David Shuster's Apology for Chelsea Clinton Comment

Via Media Matters, here is the apology David Shuster gave on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show:

Last night during the show, I spoke about Chelsea Clinton and noted the affection that so many of us have for her. I also spoke about phone calls she has made to super delegates to convince them to support her mom. In describing this effort, I used a phrase that was inappropriate, and I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign, and all of you who were justifiably offended. As I said this morning on MSNBC, all Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton, and I am particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her.

Note to readers: Keep your comments civil. All points of view are welcome here provided they are expressed without name-calling, personal attacks or insults or profanity.

Update: Shuster transcript from last night's Tucker Carlson show below:

(Via Lexis.com):
SHUSTER: For most of the Bill Clinton presidency, then teenager Chelsea Clinton remained out of political life. Political opponents like Mike Huckabee have credited the Clintons for raising such a poised and self-possessed young woman. Now just shy of her 28th birthday, Chelsea is out and about on her mom`s behalf, campaigning in Nebraska as Saturday`s caucuses approach.

What is the Chelsea factor? Here again are nationally syndicated radio talk show host Bill Press and online columnist Bob Franken. Bill, there`s just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea is out there calling up celebrities saying, support my mom, and apparently she`s also calling these Super Delegates.

PRESS: Hey, she`s working for her mom. What`s unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it`s great. I think she`s grown up in a political family. She`s got politics in her blood. She loves her mom. She thinks she would make a great president.

SHUSTER: Doesn`t it seem like Chelsea is being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

PRESS: No. If she didn`t want to be there, she wouldn`t be there. Give Chelsea a break. I think it`s great. Again, Michelle Obama is out there for her husband. What`s the big deal?

SHUSTER: Here is the big deal. I will give Chelsea Clinton a break when she sits down and gives an interview to somebody like Bob Franken. If she wants to do all this stuff, she should face the questions.

PRESS: Oh, yes, did Oprah give an interview to Bob Franken? Did Caroline Kennedy give an interview to Bob Franken? Come on?

SHUSTER: Let`s ask Bob Franken.

FRANKEN: No, and I`m feeling very left out here. To be very honest with you, I would think it would be much more remarkable if Chelsea Clinton came out for Barack Obama. Of course she would be out there campaigning for her parents. They seem to have a nice relationship. And why not? Of course, what is really at the base of all this is the discussion about Obama and his young support. He is leading what we can cynically call a children`s army with his message of change and a generational change and all that, not bad for a guy who is almost 50 years old.

But apparently the strategy is that she can go out there and neutralize it. More power to her.

SHUSTER: I say more power to her. But I also think that the collective Washington media, which has respectively these sort of unwritten rules of staying away from Chelsea, not asking her questions, that is now out the window. It`s now fair game, that when you and I, Bob and Bill, when we see Chelsea out there at these campaign events, there`s nothing wrong with going up to her with a microphone and saying, OK, which Super Delegates did you call.

FRANKEN: One teensy weensy problem, she has Secret Service protection. So it gets a little bit dicey.

SHUSTER: The logistics are complicated.

PRESS: David, I would just say, you can ask her a question, but she doesn`t have to answer


Update: Media Matters debunks Shuster's apology:

Moreover, Shuster falsely claimed that, on Tucker, he also said that "Americans should be proud of [Chelsea]" and that "everybody, all of us, love" her.

In tonight's apology, he says that on Morning Joe he noted how fond people are of Chelsea.

Comments now closing here, new thread with Olbermann's apology here.

< TPM: Tweety Leads To Shuster's Fall | Latest AP Super Tuesday Delegate Count: Obama Leads by 2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, it sounds about as authentic as if NBC (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:28:07 PM EST
    execs wrote it for him (oh wait!).

    I won't even watch TV anymore. I don't think I'm alone. And it's not just on TV. Go to Kos or many other blogs and it's filled with young men yukking it up over how Hillary is a b..... , along with hijacking Hillary threads and  abusive behavor so misogynist that I simply can't expose myself to it anymore.  It's so appalling to me that I don't know that I will be able to bring myself to vote for Obama, if he wins, and I hate saying that, since I've been a fervent Democrat for over 40 years.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    If Obama really were a new kind of politician with integrity, we would see him speaking out against this sort of behavior. Instead, he attacks her at a debate, then when she doesn't cave, he threatens to give her the "Chicago Smackdown," whatever that's supposed to be. Sounds like a line from the Godfather.

    Did he? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by piezo on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    Did he speak "about Chelsea Clinton and noted the affection that so many of us have for her." in his original comments?

    I missed the show 'caus I can't take that slobbering jerk Matthews anymore. He HATES the Clintons, yes hate in capital letters.

    nope (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    He lied.  He didn't even bother to check what he said.

    Here is the hotline number to call: 201 583 4090
    If the mailbox is full, call: 203 373 2211 and ask for Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, which owns NBC/MSNBC.  Insist on talking to him.  You'll get transferred to the executive offices and they'll say he can't come to the phone.  Lodge your complaint.

    I see Obama is on 60 Minutes this weekend talking about his cocaine use and saying he is impervious to republican attacks because he has already admitted it.  Am I Hillary-blind, or is it a tad naive of him to think that this will be a non-issue?


    i plan to take time tonight when i am not (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    distracted to send my emails. i so appreciate the contact numbers and addresses.

    Don't say that (none / 0) (#17)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:07:20 PM EST
    or you will be accused of race-baiting, like Bob Johnson was.

    A Hotline, for this???? (none / 0) (#24)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    You people are kidding me, right?
    You're going to attempt to destroy a man's career over this distortion?
    Why don't you all try being intellectually honest?
    What exactly did Mr Schuster say, taken in context?
    Did he call Chelsea a prostitute?

    "destroy a man's career." (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    This line reminds me of a girl I kew in high school who got pregnant and expected her boyfriend to marry her.  Soooo many people said, "She's going to destroy his life!"

    Look, if anyone destroys Shuster's career, it's going to be Shuster.  HE is the one who started this.  HE is the one to blame.  

    I don't know why you continue to insist that we should not be upset about this simply because YOU, in your infinite wisdom, think it's no big deal.  We are just a bunch of silly women who don't know our own minds, right?  Hysterical, maybe?

    You know what?  It doesn't matter what you think--at least not to me.  

    And to prove it, this is the last time I will comment to you.


    Silly women??? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    Give me a break.  If I thought that any of you were actually offended by this instead of just pretending to be to stir up controversy, I would back you all 100%, just like I backed Hillary 100% when the press distorted her MLK comment.
    But I've read too many posting boards just like this to not know what all this hemming and hawing is really about.
    And don't get mad at me just because I am calling you on it.
    And as far as the "silly women" comment goes, I am a feminist, and there's no way I can be sure any poster here is actually a woman, so you're all sexless to me.

    well I aint sexless (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:20:43 PM EST
    I got a Y,
    And I found it to be a grossly offensive comment.

    You pimp whores. How on earth can you find that inoffensive?

    And btw, although this tends to get buried, his underlying thesis was absurd as well. I am a strong Obama supporter, and I think there is nothing whatsoever "unseemly" about Chelsea campaigning for her mom, including calling superdels.


    Kudos n/t (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM EST
    Taken in context: misogynistic (none / 0) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    Would Shuster have said a male family member who refused to talk to the press is "pimping" or "weird"?

    He didn't say she was "pimping" (2.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    or weird.  If she was "pimping" then she would have been forcing someone else to shill for something.  He said that her Parents were "pimping" her out for political gain.
    That is very different and yes, I have heard this term used applied to men, often.
    The term, as used is not sexist, and in the modern vernacular, is quite commonly applied to people of both sexes, and the term is not considered offensive.

    True, But (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:17:13 PM EST
    in the modern vernacular, is quite commonly applied to people of both sexes, and the term is not considered offensive.

    Shuster was meaning to offend, big time. He was speaking upper middle class connotation, not street.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#65)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST
    how his past is a non-issue, but Hillary is bashed daily over perceived mistakes in her past and that's just fine.

    Love your passion Kathy.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:21:19 PM EST
    Can't say I agree with how you're using it, but it's a beautiful thing.

    There are women in this world getting a seriously raw deal, and they could use passion like that in their defense.  I'd start here...

    Saudi Arabian Mission in New York      

    809 United Nations Plaza      10th Floor
    New York, NY 10017

    Since Shuster's comments referred to (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by hellskitchen on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    "pimping" Chelsea, the statement in his apology about the "affection that so many of us have for her," renders the quality of his apology not only less than sincere, but a further slap in the face.  This wasn't even a pro forma apology for truly despicable behavior.

    Do you think we can hope for the return of journalists any time soon?

    MSNBC Journalist? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    This is not a news channel just as fox is not, it is a noise channel with pundits and not very good ones.

    Shuster was supposed to apologize again (none / 0) (#4)
    by Josey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    tonight - somewhere. Anybody see it?

    TaylorMarsh.com (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    Has the second apology.  She picked up on the fact that three women followed the comment.  I suppose if he'd said something about race, they would've had three aa's.

    i have been thinking about this. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:43:01 PM EST
    we have been on a downward slide with lies, putdowns, swiftboating for a long time. racism and sexism are not new. i have seen some attemtps on here to say oh well, it was no big deal. it is! it was! we have so covered with lies and putdowns over these last years, that we have become almost used to it. that is the real fear i have. we gradually proceed down the road to a very coarse society where groups and people are victimized and no one cares. i cannot quote the famous comment from ww2, but i am sure some of the learned posters on here can. you know the one! first the came for the jews. then came for the educated. it goes on and on till they came for the speaker and there was no one left to speak for him.

    Even Josh Marshall At TPm Is Saying It Is Not (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    a big deal.

    I do not think the comment played to specific stereotypes about women in general or about Hillary in particular as it would if you refer to a black man as "lazy" or "shiftless" or a woman as "shrill" or a "shrew." TPM

    I'm sorry I think that his comment is horrible and part of the problem.


    Shirley Chisholm (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:07:34 PM EST
    the most subtle, most pervasive, and most institutionalized form of prejudice that exists. Discrimination against women, solely on the basis of their sex, is so widespread that is seems to many persons normal, natural and right.

    Offensive...... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:08:02 PM EST
    Reading and commenting on these "pimpin'" threads I remembered times I've been offended recently....

    Another random checkpoint checking registrations and seat belts in my neighborhood the other night offended me.

    Filling out my 1040 and state taxes knowing I chipped in a few thou to occupy foreign countries, buy missiles, and keep a friend of mine locked up, not to mention the checkpoint...that offended the crap outta me.

    The fact I'm subject to arrest at most anytime because I like to smoke reefer offends me.  And the fact I need a permission slip to buy a painkiller when I have a toothache.

    I don't think what some piker pundit says about one of the pikers we are about to elect president could ever offend me.

    Different strokes for different folks I guess...

    But by all means, voicing complaints and free speech is what freedom is all about, give MSNBC hell if it floats your boat.  



    no doubt i will! (none / 0) (#19)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    Power to the people baby:) (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:03 PM EST
    I'd love to give the cops and the state hell...but I'm a piker too.  Too in love with this freedom thang, need more numbers:)

    I am not as (none / 0) (#97)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:21:02 PM EST
    concerned for the ppl who read this site, or who otherwise are critical of the information they are fed from MSM. But, I meet ppl whose busy lives don't give them much time to examine issues or they are just bored with politics altogether. I am not making excuses for them, but it is a reality, and those ppl make their decisions based on what they are told by the Media.  Some of them remember the Media of the past, when there was at least some integrity, and certainly more balance.  Thats partly why they are so gullible.  I still hear comments about the 'Media's liberal bias'. Huh! Well I don't know what shows they are watching.  How can we do nothing about it when all the news channels are participating in slanting the information. Even NPR is swooning with Obama love.  This time its Hillary Hating, but the next time who knows.

    we, the people, have allowed this to happen. (none / 0) (#103)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    it is time it stopped. if you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing.

    No excuses Indy... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    We're all busy getting by and living our lives...that's no excuse.  Information has never been easier to get.  Yes, most of it is slanted entertainment based crap, but with minimal effort you can find good journalism.  If ya can't be bothered, and let the msm feed your head, you deserve what you get, bottom line.  

    And boy have we gotten it...for quite some time.  Sad to say, I don't think people will wake up till things get really rough all over.  


    The problem I have with things like this is that (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:53:49 PM EST
    the Clintons are held to a different standard than everyone else.  You rarely hear about the fact that Michelle Obama is out there speaking for her husband; I can't recall anything negative being said about the Bush twins while they were on the campaign trial; and the Cheney daughters were close campaign advisors.  Why do they have to do this continuously.  We live in a sick country with sick media - Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, and now David Shuster and Keith Olbermann.  I used to enjoy KO but no longer, he has partaken of the kool-aid.  I will not vote for BO if he gets the nomination because it will have been through media manipulation.  If he thinks they won't destroy him in a general election he has another think coming.  HRC can withstand more of this stuff.  But the question we should be asking is why should she have to?  Why can't we have a civil election and a media who is no longer complicit in the lies and personal destruction of decent people?

    Democrats at long last have started (none / 0) (#25)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST
    speaking up and complaining to the media. Journalists are clearly starting to feel the heat. Conservatives have done this to them for years and they get treated with kid gloves as a result.
    I think we all bear a responsibility to refuse to tolerate this kind of treatment, and we should do so whenever any of our candidates are unfairly bashed. I would say we should complain when any candidate is treated this way, but Republicans have plenty of defenders on their side. Still I was extremely offended by Bush's slandering of McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 election. I will not vote for him, but I still find it despicable that a man who was a POW was accused of being a Manchurian candidate. The media did not speak up much about this back then any more than they did about the equally disgusting Swiftboating of Kerry. It is time we demand that this stop. If it doesn't I think we need to start complaining to sponsors.

    Rank and file democrats (none / 0) (#58)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:45:09 PM EST
    are standing up in this case.  However, the so-called big "progressive" blogs are not saying a word about this mess.  DailyHowler has been practically the only voice yelling about the media unfairness to democratic candidates for years.

    Josh Marshall and the rest are still meekly going along to get along.  They should stand up to, but they won't so the rank and file will have to do it on our own.


    and if the progressive blogs dont stand up (none / 0) (#64)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    to the media bias, just because it favors their candidate, then why on earth should the rank and file democrats stand up for them in the fall...There is a ton of anger out there...about this and the obvious bias..  ..unbelieveable...Ignore it at their peril....

    You (none / 0) (#72)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    have hit on my problem with Obama. When I see the behavior of his campaign, his followers, and the leadership supporting him in D. C. I don't believe these people will be guardians of our civil rights and our democracy. I think they will do any dirty, ruthless thing they can get away with to get power and have what they want. Oh, wait, that's exactly what the Republicans have done for 8 years.

    They should stand up (none / 0) (#68)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:51:42 PM EST
    to demand that the word "pimp" is not used by the media that is protected by the first amendment?

    No wonder the Democrats never win.  They have people that get excited about this but do nothing about Bush illegally spying on Americans, torturing prisoners, and eviscerating our civil liberties.  All those that are getting worked up about this but did nothing about the issues that really matter should be ashamed of themselves.

    This whole hubub is Exhibit A of why Hillary would be a disaster for liberals for a generation.  It's a dog and pony show about the Clintons while real liberal, progressive values get thrown out the window.


    Look for me this isn't just about "pimp" (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    it's bigger than that.  This just happened to push people over the edge.  Most of the people who won't stand up and denounce "pimp" and the massive disrespect it shows are the same ones who kept quiet when we were being lied into war.  So don't you lecture me about being ashamed of anything.

    The Democratic party and big media were complicit in all those things you mentioned by keeping quiet. If people can be stirred into action, for whatever reason, maybe it can be used for other things as well.  Don't denigrate things that get people in motion or you'll get nothing and then you should be ashamed.


    Nonsense Ralph.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    I won't denounce "pimp"...I don't denounce words.  There are words I won't use due to personal choice, but even those I will not denounce.

    I spoke out against the war and occupation on this board and in the real world since before it started.  Spoke out against our foreign policy ever since I became informed during Clinton's presidency.  The Democratic party was compicit, but not bying being quiet, but by being co-conspirators.  Have you forgotten the bombs dropped on Iraq during Clinton's presidency?

    Unnecessary war offends me, the word pimp doesn't, I'm sorry bro.  



    Ok, then you'll get no movement and we'll (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:42:54 PM EST
    just remain impotent.  You've got to use the tools you can get and if people figure out they can have an effect on media coverage, maybe we can keep doing for the other things we don't like.

    If the movement is.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama you can keep it friend.  They are not the answer but part of the problem.  They're in on it.

    My movement is an alternative to Democrats and Republicans.  Nobody's listening.  The D's, the R's, the corporate media...they've got us all so conditioned to vote against one or the other, like we have no other choice.

    Ever wonder what would be if Al Gore hadn't taken all of Ralph Nader's votes?...:)



    free speech (none / 0) (#73)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    Okay, so how about if he had said that about Michelle Obama and Obama got upset? You'd say Obama was overreacting? I doubt it.

    Yes (none / 0) (#80)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    Obama would be overeacting.  Ha.  Got you.  

    I know this may come as a shock to you but I don't support Obama either.  It's this weird thing called being objective.  Pimp is a widely used word and I frankly am not that worked up about it.  Yes, it is probably innapropriate to use pimp but a lot of political television has become informal where invective and bad words are common.  

    How many of you would be writing a television channel because it aired someone saying pimp if your chosen candidate wasn't involved?  

    I am more interested in the bias the media demonstrates against liberal ideology in general. In that regard, Hillary does nothing but help the enemy.  So spare me the outrage.


    Hillary helps the enemy, Pure BS. (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    Boycotting Fox?  Yeah, that really hurts them.  Name me something another candidate has done to take on the enemy?  Popping MSNBC is the first positive step I've seen taken by anyone yet.

    Well (none / 0) (#105)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:29:59 PM EST
    my favorite candidate was Kucinich precisely because every word he uttered challenged the right-leaning assumptions that the media hold.  The right wing narrative has to be fought.  Both Hillary and Obama have no interest in doing so and indeed, both their policies are far too right-leaning in my book so they have no interest in this fight.  

    I hardly see how scalping this guy helps liberals.  In fact, I think it hurts them because any attempt to hold the media responsible for their right-wing framing of issues will simply be characterized as another self-serving attack by Clinton supporters to influence the media. We liberals are blowing our wad on a silly issue (the word "pimp") instead of fighting the media's right-leaning philosophical bias.


    I think we may be after the same thing (none / 0) (#117)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:44:37 PM EST
    we just don't agree on whether this is a good or bad thing.  Fair enough.  :-)

    Dog and pony show.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:06:27 PM EST
    I was thinking WWF....Bobby "The Brain" Heenan insulted Elizabeth and "Macho-Man" Randy Savage is pissed.

    There have been arguments about this going on (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:53:53 PM EST
    all over today in online forums.

    I am so sick and tired of Obama supporters and Hillary haters dictating to me what is and is not sexist and or/offensive, of being told I should get a sense of humor, of being quoted the Urban Dictionary definition of pimp out.

    (Journalists do not use the Urban Dictionary, fools, they use Merriam-Webster)

    So I decided to do something about it - every time this happens, I'm going to donate a dollar to Hillary's campaign.

    Every sexist remark is money for Hillary. Let's enforce it on the networks and see how quickly they start paying attention to what they say.

    Oh, and Shuster should have to send a month of his salary to the Clinton campaign.

    Please (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:20:46 PM EST
    OK, I'll tell you what.  Everytime someone in these campaigns feigns a ridiculous reaction to what was obviously a non-offensive comment, I will donate to their opponent.
    The same goes for the Hillary making MLK comment, which was a ridiculous overdramatization too.
    Oh, but it's ok for all the Hillary supporters to do the same thing right?  and try to ruin a man's career in the process.
    Nice work people.

    Proud Lib (none / 0) (#37)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    You are certainly offensive to me, when discussing intellectual honesty...apparently, Olbermann is more honest in his opinion...enough said...

    intellectual dishonesty (none / 0) (#42)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:27:25 PM EST
    So you think Hillary meant to insult MLK with her LBJ comment?  I think not.  It was just a stupid taken-out-of context comment, just like this one, and everybody knew it.

    You truly are not (none / 0) (#46)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    worth arguing with as obviously you don't see the sexist context to begin with therefore it is silly and I will not reply to any more of this...Live in your dilusional and sexist world...

    I've seen delusional around here today..... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:44:44 PM EST
    and it ain't ProudLib.

    I gotta ask...of all the angry, offended men and women who called and emailed MSNBC today...did any of you call or write the king of Saudi Arabia on behalf of that poor woman who got locked up at Starbucks?  Start a boycott of companies doing business in Saudi Arabia?  I'm curious...


    First, Let's mind our own country (3.00 / 2) (#122)
    by felizarte on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:47:03 PM EST
    before we start minding other countries.  What gives us the right to be preaching to Saudi Arabia when we can't even get through to people seemingly intelligent like you?

    King of Saudi Arabia's line was probably busy (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    It's a lot harder for rank and file to effect another sovereign nation.  And it's hard to drive without gas.

    That's not saying if a movement can be gen'ed up I wouldn't join, because I would.


    Ralph (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    Don't worry--I am sure that eventually, Obama will tell those tens of thousands of impressionable kids who go to his tent revivals to do something other than donate money to his campaign.  He'll have them building houses in New Orleans, helping the homeless, volunteering at soup kitchens. Yeah, that's the real change he'll bring.

    I mean, when he gets around to it.


    Oh I'm a sexist now? (none / 0) (#70)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:52:23 PM EST
    Hmmm, well since I've been insulted and stereotyped... let me return the favor.
    If you truly believe what you're saying, then it's radicalized, Andrea Dworkin-esque people like yourself that give feminists a bad name.
    I believe strongly in female empowerment, and I believe part of that is not to be ridiculously hyper-sensitive to every word people use.  I live in an urban environment and the people around me use the term "pimp" all the time.  As a verb, as a noun, as an adjective.
    The context Mr Schuster used it in was obviously not to imply that Chelsea was having sexual relations with other people on behalf of her parents.  So get over it.

    I'm an urbanite and sometimes hear it (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:28:30 PM EST
    but it's different on national tv, and to an audience of millions, of all areas and all ages.

    The question is not whether it offends you.  You've stated that it doesn't, over and over, on this thread and others.  Got that.

    But the question facing NBC was whether it offended a lot of other viewers, including some here, in ways that imperiled its professionalism -- and its ratings, but even more, its role.  It gets access to our, repeat our public airwaves for a reason, and there are standards in all of the above.  

    Try this:  I'm a teacher, and I have a responsibility to set a tone of civil discourse in my classes.  Students can talk trash away from there.  But in class discussion, in their assignments, they are to talk and write in ways that convey the content of their thoughts without doing so in a way that shuts down communication with others from other backgrounds, cultures, faiths, races, ethnicities, etc.

    Or, because my classes mostly are female (as it happens), should I teach by talkin' trash about guys being . . . fill in the blanks, so that I don't violate this site's rules.  Mmmm, how about calling guys stud puppies?  Talking 'bout their butts?  Would that further communication in the classroom?  Some might like it.:-)  But some would shut down and never speak again.  And that would not be their problem; it would be a problem I caused.  And teachers get suspended for such stuff. . . .

    I expect tv news networks to have and uphold standards, too, to fulfill their role -- to further the national discourse, not just their ratings.


    Re your next-to-last paragraph: (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:32:29 PM EST
    as a teacher, you have a responsibility to make sure material presented in your classroom is fair, that you are fair, and the kids are fair.  You are setting an example of how to treat people with fairness.  The TV on air personnel have the same responsibility.  

    See the paragraph above that -- (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST
    yes, exactly.

    And I recall how many classrooms and teachers made me uncomfortable, when it was okay for classrooms to be like locker rooms. . . .


    So would you punish (none / 0) (#107)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
     a male student for using the word pimp in class?

    I don't "punish" students (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    -- I grade them.  Slang is not to be used in their assignments, so that would be graded down.  Terms intentionally offensive to others are not to be sued in discussion -- so I might want to meet with him about it.  If it was intended to offend, it would affect the discussion component of the grade.

    More often, it would not be intentional, and that would be fairly obvious.  If not intentional, and our topic was  gendered speech, treatment of women and men in our society, etc., I might stop, point out the problem -- and turn it into a "teaching moment."  

    Most often, I don't have to say anything, as  other students work to uphold our standards.  And when this sort of term offensive to women has happened, btw, it most often has been other men students who are first to speak up and tell a guy to stuff it. :-)


    Actually, though -- the comparate would be (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    if I used offensive terms.  That was my point, but ya got me sidetracked on pedagogical tactics. . . .

    David Shuster is not a kid in a classroom.  He is in the position of a teacher, a professional.  But he blew that today.  So now I forever will remember him as an unprofessional excuse for a newscaster.

    And now I've got to go see where he got his journalism degree . . . if it was a journalism degree. . . .


    Have you stopped to consider (none / 0) (#55)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:44:15 PM EST
    how denying the offensiveness of these remarks to those who are rightly offended contributes to the overdramatization you describe?  

    I may have felt that some of the allegations of racism were overblown but I certainly can't say that I would understand how an African American person would feel.   I can say as a woman that I am more sensitive to the institutional misogyny that still exists in our nation.  

    I find myself being more offended by those who don't want to acknowledge what is still a big problem in our society.  


    MLK (none / 0) (#81)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    This is the other thing that makes me boiling mad. Hillary never said anything offensive, and certainly not racist, about MLK. That is just stupid on its face. She only said that words aren't enough to change things--which seems pretty obvious since millions of us have written, spoken read millions of words on how to change the Bush administration with no results--and it takes a president who's willing to lead to finally get things changed.

    Obama then accused her of diminishing MLK's legacy and using the race card. Now, bloggers and journalists use that accusation as if it were the gospel truth. It's a lie. That's the scary thing about Obama supporters, they don't look at the facts and respect the truth. Just like Dubya.


    MLK comment was never Racist (none / 0) (#134)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    I was equally as vocal at this over-dramatization.
    This is the level to which politics has fallen now?  taking words out of contact and calling eack other "racist" and "sexist" over things we know the person didn't mean?
    I will not be defending that whole confrontation, though I will say that the Clinton campaign was not exactly innocent in that exchange, (trying to use the media to regulate Obama to the position of "the black candidate" comes to mind.
    But I am defending a man who is not part of the Obama campaign here, I am defending a man who may lose his job due to a completely over the top reaction to something that was obviously not meant to be sexist.  This is not about either campaign to me, it is about censorship.
    It is in fact the other people on this Board that have political interests in the subject, not me.
    If you haven't notices, Obama is not involved in this situation at all.

    Who are you to tell any of us (none / 0) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:15:39 PM EST
    what is or is not sexist?

    He should lose his job.

    He's supposed to be a professional, not some gangbanger in the hood. Professional journalists do not talk about people they are reporting on this way.

    He's only a professional because he gets paid for it - if he wants to talk trash let him do it as an amateur.


    He should lose his job. (none / 0) (#167)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:24:37 PM EST
    Now that is completely over the top.
    Are you familiar with David Schuster at all?  Have you watched his reporting or his opinion pieces?  Obviously not, or you would know that he's not a sexist or a racist.
    And since you don't watch him, why should MSNBC care what you think about what he says on a cable news station?
    There are soo many more offensive talking heads out there, and he is clearly not one of them.
    Just because you feel he does not support your candidate is clearly not a reason to take him off the air, and that is really what we're talking about here isn't it?
    The comment was not offensive enough to deserve this kind of treatment in the context it was made, and all this is clearly politics in action.
    I have been called a sexist on this board at least 3 times this evening, and people have a right to their opinions, but to endanger a persons job for political gain is not something I take lightly.

    Wow. KO just apologized on behalf of MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:16:32 PM EST

    K.Olberman... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nic danger on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    just did an apology for it on Countdown.They are sooooo busted...

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    I just ran into a commenter at MyDD who AGREES with Shuster, who thinks Chelsea, a grown woman, is being "exploited" by her mother's campaign.  I can't believe this.  Are people pigs like this when it's not primary season??

    They're still pigs but it's easier to hide it (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:49:53 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:52:20 PM EST
    but women are so used to it that it takes a heck of a lot to get us away from our usual business to actually do something about it.

    But, while we are talkng about women...I guess I am the only person here who doesn't watch news all the time, because I have noticed a new Clinton campaign strategy that seems to have gone unremarked upon.  There has been a story about Hillary practically every night this week on Entertainment Tonight.  The View had Whoopi switching to Clinton yesterday, there was that Dancing With the Stars story and now...Us Weekly has a Hillary Clinton sponsored photo spread where she comments on past sartorial blunders.

    Uh, guys...this is brilliant.


    no (none / 0) (#86)
    by neilcandelora on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    Ok, if someone thinks Chelsea Clinton is being exploited by her mom's campaign it makes them a "pig"? I don't think she is, I just don't think if that's someone's opinion they're being chauvinistic.

    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    She is a grown woman, and it is incredibly disrespectful to suggest she's not doing this of her own free will.  And I don't think anyone would suggest this regarding a man of the same age.

    disrespectful (none / 0) (#169)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:44 PM EST
    No, it wasn't, in the context.  Since the Clintons are protecting their daughter from interviewers, apparently on the basis of her being too young and innocent, it was a perfectly apt comparison to say that if she's not too innocent to be a political tool then she is not too innocent to be a interviewed.
    His choice of words was perhaps poor, but if you watch the whole thing, the message is clear.

    Unfortunately, He/She Is Not Alone (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:11:47 PM EST
    That or similar sentiments have been going through the threads on the subject all day. A lot of Obama's supporters are protesting Shuster's comments too. While other commenters are saying if she campaign's for her mother, she deserves whatever she gets. And that is when they are being polite.

    This type of ugliness just makes me sad when it is not making me extremely angry. It is behavior that I expect out of some Republicans but I though we had higher standards. Foolish I guess.  


    come on (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by neilcandelora on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:19:13 PM EST
    If Schuster's comments were malicious I'd be against them too but he was asking a question on whether or not Chelsea was being used. He didn't mean "pimped out" in the traditional sense, it's a figure of speech, and that's completely obvious. If you've ever watched David Schuster on MSNBC, you'd know he's the last person to deliberately say something sexist. We're attacking someone who's been the lone voice on the air arguing against Mitt Romney's idiotic statement at CPAC saying Democrats would surrender to terror. I have yet to hear anyone else come out so forcefully against that statement.

    why do you not find the basic question (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    to be absurd?

    Chelsea is a grown woman, for chrissakes. Has it ever been an issue in the history of campaigning that a candidate's grown child is not expected to be out their campaigning?

    Mitt had his five sons out there, serving their country by campaigning for dad - did anyone ever question that?

    Help me out here, I am not getting this...


    There was no point to (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:33:32 PM EST
    making the comment unless Shuster wants us to believe it so out of the ordinary for grown children to campaign for a parent - like this is the 1st time in 250 years its ever happened and its so unseeming!!

    Because He Called Out Romney (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    on CPAC statement does not mean that he didn't use demeaning language in describing Chelsea's campaign efforts for her mom.

    A person can be great in math and horrible in history.

    Also, after decades of presidential candidates children and family member campaigning, why all of sudden is it unseemly for Chelsea to campaign for her mom.



    Says alot about the relationships (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:47:02 PM EST
    that are being established in the USA doesn't it? And about how women, when abused or treated unfairly, try to stand up for themselves and protest they're told to "toughen up", or "Stop being hysterical", or other minimizations coupled with put downs. This is very revealing and distressing.

    Go ladies. Don't take this crap. Stand up for yourselves.


    One problem is that almost nobody (none / 0) (#94)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:20:14 PM EST
    has any standards anymore.  Our conversation has been so coarsened we're almost used to things that would have been shot down immediately.  Fortunately I still live in a culture, off the net, where I never hear these words used in conversation.  I guess that's why they jar me when I hear them on TV, etc.

    Hey Ralph.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:37:27 PM EST
    ever see the movie "Bulworth" with Warren Beatty?  If you did, remember that scene when Bulworth goes off about obscenity?

    I hope you saw it cuz I'd love to hear what you thought of that scene.


    Actually I loved it (none / 0) (#123)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:47:25 PM EST
    But that was a movie and not in my home.. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
    I was offended by the use in this frame of reference but I really don't like the casual use of pimp, ho, and b*tch to describe women etc.  It objectifies and demeans them for absolutely no reason.  I admit to being old and 'out of it', but that's how I feel.

    I respect that.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    and that don't make you out of it, and I appreciate the discourse.  I too do not casually use those terms, but believe there is a place for them when warranted.  I guess I give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he meant "putting to work".

    I mentioned Bulworth because when he goes off by what flys as obscene in our society.

    There are more than 1.5 million inmates in the nation's state and federal prisons, a number that is projected to grow to more than 1.7 million by the end of 2011, a 13 percent increase. The nation's population, by comparison, is projected to grow by 4.5 percent in that time.

    That's obscene...know what I'm saying?


    You bet I know what you mean and it's a horrible (none / 0) (#161)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:11:33 PM EST
    situation.  Especially when most of those inmates are there for non-violent drug offenses and that's just stupid.  Even if we keep drugs illegal, those people should get treatment not be incarcerated.

    What we're doing as a society in the criminal justice system is obscene and self-destructive in the long run, and maybe the short run as well.

    Here in Texas, lots of the prisons are now run by for-profit corporations and I think that's causing some of the population explosion.  Really serious reform is urgently needed and it couldn't happen too soon for me.


    Bill Clinton maybe coulda.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST
    done something about that Ralph.  He didn't.  Hillary won't either.  Obama neither.  


    And to see intelligent, good hearted Americans put their stock in these people, send them money, rally to their defense to the abuse they take...even more frustrating.

    Maybe I'm nuts:)


    A president doesn't control the prison system, and (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    judges hand down the sentences.  Texas' prisons are owned and run by the state government, not the federal government.  There are some federal prisons, but what you are talking about pertains to the state prisons.  And in Texas the government has chosen to let private companies run the prisons.  Yes, it's a huge mistake, but it is a state issue, not a federal issue, and not one that the president can control.

    I'm definitely ready for a new topic to (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:36:35 PM EST

    Me too. I just read on First Read a weird (none / 0) (#132)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:04:21 PM EST
    comment from Obama's press conference today. He was asked about his earlier view that the super delegates should go with the winner. Today, he added that those already pledged to him should vote for him.

    I'll go try to find it again in case I read it wrong.


    Here it is... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:18:19 PM EST
    First Read

    Asked today if superdelegates should vote the way their states votes, Obama hedged. "We haven't' had a lengthy discussion with all of our superdelegates -- our super delegates they should vote for me," Obama said.

    He added: "The question for those not yet committed and the superdelegates that are still out there ... trying to make up their minds -- my strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the county that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. And you know, I think that should be the guiding approach to determine who would be the nominee. I think it's also important for the superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest to beat John McCain in November and who will be the strongest to make sure that we are broadening the base, bring people who historically have not involved in politics into the fold."

    I rather talk about this... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:33:01 PM EST
    I know I'm a broken record, but we'll be occupying Iraq, etc, etc regardless.

    HRC has the popular vote right now so is he (none / 0) (#156)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:49:26 PM EST
    saying the "will of the people" is the popular vote?  Or is he just saying that voting for him is the will of the people?  

    Okay, how about (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    what David Shuster did before he came to MSNBC?

    I find this quite interesting. . . .

    "From 1996 - 2002, Shuster was a Washington, D.C. based correspondent for the Fox News Channel. . . .  During the Clinton administration, Shuster led Fox's coverage of the Clinton investigations including "Whitewater," the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Starr report and the Senate impeachment trial.

    "Shuster was also a member of Fox's "You Decide 2000" political team. He spent four months on John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" bus and was Fox's lead correspondent for McCain's presidential campaign.

    "From 1994 - 1996, Mr. Shuster was a political reporter for KATV (ABC) Little Rock, Arkansas. . . ."

    Oh, and you Hoosiers and Michiganders?  Shuster is a native of Indiana and a grad of U of Michigan.  Just in case you know anyone there who's thinking of giving him an award.  Warn them to think twice. :-)


    LOL (none / 0) (#171)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    And NewsCorp (FoxNews) is one of Hillary's top contributors.
    I swear, I am not making this up.  The info is public domain.
    In addition, they have not contributed even a tenth as much as they have to her to any other campaign, Republican or Democrat.
    Be that as it may, I have nothing against Hillary, I voted for her for Senator, and I met her, talked to her and shook her hand at a non-profit event once.
    I was just saying the above to prove a point.

    Double Standard (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Sunshine on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    I am a devout Democrat who was for just about anybody that claimed to be another Democrat.. But I am now to the point that I can't stand Obama because of the double standard..  He brings out his wife, Oprah, the Kennedy family and this is wonderful.. Hillary brings out her husband and Chelsea and both are trashed.. I'm sick of "The Golden Boy" who can do no wrong.. I keep wondering what is wrong here? I hear about this may be a cult and I hear that it is sexism and I am still wondering what is wrong here.. Everybody agrees this something very different but what?  I'm not so sure the differance is good.

    One thing for sure (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    it isn't any Democratic standards that I have ever marched for...To put down anyone, in my liberal mind, is offensive and these Obama people seem to "go on the attack" all the time, thus losing my liberal heart and mind...I don't get why all these young men think that it is ok to put down a woman and that it is funny...I find that highly offensive...

    Like you I don't know what it is and can't pretend (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:55:11 PM EST
    to understand it, but I don't like it either.

    bias (none / 0) (#141)
    by BrianS on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:15:23 PM EST
    ...and I'm a devout Democrat who is turned off to Hillary by the pro-Hillary bias on this website.

    I guess it goes both ways...


    Bias (none / 0) (#173)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:37:53 PM EST
    You can say that again.
    And the people who don't like Hillary in the Democratic party, in general, do not like her for other reasons than sexism.  There are many reasons not to like Hillary as a candidate.
    Now there may be manay republicans who don't like her because of her sex.. I don't know, but just because people don't like Hillary doesn't mean that they are "sexist", that's a horrible generalization.

    the Clintons are not (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:20:20 PM EST
    polarizing, the GOP has spread this rumor for years to try to deflect Hillarys bid as they fear her...and they coddle Obama's bid to the point that Bush went up to him after the SOTU and said "hello buddy"....This should worry all of you Obama supporters as he doesnt seem to be well equipped to "take a stand" on alot of stuff...He doesnt even want to debate Hillary more than necessary because it is making him look bad...so silly on his part....

    sorry to be O/T (none / 0) (#10)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    but I finally got a legit link for the debate in Virginia Monday night that is hosted by ABC/Politico

    shoot wrong link brb (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:54:04 PM EST
    Have to get the legit one

    ok Here it is (none / 0) (#14)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    Keith just mentioned Chelsea when (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    discussing his lineup for tonight. Did anyone catch the details?

    KO just apologized on behalf of MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:17:33 PM EST
    said Shuster's comments were appalling and "many of us here, across political lines were appalled."

    It was an apology without reservation.


    Oh good (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:21:29 PM EST
    that sure helps my opinion of him...

    That's the Keith I like. Now, if some of his (none / 0) (#31)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:20:29 PM EST
    worshipers would listen to him and see why it is offensive.

    This whole subject is out of control (none / 0) (#20)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    "Pimped" is an everyday term used in the modern vernacular.  
    Mr Schuster is making no implication that Chelsea is a prostitute at all.
    That is very obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80.
    Please, enough with the intellectual dishonesty.
    We all know the man just meant that the Clintons are sending their daughter out to pander for support and he found it unseemly.
    That is not offensive in the least.
    Enough already.  I find it offensive that people should be so dishonest to try and change the context of the word "pimp".

    Please Look Up The Word Pimp (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:25:52 PM EST
    in a standard dictionary. IMO you are the one trying to change the definition of the word.

    When I get stoned in a few.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    it won't be muslim fanatics throwing rocks at me.  I'll be smoking reefer

    When I pimp my roll at the poker table...I am not not charging a person money to have sexual relations with a round bread product during a card game.  I'm putting my money to work for me.

    Nobody is changing the definition of a word, we are acknowledging that pimp and pimpin' are also part of the common vernacular and have meanings other than the one in the standard dictionary.


    how pimp is used... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    "Your roll" = object.  Pimpin' always refers to an OBJECT.  The use of the word OBJECTIFIES WOMEN.  That is why it is OFFENSIVE.  

    Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:56:46 PM EST
    but then it objectifies who or whatever is being described.  Not just women, in today's common slang.  

    My boss was pimpin' me hard today.  Did I just objectify women or objectify myself?  Would you assume I am a prostitute?  Would you assume I'm a woman?  Of course not.

    Taking offense from language is a matter of taste.  Some people are more easily offended than others.  And I sincerely believe there are people in this world who wake up in the morning wanting to offended so they can be outraged.  


    Ok... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:13:38 PM EST
    two points I would make:  it's different to describe yourself in potentially demeaning terms than to be described as such by someone else.  If someone called me a b*tch I'd be mad.  If I call myself that it doesn't carry the same weight (but is still dumb, IMO).  

    Also pimping has connotations of being demeaning to women that IMO, are hard to forget, especially when it's used in reference to women.  Do you really think Shuster chose the best way to describe a daughter campaigning for her mother??


    Of course.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:42:17 PM EST
    it was a bad choice of words for a professional broadcaster...even by today's standards of professional broadcasters.

    Like I said, taking offense is a matter of taste, I don't doubt you were/are offended.  I just think of all the things going down in this country and world that are offensive, this doesn't even rate.


    Hey Wait A Second (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:00:09 PM EST
    Pimping also refers to men. I think that many male prostitutes would be upset that you thought the term only belonged to the fairer sex. Ask Jeff Gannon, or whatever his name is, he was pimped by the president, or was it Cheney and the president was his john....

    Good point..... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    My buddy was threatened with being turned out by a real pimp, not the proverbial kind, in Amsterdam.  He said that dude wasn't playing either, he left town he was so scared.

    When MTV "pimps" my ride (none / 0) (#52)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    They are not renting it out for people to have sexual relations with...

    so if someone called out a term to you (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:33:19 PM EST
    that implied you sold yourself on the street, that's ok because "everyone" uses it. that is what you are saying? right? if i said something like that to you in the grocery store, you'd smile and buy me a coke?

    Why wasn't this term used for the Bush twins (none / 0) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:18:59 PM EST
    or Mitt's sons? Even you think this sort of language is ok (and I don't) the double standard is appalling.

    THIS IS INCREDIBLY BIASED (none / 0) (#32)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    Did Shuster ever speak up when other candidate's children campaigned for them? Even if you think the term pimped is OK, there is still an incredible double standard here. It is more common than not that children work for their parents' campaigns. As far as I can remember, only the Bush girls did not do this, but this was their choice. They apparently refused to do so.

    Unless you can show me where Shuster complained about Romney's sons, Edwards daughter, Kerry's daughters or any other child of a candidate working for their parent's campaign, you have no case. It is no more acceptable for this kind of bias even if it is not sexist.


    Romney's sons (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM EST
    Romney's sons got ripped by the entire media community for shilling for their father, instead of going off to fight in Iraq, lest we all forget.
    So, no, apparently it's not a double standard.

    But were they called (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    well, pick any word that has been used to demean men for not taking up a challenge.  And I'm not talking "coward."  "Pimped out" is offensive and demeaning to women, and has a long history of being demeaning to women.  I would be offended no matter whose daughter was being "pimped out" because letting this phrase go uncontested on the airwaves of a major news channel is absurd.  

    If you do not understand the context of the word.. (none / 0) (#56)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    You are either from a generation too old to get the reference, or you are intentionally denying it.
    Let me ask you a question:
    Do you think Mr Schuster literally meant that the Clintons were turning Chelsea into a prostitute?  That they were "pimping" her on the street corner for sexual favors?
    If the answer is no, then you need to think about it a bit more.

    Let me repeat myself... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    "Your roll" = object.  Pimpin' always refers to an OBJECT.  The use of the word OBJECTIFIES WOMEN.  That is why it is OFFENSIVE.  

    I'm 22 years old.

    And also, because Mr Shuster used that particular phrase, it casts a sexual, unsavory pall upon what Chelsea is doing.  And he says it's unseemly.  What does he think she's doing?  Using her womanly wiles?  

    Just because a word is popular, doesn't mean it is acceptable.  And freedom of speech is different from the standards of decorum our newsmen and newswomen should be exercising when on the air.


    You really want to (none / 0) (#60)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    scrub the word "pimp" from the airwaves?  Now that's obscene.  

    Maybe you should get a V chip.  


    Amen to that... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    beware the censor, the most offensive of all.

    Yeah (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:15:17 PM EST
    makes sense that a Clinton is advocating censorship.  Bill did it in the 90s so he could appeal to the right-wing.  Hillary and Tipper should get together and hold hearings on how the word "pimp" is hurting our children (and in the meantime continue locking up 40% of black men and contributing to the real pimp culture).

    you must be joking (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:31:15 PM EST
    Free speech doesn't mean speech has no consequences. Shuster's perfectly able and free to bray like a donkey, but folk are entitled to say he's an a$$.

    As for censorship, what a ridiculous comment. If someone said that about my sister, I'd be working to get him fired, because free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever pops into your empty little head without consequence.

    AS for the parsing of the word pimp that's gone on on this thread, what a joke. That word was used to demean two women, to reduce their moral and intellectual stature and it's simply appalling. Pimping a young woman means turning her out as a prostitute, not giving her some shiny hubcabs. Jeez, get a clue.


    Thank the sun god you're here.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:54:22 PM EST
    Hawkguy...I was beginning to think I'm the only one here who remembers the time before G-Dub.  I mean G-Dub was a disaster but I didn't know he could erase memories.

    Different Story (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:45:21 PM EST
    Poor analogy. Romney is for sending other peoples son's to their death to fight a manufactured war. To criticize his sons for shilling for Romney's warmongering is classic chicken hawk behavior.

    Not an analogous situation.


    Not an analogous situation. .. (none / 0) (#76)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:57:18 PM EST
    No, you're right, it's more insulting.  Because it is an actual insult, and it's true.
    They were saying that all Mitt Romney's sons are cowards and hypocrites of the worst kind.
    Now THAT's an insult, one that in my opinion was well-deserved.  The "pimp" comment is more of a bad choice of terminology.

    your self righteous yakking is sorta funny. (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    but then again it is an insult to mitt and not one to clinton. really? my,my when it comes to romney it's wrong, when comes to a democractic LADY running for president, that's ok. i am deeply offended by that attitude.

    What? (none / 0) (#158)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    I have no idea what you meant by that but yes, the Romney comment was a deliberate insult and the Schuster comment was obviously not.
    And I feel that the Romney boys were fully deserving of the actual insult, whereas Chelsea is not, but did not receive one.  Hope that clears it up for you.

    And I recall a litany... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:28:01 PM EST
    of the same about G-Dub's kids not signing up.

    Heck, I probably slung quite a few myself right here at TL:)


    ProudLib (none / 0) (#87)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    Maybe it's everyday to 18 yr. olds, not to baby boomers. You people should have more respect for people not of your generation instead of dissing them for not understanding you slang. And even if it is common among your generation, in the context it was used, it was still disrespectful. You'll be 60 someday, if you're lucky.

    All Democrats should think about the fact that they're trashing another Democrat before they say these horrid things.


    so everyone on here is too young to (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:22:19 PM EST
    know the truth? huh? many of the posters you are trading comments are the same age as you.

    Old people watch CBS (none / 0) (#175)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:42:38 PM EST
    MSNBC has been trying to appeal to younger people since Olbermann got his show.

    Hoping the Old Keith O is back (none / 0) (#21)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:13:46 PM EST
    Am watching Countdown right now and there does seem to be a slight sea change. Haven't seem this much non-critical coverage of Hillary in ages.

    Wow, he just gave an awesome (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:17:29 PM EST
    apology on behalf of MSNBC to the Clintons and said they have every right to be upset.

    Looks like KO got his groove back (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    We'll have to wait to see how they cover the upcoming primaries.

    I got overruled (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    this last week and had to listen (from the other room) to Entertainment Tonight.  I actually went into the room and sat down to watch tonight, because they had a really, really positive Hillary story and not so good Obama one.  Just a couple of clips, maybe two minutes total.  This is keeping in line with what is going on all week.

    Has anyone else noticed that the entertainment media (I mean, the one that actually owns up to just being entertainment) has been extremely pro-Hillary lately?  The View in particular, and now this...

    Sisters are doing it for themselves???

    I have (none / 0) (#129)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    never watched Entertainment Tonight, but I will start watching next week.

    I gotta answer Cream City.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    from the closed thread.

    My local paper is the NY Daily News.  If and when I send my sister or my moms out to help me part working people from their money and advance my career feel free to say I'm pimpin' them.

    I took this job once for a political action group as a fundraiser, lasted half a day.  Just couldn't ask working people for their money without providing something concrete, too unsavory for me.  I would never ask my family to do something like that.  


    What money. She was asking for a their vote (none / 0) (#101)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:22:49 PM EST
    You must be a barrel of laughs when the collection plate is passed - hey, the preacher is pimpin' again

    Preachers do pimp.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    but that's another topic.  

    It's a given any campaign event involves parting people from their cash in one way or another, no?  


    Shuster's sexism (none / 0) (#43)
    by LizDexic on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    "We all know the man just meant that the Clintons are sending their daughter out to pander for support and he found it unseemly.
    That is not offensive in the least."

    It IS offensive because there is a double standard for the Clintons and the Bushes. What kind of outrage would Shuster's comment have engendered if they ever deigned to criticize the Bushes? And when women are mentioned in a context that has nothing to do with sex, with a term that is indisputably connected with sex...why should that not be recognized as sexist?

    Yeah, David Schuster's real sexist (none / 0) (#83)
    by neilcandelora on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    So you actually think David Schuster who has taken consistent liberal stances in his reporting is sexist and actually meant that Hillary is sending her daughter out to have sex for money? I actually watched this last night and no one on the panel with him was "appalled" or "disgusted", one of them even laughed, and that's because it's a figure of speech. In this context it DOESN'T have anything to do with sex, how could it? It's meant to suggest that Chelsea's getting used in some way, (I don't believe she is, I'm sure she wants to be making these phone calls), but it's completely fair for David Schuster to ask a question about it. He could have put it in less slang terms, but everyone watching that knew what he meant, and if they claim they didn't they're trying to make an issue out of nothing.
          As a Democrat I'm sick of seeing us eat our own. Instead of attacking another Democrat for supposedly insinuating something he obviously didn't mean to insinuate, why don't we spend our time attacking Romney for saying Democrats would surrender to terror? (Which, by the way, is what Mr. Schuster spent the entire last day doing because he's a good and decent voice for liberalism). All this does is give fodder for Republicans and hurts a man who everyday provides honest political analysis, and asks questions a lot of us are wondering ourselves.

    Neilcandalora (none / 0) (#91)
    by tek on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that if a person has been liberal they can't possibly be insulting to the Clintons? What planet are you living on?

    your bias is showing (none / 0) (#100)
    by ritasue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    If you're sick of Democrats eating our own then maybe you should start with "liberals" like David Shuster attacking a "democrat" like Chelsea Clinton for promoting her own mother, i.e. for no reason.

    NOW petition (none / 0) (#49)
    by ritasue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:35:52 PM EST
    TM (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    is saying Michigan delgates seated!!!

    crap (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:38:41 PM EST
    sorry--LINK here

    Allocated, not seated.  D'oh!

    well allocating them is the first step (none / 0) (#54)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    I would think they have to be seated if they expect to get Florida and Michigan on their side in the fall election...

    sweet! (none / 0) (#85)
    by cdo on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:11:23 PM EST
    karma baby, coming right back at ya! stay strong hillary, the pendulum always swings back eventually!

    Is the news media being sexist! (none / 0) (#133)
    by mlchamp on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    I agree 100% with several comments above. As a longer time watcher of MSNBC I have been extremely disappointed with their biased views and subliminal messaging supporting Obama. I have been waiting patiently for someone in the news media to shine some light "truth not opinion" on Obama's voting record, http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490, in the Senate.  Why did he vote 96 times-NV, Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present, on such items as Abortion, Agriculture, and Budget/Spending/Taxes.  I believe this act was intentional, as he didn't want his vote to be used against him in his run for the Presidency.  Why do we want a President who doesn't stand up and fight for his beliefs? He is all talk but very little action.  He must answer these and many more hard questions to get my vote.  Like his dealings, real estate/fundraising, with Tony Rezko, who is now under federal investigation for extortion, racketeering, etc.  Obama made over $900K+ on his home purchase with Mr. Rezko ($300K on his home that was sold under market value and around $580K on the land purchased from Rezko while he was under federal investigation).  

    Now, I know Hillary Clinton has her own imperfections but at least in all her faults she has a long-standing proven track record of her success.  Is it sexist that know matter what Hillary does or says she is looked at and portrayed negatively by the media?  Why aren't we praising at these the act of the very first women Presidential candidate?  Yes, I get Obama could be the first African-America President but there have been many others who have tried before for him.  

    One last thing (none / 0) (#157)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    Probably for the same exact reason Hillary was NV 85 times...
    It's called a long campaign season.

    Whoa sister! I certainly agree with you on this! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM EST

    just the beginning (none / 0) (#138)
    by BrianS on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:10:00 PM EST
    Hillary supporters might want to get used to this. This is part of the baggage the Clintons carry. Many of the media pundits hate them. Hell, even people outside of the media hate them. This is why electability SHOULD be a bigger issue if we want to win this election.

    The Clintons are just too polarizing. Whether the "scandals" were true or not, they are out there and will be used against them even after the election is over. The right-wing media will continue to demonize the Clintons in order to mobilize the fractured Republican base. We will end up losing Congress just like we did in the 90's.

    I mean, why do you think the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, or Ann Coulter want nothing more than a Clinton victory?

    Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Coldblue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
    might want to open their eyes.

    The right-wing takes no prisoners.


    WE ARE USED TO IT (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:01 PM EST
    And we're sick and tired of it.

    You couldn't stand up to five minutes of what Hillary's stood up to for her entire life.


    The Clintons are "too polarizing" (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    Since the Clintons are too polarizing it's time to just roll over and die and take whatever candidate you think the Republicans will like.

    You sound just like the Democrats in Congress.  The Republicans will be MEEEAN to us, so lets just not fight them, 'kay?

    It doesn't matter who the Demos put up in November, the Republicans will ensure that that person is a "polarizing" figure.


    To be honest (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    I don't think the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter want nothing more than a Clinton victory?  

    But that's the story that's being pushed to the gullible.  The same kind of thing worked for some of them, and Karl Rove, in '04 to get them Kerry to run against and it may work again.


    yep they are very (none / 0) (#152)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    good at twisting the news and the MSM to get the result they want...Truth be told if the corporations wanted to run against a Hillary Clinton MSNBC would be gushing about her to the hilt...they however, are not...Hint, they are afraid of her...

    Outrage over? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:11:32 PM EST
    How about them primaries and caucuses? Who does anyone think is gonna win?

    For women (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    the outrage is a festering wound.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#149)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    he's race-baiting.  But I do think the unity stuff is B.S.

    who am i? (none / 0) (#154)
    by ProudLib on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    I am a person who fully supports equality for all, and if you want to worry about media content, you should sure as heck not be starting with MSNBC or David Schuster.
    With outfits like FoxNews making MUCH more offensive comments than he ever did every day, you should really think about who you want to alienate with political hack jobs.
    Mr Schuster has not historically made many (if any) sexist comments that I can remember, and there is no pattern of sexism here, just as there is no pattern of racism attributed to Hillary Clinton.  Both situations are politically motivated and THAT is what is possing me off here.
    Admittedly Mr Schuster certainly could have been more dignified in his choice of wording, but his real beef was that Chelsea was "off limits" to interviews, yet was eligible to be a representative for the Clinton campaign.  I believe that his point, taken IN CONTEXT was that if she was old enough to be used as a political activist, then she was old enough to be interviewed.
    That point had nothing to do with actual prostitution, as all of you well know.
    The man did not call her the B-word, or attack her personally in any way.
    This is being blown out of proportion for political reasons, just like the MLK comment was.
    'Nuff said, I am outtie (as they say in the venacular, try not to take that out of context too, as some sort of stereotype of protuding belly-buttons)

    Silly comment (none / 0) (#155)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:48:09 PM EST
    and a silly apology.

    The Clintons are trying to play the comeback kids and the victim card and this was a meatball down the middle of the plate.

    What happened to freedom of speech  In a 24 hour news cycle this was a pretty harmless comment and his point was valid.  Are the Clinton's using Chelsea for political advantage (of course it's a stupid comment because all politicians use their kids).

    NBC is still reeling from the Imus fiasco which wasn't that bad but was worse then this.

    I'm tired of the PC police.

    Jaralyn you couldn't have been offended by this, could you?

    The comment was offensive (none / 0) (#160)
    by tmalexander on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:04:30 PM EST
    I find it amazing that some would claim that the comment was acceptable simply because it was directed against a Clinton. It is not a question of freedom of speech, it is a question of offensive speech. Think of it this way, would anyone who finds the comment acceptable feel the same way if he had said "McCain is pimping his mom" or what if it was "Obama is pimping himself for Oprah" or Michele Obama is being pimped by her husband"? Why is it a blog firestorm if Fox news says something offensive about a democrat, but if MSNBC says something, we fight among ourselves because MSNBC is supposed to be on "our side." We have to call it like it is, and this comment was unacceptable regardless of who said it or on what network.

    Just heard that both (none / 0) (#163)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:15:00 PM EST
    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday.  Originally thought it was only Obama but apparently both will be on for interviews.

    New thread on this (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    here, comments now closing on this one.

    Our current day "journalists" are such (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    idiot clowns!  Ethics are so yesterday.  Can you ever imagine Walter Cronkite talking about a political figure pimping their daughter out when their daughter was campaigning for them?