MSNBC Suspends David Shuster Over Chelsea Clinton Comment

Via a reader in the comments who just received this e-mail:


On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

Steve Capus
NBC News President

Update: Comments now closed here, new thread on topic is here.

< Clinton Campaign Calls Out NBC | TPM: Tweety Leads To Shuster's Fall >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wait and See (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    I'm happy NBC took this step, but the last time they took a positive step - Matthews' "apology" - the coverage got worse afterwards as if everyone was rallying around him because god forbid Tweety or any MSM talking head should ever be called on their crap.  And I can't help but think the upcoming debate, and related ratings bonanza, gave Clinton more leverage than she would normally have had.  

    So, in a nutshell, I commend NBC for taking this step and hope that it's a sign that they are serious about cleaning up their election coverage.

    Think I Will Send Them An E-mail (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:24:05 PM EST
    thanking them for this but stating that there has been a pattern of type of behavior on their network. And state my hope that in the future that they will conduct themselves as professionals rather than snickering little boys taking cheap sexual shots at women.

    I don't think I'm alone (none / 0) (#176)
    by jen on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    in being pushed more firmly into the Hillary camp than I ever thought I would be, mainly due to Corpress and their blatantly biased coverage. I honestly don't know who they think they're convincing to support Obama, except those who already do.

    Get Ready for a General Election (none / 0) (#184)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    along these same lines.  Instead of the election being about the issues the main debate will be a referendum on people's feelings about the Clintons.  The right wing and the media will overplay their hatred of the Clintons and it will drive "average" people to the Clintons.  Meanwhile, the Clintons' negatives will go through the roof.

    Oh, how I wish we had such an energized debate over liberal vs. conservative governance.  Instead we will get a referendum on the restoration of the politics of the 90s.  I'm not an Obama supporter but I think I now know what they mean by wanting change.


    yeah, right! (none / 0) (#216)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    if you don't think obama won't get swiftboated or slam dunked, then you aren't in the same world i am.

    Never said anything about Obama (none / 0) (#218)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:09:52 PM EST
    What is it with you Hillary supporters that you feel the need to inject a comment about Obama into everything?  I'm not supporting Obama I just really, really, don't want a repeat of the battles over the character of a Clinton that we saw in the 90s.  I've been there and got the scars for defending Bill.

    I'm ready to fight for liberal ideas--not the Clintons.  

    Obama, being a Democrat, will get smeared in a general election because liberal ideas are generally smeared by the media.  But it will be nothing compared to the hatred for the Clintons.  The Clintons are extremely divisive.  It's not fair, I know.  I think it actually reveals a lot more about the person that hates Hillary than it reveal about her (usually a white man over the age of 40).  

    But fair or not . . . you Hillary supporters are asking me (a liberal progressive) to spend my political energy on this battle.  I'm really not looking forward to these types of battles in the future.  I would rather call MSNBC over more pertinent matters to the Republic than some inapporpriate word some dude used.


    frankly, i don't care what you do with your vote! (none / 0) (#220)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    hilary supporter? more like sick and tired of the pathetic attempts to attack and put her down which you do.

    Will Keith OLBERMANN Name him WPITW (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:06:47 PM EST
    Is KO allowed to criticize MSNBC personnel?

    I doubt that KO would. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    From what I can tell, he's part of the problem.

    We can't give up on this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    Call Jeff Immelt.  He is the CEO of GE, which owns NBC.  He has a daughter and a wife.

    203 373 2211

    Ask for Immelt.  They will ask why you are calling.  Tell them why and that you want to lodge the complaint directly with him.  They will transfer you to the executive offices.  Ask for Immelt.  They will say he is on a call.  Lodge your complaint with that person.  Tell them you want Shuster fired, that suspension is not enough.

    Someone on the other thread kindly told me, "Sweetheart, Shuster isn't going anywhere."

    Let's see what we can do.

    that TL is basing this thread on? You do have some mojo.

    got the email. You all got mojo.

    (Mojo in the non-racist, non-sexist sense.)


    GE and NBC Special Shuster Phone Number (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KevinMc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    I called GE and Immelt.  They have set up a hotline to handle the Shuster complaints. The number is:

    Keep Calling Immelt (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KevinMc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    The voice-mailbox at the hotline is full.

    Voice mailbox being cleared now (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    because I called back to Immelt's office and complained that it had given me the number of a mailbox that they weren't clearing.  And I said I would report that to their competitors, CJR, etc.

    I was put on hold, then the person came back on the line to report that the mailbox would be emptied in the next 15 minutes -- and she said that "they were shocked" at NBC that it had filled so fast.

    I suggested that it was going to fill fast again, because the number is on blogs, so they had best assign somebody to empty it more often. :-)


    Just called that number (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    and the mail box is FULL!!!! This must be huge and I am soooooooooooo happy about it....

    They will clear it out tonight (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    Call it tomorrow.  And the next day.

    Call it every morning for the next five days.  If the mailbox is full, call the corporate number and ask for Jeff Immelt (203-373-2211)  Executives have very short memories, and five days is generally enough to make a message stick.

    Moving along...

    This morning, some folks here were saying that calling NBC to complain was a waste of time, that nothing would be done.  I think they said it outright, "Don't waste your time."

    Shuster must have thought that, too.  His apology this morning was something like, "I am sorry for those of you who took it as a pejorative."  Where I come from, that means, "I'm sorry you're too stupid to not understand what I am saying."  

    Now that Shuster has been suspended, some of the same TL posters from this morning are saying, "this is what you fight for?  This is what you waste your time on?"

    I just want to say--and I mean this from the bottom of my heart--that I truly do appreciate all of you who are so worried about us wasting our time.  

    Who knew that you thought it was so valuable?


    Savor your victory..... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:58:40 PM EST
    And remind me to ask you how good it feels after Hillary's first term, and our young men and women are still getting picked off a few at a time in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And people are still rotting in cages for selling drugs to willing customers.  And the debt teters ever higher.  Etc, etc, etc.

    A "Victory" Indeed (none / 0) (#132)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    Hillary scored a victory for liberals everywhere by getting the scalp of a t.v. commentator that made an slightly offensive comment about her daughter.

    If you liberal progressives can't appreciate victories like this then you just must be misogynestic.  

    No seriously, Hillary promises to restore the political correctness of the 90s.  Any commentator that refers to "claws" or "pimping" will be publicly tarred and feathered and America will once again understand that liberals stand for political correctness.  Even though Hillary would be a moderate Republican in another era this is the one hope that REAL liberals have for pushing the liberal agenda.  I so miss the 90s and how liberals scored so many points with average Americans when they nitpicked speech.  Go Hill!  


    If Liberals Cannot See (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    that the media's treatment of liberals, including the Clintons, over the last twenty years is directly tied to its support for Bush and his disastrous policies, then I don't think there's much hope for changing the direction of this country.  Democrats are always belittled and demonized, often in ways that seem unimportant - Gore's "sigh", Kerry's stiffness.  And complaints about such "minor" things are swept aside as being ridiculous, never mind that these narratives undermine the Democratic brand.  That's what this fight is about, it's about trying to stop the vapid political discourse that leads the media to aid and abet a hundred million dollar investigation of a blow job, but not to give two cents about illegal spying.  The way you do that is by raising a ruckus over every slight, no matter how small, to be ever vigilant.  That's what the rightwing did and it worked beautifully, they managed to co-opt the mainstream media to the point where they were so scared at being called liberal, they willingly pushed rightwing smears.  

    The reason Republicans and the media go after any attempt at reigning in misogyny and racism by labeling it as overly PC is because they like having those weapons in their arsenal.  They like being able to feminize male democrats, they like painting liberals as racists.  And one of the ways they keep getting away with it is by claiming folks who object "just don't have a sense of humor" or are too-PC.  But where I come from, ending sexism and racism is not only a liberal value, it's a liberal priority.  And while, god knows, the Democrats aren't perfect, they are a damned sight better than the alternative.


    Just as I suspected (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    The fact that Chelsea is acting a surrogate for (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    Mommy but doesn't want to talk to reporters is just another fantasy world you all are living in.  While I agree that his comments were not in the best taste...there is something to be said for trotting your daughter out there and expecting everybody to treat her with kid gloves, this is politics not tennis. If she wants to be a surrogate for mommy, then she should play by ALL the rules. Surrogates talk to the press....unless she can't, which goes to her effectiveness and ability to be a surrogate.  They can't have it both ways...as they like to do.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    Proving again my argument of the malign acceptance of sexism prevalent in the blogs.

    No, its not sexism...it's Billary's (1.00 / 3) (#122)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    and their people to inability to take constructive criticism...without crying wolf...trust me, there is no sexism here, just a practicality for seeing the Clinton's for what they are: manipulative, opportunistic users...and if you can't see that then you are blind.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    BTD, does this one qualify as a chatterer?

    Billary? (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:17:09 PM EST
    No more of that. You will be suspended if you persist.

    My Sight Is Good Enough To See You (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:26:44 PM EST
    for what you are. Unfortunately, TL's sites rules prevent me from commenting your character or lack thereof.

    Constructive? (none / 0) (#161)
    by manys on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    Simply asked, what was constructive about Shuster's comment? It sounded pretty antagonistic to me.

    BS! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    Politicians' families always campaign for them.  It's nothing new.  

    Can you imagine the outcry if Shuster had accused Barack Obama of pimping out Michelle?


    Yes I can (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:19:47 PM EST
    I can imagine it vividly.  That would be a racist comment, and two dozen bloggers would immediately suggest that it came from the Clinton campaign.  The Clintons would then be sneered at for a couple of weeks over their ruthless ambition and their willingness to do anything to get elected.

    Shuster thought it was all wrong that Chris Matthews had to apologize for being a neanderthal . . . why should we be surprised that he didn't even realize it wasn't going to be okay to call Chelsea a whore?


    No, that would not be a racist comment (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    if media said it about Michelle Obama.

    It would be a sexist comment.

    The racist comment is to suggest that it's a racist comment, i.e., that all pimps are African American.


    Oh Please (4.66 / 3) (#47)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:28:42 PM EST
    If he'd said this about the Obama kids or Michelle Obama, you'd want to storm the palaces.  And you know what? I'd be right there behind you because it would be every bit as wrong.

    Geesh. Not everything is Clinton v. Obama.


    His kids are not acting as surrogates.... (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    She is fair game...

    Fair game? (none / 0) (#143)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    You mean like Valerie Plame was fair game to Karl Rove?  What in the sam hill has happened to make you say such a thing?  Where is the rule written that anybody who makes calls on behalf of a candidate must speak to the press?

    Does that apply only to Chelsea Clinton, or only to relatives of candidates, or to anyone who ever asks others to support them?

    Fair game?  Seriously, are you suggesting that it's okay to call her a whore?  


    Interesting to Compare (none / 0) (#68)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    the use of the other candidates' children.  I think Mitt Romney's children certainly have come under attack.  But I guess that's simply anti-Mormonism.

    Hardly. (none / 0) (#162)
    by manys on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    The thing with Mitt's children is more like "I'm for the war and making other peoples' children die, but not my own." That's some set of standards, a truly honorable philosophy.

    i didn't see pundits on tv claiming they were (none / 0) (#219)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:13:50 PM EST
    pimping for mitt. that is out of bounds.

    I do think (none / 0) (#124)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    when it comes to Hillary's daughter, considering the current and historical behavior of the press toward the Clintons, they have no right, absolutely no right, to demand any access to her whatsoever. And if they don't like it - tough.

    Suspened how high? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    And above what?

    Actually, this is a pretty stunning thing to have happen.  Does anyone think it's going to establish a precedent?  Might it carry over to other channels?  If so, there may soon be some dead air on a lot of cable!

    Dead air.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST
    And a chilling effect on free speech.....Keep this up and one day everybody will be so afraid to say anything controversial or potentially offensive out of fear of the "offended brigade" that the airwaves will be wall to wall "Leave it to Beaver" re-runs.  Or is the Beav offensive too now?

    IMO, you guys are almost as bad as all the knuckleheads who called the FCC about Janet Jackson's t*t.  An over-sanitized society catering to squeaky wheels, is that what you want?

    I guess changing the damn channel is too complicated.


    Beav, sexist term, you know that. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    Okay, we'll just report that (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    you're pimping YOUR daughter.

    And your sister and your mother.

    Okay with that?

    Please provide the name of your local paper for us to do so.  Thanks.


    Someone Call (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    the Waaaaaaaambulance.  Please.  Are you guys really going to get into a frenzy over this and is this what I have to look forward to if Hillary is the nominee?  

    If only Hillary expressed as much outrage at what Fox News and the media is doing to liberals in general rather than only fighting the media when her own family is involved.

    Very interesting that Hillary only sheds tears or fights when her or her family's reputation is at stake.

    How about she honor the Democratic boycott of Fox News instead of being a scab!

    Her campaign did (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    Howard Wolfson went on O'Reilly to defend Daily Kos.

    Hilary has been muich fairer to Daily Kos than Daily kos has been to Hillary.

    But do not let he facts get in the way of your erm, "diatribe."


    Ding, ding, ding. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    Hilary has been muich fairer to Daily Kos than Daily kos has been to Hillary.

    Well said.


    MoveOn (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    Hillary also stayed and voted against the censure of MoveOn. Obama skipped out before the vote (after having voted for the Boxer compromise).

    MoveOn, of course, punished Obama for his lack of support by endorsing him and raising money for him.  

    If progressive and liberal organizations want to know why they always get stepped on, it might be because there is never any sanction for throwing them under the bus. And no reward for trying to stop the bus.  

    If President Obama sells out the progressive movement, progressives will have no one but themselves to blame.  Every time he's turned on them, they've excused it and made apologies.  If they called him on his crap, he'd be a better candidate and better potential president, IMO.  


    good point (none / 0) (#79)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    I agree.  We all know Hillary will throw progressives under the bus and Obama is trying to have it both ways.  I suspect, as you note, that progressives will be very disillusioned by Obama.

    Real progressives should stay out of the fray and try to push both candidates to the left.


    Daily Kos? (none / 0) (#50)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    What does Daily Kos have to do with anything?  I almost never read Daily Kos.

    And how you define diatribe?

    If you're suggesting that some people are injecting too much emotion into the issues than I encourage everyone that is "outraged" about this issue and e-mailing the media to take a deep breath and look at the bigger picture.


    Well snce you never read daily kos (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM EST
    that ends the conversation.

    I suggest you recall what you write and what I responded to when you respond to me.

    See if you can make some sense of it.

    Seriously, read it through.


    Do you realize that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    MSNBC has become the Hillary Hate network?  It's not just Chelsea.  They've made a 24x7 job of hating Hillary and loving Obama.

    I find it amusing (no, irriating) that people can trash Faux for their extraordinary bias, but the same extraordinary bias is okay if it's about hating Hillary.

    Now, when people on other sites scream FAUX BIAS, I roll my eyes.

    This has definitely been a change election.  I'm changing, finding out who has and doesn't have principles.  Lack of principles is definitely not necessarily predominantly Republican.


    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    you're making the incorrect assumption that I'm for "change" and Obama.

    Hey, I personally wrote Bill Keller when he put on the front page of the NYT how many times Hillary and Bill slept in the same bed because it was unfair.  I've defended the Clintons plenty.  I'm just very unexcited about defending the Clintons yet again personally, while they do nothing to stand up for liberal positions.  

    I don't watch any of these cable channels that often and I never turn on Fox News on principle.  But really, the Clintons thrive when they are being unfairly attacked by the media.  You guys should be jumping up and down in joy.  In fact, I think you are.  Hillary does well when she is the victim (why do you think we got tears or near tears two days before two big primary days?).


    It's amazing, isn't it? (none / 0) (#85)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    When people criticize Hillary for agreeing to a debate on Fox, I tell them that Fox is hardly worse than MSNBC these days.

    get a grip (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    try to imagine O, pimp and a young girl as the subject of a sentence about O maybe that will help break through the fog.....

    This thread (none / 0) (#225)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:34:18 PM EST
    This thread and the earlier Shuster ones have been up most of the day. I've pointed out an even more slanderous attack on a woman (Caroline Kennedy) circulating through the Clinton camp, and yet no one here will pause in their fury to least say, yeah, that was a little ugly too.

    I realize that the next few primaries and caucuses don't look so good for Clinton, but if you need to recharge your batteries by chanting sexism over and over, can't you at least recognize the same ugly behavior in your own group? Pretty pitiful.


    Great Platform for Controling Sorry TV Reportimg (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Sunshine on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:22:39 PM EST
    This is great, I was a steady MSNBC watcher until they took on a crusade to destroy Hillary.. It seems to be just a bunch of angry white men, they all seem to have some kind of agenda, starting with Chris Matthews, then Joe Scarbourgh, Tim Russsert, Howard Fineman and Davis Shuster..  I found it very depressing and quit watching the channel at all..  I don't know what their problem is but they sure have one.. HooRay for Hillary..

    I like this (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    So much Oba rage over people reacting the way normal people are supposed to react when someone insults them in a public forum.

    After all that's been said about Hillary, you know she can take it. This is a matter of principle: It's her DAUGHTER. There's a special bond between a mother and daughter, and she has in NO way used Chelsea in a way that should make her a target like this.

    She's probably still stinging from Limbaugh's attack on Chelsea. No more of this bs is going to be permitted.

    Cue the Obamaniacs to say "What's the big deal? She was askin' for it!"

    It's not even a matter (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    of whether Hillary (or Chelsea) can take it.  This is just a new low in journalism (and I use the term loosely), even for MSNBC.

    Agree that Hillary can take it (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    and Chelsea can take it and Bill probably can just barely take it.  Chelsea's grandmother, at 88, I hope she can take it.

    But that's beside the point.  The point is that these are public airwaves, and WE don't have to take it.  


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    This is just so sad. How can so many progressives be so regressive about women"s issues? Bleh. I feel sick.

    Obamamiac here (none / 0) (#59)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:33:37 PM EST
    Suspension is not enough, he should be fired.  You guys should still calm down.

    Interesting phenomenon (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    I find it quite interesting that this boiling caldron between MSNBC and Clinton hasn't been mentioned in the least on the front page of a certain top 2000 ranked web site whose name I won't mention.

    It's as if they have some bias or something.

    Will anyone roll their eyes when the same web site screams bias about Faux News?

    just heard that (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    ABC/Politico debate for Monday night is scheduled and Hillary is attending and Obama has refused the invitation....they will proceed without him...will be streamed on Politico as well as ABC...

    Wow! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:51:52 PM EST

    copied this from another blog (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST

    Hillary to Participate Live in ABC7/POLITICO Candidate Forum

    Obama Rejects Debate Invitation In Advance Of Chesapeake Primary

    Voters in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia will be able to watch "The ABC7/POLITICO Candidate Forum: An interview with Hillary Clinton" Monday night on the eve of Tuesday's "Chesapeake Primary."

    Initially, an invitation was sent to the both the Obama and Clinton campaigns to participate in a debate sponsored by The Politico and ABC7. Senator Obama, however, declined to participate in a debate with Senator Clinton in advance of Tuesday's primary.

    "We're disappointed that Senator Obama would deny the voters of Washington, Maryland and Virginia an opportunity to see the candidates debate side by side before they head to the polls on Tuesday," said Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee. "Senator Clinton is happy that she will have the opportunity to participate in this forum regardless. The voters deserve no less."

    The forum will air live from the ABC7 studios in Rosslyn, Virginia from 7-7:30pm ET Monday on ABC7 and News Channel 8 in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, and will be streamed live on Politico.com. ABC7 will also make the feed available to all ABC stations around the country.

    ABC7's Leon Harris and Politico's editor-in-chief John Harris will conduct the interview. Additionally, viewers will be able to submit questions in advance online at Politico.com and wjla.com.


    That's the kind of hubris (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    that can lose you an election. Virginia might not be as safe for him as he thinks.

    you are right (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    and she just got an hour of free and unlimited press.

    It may not be seen (none / 0) (#207)
    by jen on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    by many. Posted by my friend Barry in NJ over at CCN:

    I was curious about when this invitation went out, since that would be a factor for anyone, and checked politico.com and WJLA's site. Neither seems to be listing this. WJLA says that "Wheel of Fortune" will be on at 7 Monday.

    WJLA does have an "exclusive" survey on their site that has Obama leading in Maryland, Virginia and DC by substantial margins. In Maryland they have women going for Obama over Hillary.

    Obama would get an empty chair (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    that would NOT look good.

    Catch me up on this. Is this a (none / 0) (#203)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    recently scheduled debate?  Did Obama give a reason for declining the invitation?  

    you know what... (none / 0) (#100)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    good for them.  I'm pissed at obama turning down the debate invite.  He's not the front runner and should stop acting like it.  Last time he did that he lost NH.

    Oh come on (none / 0) (#109)
    by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:00:17 PM EST
    The more time Obama spends with the voters, the stronger he becomes. I'm sure your in favor of a debate every day, however, this is a clinton tactic to get free air time and pull Obama away from the states he will need to campaign in.

    au contraire (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    The more time Obama spends debating, the weaker he becomes.  If his real concern is reaching voters, he can reach more of them on TV than in person.  

    Obama doesn't debate well (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    that's why he's not attending.

    Bush did the same thing for the same reason.


    then he should practice more (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    I'm so annoyed by this.

    actually, no. (4.00 / 0) (#128)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    You are right in that when he spends more time with voters he is a stronger candidate with them.  But guess what, he needs to win or be close in TX, OH, and PA.  And people are really paying attention now.  And in order to reach THOSE voters, he needs the air time too.  His ground game is going to take him far, but it won't take him that far.  He needs to take her to task on Iraq.  He needs to nail her down on how she's going to "mandate" and punish on her healthcare proposal, he needs to call out the fact that two families have been running this country for two decades.  And he needs to confront her on the reality that he is far more electable than her against McCain.  

    Debates are the best format to do this in.  I'm an obama supporter - but I am having serious issues with his campaign from a strategy standpoint right now.


    I'm only interested in another debate (none / 0) (#157)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    if both candidates answer the following questions:

    1. why haven't you done more to investigate Bush's lawless spying on innocent Americans and why are you not leading the Democrats in opposition to Bush's spying power grab?

    2. What will you do to end the U.S. practice of torture and prosecute those that engaged in torture?  

    3. Will you pardon Bush and his gang for any crimes they committed?

    4. Why do you think we need to maintain/expand the current wars on terror and drugs?  Isn't a war against these things bound to fail?

    First and foremost that is what the Democrats need to focus on.

    All Good Questions (none / 0) (#170)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    Although I'd change #1 to be what will you do when President because I don't think either of them have much power to lead an investigation in the Senate given the committees they sit on.  Although I would love to hear why Obama hasn't done more with the subcommittee he co-chairs, which could've provided a terrific platform for some issues related to Iraq and Afghanistan even if it is technically on Europe (hello, European forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the Turkey/Kurds issue).  I'm honestly shocked this hasn't become more of an issue for him.

    But you're never going to hear the answers because you're never going to hear the questions.  The media won't go anywhere near those for the same reason it obsesses over interviewing Chelsea Clinton - the media is broken, more invested in the clubbiness of Washington and more interested in celebrity culture, than it is in actually reporting the news.  


    Regardless of the committees (none / 0) (#192)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    they sit on they have the power to make a difference from the fact they are the two most prominent Democrats.  If they simply put pressure on the House Democrats to start an investigation they would.

    The media is broken.  And we are sitting here picking up the pieces and arguing about it instead of putting pressure on the candidates to actually lead.

    If Hillary (or Obama for that matter) gave a serious speech in the Senate, say on FISA, that would be so more effective than her call for more debates.  How about she use the free air time to actually lead on actual legislation in the actual Senate that actually has a huge effect on our civil liberties for generations!


    I Would Love to See It (none / 0) (#208)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    But I'm not going to.  It's a disappointment for me with both of them.

    Of course, that doesn't excuse Harry Reid's terrible leadership. Has there been a single issue where he didn't get punked?


    I wish the Obamacans (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jen on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    would for just a minute or so, turn the situation around. Not just the Schuster comment, but the entire way MSNBC has been "reporting" on the primaries.

    Imagine for one moment, that the praise, the awestruck wonder, the ignoring of anything controversial were directed at Clinton, and the snears, the snarky comments, the downgrading of any positive news was directed at Obama.

    Honestly, think how you would feel, and then imagine how you would react if a Clinton supporter told you to just suck it up and get over it.

    One thing you can be sure of -- if Obama were treated by MSNBC as Clinton has been, the cries of racism would be front page headlines at that big orange place 24/7.

    I'm a proud Obamacan't.

    If Obama Gets the Nomination (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    They won't have to imagine the situation reversed.  It will be.  Matthews, Russert and the rest of the Village will be all about the wonders of McCain and the disappointment they have about Obama, who sadly just won't quite measure up.

    I'm sure others have said this (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    But good! Yes, I sent emails to all three addresses, and politely, yet firmly informed them that what he did was reprehensible, offensive, and if he had said that about Michelle Obama, he wouldn't have had a job.

    DING DING DING!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    I know why MSNBC is doing all the negative coverage!!

    It's paybacks for the Clintons going after Microsoft in the anti-trust lawsuit.  Once Bush came into office Microsoft was left alone.  

    Now they're worried about the Clintons coming back. That's the reason for the  Clinton bashing corporate "culture," why Keith, who was always pro-Clinton has become complicit.

    That is IT.

    Someone on another list reminded me of this.  If I could remember who it was, I'd give credit.  I'll re-post if I find it again.

    When the war ends (none / 0) (#191)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:13 PM EST
    GE will lose a lot of money if this war ends. will lose a lot of money from the divisions of their company that the average American knows very little about.

    And GE she voted against the Energy Bill (none / 0) (#214)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    forgot about microsoft you are right.

    Several diaries decrying the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MarkL on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    for "pimping" their daughter, over at Orange Hell.

    Pimping Electra (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    I find everyone's dudgeon around here so high that I wonder how any of you manage to go through a day without being grievously insulted.

    The word "pimp" has been used in general conversation for decades now, both as a noun and a verb. It suggests aggressive, demeaning salesmanship and as such can probably be used to describe any politician or politician's spokesperson without veering much away from its current colloquial meaning. I imagine the the term has been used for the Kennedy Family too, when relatives are sent out to use their fame to get votes. Since I can't go a day without hearing someone use the term about something or someone anymore, am I now to believe that this term is now morally equivalent to the "n-word," or only when used against the Clinton Family's good name?

    Is it a crude term? Yeah, the English language tends to be that way, and many of the words thrown around have several levels of meaning, some levels cruder than what seems to be on the surface. That's what made Shakespeare so entertaining. Can we expect expurgated Shakespeare in a Clinton Presidency?

    So should Shuster be suspended or fired? Who watches?

    If Robin Morgan dismisses Caroline Kennedy's support for Obama as some kind of Freudian hangup for her murdered father then what is out of bounds? Or is that condemnatory post Big Tent is writing about Morgan coming right up?

    The problem with using the word (1.00 / 1) (#204)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:05:31 PM EST
    "pimping" is in the context, Bob.

    Not good to use it against a woman.  Really, really not good to use it against her daughter...a young, attractive woman.

    Do you have a daughter, Bob?  A wife?  Ever run for office?  Wonder if you'd get it if the local press suggested you were "pimping out" your wife or daughter by having them onstage with you at a rally.

    Do you get it now?

    This is not an academic discussion about linguistics.


    Of course it's offensive (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    So how about Robin Morgan linking Obama to Chappaquiddick and Marilyn Monroe's suicide through Caroline Kennedy's Freudian longing for her dead daddy? Or that doesn't count? Do YOU get it, oldpro? Morgan's essay is circulating through the Hillary blogs and is being met with hallelujahs. Is it okay to sexually slander women who support Obama when it's just Clinton supporters among themselves?

    I have a daughter. She's an adult. She makes her own decisions on whether to put herself into the public spotlight or politics.  

    Have I run for office? Yes, in my union, four times. I've been slandered and didn't like it. I'm proud of my service to my coworkers. Worked in my union for twenty-five years, defending people who were treated badly on account of race, gender and age. Has nothing to do with the subject here.

    Do you have a daughter, oldpro? Would you want someone to question her support for a candidate based on "daddy issues"? I just bet if you think about it you might actually raise your outrage to condemn Morgan. Or maybe not. That insult against someone's daughter was done in favor of Clinton.

    I see a lot of hypocrisy here, oldpro. Show me that it's not just insults directed at the Clinton Family that bothers you.


    Crudeness on our public airwaves (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    is okay with you?

    You not only don't get it in terms of how women -- all women, not just those on MySpace -- hear this.  You don't get that we OWN the airwaves, and the networks are use them with our permission . . . and at their peril of losing our permission.


    Let's do it Cream.... (none / 0) (#226)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    I'm down....let's take back the airwaves.  Now we're talking.

    Off the top of the dome...every candidate, and I'm talking every candidate on down to to the littlest independent gets 2 nights of prime time a week or so before the general on free tv, commercial free.  A couple debates, again with every candidate, commercial free on free tv.  We ignore the knucklehead pundits and entertainers turning the running of our country into the WWF and make an informed choice, if we so choose to tune in.

    I guarantee Hillary/Obama/McCain would fight it tooth and nail.


    for those of you (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    that see nothing wrong with NBC's treatment of the Clintons, perhaps the fact that you are allowing the media to pick your candidate should really bother you

    Got to ask you, do you think (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    MSNBC's action suspending Shuster will have any effect on future coverage of women by any TV network?

    That Shuster Comment (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:15:35 PM EST
    I just opened an account here today...for a number of reasons, but mostly because I am angry (almost livid) to the point of tears.  Now: I really don't get to that point very often.  After living 60+ years and serving as an attorney & manager with the US government for 30 years (before retiring during the Bush years), I am used to dealing with conflict.  Also: I started in the "political arena" as a student & Democratice precinct committeewoman during the turbulent 1968 days in Indiana (where I'm privileged to have cast my first vote for Robert Kennedy less than 2 mos. before his death.)  Between my occasional campaign manager-type husband and my own forays into the national sphere (DNC's WLF, inaugurations, some organizational work after Hatch Act limitations lifted, etc.), I have seen the harsher side up-close on a number of occasions.  BUT, I have absolutely had it with MSNBC and some of the cohorts at NBC.  Pushing the edge, creating the story, underwriting momentum, etc. ... thats one thing.  Outright, despicable misogyny and plain, old-fashioned attempts at sex-based ridicule and humiliation make we want to--alternately--scream, vomit, and call everyone I know to organize some economic response (read: sponsors).  Even with some of the fascinating discriminatory actions I've witnessed in my lifetime, I never thought that a national TV network would be so wonked out as to include the daughter in their venom spewing words about the Clintons.  (Thank you all very much for allowing me to write this note.)

    If all your comments are like this, (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    you have raised the bar for the rest of us.  Good job.

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    and my first post here was basically a long sigh of relief after reading some really anti-woman blogs for far too  long.

    You are among friends here.


    WOW (4.00 / 2) (#9)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    I wonder how many complaints they received. It must heen huge!! It took them alot longer to put Tweety in his place.

    They got complaints (none / 0) (#22)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    from me mailed to the president of news, vp of news, and viewer services.  I think they got completely swamped with them.

    GOOD! (4.00 / 2) (#11)
    by notableabsence on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    I just wish Shuster realized how sexist his comment was; I don't believe he does and that comes across in his "apology".  It's a sad statement on the unfettered misogyny in our culture, but I bet he just doesn't get it .

    right (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    His apology was like, "I'm sorry I beat you, baby.  It won't happen again."



    pundits often talk about the need (none / 0) (#130)
    by Josey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    to discuss racism in America - not sexism and misogyny.
    Males control the media, Congress, Corporate America...

    Finally (4.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    I've been disgusted by MSNBC's coverage all year long.

    This is poetic justice, but it's by no means enough.

    GOOD (3.66 / 3) (#2)
    by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    first step.

    Only a first step? (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    What else is required to satisfy you guys...termination?  tar and feathering?  We could stone 'em like the whackos in Saudi Arabia!  They are so easily offended over there too...

    I was hoping this was the first and last step, and we can get back to discussing which candidate will cease occupying foreign countries, stop running up a massive debt, end the over-criminalization of the citizenry....what am I saying, we never talk about that stuff.  We will wait till the next distraction and get all offended.  

    Rinse, repeat.


    Dont get it do you... (3.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Richard in Jax on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    Perhaps you missed out on the last 15 years or so but it was EXACTLY this kind of 'journalism' that got you the occupations of foreign countries that you decry. Without this kind of perception making you would never had Bush in the first place. It was these methods that kept Gore and a host of others from being elevated to office. If you delete this kind of crap from the 2000 campaign you have Gore i the White House and NO IRAQ WAR. You gettin the picture now.

    You're right.... (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:06:42 PM EST
    I don't "get it", but that's another topic.

    I used to think an Al Gore presidency would mean no Iraq invasion....not anymore.  The Democrats are a party of war and occupation just as much as the Republicans...only the Republicans are honest about it.  They report to the same military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about.  If Al Gore was president we'd be in Iraq today just the same, imo.  He probably would have run it better, but we'd still be there.  Afghanistan too, he woulda dragged that along to keep the right people paid.

    Not to mention Bill Clinton was fond of bombing Iraq too, if you recall.  Got to use missiles to buy more....see a pattern?

    The msm sucks...that's not news.  It's been total crap for my whole adult life, because it's about profit.  They're making money selling fluff and faux controversy so they have no reason to change until people stop tuning in.  If MSNBC or Fox aired in depth reporting and analysis of foreign and domestic policy instead of entertainers at 8pm every night no one would watch.  We rather see some knucklehead call Bush a d*ck and Hillary a b*tch, in so many words.

    You think Gore and the Clintons don't get a fair shake from the msm?  Please...look at Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich.  You can tell what candidates might actually change something by the abscense of their face from the tv and papers.

    btw...what I don't get most of all is intelligent, peace and freedom loving people believing in their heart of hearts that things will be different under Clinton or Obama...that's what I really don't get.  

    Take it easy brother...


    Why That Stuff Never Gets Talked About (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    The absolutely abysmal campaign coverage by the networks.  MSNBC's coverage hasn't just been vapid and shallow, it's been degrading to one of the democratic frontrunners.  And, just as summer turns to fall, you can bet that if Obama is the nominee against McCain, Matthews and Company will turn their guns on him.

    That's, in part, why we have the Iraq war, torture, and illegal spying, the media did this to the Democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004.  The media has become a toxic influence on our political and cultural life.  Fighting that is critical to moving this country in a more humane and democratic direction.


    There's an easy answer to that..... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    stop watching MSNBC, Fox, and CNN.

    If enough people stop watching, they'll change their programming.

    Or instead of calling to complain about a talking head being mean to Hillary, call and complain about the network's ignoring the issues in favor of fluff.


    I Don't Watch Them (none / 0) (#98)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    The only time I watch cable news - or any television news - is on election nights for returns.  I am always shocked and appalled by the coverage.  They should all be ashamed of themselves, IMO.

    And I Should Add (none / 0) (#110)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:00:17 PM EST
    I'm not just shocked at the appalling coverage Clinton gets.  While Obama's coverage has been better than Clinton's, there have been absolutely awful moments regarding him, too.  Bill Bennett is every bit as racist as he is sexist (no surprise).  Carl Bernstein hasn't been as bad towards Obama as he has towards Clinton, but that's just because he's beating Clinton.  Obama'll clearly be in Bernstein's sights if he gets the nomination because Carl is just that kind of guy.  

    so if you don't watch, why should they care (none / 0) (#111)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:00:28 PM EST
    what your opinion is...?

    Because their advertisers care (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    about what could follow.  They want good PR...not to be connected to a network that treats women badly.  Women spend most of the household $$$ and no sponsor (or company that owns the network) wants women shoppers mad at them.

    You can trust me on this.  If you think women wouldn't start boycotts over this you are mistaken.  I didn't eat grapes for 12 years.


    Hahahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    I've refused to buy or eat Domino's pizza since 1993!

    first step (none / 0) (#72)
    by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    to cleaning up that network.

    Best to everyobdy here - but I cannot censor myself on this topic to meet jeralyn's requirement.  I called someone at the network an animal name of a small pink creature.  I feel he deserves it but it crosses boundries here. I respect rules.

    You are all cool - best in november 08!


    Here's the next step: (none / 0) (#159)
    by magster on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
    Now that we have everyone universally condemning NBC and Shuster for being sexist and mean to Chelsea, it would be a great time to resurrect John McCain's golden oldie: "Why is Chelsea so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."  I have already turned a couple of McCain leaners off of McCain with that incredibly hateful joke, even now 14 years later.

    Media Matters (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    takes on Matthews sexist comments toward Hillary and women in general.



    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by zyx on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    It's kind of too bad.  What Shuster said was crappy, but he's not a bad guy generally, like Chris Matthews.  THAT is a guy who shoul dhave the mike shoved where the sun don't shine and then be shown off the set forever.

    agreed (none / 0) (#223)
    by Josey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    and Matthews was included in my outrage to MSNBC about Shuster.

    Amazing (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST

    Glad to see it but, NBC MSNBC are already blocked and GE anything not my first choice I have had it with their women girl hate.

    good! (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Josey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:59:21 PM EST

    I just hope it's a permanent suspension (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    I just hope it's a permanent suspension.  

    Also, I read your post about the "claws" and before I could finish both my daughter and husband shouted "that's sexist!"

    Are we keeping count?

    I mean BTD's post about "the claws" n.t. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    Email from NBC (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by KevinMc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    I forwarded the email to BTD.  I like to think I had a part in his suspension.  My ego runneth over.

    Is that what that was (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM EST
    on the floor? (splash.)

    I think they probably did the right thing. I hope (none / 0) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    when he comes back, he covers McCain only as BTD suggested. This makes me really sad though, because Shuster was one of my favorites before this issue. I'd give anything if he could take it back. Like I said last night, he has a problem with Chelsea campaigning period and it got the best of him.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    He has a problem with Chelsea not talking to the press.  This was payback for the fact that Chelsea will talk to voters and super delegates, but doesn't want anything to do with reporters.  Which is, like, so very hard to believe given how completely fairly the media has treated her parents over the years.  Oh, wait...

    right because he cant' be fair and (none / 0) (#36)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    objective, like the fox news people...get a life...

    You are suspended for the rest of the day (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST

    Come back tomorrow.

    Comment deleted.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#31)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    This is how you treat those that disagree with you?  You scrounge the comments to delete any opposition?  Browbeat your readers into agreeing with you instead of debating issues?

    Only Clinton supporters allowed?  Instead of treating those that disagree with you as children and sending them to the naughty stool for a day maybe you should apply rules fairly to both sides or simply announce a policy that only pro-Clinton comments are allowed.

    Wonder what will happen to this blog after the nomination process is over.  Seem to be hitching your reputation to the Clinton train.  


    Hardly (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    You are still posting today aren't you?

    jgarza was suspended for repeatedly lying about me.

    If you repeatedly lie about me or Jeralyn, you too can be suspended.

    I assume you will not.


    Now walk the walk! (none / 0) (#24)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    "the Hillary campaign could no longer "envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made."

    The Feb 26 debate in Ohio is an NBC debate. There's no way she can agree to stay in this debate right?

    After the suspension (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    of course they can.

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#40)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    Where does that fit into "no longer envision a scenario"? Or "comments that were made and have been made."?

    There's no capitulation at all there if they stay in the debate?


    He did not envision Shuster (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    being suspended.

    Neither did I. Did you? you are a Swami.


    Doesn't take Nostradamus (none / 0) (#65)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    You don't need to be a swami or fortune teller to envision that Schuster would at the very least be suspended. Imus lost his job, Schuster's getting off easy just being suspended.

    If Wolfson, couldn't "envision" Schuster being suspended or fired as a "scenario" in which they'd continue to debate on that network then what does it say about one of Clinton's top aides?


    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:38:18 PM EST
    you have that track record of suspensions that you can point to?

    I have never seen this before.

    But have it your way, you want to in some bizarre way think that you can corner Hillary on this.

    Here is my Nostradamus moment, your ludicrous attempt will be laughed out of the room.


    Well off the top of my head (none / 0) (#115)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    Don Imus, the Golf Channel anchor that made the Tiger Woods lynch remark, Limbaugh after his McNabb comments on ESPN, ESPN suspending Dana Jacobson for anti-Notre Dame remarks, Andy Rooney suspended from 60 minutes after his comments on blacks and gays, NBC firing Peter Arnett for Iraq remarks, Eason Jordan fired by CNN for Iraq remarks...

    I'd say there's precedent and track record.


    Off the top of your head (none / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    none of them involved actual news reporters.

    Which was my point of reference.


    that narrow definition would make Wolfson proud (none / 0) (#178)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    So a long history of reporters being suspended or fired for insensitive comments but because none of them are "actual news reporters" that makes those cases irrelevant?

    Maybe I'm being too harsh in thinking that if a reporter makes despicable comments about a candidates daughter and the campaign manager says that the Hillary campaign could no longer "envision a scenario where we would debate on that network" that he might not have thought the reporter being suspended or fired would be an option. How's a competent campaign manager ever supposed to think something as crazy as that is possible?

    Seriously BTD, "nobody could have imagined a plane being used as a weapon" is a better excuse than "who would ever have thought they'd suspend or fire Schuster."


    Long history where? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    Provide it. you are trying to gin something up and actually, at this point EVEN YOU have forgotten what you were trying to do.

    BTD (none / 0) (#197)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    I totally support you on this.  

    I want to mention the name Dan Rather here, because he ended up resigning-though there is no proof that it was because of the Bush National Guard story (which was, to my thinking, still a solid story).  Some say he was forced out, but there is no proof.

    Anyway, the fact remains that he was not suspended OR publicly humiliated OR forced to make an apology.  He did give a retraction, but I think we can all agree that his honor was still intact.

    But, I have to admit that this morning, I kind'a knew that Shuster was going down...


    It's pretty simple (none / 0) (#205)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST

    1. Schuster makes disgusting comment

    2. Hillary's campaign says they "could no longer envision a scenario where we would debate on that network" after having previously accepted a debate on NBC Feb 24 in Ohio.

    3. Similar to numerous other instances (Don Imus, Kelly Tilghman, Rush Limbaugh, Dana Jacobson, Andy Rooney, Peter Arnett, Eason Jordan) where on-air talent made inappropriate remarks NBC suspends Schuster

    now if #4 is "Hillary fine with debate because NBC suspended Schuster" then either a bright political mind like Howard Wolfson "could never have envisioned" that Schuster would get suspended OR Wolfson never had any intention of skipping the debate and was being sensationalist in his outrage.

    Shuster (none / 0) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    This is the second time NBC has made him apologize for comments on the air. I can't believe they'll give him a third chance. It's a shame. At times he was very good. But I think he got caught up in the gotcha school of journalism. (Maybe his mentor is Tim Russert) When he had his facts together and presented them he did great.

    Now MSNBC (which clearly plays favorable to the DEMs/ Dems causes) is being wripped a new one by ya'll.

    So....guess it's just the Clinton News Network?:)

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    Last I looked Hillary was a Dem and NBC has been killing her.

    How do you define that as "favorable to the Dems?"

    But all things Obama favorable qualify in your mind, even if a Dem is trashed unfairly.

    this is the problem I was dealing with before.


    Fox Leans Right....Clearly MS NBC Leans Left- (none / 0) (#53)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    now maybe those on MSNBC  have been "ganging up" on HRC in some ways lately....and maybe the taking heads don't like her as much as they like Barack;
    but in the GE, (If Hillary wins)
    they will be 1000% behind her.

    No, regardless of who wins the Demo (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    nomination, they wil be UTTERLY pro-McCain.

    You've already seen how they'll bend against Hillary.

    They'll find really good ones against Obama too.  It will almost be entertaining to watch how the Obamas will react.


    NBC leans Obama (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    NBC leans McCain.

    Certainly PARTS of NBC leaned anti-Bush - KO particularly.

    But in this primary, NBC has leaned completely OBAMA, anti-Hillary. There is no left/right in that.


    Your Reaction that MS NBC has (none / 0) (#142)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    been "negative" to Hillary says a plenty.

    So in other words, they should be nice to her?
    and the fact they aren't....sounds like ya'll feel betrayed (by one of your own).


    Making no sense (none / 0) (#185)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:42:35 PM EST

    As I understand your view, being anti-Hillary is being pro-Dem.

    That is the Obama Cult position. Did I get you  right?


    Schuster made a stupid comment....but he would give his life for the clintons....just as i believe Olbermann, Abrams, Most of all of the Norahs, Andreas etc would too....all but Mathews and Tucker are basically pro Hillary

    by the way....this is the best blog/ site on the web....thx


    Wow... (none / 0) (#38)
    by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    Is it me or are we becomming far too thin-skinned. Inbetween the screaming over "claws", "pimping", and "the snub"...someone should write a daytime soap called "As the Democrats Implode".

    Lets "grow a pair" and fight the battles that really matter.

    Sorry if that offends..but really.

    Women tend to think that sexism (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    is a HUGE issue.

    If you feel it's not, that's your problem.


    Easy for you to say (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    I imagine you scolded everyone for complaining about the madrassah stories, etc.

    Actually I imagine you did not.


    Crying Wolf (none / 0) (#70)
    by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    This is the problem. When outrage is faked over everything the true offense is diminished.

    Schuster got what he deserved...I'm pointing to this as legitimate compared to the other fake outrage recently and continually spewed.


    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    As for crying wolf, speak for yourself. My outrage is genuine.

    You malignly accept sexism.

    Shame on you.


    No time..... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    to worry about issues....I'm offended over here!!!

    Sexism is not an issue? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    Many women(and men think so). And now a major media outlet does so also-- someone got suspended.

    Ummm. . . these men and women don't influence elections by votes. Naw. sexism isn't important-- sheesh.


    You're right.... (none / 0) (#222)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    it is an issue, I just don't think it's a big issue this election season.  I mean, of course sexism is alive and well and women get a bum deal in a lot of ways.  But we're not talking about equality under the law, suffrage, or discrimination in employment here...we're getting all worked up about some talking head using street slang that can be considered derogatory.  Personally I didn't find it so bad, but that's a question of taste.

    If this guy said a woman is inherently unqualified to be president, or women shouldn't be allowed to vote, I'd certainly expect outrage and taking offense and the guy getting canned...but this?  

    And if voters are influenced by the O'Reillys of the airwaves I'd say we're beyond help.


    The Problem (none / 0) (#56)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    with what MSNBC is doing - as I mentioned in a previous comment - is that they are bringing up valid points in a ludicrous way.

    Schuster had a good reputation and it was perfectly within bounds to ask why Chelsea would be calling super delegates, campaigning, and everything else but not take questions by the media.  

    The pimp comment gives Clintons the ability to make that the issue instead which is too bad.

    I honestly don't see (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    why Chelsea should have to speak to the media.  It's not like the media has ever done anything with the Clintons to deserve the favor -- especially MSNBC.

    And That's Why Shuster Snapped (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    The media is hated by much of the public. Shuster and other reporters can complain about Chelsea Clinton not talking to them, but I think most of America won't care and will, in fact, not blame Chelsea for wanting nothing to do with reporters.

    So he has no way to pressure Chelsea to get what he wants.  He's frustrated and smears her because of it.  It's what reporters and talking heads often do these days, when they don't get what they want, they go on the attack.  It's one of many, many problems with our media culture.


    She doesn't have to. (none / 0) (#74)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    But the fact that she won't is worth calling out.  

    Why (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM EST
    What does it tell you about Hillary Clinton other than she raised a very smart daughter?  Why should anyone base their vote on whether a candidates' kid will or won't talk to the press? How is that at all newsworthy or relevant? She's talking to voters and super delegates, these folks can presumably decide for themselves if what she says is persuasive or worth listening to or not.  It may be news that she's talking to them and Shuster and others can certainly report that.  But that activity does not oblige Chelsea to talk to reporters.

    again, see above (none / 0) (#92)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:50:34 PM EST
    daughter of a former president calling super delegates.  If carters kid were doing this we would think they'd talk to the media.

    andreww (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    Why does it matter who she calls?  I mean, are you concerned that superdelegates are so malleable that they will bend to the magical charms of Chelsea Clinton?

    She grew up with these people at her dinner table.  She wants her mom to win.  LOTS of people call superdelegates all the time.  Lobbyists, campaign folks, media, etc.  Their phones ring off the hooks.  Why do you think the act of calling a superdelegate means that you should have to do a press interview about it?

    You are caught up on this one thing and your reasoning is absolutely illogical.


    I Still Don't Understand (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:09:21 PM EST
    I agree that it's perfectly acceptable for journalists to report that Chelsea is calling super delegates on behalf of her mother.  What I don't understand is why that obligates her to talk to the press?  

    I'm sure there are surrogates calling Super Delegates on behalf of both candidates.  I doubt many, if not most, are going to go running and giving interviews to the press about it.  If the press finds out who is calling on Obama's or Clinton's behalf, I do expect them to report it.  But I don't see what news there is other than that for either side's surrogates or any reason why simply making a phone call on behalf of a candidate, even your mother, obligates you to sit down for a chat with David Shuster.  


    former president's child (none / 0) (#140)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    that's the difference.  I'm making my point against the American Duarchy.

    I again say, it's not just anyone calling super delegates we're talking about here.  It's the former president's child.

    I again ask, would it be reasonable for the press to expect a conversation with Jimmy Carter's kid if they were calling on super delegates for Obama.  I think it would be.  If you don't that's fine - your position is consistent and we just disagree.


    People have no obligation to talk to the press (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    at all.  We have a free press, but you're under no obligation to talk to them.  Especially if they've treated your family like dirt for over 15 years.

    Why just her? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    Why now? You are making no sense.

    see above (none / 0) (#88)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    I've seen everyhwere (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    and really find your argument as absurd as I always have.

    It makes no sense to me at all.


    okay, (none / 0) (#146)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    I just responded to Kathy but am done now - we'll agree to disagree on this one.

    Now why would that be? (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    Why is the press entitled to hear from Cheslea? She isn't running.  

    Your bias is extraordinary.


    Dems argument with Cheney (none / 0) (#83)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    First off the words Schuster used are reprehensible. But I think the case trying to be made by a select few posters on the board are similar to the ones made by Dems when Edwards was attacked for mentioning Liz Cheney's being a lesbian. It was brought up that mentioning her was fine since she had made herself a part of the campaign.

    The parallel is this, if Chelsea wanted to stand in the background to support her mom like the Bush twins supported George, then yes the press should back the heck off and let her be. But if she is going to hit the trail giving speeches and being featured at rallies then the press isn't out of line in expecting some kind of input from her to them. Do they have any right to slander her? Never. But is it reasonable to think an active member of a campaign would give them the time of day? Yes.


    The difference (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    Cheney's daughter IS a lesbian

    Hillary's daughter is NOT a WHORE.


    good point. Thank you! (none / 0) (#106)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    dwight (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    I don't normally respond to you because, well, frankly, your screen name seems to perfectly reflect who you are, but someone else brought this up so I'll have a go:

    Liz Cheney was interviewed all over the place.  She talked to the press.  She courted the gay press in order to somehow validate her father.  She was an integral part of her father's campaign to bring evil to the world.  When she was called a lesbian, this was a statement of fact.  She is a lesbian.  The pejorative was not used.

    Chelsea Clinton has never talked to the press-ever.  She has not courted them, the campaign has not paid for them to follow her.  (This is why Bill vanished from the nightly news, by the way.  When they had to start paying their own way, he was suddenly not that interesting).  She hasn't done interviews.

    Now, to take your Liz is a lesbian/Chelsea is a hooker comparison out to the next logical step, you would have to say that you believe that Chelsea Clinton is, in fact, a wh*re.  

    Is that what you are really trying to say here?

    (and you are incorrect about the Bush twins: they often spoke on college campuses for their father)


    not what I said (none / 0) (#150)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    I said "the Dem's argument" about Mary Cheney (sorry was wrong saying Liz). I also went out of my way to say that was the only parallel in the two cases.

    John Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill "she is someone who is a major figure in the campaign. I think it's fair game"

    My only point was on if the press was reasonable in expecting a "campaign figure" to be available.


    More Than That (none / 0) (#158)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    The Republican party ran a campaign against gays in the 2004 election.  They deliberately put punitive measures about gay marriage on the ballots of swing states to boost turnout.  They demonized gays and lesbians across the country.  They were doing this, in part, to ensure the re-election of George Bush and Dick Cheney.  I have no problem with pointing out that Dick Cheney was the second highest elected official in a party that made a deliberate decision to demonize people just like his daughter (who was out, btw, so nobody outted her).  

    The news wasn't that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian.  The news was that the Republican party was run by hypocrites.  And, I don't believe there was a huge demand that his daughter speak to reporters.  The news was that he was part of a party seeking to demonize people like his daughter and he didn't use his influence to stop it.  None of which, btw, obligated Mary Cheney to talk to the press as far as I'm concerned.


    That is absurd (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    If Cheney's daughter chose not to speak to the press, NO ONE would have criticized her. Indeed I have no idea if she did.

    you are making NO SENSE whatsoever.


    and again (none / 0) (#117)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    she's not just the candidates daughter.  she's the former president's daughter.  

    I have yet to hear anyone contest that the press wouldn't expect a conversation with Carter's kid if they were calling super delegates for obama.


    I contest it now (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    I contest that it would be asked of ANYONE period.

    I have no idea who Amy Carter is supporting.

    I know Caroline Kennedy is supporting Obama and her press availability seems to me to have been nonexistent.

    Seriously, now you are grasping at nonsense.


    I Will Contest That (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    If Amy Carter calls super delegates on behalf of Barack Obama, I do not believe that requires her to talk to the press.  I think the press has every right to report that she's calling super delegates, but I don't think making phone calls on behalf of Obama obligates her to talk to the press.  For starters, what would she talk to the press about that's newsworthy?  Why she likes Obama?  That's not something she has to tell me, she doesn't have to justify making the calls to me or anyone else (and I'll add the questions get even dumber when aimed at the child of a candidate, honestly what "news" would Chelsea impart in an interview about these calls).

    I simply don't believe I have a right to demand that every person working on behalf of Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) sit down and explain themselves to the media.  If there's a legitimate news angle raised that would be one thing, but "Candidate's Daughter Says Mom's the Best Choice!" isn't news.  


    hmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    You and BTD may be right.  It's possible I'm hung up in my American Monarchy thing and the examples I'm using don't jive.

    I'm just leery about the whole former president, former president's daughter, candidates daughter being the same person as the former president's daughter, monarchy rule thing.

    It just, feels so kingdomish to me.  And then not talking to reporters on top of it is just like - the nobles being too good to talk to the people.  But I don't know, I'm so biased on the monarch thing I readily admit my vision on this could be clouded.


    SUO (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    Interestingly, you never seem to have a point.

    Never? Lies, oh damnable lies. (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    You should be suspended, and when you come back, only report on The Politcs of Crime.

    It is NOT perfectly valid (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:36:19 PM EST
    to ask why Chelsea is working for her MOTHER's campaign.

    It is NOT valid to ask why she is not talking to the press. She need not to. Children have NEVER had to talk to the press.

    I have no idea why you continue to press this issue when it was this obsession of Shuster that proves his irrational bias.

    That he topped that irrational bias with an incredibly offensive sexist remark does not make the line of questioning valid. To the contrary, it is more evidence of its irrational nature.


    YES IT IS (none / 0) (#86)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    We seem to have forgotten that Chelsea is not just the daughter of a candidate.  She is the daughter of a former president as well.  If Jimmy Carter had a kid calling super delegates for Obama it would be reasonable to call them out if they wouldn't talk to the media about the arguments they were making with them and what they spoke to those people about.

    Yet another one of the problems I have with the duarcy in the US.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    Can you think of ANY children of Presidents not available to the press?

    Your argument is simply ridiculous.


    huh? (none / 0) (#96)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    are available or not available?  I'm not aware of any other former presidents children lobbying super delegates in this election.

    I'm not being sarcastic, I don't understand what you're asking me.


    Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    You must be kidding (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    Cater is a superdelegate. (none / 0) (#190)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    Carter's kids are all Obama and they have lobbied him...or so he said in some interview I saw last week.

    It would surprise me if they hadn't called others.

    Where's the story on that?  Sheesh...


    No one HAS to talk to the press, (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    but imo the daughter of a likely potus nom who's clearly working on/within her mother's campaign, should talk to the press.

    What does that have to do (none / 0) (#113)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    with the disgusting, misogynistic slur by Shuster?

    Nothing, we're on a tangent. (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
    Participate if you like, or not.

    it seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    that you're the one who's on a tangent.  How does Chelsea's availability to the press (or lack thereof) justify Shuster's slur?  

    I certainly didn't say it justified it, (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    not sure where you got that from.

    Apropos of the media bias topic, (none / 0) (#99)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    Gawker.com has a nice, graphical post up, on a poll of opinions about the various "anchors".

    FWIW, the way the poll works is they post the net opinion (postive minus negative) for Dems and Reps about a number of anchors.  

    Worth a look.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    That more Dems like my TV boyfriend Anderson Cooper than they do Keith Olbermann (although I must say I've become disenchanted with AC and CNN in general during this primary season).

    I think it has had an effect on MSNBC coverage (none / 0) (#127)
    by felizarte on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    just before 11 this morning, I was so surprised to see an MSNBC live coverage of Hillary Clinton speaking before the Nurses.  This went on for about thirty minutes in a segment with Nora O'donell.  I think this must have been one of the ways MSNBC was trying to make amends.  They've never given Hillary this much coverage before--live.  

    Several diaries decrying the Clintons (none / 0) (#187)
    by MarkL on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    for "pimping" their daughter.

    How old is Chelsea? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:02:03 PM EST
    Just wondering.

    Chelsea (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    28 yrs old.

    sweet (none / 0) (#202)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    Just saw the apology.

    Calling the hotline again right now.  (for those of you who are paying attention, they just had to clear it out again...)

    Worst Excuse (none / 0) (#210)
    by xjt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    For an apology I've ever seen.

    New Shuster Thread, Comments closing here (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    we've got a new thread with the apology.