that Stephen Kaus is Mickey Kaus' brother?...'

    Because he is, and because MK proudly says so on his page.

    '...it is not true that all feminists are upset or that all women are upset...'

    Which Melissa McEwan nowhere says. In fact, she never uses the word feminist; and the phrase she repeats is 'lots fof women.'

    '...Feminist leader Wendy Kaminer...had a different take, and didn't think this was any sort of firing offense..'  

    Neither did McEwan.  

    '...Also, it should be clear by now that huffpo is not a one issue online magazine, nor that everything said in the huffpo represents Ariana's point of view...'

    If anybody who reads HuffPo (or watches Arianna's TV appearances) maintains she doesn't hate Hillary Clinton--and doesn't eagerly seek contributors who promote that hatred--that person is either a fool or a tool.

    '...And calling Kaus, a Jew, a brownshirt is just incredibly offensive...'

    And, thus, and predictably, when all else fails, let's imply a little anti-Semitism.

    I don't like casual use of 'Brownshirt,' but, as somebody whose family was annihilated by the Holocaust, I can tell you--for a fact--that there were indeed Jewish Brownshirts.  Like Kaus, they decided they were safer with the master race.  History proved them wrong, as it will one day prove Kaus wrong.


    I, for one, (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    am quite offended that you think she would use a run-on sentence.

    For shame.


    Yes, but, uh, well, (none / 0) (#96)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    I assumed that was because she was speaking extemporaneously during an interview, and not writing.... ?

    I'm voting Clinton, but I agree with Josh here. (none / 0) (#48)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    That's not my job, John. You know, that's the job of the people who run the network. But I think that they need to take a hard look.

    She says, that a two week suspension is not enough, and she, a sitting senator and likely future president suggests they take a hard look.

    Yes, there is a pattern of abuse at MSNC, but this sort of "senator pressures media" is also why we have a first amendment.

    I think that if she indeed did say that two weeks is not enough, that she should either come out with her specifics, (4 weeks, 6 weeks, no 8 weeks!) or just call for the guy to be fired.

    No. Not her job. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    A hard look at the pattern of behavior (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    For some reason, folks seem to have a reading problem.

    Look, BTD, we've had our run ins here (none / 0) (#74)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    I think Jeralyn knows the difference between a constructive dialog and just abuse.

    Now many people over time have remonstrated against you for how you abuse them.  And I think you have certainly abused me, for no reason, and without good cause, and all of that keeps me from coming back to TL.  Who needs this?

    I am not the person that says you should be tossed out of TL, but I do think Jeralyn should take a hard look at the pattern of behavior in your posts.

    /Just kidding, I think you're a swell guy.


    Josh et. al (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    Josh and company attribute motive to the Clinton's in what they say. Usually the motive is some convoluted construct that supports their position-- some kind of demonic manipulation. The same motive is never applied to their favorite, rather the opposite is true. They try to contort the Obama comments to imply some Progressive and not malevolant motive. This is where the manipulation of the reader it at its core. This is where they have lost perspective. This is why they have lost credibility.

    Take it up with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    I questioned your post because you ignored Josh's headline and the text of the statment.

    Instead of defending your position you reply with this juvenile nonsense.

    I repeat, take it up with Jeralyn if you have a problem.


    What problem? I said exactly what Hillary said (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    I specifically said I don't have a problem.  I said you were a swell guy.  I said I was not the person to toss you out.  That's not my job.  All I did was point to your well known pattern of abusing others and ask Jeralyn to take a hard look at that.

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    Why do you think I am calling on you to be tossed out?

    Why don't you take my words at face value, the way you want Josh to take Hillary's?


    seriously (none / 0) (#90)
    by dc2008 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    Seriously, denying that that placement of the phrase at least appears to be designed to suggest that they might want to fire him, to me sort of defies reason. Especially because this was not the original letter and she had had time to carefully think about how she would want to put things. I'm not inside Hillary Clinton's head and so I don't know for sure. But I for not one statement but two to come out in a way that can make one wonder if she wants him fired seems telling to me. This is by no reasonable stretch a cause for calling Josh Marshall a liar or TPM any of the other names that it's been called here. Seriously!

    BTW, I agree with the Wendy Kaminer take on the whole affair. It was a stupid remark, at least arguably sexist. I haven't made up my mind about the larger take expressed about MSNBC.


    Greg Delassus accuses the Clinton's (none / 0) (#53)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    of going after the white supremacist vote, based on Ed Rendell's comment that some white people may not be able to vote for a black candidate.

    So (none / 0) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST

    An observation or opinion that someone is "playing the victim" is proof if hatred of women?  That makes no sense on its face.

    Is it your assertion that no one can play the victim?  

    uh (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    Shuster accused the Clintons of "pimping" their daughter, a comment which everyone (even Michelle Malkin) seems to agree was shockingly inappropriate. So tell me again, who exactly is "playing the victim", and how?

    a quote (none / 0) (#62)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    Cable TV is filled with smug, thoughtless jerks.

    I've encountered plenty enough of them. They know who they are. You know who they are.

    Rude. Sexist. Yammering. Insipid. Vain.
    That's Michelle Malkin, one of the nastiest right-wing pundits out there, who evidently has more sympathy for the Clintons than certain people on the left.

    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST

    It was a very poor choice of words.  OTOH, if its OK for Olberman to use it on General Petraeus IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT then its obvious its use does not carry a sexual meaning.  IMHO, Shuster should have apologized.  As should Olberman if that word is that far off limits.

    playing the victim (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    Implies that she is truly not offended but trying to manipulate sentiments that she was victimized. I think as a mother if someone said I was pimping my daughter I would not "playing the victim" I would be angry and offended. I would not be "playing" at it to get false affection. Playing the victim implies false calculation to get sympathy. Which is what typically is said about women when they are angered or offended about comments. It's the allegation that "why are you pretending to be hurt". Get it?

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST

    Implies that she is truly not offended but trying to manipulate sentiments that she was victimized.

    Not at all.  You can easily be truly offended, and still try to garner the maximum sympathy from the episode.  To me "playing the victim" is all about maximizing sympathy, and says little or nothing about the underlying offense,


    What are you saying (none / 0) (#86)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    That if you tell a mother she is pimping her daughter that is not a legitimate offense? Especially a mother that saw her daughter through some of the most public and horrible experiences?

    No (none / 0) (#100)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:47 PM EST

    That if you tell a mother she is pimping her daughter that is not a legitimate offense?

    Absolutely its a legitimate offense.


    It does not make sense (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    to sexists and misogynists.

    Still proving my point.


    sticks and stones (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    Am I reading this right? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ed Drone on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    I see nothing at all in your posting from TPM that says anything negative about Hillary or positive about Obama. The quoted passage above says that Hillary was asked if she wanted Shuster fired, and it gave her answer. Josh quoted her entire answer, as far as I can see, but said nothing else.

    That Clinton pointed out she wanted MSNBC to examine their history of anti-Hillary remarks is fine. They should. But that has little to do with her initial letter, which was written to bring optimum pressure to bear on MSNBC and Shuster in particular. If she had wanted to open a wider conversation about Tweety and Tucker and others, her one sentence about the wider issues would have been more specific.

    Her first and only point in that letter -- the only named target of her objections, in fact -- was Shuster, and her comment was that a temporary suspension was not enough. To me, as to many, many others, the point was that she was calling for a permanent suspension, i.e., firing the man. Was she really? Probably not; for one thing, a quick firing would have mooted the rest of the uproar, and the uproar was the object of the letter in the first place.

    The letter worked. It is called "working the ref," and all campaigns do it. The Rethugs do it so constantly you'd think the refs (the msm) would react to it and give a penalty for taking a dive, but they never do.

    But the TPM article you cite above has nothing to do with whether that letter meant what I think it means (as I have just pointed out) or if it means something else. Your reaction to Josh's even mentioning the subject says more about you than about TPM or Obama supporters or anything / anyone else.

    I hate to say it, but you're off-base and more than a little hyper-sensitive here.

    But it's your blog, so go to it. I am not removing TPM from my favorites list, nor Talkleft. I am not that judgmental. Perhaps you should consider your own reactions before jumping to foregone conclusions.


    Marshall's title (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    says it.

    you need to reread the post.

    you completely missed it.


    what arrogance (none / 0) (#93)
    by dc2008 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    Marshall's title, which includes the parenthetical note "Hint: #1," certainly indicates that he thinks she's saying he should be fired. So you and he have different views -- and therefore he's a liar. That's INCREDIBLY arrogant of you. And silly too.

    He doesn't hink there's any doubt at all (none / 0) (#101)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    (marshall). He is the arrogant one, considering there is no mention of firing in either letter.

    this is just silly (none / 0) (#102)
    by dc2008 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    He's not the one calling people liars over this.  You guys are!  And you don't have the slam dunk case you need to back that up.

    This is just silly...


    Wrong. Reread the first letter (nt) (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    Learning to take a punch (none / 0) (#61)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    Mrs. Clinton appears to be receiving some bad advice from her campain. Picking the right battles and learning to take a punch is no small matter. The offensive comment is so over. As a second wave feminist we all learned when to go big picture with our eyes on our prize and when to shush up. Today, her advisers have her ginning up a half baked argument against her opponent. The advice she's receiving isn't helping her in her march to 1600 Penn. Ave. Too bad.

    Taking a punch (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    Please take a look at all the punches that are being directed at Hillary. The one she really got angered by was the one towards her daughter. Hillary has taken punches that you could not even imagine. On Shushin up. Feminism is about women having the choice when to shush up and when not to shush up. It's her choice, and you should respect that and not give her a lesson on knowing her place.

    As if this was the first punch (none / 0) (#76)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    Hillary should be punch drunk with all the stuff that's thrown at her. First everyone said Kerry didn't stop the Swiftboaters fast or hard enough and now Hillary is just supposed to take whatever is dished out.

    Anyone that's ever listened to her, or to Bill, know that their philosophy is that when ever someone hits you, you hit back and you hit back harder.


    Marshal is playing (none / 0) (#63)
    by OldCoastie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    by Clinton Rules... no matter what she says, first leap to the conclusion that she is LYING and does not mean what she says she means...

    the Clinton Rules always apply.

    TPM (none / 0) (#70)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    TPM was the first blog I ever RSSed, but I've found it deteriorating into an Obama flack blog over time with complete loss of objectivity. I can't read it any more.  

    But TPM Horse's Mouth is (none / 0) (#73)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    another thing altogether. Did anyone read this?http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

    I have deleted TPM from my favorites but read TPM The Horse's Mouth every day.  TPM is the other end of the horse entirely.

    Heh. Like Martin Lewis on Huff Po? (none / 0) (#98)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    i sent a 2nd email to josh about hillary. (none / 0) (#80)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    it wasn't answered. the first answer i received was that he wasn't an obama supporter. i must have the wrong blog. hmm, i'll keep my opinion of his post to myself. words on here cannot express how i feel.

    what a shame! i thought tmp had real potential.

    more arrogance (none / 0) (#85)
    by dc2008 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    I think the positioning of the first "I think they need to look long and hard" comment in her statement appears to imply that she thinks NBC should at least consider firing Shuster.  I could be wrong, and I'm by no means sure about it.  But it really looks that way to me, based on what immediately preceded it and what immediately followed it.

    Therefore I feel compelled to say once again that the total refusal to even consider this obvious possibility by bloggers and participants here is really pretty arrogant.

    You can deny the implications that words have and insist that only their absolute literal meaning count, and use that to call people who disagree with you liars or biased or in denial.  But that's not intelligent political discourse, and frankly I don't think it's very savvy political analysis either.

    Maybe there are biases over at Talking Points Memo, but it's sure looking like there are biases here at TalkLeft too.

    Yes, they should consider firing (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    Shuster, but clearly that is NOT Hillary's preference.
    What she explicitly wants is for the sexist crap to stop.

    I did not touch the trancsript (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    but I think that line is clearly part of the second graf.

    But even that does not call for anyone to be fired.


    perceptions can be predicted on the second try (none / 0) (#103)
    by dc2008 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is smart enough to know how her words will be perceived -- if not on the first try (anyone can mess that up on the first try), then certainly on the second.  So the fact that on the second try, being asked directly if she meant he should be fired, she left it vague enough that it can be debated and it depends on which paragraph the sentence belonged in, suggests to me that at a minimum she wanted people to think that she might be calling for his firing.

    But even if I'm wrong about that, it certainly means that you do not have a slam dunk case.  Which means you have no business calling another author a liar over it or insisting that your interpretation and only yours is the 100% right one.  That's what I'm saying.


    Please (none / 0) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:04:30 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is smart enough to know how her words will be perceived -- if not on the first try (anyone can mess that up on the first try), then certainly on the second.
    Consider what you are saying. It is beyond imagination how her words are being perceived. At this point anything she says and anything Bill says, or any of her supporters is perceived to have some kind of ulterior motive. On the other hand, these same "authors' twist what Obama says to always have a positive or progressive motive.

    I'm blown away (none / 0) (#113)
    by dc2008 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:55:09 PM EST
    The statement clearly is one that tends to get perceived as calling for him to be fired.  I'm blown away that anyone would deny that it comes across that way, at least at first glance.

    Examine what I said in the thread and that was per (none / 0) (#114)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:09:52 PM EST

    Examine this.

    I said exactly the same thing to BTD as Hillary Clinton said, and BTD took exactly the same take on it that Barbara Walters and many others took on what Hillary said.

    Since elementary school, we have been taught to go beyond the words themselves to find the underlying meaning.

    It is silly and disingenuous to fault people as some sort of deranged hater for believing that Hillary Clinton was telling MSNBC to fire Schuster.

    And again, what I said above holds true.  We have a first amendment precisely to keep sitting government officials for making these sorts of insinuations.

    While I truly respect TL, and while I do see lots of crap tossed Clinton's way, I just cannot believe there are people in this thread stating that there is no reasonable way to interpret Clinton's statement has a call to fire Schuster.


    If anyone seems to want him fired, (none / 0) (#94)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    from the reading of this transcript and the insistence of trying to pin Mrs Clinton to say it,  is the interviewer.  I mean, I just don't read firing anywhere there but in his words.

    Sexism (none / 0) (#88)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    I've had my disagreements w/ BTD also but I'm 100% behind him here. NBC coverage has sucked - from ignoring Edwards to sexist coverage of Clinton. I used to love TPM - often I have learned much.
    But I also learned from DKos that 'progressive' does not mean feminist or even close. TPM is just as bad on that score. I stopped writing at DKos and don't visit often anymore. TPM will also get less visits from me. Thank goodness there are some decent feminist political blogs.
    Hey grrl - the battle is not yet won. We have a few more rights since the last wave but we have slid back. Time for another siege.

    It's as if JMM and his defenders here (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    can't imagine ANYTHING that MSNBC could do except for firing Shuster.
    That's just bizarre.

    I've deleted some comments (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    that engaged in name-calling and personal attacks. Please keep the discussion civil. Thanks.

    Hillary Sexism Watch (none / 0) (#99)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    Shakesville has a round up of sexism regarding Clinton's run.  Or at least the ones they've caught.

    Needless to say (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    While in the car today, Ed Schultz was having a major tantrum about "Hillary demanding that Shuster be fired" and all the callers calling in about freedom of the press and how the Clintons want to suppress said freedom. Frankly, the "left" radio is becoming what they criticized, furthermore that "pimping" was not insulting but rather modern day colloquialism. Go figure. I think this is the only place with some remaining sanity.

    "progressive radio" (none / 0) (#110)
    by allimom99 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    Yes, as did Stephanie Miller, who has become such an Obamabot I can't even have my morning chuckles anymore. Kudos to Bill Press and Thom Hartmann for attemping to remain more objective!

    Typical (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    Frankly this is typical of Hillary, to deflect a direct question and provide an ambiguous answer.  True, the more important point was the pattern of behavior, not one individual commenter's unfortunate comment.  True, she didn't say she wanted Schuster fired.  But, she also didn't say, no, she doesn't want him fired.  She left it open and refused to take a stand on whether or not she wants him fired.  It's not her job.  True.  (If/when she's president, I hope she steps up to the plate on things that ARE her job.)

    Putin? (none / 0) (#115)
    by kimberly on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM EST
    Because I again think that this discussion is misleading, here is Hillary's letter to Capus:

    "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

    She clearly wanted Shuster fired, a la Putin.

    Henry II and Thomas Becket (none / 0) (#116)
    by jerry on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    After these latest venomous reports of Becket's activities, Henry is reported to have raised his head from his sickbed and roared a lament of frustration. What the King's exact words were are in doubt, and several versions have been reported:

        * "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" (the most popular version)
        * "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"
        * "Who will revenge me of the injuries I have sustained from one turbulent priest?"
        * "Will none of the knaves eating my bread rid me of this turbulent priest?"
        * "What a band of loathsome vipers I have nursed in my bosom who will let their lord be insulted by this low-born cleric!"
        * "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their Lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?

    It's relatively clear that Henry II was not ordering Thomas Becket's death.


    Actually if reading beyond is the purpose you (none / 0) (#117)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    have to read the whole letter to pass judgement.  Of course a suspension and a half hearted apology is not enough as long as MSNBC does not change the tone of their comments and reporting.
    Heck how many times has Matthew apologized?  He still spewing his venom, as long as the powers to be in the station do not stop this kind of behavior it is not enough to just suspend the offender of one instance.  I guess she figures this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.