Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

MSNBC Suspends Shuster Over Clinton Comment

Updated: 3:50 p.m.
By Howard Kurtz
MSNBC suspended correspondent David Shuster this afternoon for making a disparaging remark about Chelsea Clinton as officials in her mother's campaign raised the possibility of punishing the network by pulling out of a planned debate in Cleveland.

While filling in as an anchor yesterday, Shuster was discussing the 27-year-old's role in Hillary Clinton's campaign when he asked: "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director, denounced the prostitution metaphor, calling it "disgusting," "beneath contempt" and "the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network."

Noting that Clinton had just agreed to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 in Cleveland, Wolfson said: "I at this point can't envision doing another debate on that network."

In a statement, MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines called Shuster's language "irresponsible and inappropriate" and said he had "extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks."


David Shuster. (MSNBC).

As for the Ohio debate between Clinton and Barack Obama, which is scheduled to be moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert, Gaines said that "our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned."

Last night, after Shuster made the remark as the guest host on "Tucker," Clinton spokesman Phillippe Reines contacted him and said the pimping reference was offensive. Shuster e-mailed back that he was referring to the fact that Chelsea is making calls to convention superdelegates but refusing to talk to the press. Shuster did make that point on the air -- after his pimped out comment, which was not delivered as a joke.

Reines was incredulous at the lack of an apology, but Shuster stood his ground.

Today, however, Phil Griffin, the NBC News executive who runs MSNBC, called Reines, telling him that the comment was clearly wrong, and tried unsuccessfully to reach Wolfson.

Last month, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews expressed regret for suggesting that Clinton's political success can be traced to sympathy stemming from her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Wolfson noted both incidents in suggesting that the Clinton camp may boycott future MSNBC debates.

"At some point you have to question whether there is a pattern at this particular network," he said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 8, 2008; 3:52 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Michigan's Missed Moment as Clinton-Obama Fight Continues
Next: Campaigning in Washington State, Obama Gets Gregoire

Comments

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

Posted by: jimelyyes | May 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

Posted by: jimelyyes | May 2, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and was always defending him with my Republican husband. However, I was shocked, then disappointed which turned into anger when he made those comments in SC. He truly showed his colors.

Maybe Shuster could have worded it differently, but it's very difficult to do so. I have found out that the Clintons will prostitute themselves to win an elected office. It's not about the American voters, it's about them.

If Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will stay home this November, and my WASP republican husband who would have voted for Senator Obama will vote for John McCain.

By the way, I'm a naturalized American who happens to be black and form friendships based on commonalities and character.

Shame on you Bill and Hillary.

Posted by: lmesner | February 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

As I watch MSNBC mostly because of Hardball, my wife and I have honestly been shocked at how so much more positive and overall coverage of the democratic campaign has been towards the rookie Obama, as opposed to the short shrift and negative comments that have been given to the veteran Clinton. It's blatantly clear, they don't like the Clintons, and their coverage reflects it. The comments by Chris Mathews and David Shuster are the most visible signs of their lop sided coverage, and possible bias. I don't wish unemployment for Mr. Shuster, I can rest assured that his ilk can find a job at FOX, seems all the failed journalists are finding spots there.

Posted by: robert_c_michaels | February 18, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

MSNBC SUCKS and so does GE.

Posted by: aaka | February 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

David Shuster is simply speaking a foul mouth who should never work in this business again. Where was the FCC when he called President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton "pimps"? It is time reporters like David are put out of business.

Posted by: aaka | February 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Is there a more gutless news organization than MSNBC apparently headed by cowardly lion types. Dumped Imus, now Shuster, both made distasteful remarks, but not job losing remarks. In fact the heads of MSNBC and their suck up correspondents are themselves being pimped by the holier than thou Clintons. Hope Chelsea enjoyed her dinner playing up to the young super delegate.

Posted by: rstaicoff | February 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Is there a more gutless news organization than MSNBC apparently headed by cowardly lion types. Dumped Imus, now Shuster, both made distasteful remarks, but not job losing remarks. In fact the heads of MSNBC and their suck up corresponds are themselves being pimped by the holier than thou Clintons. Hope Chelsea enjoyed her dinner playing up to the young super delegate.

Posted by: rstaicoff | February 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The silencing of the media by the Clinton campaign is disturbing. Civil liberty always trumps political correctness. Yes, Schuster should apologize, which he did. But there seems to be a jumping of the Clinton campaign whenever ANYTHING negative is said by the media. Shuster's comment was in a discussion setting, not a news report. I believe we still have freedom of speech, don't we. This is a very disturbing trend. I am a feminist who has long worked in a male dominated setting. How about going after Glen Beck of Fox for using the term,"Pimping," with regard to a female. Has he been suspended yet?

Posted by: perhamf | February 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The silencing of the media by the Clinton campaign is disturbing. Civil liberty always trumps political correctness. Yes, Schuster should apologize, which he did. But there seems to be a jumping of the Clinton campaign whenever ANYTHING negative is said by the media. Shuster's comment was in a discussion setting, not a news report. I believe we still have freedom of speech, don't we. This is a very disturbing trend. I am a feminist who has long worked in a male dominated setting. How about going after Glen Beck of Fox for using the term,"Pimping," with regard to a female. Has he been suspended yet?

Posted by: perhamf | February 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Shuster got suspended because he spoke the truth? Maybe his language could have been better selected but the thought is very close to the center of the mark. Just this morning it was reported that the Hillbilly team has been calling a super delagate and wooing him with a promise of lunch with their daughter. Why not lunch with Hillary or Bill? (Actually now that I think about it this would definately sway him to the other camp!)Why do they offer their daughter? Is is because they know that a 19 year boy might find their daughter attractive and perhaps might sway his vote to their side? I wonder if they promised anything else beside dinner?? Listen HILLYBILLY- you can't graze on both sides of the fence and than complain that no one wants to drink your milk!

Posted by: letmenap | February 12, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Texas should remember the NAFTA-duo.
Where does NAU leave amendment #2?
Mexicans crossing the border and getting
guns?

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

So where does the North American Union
leave the 2nd Amendment? Do Mexicans get
to practice it? DOUBT IT!

I think Texas should remember the NAFTA-duo

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 11, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I can see it now. If Hillary becomes President, she will turn on the tears whenever something doesn't suit her. She will have her aides threaten and get people fired for the least infraction. The media better start looking for other jobs, because there's going to be a lot of things said about her and her family that she doesn't like. If she can't handle one comment by one reporter, how is she going to handle the scrutiny of the world as President?

Posted by: DorisCCC | February 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

As a citizen, it worries me when I see a broadcasting news organization personally attacking Senator Hillary Clinton and her family in such a slanderous, inappropriate manner. This has happened on not just one occasion. As a stockholder, I can only come to the conclusion that this is a pattern that has been developed from attitudes of the top management in the company and passed to those who blurt out the slanderous statements. Chris Matthews and David Shuster have apologized to Senator Clinton, but the irreparable harm has been done. They should be history.

Day after day Bill Clinton was raked over the coals as racist for saying that it was his view that Obama's inconsistent statements about Iraq were a "fairytale". Would NBC allow someone to say that Oprah was "pimping" because she was calling Superdelegates or is that too close to racist?

MSNBC responds by asking their employees to apologize, and in the case of Mr Shuster, they suspend him.This is not good enough. Chris Matthews and David Shuster should have been fired.

Any news organization should hold the public's trust that it will always report fair and unbiased news. This is not unbiased news. I might as well be watching the Fox Network. I continue to be discouraged in this company and it's management's attitudes, and find it necessary to review whether I want to continue my investment.

Posted by: gorgegirl | February 10, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

As a citizen, it worries me when I see a broadcasting news organization personally attacking Senator Hillary Clinton and her family in such a slanderous, inappropriate manner. This has happened on not just one occasion. As a stockholder, I can only come to the conclusion that this is a pattern that has been developed from attitudes of the top management in the company and passed to those who blurt out the slanderous statements. Chris Matthews and David Shuster have apologized to Senator Clinton, but the irreparable harm has been done. They should be history.

Day after day Bill Clinton was raked over the coals as racist for saying that it was his view that Obama's inconsistent statements about Iraq were a "fairytale". Would NBC allow someone to say that Oprah was "pimping" because she was calling Superdelegates or is that too close to racist?

MSNBC responds by asking their employees to apologize, and in the case of Mr Shuster, they suspend him.This is not good enough. Chris Matthews and David Shuster should have been fired.

Any news organization should hold the public's trust that it will always report fair and unbiased news. This is not unbiased news. I might as well be watching the Fox Network. I continue to be discouraged in this company and it's management's attitudes, and find it necessary to review whether I want to continue my investment.

Posted by: gorgegirl | February 10, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

As a citizen, it worries me when I see a broadcasting news organization personally attacking Senator Hillary Clinton and her family in such a slanderous, inappropriate manner. This has happened on not just one occasion. As a stockholder, I can only come to the conclusion that this is a pattern that has been developed from attitudes of the top management in the company and passed to those who blurt out the slanderous statements. Chris Matthews and David Shuster have apologized to Senator Clinton, but the irreparable harm has been done. They should be history.

Day after day Bill Clinton was raked over the coals as racist for saying that it was his view that Obama's inconsistent statements about Iraq were a "fairytale". Would NBC allow someone to say that Oprah was "pimping" because she was calling Superdelegates or is that too close to racist?

MSNBC responds by asking their employees to apologize, and in the case of Mr Shuster, they suspend him.This is not good enough. Chris Matthews and David Shuster should have been fired.

Any news organization should hold the public's trust that it will always report fair and unbiased news. This is not unbiased news. I might as well be watching the Fox Network. I continue to be discouraged in this company and it's management's attitudes, and find it necessary to review whether I want to continue my investment.

Posted by: gorgegirl | February 10, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

I agree totally with Adam! To be a President not only requires a sense of reality, but also maturity, which Mrs. Clinton doesn't demonstrate, when she won't forgive a young, reporter for making a silly comment! Now I hope msnbc puts Mr. Shuster back on air and stops this Clinton Nonsense!

Posted by: akbriskwood | February 9, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I have been loyal to MSNBC/NBC but I must say I am truly disgusted of late with their unfair, biased reporting. I have been switching to Fox NOISE (very sad) because there I don't expect anything better. I am happy that Schuster was suspended...can anyone image if her had used the word"PIMPED" in a sentence with Obama...TUCKER should be the next to go, he is vile...I must admit I am a cable news junkie but I have had enough. I am turning them off.

Posted by: amerijam10 | February 9, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I have been loyal to MSNBC/NBC but I must say I am truly disgusted of late with their unfair biased reporting. I have been switching to Fox NOISE (very sad) because at least there I don't expect anything better. I am happy that Schuster was suspended...can anyone image if her had used the word"PIMPED" in a sentence with Obama...TUCKER should be the next to go, he is vile...I must admit I am a cable news junkie but I have had enough. I am turning them off.

Posted by: amerijam10 | February 9, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

I think this entire "oversensitivity" thing is getting out of hand. To punish an entire network and, particularly it's viewers for a silly comment that isn't even offensive if considered in context is absurd. Is that the kind of over-reaction to a silliness that we want in a President. I think that to be president requires a sense of reality that is clearly not being demonstrated by Clinton here. The comment might have been vaguely inappropriate, but the reaction is stunningly inappropriate for someone who wants to lead the country.

Posted by: adam | February 9, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

The bias at MSNBC is well known and there is no point in beating a dead horse on this issue. Many people now tend to rank them with Fox News in terms of objectivity. Which now leaves us with CNN.
I don't get upset with MSNBC. I just refuse to watch them anymore.

David Shuster gave the public less than a full apology.

Chris Matthews apology has not been widely reported. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming by NBC brass when he offered up an apology. He falls into that group that can best be described as a phony-not genuine.

What I find disturbing are the many posts here that defend Shuster and continue to go after Clinton. Sexism is alive at MSNBC and elsewhere.

Posted by: FredCDobbs | February 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This is nothing but a setup of John McCain by the Clinton machine. Shuster was probably paid well for this stunt. Once you all are sufficiently outraged at Shuster's remark about 27-year-old Chelsea, they will dredge up this 1998 remark by John McCain about 15-year-old Chelsea. You people are too easy. No wonder the Clintons have such low regard for the masses.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html

Posted by: Thinker4 | February 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

This is nothing but a setup of John McCain by the Clinton machine. Shuster was probably paid well for this stunt. Once you all are sufficiently outraged at Shuster's remark about 27-year-old Chelsea, they will dredge up this 1998 remark by John McCain about 15-year-old Chelsea. You people are too easy. No wonder the Clintons have such low regard for the masses.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html

Posted by: Thinker4 | February 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton,

Canyou please stop changing the subject and show us your TAX RETURNS?!! Many thanks, in advance.

A Concerned Citizen

Posted by: cunningham.annie | February 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton,

Canyou please stop changing the subject and show us your TAX RETURNS?!! Many thanks, in advance.

A Concerned Citizen

Posted by: cunningham.annie | February 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

As a live long broadcast journalist I am terribly disappointed at the lack of quality we're seeing in young men like Shuster. The sexism raging on MSNBC and unfortunately other television and radio stations shouldn't be a surprise. Broadcasting tolerates a few women here and there - few if any in ownership - few in management and a few on air. Shuster should be fire and the best way to protest is turn off MSNBC and let their advertisers know why are you doing so!

Posted by: jpoley | February 9, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The remark of David Shuster is unfortunate and uncalled for."pimped out" connotes that she is a prostitute. Chelsea is a fine woman who shunned the spotlight and she is within her rights to campaign for her mother and not talk to reporters if she doesn't want to. Her aides have all the rights to protect her from all unwanted intrusions. Those who think that the remark of David is okay because of their hatred for the Clintons are nothing but low-life morons with no breeding. It only shows how poorly these people were raised. These characters are the best arguement why we should legalize abortions.

David is a fine journalist but he made an unfortunate remark in his zeal to put down Hillary and promote Obama. Personally he has all the right to be pro-obama but as a journalist, you don't take sides. THE JOB OF A JOURNALIST IS TO IBNFORM THE PEOPLE AND PRESENT FAIR AND BALANCED VIEWS REGARDLESS OF HIS POLITICAL LEANINGS AND IDEOLOGIES.IF YOU CANNOT DO THIS, LEAVE THE PROFESSION AND ALLOW OTHERS WHO CAN DO IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND YOUR COUNTRY.

It is sheer arrogance for any reporter or journalist to demand interviews

Posted by: tim591 | February 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Looks like some enterprising capitalist is offering http://www.PimpChelsea.com for sale on EBAY & Craigs List for 100K!!! Hey I have a piece of Jesus toast for sale and some authentic (I swear) crumbs from the Last Supper...But "seroiusly", what's the BIG DEAL?? The word PIMP is now in the common vernacular and to pretend offense at it's use illuminates the thinly veiled motives of the REAL OPPORTUNISTS.
C'mon Hilary, pony up for a cute little domain name for Chelsea, she's been humpin ...oops I mean stumpin for ya! She deserves some help from her Mama..

Posted by: yodiggitty | February 9, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I was really amused to see all the T-Shirts and other schlock that's being sold at the expense of Chelsea and then there's that PimpChelsea.Com (see at: http://www.PimpChelsea.com ) domain name that someone wants to sell for a mere $100,000.00 on EBAY and Craigslist ! Isn't America Great ?? Where else would we put all those politicians so that we can all have this much fun ?

By the way, David Shuster made the comment about that ugly duckling Chelsea getting pimped out by her mom and dad and not anyone from the Obama camp. This is all so funny. I mean, come on everybody: 'Make Love Not War !' ;

Posted by: seasandand | February 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Here's the kind of "change" that Obama represents. He aims to change the Democratic Party into a form of Republican appeasement agency:

http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I have a scoop for the empty suits in MSNBC. How about showing this video of Arnold and then discuss with Maria and Oprah how to treat women.. This should be on Hardball with the BOOR Chris Matthews interviewing the Brazilian dancer

http://www.depresident.com/arnold-brazil-video.asp

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC obviously has issues within their hosts that more than once have denigrated women. MSNBC needs to quickly "clean house". Imus, Mathews, Scaborough, and now Schuster have all stuck their foot in it and I'm not sure if it's not been to get attention. They're injecting themselves in the news rather than reporting. The suits need to examine themselves and find work exterminating bugs.

Posted by: texass | February 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Of course the comment by the MSNBC analyst was inappropriate and the offensive analogy never would have been used if the person discussed was a male. The reporter has publicly apologized and been suspended by the network. Now it is time to move on.

However, if the Clinton campaign continues to repeat its objections, as by refusing to participate in the Cleveland debate, the action will be seen by many as another ploy to gain sympathy for its candidate among certain voters.

It's worth remembering, unfortunately, that MSNBC is not the only media organization that has shown bias in its coverage.

Posted by: cpaustin408 | February 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

every woman that posts on this post should ask themselves how many times they have called a man an arsehole...before they come out and say a statement that given is a bad choice of words is sexist. It was clear what he intended. Don't twist his words....the meaning were crystal clear!!! Hillary is playing on your intelligence and if you sucker up to it then to bad for you and unfortunately me and the rest of america because we also have to put up with her....also i wonder what her campaign will do when mccain picks either rice or sarah(alaska's governor) as vp...they can't cry anymore can they?

Posted by: azeezwale | February 9, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

OOOK, the clintons want to play rough?

And bully the press into submission at every unlikely opportuity?

Well, let's have pictures of Chelsea as a child, right up to the point where her mouth changed shape. Inexplicably. So that it no longer was at all the same. And wonder why.?

She wants to be part of Hillary's thing?
Well, then she's part of the whooole thing.

Posted by: whistling | February 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Shuster should be punished for that sexist comment. It's funny how degrading and hostile terms for women from hiphop music is seeping into regular everyday life and men think that's OK. Whether or not the Clintons are using their daughter, she's an adult and can make her own decisions. But to call an upstanding woman essentially a prostitute for no good reason is not acceptable in political or any other reasonable discourse. If he doesn't understand that, Shuster needs to take the hiphop off his ipod and listen to some less sexist music to gain perspective on how his attitude towards women has become tainted.

Posted by: HairICome | February 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Shusters apology was lame.

If some dumb reporter talked about my kids llike that I would would probably punch them in the nose. Hillary should avoid supporting MSNBC for the rest of the primaries. There is definately a anti women bias in the media and in the right wing. Even Obamas supporters are clearly anti women in their comments. I thought we were done with hate politics but between Obamas supporters and Bushes lackies it looks like we're going to have 8 more years of keep women in their place politics.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 9, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I personally have been feeling turned off by MSNBC with all the negative Hillary coverage. Seems to me they have a similar problem with her just Fox has with all democrats. CNN looks better and better every day.

Posted by: cindy | February 9, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

David Schuster is not a law abiding person. He is a lawless thug. I worked side by side with him in Little Rock covering the Whitewater trials and he was extremely abusive to me. He harassed me inside of the Federal courthouse in Little Rock and on the grounds of the Whitehouse. His harassment of me continued for months. I filed a complaint against him with the federal marshalls and with the local station who employed him. Nothing was done about him. I am not surprised that he would abuse the nation's airwaves with his unlawful characterizations of Chelsea Clinton. Not only should he be fired, he should be sued for defamation, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for intentional harassment. He should have been prosecuted for what he did to me in Arkansas and in DC and the only reason he wasn't was because he was a Clinton hater. Given his history of harassment, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and immediately. Judith Haney, USNewsLink

Posted by: alavalue | February 9, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

To Phil Graham and others at MSNBC. We got suckered by the NY Times when Cheney was feeding Ms. Miller phony stories that convinced the American people to go to war. Now we are being fed all this apple pie about a man we know nothing about--Obama, who if nominated, will have the least experience of the any president in modern history. To the "pimp" remark--Matthews has surrounded himself with underlings who help carry the Clinton hate water for him. Matthews has allowed himself to become corrupted by his perceived power. Like Imus, who thought he was irreplacable. Matthews thinks he can do or say anything. He is a pathetic creature--His hateful obsesseion with the Clintons will send him down any back alley--Mike Barnaby, Scarborough, Tucker, and many of Matthews' guests suck up to him by attacking the Clintons for a return visit to his show. Chris Matthews needs a psychiatrist to determine why he hates women, especially Hillary Clinton. He's no journalist-reporter--He's behaving like a noisy fish wife. What in the dickens are the higher-ups as MSNBC thinking? I have concluded they have to be setting the tone for all this Clinton bashing and the Obama Variety Show. I hope the sane Dan Abrams, will go to the top brass and explain that MSNBC is now in the gutter? Maybe they will listen to Mr. Abrams to save themselves and MSNBC. I will get my news from CNN. Not the Obama network.
Daria

Posted by: jwjgnjestate | February 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

When a campaign expresses "disgust" or calls something "inappropriate" in response to an offhand remark the intent is to make the campaign appear besieged and put upon. "Look, see how the big, bad media doesn't like us? We just want to do good and look what they do!" So much whining is only designed to gather the sympathy of people on the fence. Pull it together, American electorate, there's nothing Schuster has to apologize for, he was just making an observation and expressing his opinion on that observation.

Posted by: k_henryv | February 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Re: David Shuster

While his choice of words related to Chelsea Clinton was incorrect, the underlying thought was on point. The Clintons on this subject are playing both sides of the game and on one hand using their daughter to influence super delegates and voters yet restricting her access to the press. If she, the daughter is in the game promoting her Mother then she is should be available for questioning. After all she is 28, not 18.

Indeed given the Clinton's history (and skill) at spinning a situation, as well as questionable sincerity, I am not convinced that MSNBC has not been played to elicit more sympathetic free press.

Shuster has apologized as he should, and I understand he has been temporarily suspended which to me is excessive, but I hope MSNBC will stand behind one of it many reputable reporters and bring him back on air as soon as possible.

Further, MSNBC should insist that the Clinton's make Chelsea available to Shuster to personally receive his apologize and then participate in a one-on-one interview, which was the point of his commentary. That was the point of his comments


Posted by: tjj226 | February 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

David Shuster should be fired. He is the only one who has been pimped by Chris Matthew. Both of them should go.

Posted by: hmanigat | February 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

David Shuster should be fired. He is the only one who has been pimped by Chris Matthew. Both of them should go.

Posted by: hmanigat | February 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Men need to be very careful how they use the term pimp. When Jim Rome says he has to "pimp" a product, the term is less offensive because A) he is talking about selling you an object in order to get money for himself (i.e. his show) and (B) as a male the term signifies he is the master of the product. With an object such as a razor, that's not much of a problem....

When a man states that the "object" being pimped out is a woman... that is very offensive. By definition it objectifies the woman. To refer to a woman as being "pimped out", even today, means to sell a woman's body for money and calls her a prostitute. Remember Ms. Clinton was being referred to as the object being pimped out and not the pimp; therefore, she was being refered to as a prostitute. No other politician's child has been referred to as prostitute... That is why what Jim Rome says is not that big a deal but this is.

Posted by: mcfield | February 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of pimping out! Last night, Keith Olbermann offered is own apology to the Clintons on behalf of MSNBC. That's because if Hillary boycotts debates on MSNBC, it will take a hit to their ad revenue and market share. And poor Olbermann wouldn't is post-debate analysis with Matthews which has raised him to a "credible" political pundit rather than just a left-wing Bush hater.

For all of MSNBC's trashing of Fox News (it started with Olbermann, now they are all doing it), MSNBC is no better, and Shuster's comment is evidence of just how much MSNBC has has co-opted Fox News' schtick. It's time the public turned off these 24 hour cable channels.

Posted by: dafillmores | February 9, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, this is what Obama is going to do to you: latte drinking, caucus going, living on HOPE and good speeches whose jobs are getting shipped away soon...

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 09:48 AM

See why for the most part educated folks vote for obama? You and that article are totally begging the question....have you ever heard of nafta? Obama addressed the root of the problem clinton supported elevating the problem...what good is it who supported a company or not? The law that allows this kinds of things to happen was enacted by the clintons and obama vehemently opposed it...do your research before you drop posts on here...americans are not fools and can see throuh bs

Posted by: azeezwale | February 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, this is what Obama is going to do to you: latte drinking, caucus going, living on HOPE and good speeches whose jobs are getting shipped away soon...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,0,4286527.story

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

azeezwale, I suggest you study the dictionary definition of "pimp", "pimped", and "pimping" before sharing your ignorant view of what is or is not derogatory. It is a patently misogynist term, regardless of whether it finds daily use among your lowlife cohort.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid
If hillary clinton is who you have chosen to champion gender issues as is right now then i am sorry, women are back to square one...take a look at the facts bill cheated not once, not twice not "thrice".. Hillary was weak when strength mattered the most...if she had divorced bill...i would have gladly voted for her but she was weak...If i have a daughter....clintons history would serve as "do nots" lesson book for her...the worst part is hillary is using gender issues for political gain which is sad "the very same thing men are accused of doing: using women"...koolaid or whatever your postname is, next time before you come to the table to argue with me about grammar...please be sure you have taken at least english 101 and have a college degree...You never take words of context...no no no...people who argued it's a poor choice of words: I couldn't agree more, but offensive is going way too far....how many women have called men arseholes....truck load if not all...do we then say you folks are from moral hell..no!!! please if you are going to vote for hillary because she's a woman..by all means do so, but stop with this using gender card at every stop...it's irritating to say the least and does not address the gender issues we have...as hillary herself puts it...hot air

Posted by: azeezwale | February 9, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Would he have to apology if he had said it about a Republican candidate's family member? I don't think so. There are two sets of rules for the media. If something gets said about a Dem, make them apologize. If something gets said about a Republican, too bad.

Posted by: DorisCCC | February 9, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The strong reaction to this and other inappropriate media attacks on the Clinton family reflects the public outrage over the clear bias it sees in the coverage. No matter how innocent the incident it some how gets reported negatively when it comes to Hillary. Her daughter's active support described as prostitution? This reaction is not a Clinton campaign attack on a reporter, this is rather a public backlash to perceived unfairness.

Posted by: jrhepworth | February 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

It seems like Oprah baught all the media for Obama. Do those people even listen to themselves. I just hope to God that she runs for the white house even if she looses the primeraies. suites them right

Posted by: munaa9 | February 9, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

All these years ... the mainstream media has been given carte blanche to insult and destroy the Clinton family.
Well, the chickens have come home to roost. Finally, Democrats are learning they CAN fight back. No more swift-boating!
"PIMPING"?
In my 50 years of watching presidential elections, the candidates' children have always had high visibility. No one ever referred to this as "PIMPING".
I hope this is the begining of the end of DUMMIED DOWN mainstream media talkshows, which are nothing but propaganda.
Same with right wing wacko radio.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs to be revisited!

Posted by: hoticetea | February 9, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse


Pandering is also related to pimping but no sexual connotation is given it when used in it's politics sense (yet perhaps it should be given the nature of politicos). So I agree with Jayne and support Obama over the lying team of Clinton and Clinton who are, now that they are running out of cash, using anything they can to stay in the news. How dare Bill Clinton be so offended? Righteous indignation is, I believe, is for the righteous and he lost that right when he preyed on the insecurities of a young woman which made her name a synonym, for according to Bill,a non-sexual act. and as far as I've heard no one is inserting cigars up any part of his daughter's anatomy.

And I disagree with 'what if someone said that YOUR daughter was being "pimped out"? it was an unnecessary, inappropriate, and cruel comment.' Well,if my daughter was being pimped out , it would not be any of the above but a true statement. I believe that MS NBC has developed a pattern of truth telling which to some is offensive and support Chris Matthew's take on Hillary's connection to Bill as her greatest asset in running for office. If it were a lie why would the Clinton's be so upset? It is amazing how sensitive these attack dogs can be but only to their own sensitivities.

and as far as the cretin who made the statement about living in someone else's past; it has nothing to do with that but remembering and learning from history; cause if we don't we will have to repeat it and that means SHUDDER more Clintons.

Posted by: jganymede | February 9, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

It sounds as if some people have been watching MSNBC for much too long. If you do not like their coverage of the Clintons' campaign then stop watching the channel. I never watch Fox News because I do not like their programming. However, I have no problem with whomever or however they report the "news" because I don't watch the network. I am certain that many people enjoy Fox. Good for them.

There are so many sources for news and information (not just on TV). People should choose the source that is most reflective of their own personal taste and style.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | February 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

A journalist is required to be a professional who has above average use of the english language. Regardless of the political affiliation, this is an extremely inappropriate word to use. End, period, amen!

Posted by: mpoc | February 9, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse


Pandering is also related to pimping but no sexual connotation is given it when used in it's politics sense (yet perhaps it should be given the nature of politicos). So I agree with Jayne and support Obama over the lying team of Clinton and Clinton who are, now that they are running out of cash, using anything they can to stay in the news. How dare Bill Clinton be so offended? Righteous indignation is, I believe, is for the righteous and he lost that right when he preyed on the insecurities of a young woman which made her name a synonym, for according to Bill,a non-sexual act. and as far as I've heard no one is inserting cigars up any part of his daughter's anatomy.

And I disagree with 'what if someone said that YOUR daughter was being "pimped out"? it was an unnecessary, inappropriate, and cruel comment.' Well,if my daughter was being pimped out , it would not be any of the above but a true statement. I believe that MS NBC has developed a pattern of truth telling which to some is offensive and support Chris Matthew's take on Hillary's connection to Bill as her greatest asset in running for office. If it were a lie why would the Clintons be so upset? It is amazing how sensitive these attack dogs can be but only to their own sensitivities.

and as far as the cretin who made the statement about living in someone else's past; it has nothing to do with that but remembering and learning from history; cause if we don't we will have to repeat it and that means SHUDDER more Clintons.

Posted by: jganymede | February 9, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Marion Berry (former DC mayor and Drug dealer/User) to endorse Obama ( a drug user). How is that for a MSNBC headline by Chris Matthews !!!

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Let's see. Obama brings his wife and kids on the stage. Is that "Kindergarten Pimping" !!!

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

I know tis group will have convulsions when I ask them to go look at the point-by-point of misogynistic statements on MSNBC over the past weeks.

The BOTTOM LINE, is that almost EXACTLY HALF of those who voted in the Super Tuesday primaries were for Clinton, half for Obama. It would seem that the media would realize that their attempt to do to Clinton what the stepford-like followers of Rush, et al have tried to do to McCain has failed.

Be SMART America. STOP looking at the garbage and start looking at the POLICIES AND PROGRAMS of ALL the candidates. This is NOT "Access Hollywood". This country is in real trouble, and I do not doubt that when the Democrats win, that the recession, the housing crisis and the war will be placed SQUARELY on their shoulders, as if Bush, and the media's enabling of him never existed.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 9, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

What passes for news coverage and political commentary in this country is beginning to look like the contents of a clogged up toilet.

This is in reference to the so called political commentator SHUSTER which could be spelled slightly different by exchanging us with an i. His comments about Chelsea were uncalled for and completely out of line.

You should return to the news world if YOUR OWNERS would let you.

I don't care who it is or what party affiliation the person is talking about, THIS character "SHUSTER" is out of line. If Harry Truman was around he would knock him on his keester. Such out and out political blow hard needs to fired and black listed. If he has a daughter, which I rather doubt, he would be not very happy if someone said anything about her and to do it on national TV would have been the last straw.

FIRE HIM!
Bob O'Donnell CWO USN(RETIRED and VIET NAM VET)

Posted by: trailb | February 9, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

What passes for news coverage and political commentary in this country is beginning to look like the contents of a clogged up toilet.

This is in reference to the so called political commentator SHUSTER which could be spelled slightly different by exchanging us with an i. His comments about Chelsea were uncalled for and completely out of line.

You should return to the news world if YOUR OWNERS would let you.

I don't care who it is or what party affiliation the person is talking about, THIS character "SHUSTER" is out of line. If Harry Truman was around he would knock him on his keester. Such out and out political blow hard needs to fired and black listed. If he has a daughter, which I rather doubt, he would be not very happy if someone said anything about her and to do it on national TV would have been the last straw.

FIRE HIM!
Bob O'Donnell CWO USN(RETIRED and VIET NAM VET)

Posted by: trailb | February 9, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

I do think the comment was inappropriate. He was right to apologize. Perhaps a suspension is called for as well.

However I am a bit shocked that so many people get upset about this sort of thing that seem to have forgotten that Bill Clinton seduced Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern in the White House. I am sure her parents were disgusted and upset. Their daughter was humiliated and I don't recall an apology by the Bill Clinton at the time to either her or her parents.


The comment towards Chelsea was wrong, but seemed accidental. Perhaps the Clintons could show some compassion for David Shuster as opposed to just moral indignation.

Posted by: maxmcgloin | February 9, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

My my, having a female and a black as our two top Democratic candidates is certainly an eye-opening experience so far, isn't it? Clinton and Obama's candidacies are pulling back the curtain on our culture. Do we like see, people? Our excellent female candidate is getting smeared left and right! Our excellent black candidate is next! This is not gonna be pretty...

Posted by: mgurbada909 | February 9, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

The pimps at NBC would not dare to ask Obama about his drug usage but try to insult Chelsea. The Clintons should boycott NBC till Tim Russert apologizes on his show for his sidekicks behaviour.

It is a sad day that the most balanced commentator on MSNBC is Pat Buchanon !!!

Posted by: vs_sv | February 9, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

David Shuster's vulgar tasteless remarks directed at the Clintons and their daughter might result in his termination from MSNBC. It will however make him a coveted prize recruit for the FOX News Network.

Posted by: mrogi | February 9, 2008 6:14 AM | Report abuse

can't believe how right on these comments
are! Matthews and his posse make me want
to puke the way they trash those who they
dislike...this is not journalism. Yes
Abrams and Buchannan seem to have a fair
and balanced approach to the Clintons..
who would have thunk it?

Posted by: asteppe | February 9, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

And yes, Chelsea Clinton has every right to campaign for her mother -- this is an outrageous criticism. The obama-bots overstep their bounds, again, and again, and again --

Oh that's right -- he's above "old politics" -- just like his wonderful "supporters."

Posted by: eeave | February 9, 2008 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Oh please, Chris Matthews is a loud-mouth, coarsened human being, who has used the Clintons for years to make a name for himself. Why do you think he pounds others? Because it sells ... His attitude toward women should be a reason for him to lose that job. He should go back to a smaller audience, and not suffocate us with his hot-air bluster.

Posted by: eeave | February 9, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

I didn't hear anyone saying that Bush's daughters were being pimped out when they worked on their dad's campaign.

The unfairness against the Clintons is disturbing and unbelievable.

Are David Shuster and Chris Matthews so afraid of Senator Clinton that they have to stoop to this kind of stupidity? This hatred of all things Clinton needs to stop.

Posted by: fishsanwitt | February 9, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

I didn't hear anyone saying that Bush's daughters were being pimped out when they worked on their dad's campaign.

The unfairness against the Clintons is disturbing and unbelievable.

Are David Shuster and Chris Matthews so afraid of Senator Clinton that they have to stoop to this kind of stupidity? This hatred of all things Clinton needs to stop.

Posted by: fishsanwitt | February 9, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

So, I guess Michelle Obama is being pimped out by the Obama campaign to soldify the black vote.
Obama grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and never had much interaction with black people. Michelle on the other hand grew up in Chicago and has real connections with the black community.
So, maybe MSNBC should do a report on how Michelle is being pimped out for a gangbang by the how black community.
This bias is ridiculous. If reporters support one candidate thats cool, but leave that at home. Seriously.

Posted by: Divante1 | February 9, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

So, I guess Michelle Obama is being pimped out by the Obama campaign to soldify the black vote.
Obama grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and never had much interaction with black people. Michelle on the other hand grew up in Chicago and has real connections with the black community.
So, maybe MSNBC should do a report on how Michelle is being pimped out for a gangbang by the how black community.
This bias is ridiculous. If reporters support one candidate thats cool, but leave that at home. Seriously.

Posted by: Divante1 | February 9, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Chris Mathews, a democrat has built a great reputation as a journalist. He pointed out the TRUTH: l. Monica Lewinsky's affair with Clinton in the White House is a FACT. How can anyone accuse Chris Mathews for recalling a historical fact? Now, the question has arisen, what Bill Clinton will do in the Hillary White House? May be he should head the Internes Unit, White House!

Posted by: vpwaren | February 9, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

With the amount of vitriol spewn here, I had to think long and hard about jumping into the fray. I am encouraged by the fact that there have been some reasoned posts as well, and thus I tepidly enter the water.

As a teacher, one of the things I have students explore is the "denotation" and the "connotation" of words. Denotation refers to the literal dictionary definition. Connotation refers to the implicit meaning given to a word in vernacular context.

I was under the impression that the definition of the word "pimp" was sexual in nature. I did find the comment offensive when I first read it. As I looked in Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary, however, I was very surprised to find that as a noun, the word means a "procurer" or "pander(er)", and as a verb, it means "to act the pimp", i.e. to procure or to pander. Nothing at all was said about sex, which absolutely shocked me. So this is an example of a word that was used in my own youth and middle aged years almost strictly in a sexual connotation, even though the strict denotation is not related to sex. Although I was shocked by the comment, I now have to ask myself if perhaps the younger generation is actually returning to a connotation that matches the denotation. While the word "prostitute" is sexual in its denotation, we understand the metaphor when we say that a politician has prostituted himself to lobbyists and special interest groups. Most would acknowledge that as an analogy of "cheaply selling out", without actually implying that the politician in question had done something sexual.

Context and the setting in history are also very important in word usage. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. continually used the word "Negro" in his speeches. Can you imagine the fallout if anyone referred to Obama with that word today? The history of the way in which a word has been used has much to do with the way it is taken today. "Nigra" is a Latin word which simply translates as "black". I can't make italic text here so I will use quotation marks: "Pinus nigra" is the scientific name for a tree whose common name is "black pine". Spanish is a Romance language (descended from Latin, the language of the Romans), thus, in a Mexican restaurant, one who orders "frijoles negros" is ordering "black beans". In these two contexts, there is nothing racial whatsoever. I grew up in the last throes of the Jim Crow south. Some of my aged relatives used the word "negro"; some tried to be even more true to the Latin in using the term "niggra". Both of these terms devolved into the despicable slur that those of us who consider ourselves civilized will only refer to as "the N word". I must say that the majority of Caucasians in whose midst I grew up in the '50s and 60's loved using this pejorative term. A word that in its Latin origin simply meant "black", was mutated and given a connotation that is absolutely nauseating. Thus today, I will only use the word "negro" when it is encountered in a MLK speech or a story about Jackie Robinson beginning his career in the Negro leagues, etc., and even then only to explain that in that day and time, African Americans used that term with a sense of pride. I go on to say that because it is the root for the pejorative "N word", African Americans today do not find the word acceptable, and thus I will not tolerate the use of the word outside of its historical context. Use of the word to another on the playground results in a trip to the principal.

Even many words we consider inappropriate are found in the Christian bible: damnation, hell, harlot, etc. et. al, but it is the use of these words outside their religious intention that religious persons find offensive, not their use within that context.

During my childhood, to say that someone "sucks", was to say that the person was a homosexual. There was only one vernacular connotation, and it was clearly derogatory in a sexual manner. As I entered young adulthood, some people began using this term as a metaphor to say that something or someone was worthy of condemnation. The comparison to homosexuality was overtly obvious and the usage had a clear intent to invoke shock value. For the younger generation today, the metaphor has faded to an idiom. Young people know that there is some kind of negative connotation, but they do not know the original metaphorical comparison between male fellatio and the thing/person with which/whom it is being compared. Personally I still cringe every time I hear someone say that something or someone "sucks", but I realize that many young people have no historical understanding of the word. A hundred years ago, "queer" meant "strange", nothing else. When I was young, "queer" meant homosexual, yet "gay" simply meant "happy" or was a surname, nothing else. Consider walking up to a person who seems happy today and saying, "Wow, you really are gay tonight!" It is an understatement to say that would not be taken the same way it would have been 40 years ago.

I would posit that most people today understand that "pimp" has at least one sexual connotation. While most of my generation have used it solely to refer to one who makes appointments for prostitutes, I suppose that the younger generation today may be using it as what we teach children to refer to as "multiple meaning words". Obviously, many young people are now using it according to that definition I found in Webster: "to pander".

Still, this transition in meaning is not as far along as the term "sucks". So, I have to ask myself whether this young commentator used the word innocently to mean "pander", or clearly as a metaphor to slander the Clinton's for "prostituting out" their daughter? Or did he use it knowing that two generations of Americans would interpret it differently? Did he use it with the intent of being witty and edgy, calling out the differences between Obama's new generation and Hillary's old one? (For the record, I see great strengths in each as well as weaknesses in each.) I have my theory on which is correct, but I do not know with certainty. I will however, contrast this situation with one from six years ago and let readers draw their own conclusions.

A hundred years ago, as the U.S. and California in particular were attempting to enforce the Chinese exclusion act, the term "Chinaman" had become a particularly ugly slur. After about a year into his appointment as Secretary of State, Colin Powell used the term "Chinaman" as what he thought was a synonym for "a person of Chinese ethnicity or nationality". It was an honest mistake and he was shocked at the immediate and bitter reaction from the Chinese American community; he did not understand the reaction. After having a couple of days to learn the history of the word and all the context of its meaning, Powell made a statement explaining what he had thought the word meant, what he now understood that it meant, and a sincere apology to those who were offended.

So let us assume that Mr. Shuster was naive as to my generation's understanding of "pimp". Regardless of whether he thought of the word as a multiple meaning word, or only in its literal denotation, let us further assume that he used the word simply to mean "pander". Surely by now, he is well aware of the meaning my generation gives to the word. Thus understanding how much of his audience has interpreted the term, would not an honorable person come forth and do as Powell did, to clear the air and explain exactly what he meant? Or does Mr. Shuster prefer to keep the ambiguity alive? If he did as Powell, the controversy would begin to subside. Perhaps he does not desire that it subside. Mayhaps he knew the double entendre all along and the controversy now afoot is what he intended from the outset.

Posted by: tharriso | February 9, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has always been very protective of her daughter. Remember when "Saturday Night Live" went after Chelea Clinton early in her husband's first term? She got on a plane and flew to New York, and no network ever did something like that again.

Good for Hillary Clinton. This is a woman who sticks up for her family, no matter what. I admire her.

Posted by: MagicDog | February 9, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

scoates8,

You're completely full of it. Race card my arse. Obama IS THE RACE CARD BEING PLAYED. That is obvious to anyone but the utterly uninitiated.

Further, I don't believe you support Obama at all.

I think most of these Obama supporters are rightwingers out to destroy the true Democratic candidates.

Go back to freerepublic.com. No one is fooled by your type.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

hmmm? There goes the race card again. This is exactly what Obama is talking about. You see it really is time for a change. I think some of us are afraid of change.

Posted by: scoates8 | February 9, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

OK, I thought I was talking with rational people, but now I see that ezboy & the like are just escaped freepers on the prowl. I don't waste my time debating with freepers.

Done.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

No one is being fooled by what is going on with Obama--he's a shill or a lamb being prepared for slaughter, but he's not a real "hope" for Democrats, that's for sure.

He's not a hope for change. The only change he is going to be doing is changing his Democrat uniform in for his conciliatory one of selling out to Republicans, should, god forbid, he be elected. It's a disaster waiting to happen, a perfect storm. And, because he's black, no one can say anything about it.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

ezyboy, go back to your true blogging home at freerepublic.com.

I hope that all the Democrats can see what's in play here. Rightwingers posing as supporters of (and probably voting for)Obama in the primaries, only to have him destroyed later. It's a complete set-up and the real reason Obama is getting his kids-glove treatment in the media.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

I see the rightwing shills are out in "support" of Obama. His candidacy is benefiting from rightwingers quite a bit. What I wonder is whether he himself is one as well. After all, his defense of the nuclear bill in Illinois was a perfect sell-out. His voting for the Dick Cheney energy bill was a perfect sell-out. I believe this guy is probably a rightwing shill in disguise.

I think he is being used and therefore that many Democrats are also being used--to prevent a real change from taking place.

The rightwing shills are out bandying about the same exact rhetoric aimed at the Clintons from the 90s. They are now simply in Obama uniforms.

Sick puppies, these rightwingers. I hope the Democrats can see through this obvious campaign to smear the real change agent in this race so that a fake can be proferred and either destroyed in the general election, or used as a shill of "unity" later.

We know what happened with the most recent "Uniter-not-a-divider."

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

David Shusters choice of language was unpleasant and offensive.

That said, David muffed (no pun intended) his chance to describe what my circle has been noting as "Selling Chelsea" for some time now. Since the unfortunate Tableau of Elder Satesmen/women Hillary was presented with at rallies with up to New Hampshire (Albright, et al) it is clear that the Clinton camp has taken more care to show younger faces in the backdrop of these events and other media due to concerns Obama was leading the youth vote. The cloistered Miss Clinton suddenly emerged from the wings to the reviewing stand, a physical and tangible (if silent) talisman, as if to say, "Here is my link to you, young voters". Suddenly she's all over, smiling and waving her support, out of the phone banks and on the stump. Pimped out is an ugly way to describe it, but selling is selling.

Posted by: jspady | February 9, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

scoates8 - you hit the nail on the head. I amazed that the Clintons think that they deserve to return to the White House. Our job is to make sure we use our votes to prevent that from happening for the sake our country, our children and our families. I wish the Clintons a happy retirement outside public office.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Did the rightwingers force Bill to lie under oath? Did they force Bill to have an affiar with an intern? Did they force Bill and Hillary to collect cash from Marc Rich, in order to pardon him? Why can''t the Clintons release the list of names of donors to the Clinton Library Fund, so we know how many dictators and felons are on the list?

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm confused, Shuster made the comment, but somehow Obama is interjected in to differences with the Clinton's and MSNBC.
Oh! wait a minute (fairytale campaign) (the Lyndon Johnson civil rights act)(I didnt inhail)(I didnt have sex with that woman)(filegate)(whitewater)(3 strikes)(mysterious suicide of best friend after failed health care plan)(Obama has not done enough spade work) shall I continue?
Is this the family that you want to represent America? Is there noone who can question the actions of this family? Oh great one, please help us see the light!

Posted by: scoates8 | February 9, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I am not trying to damage the Clintons. The Clintons have already done that themselves. The Clintons are already damaged

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

ezboy03,

That 'rap sheet' is the construction of rightwingers. I believe that you are most likely a rightwing shill posing as an Obama supporter. In fact, I believe there are many just like you out here in the blogosphere. That Obama has so many "independents" and Republicans supporting him is evidence that something is amiss. That he has shills posing as supporters and using the same rightwing propaganda recycled is further evidence that something is amiss. Meanwhile, all the Obama dirt likes unturned... for now!

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Note to the Hip, Young and Clueless:

"Pimp My Ride" refers to big flashy tasteless cars that =pimps= drive to make an impression. The analogy doesn't denigrate anybody but pimps.

"Pimp her out" refers directly to arranging for the prostitution of a woman.

There's a difference. Shuster knows it, and he was using the second analogy in the most specific fashion possible--inferring the exploitation of a young woman for the profit of a pimp.

He refused to back down from the comment.

Keith Olbermann made an on-air apology on his behalf, using the words 'appalled,' 'furious' and 'dreadfully sorry.' As usual, Keith's got a clue. Check the video "A Comment About the Chelsea Comment," on his MSNBC site.

Posted by: junksjunk | February 9, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Shuster seems to have grown up watching David Letterman and his audience of puerile losers get a big kick out of Letterman's sexist jokes about "the Times Square hookers." There is nothing funny about prostitution and there is nothing to admire about the fact that creeps earn their pimp cred by hurting women. Those who try to trivialize this Shuster incident tell us more about themselves as Shuster did than they think. As for the P.C. police, that is what women have to deal with every day from men who, as John Stuart Mill said, "are not yet ready to live with an equal."

Posted by: Amanita1 | February 9, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

i am not an Obama fan and I do not think he is perfect at all, far from it. I personally feel he should sell his home and everything he has that is connected to rezko. But when I look at the long rap sheet of the Clintons, I would either vote for McCain or Obama, or sit at home. There is no way I can with good conscience vote for the Clintons again, knowing what I know. Our country deserves better

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Shuster seems to have grown up watching David Letterman and his audience of puerile losers get a big kick out of Letterman's sexist jokes about "the Times Square hookers." There is nothing funny about prostitution and there is nothing to admire about the fact that creeps earn their pimp cred by hurting women. Those who try to trivialize this Shuster incident tell us more about themselves as Shuster did than they think. As for the P.C. police, that is what women have to deal with every day from men who, as John Stuart Mill said, "are not yet ready to live with an equal."

Posted by: Amanita1 | February 9, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

ezboy, I believe you are a rightwing shill posing as an Obama supporter. In fact, Obama's support from "independents" and Republicans is suspect, esp. in light of the recycled rightwing propaganda that his supposed supporters are spewing all over the web. I find that most of these supposed supporters are actually about destroying Clinton more than they are about electing Obama. Meanwhile, all the dirt on Obama remains unturned... for now.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

The media has totally been anti-Clinton. That's the truth. What's unfortunate is that, with Hillary eliminated, the Democratic party is left with somebody without a record to talk about. Voting "present" does not constitute a record, a speech in 2002 is not a vote, and eloquence alone would not run the government.

I respectfully submit that people should look at the policies and ask themselves whether they would rather have an untested person run the country. Experience is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing. If the race boils down to McCain vs. Obama, then McCain is the definite choice. Better the devil that you know...

Posted by: CPCook | February 9, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama left the paper trails and obvious connection of his quid pro quo deals with Rezko open for public inspection. Sure, he gave Rezko's donations to charity. But he hasn't sold his home or even answered questions clearly about the 300,000 discount he received on his house, or the strange "coincidence" of Rezko's wife buying the adjacent lot supposed to be part of the original sale of the house, a piece of which was later sold to Obama by Rezko's wife. This is an OBVIOUS and CLEAR quid quo pro situation and Obama has not received a single minute of televised criticism for it. Amazing! What is this guy, the messiah?

My argument is that this is all being with-held, FOR NOW.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

google "Clinton Convicts", and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons. Again, I am a great fan of Bill Clinton, but anyone with this kind of rap sheet should not be near the seat of power. Again you may disagree, but that's my belief and that's why I am voting to reject the Clintons.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Prove that. Where is the Rezko story and why hasn't 20/20 done a story on it?

I don't believe a word this scumbag says about a quid pro quo. He has absolutely nothing in writing. But Obama wrote 14 letters recommending Rezko developments in Chicago, all for projects that ended in bankruptcies and abandoned projects in the slums.

Nary a word on it.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Hillary had nothing to do with the Marc Rich pardon, give me a break. she was part and parcel of it. That's part of her "35 years" of public service.

Here is latest Clinton scandal brewing on ABC 20/20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s

As i said I voted for Bill twice, I love Bill, but I believe it is time to turn the page. Our country deserves better and I do not believe Bill or Hillary deserves to spend another night in the White House. You may disagree and I respect your position.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

"Obama has condemned the comments, it is time to move on."

Please provide a quote wherein Obama himself condemned the comments. I don't think you're right. His campaign manager condemned the comments, not Obama himself. There's a big difference. Obama needs to have stepped up much earlier in condemning the sexist remarks aimed at his opponent. His silence has been complicity.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

lemoyneb:

Are you paying attention? We are not talking about an isolated incident at MSNBC. We are talking about a well-documented tendency, a trend, a proclivity, for sexist language and bashing, directly primarily at Hillary Clinton.

This is unacceptable. Perhaps this fellow Shuster is just being singled out as an example. However, Chris Matthews was already recently admonished and apologized on-air for it. Nevertheless, he and others continued.

MSNBC talk show hosts seem unable to help themselves. Misogyny is in the air there. They cannot resist it, esp. in connection with Hillary Clinton and family.

Were Obama similarly the object of such language, the whole nation would be in an uproar making the Imus scandal a petit mal by comparison. Try again.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

I am not diminishing it, and I again repeat that those comments are over the line and inappropriate. But the guy that made the comments have been suspended. Obama has condemned the comments, it is time to move on. When Bob Johnson came on the stage in South Carolina to introduce Mrs. Clinton at a campaign rally, he chatised Obama, and also talked about Obama's drug use as a teenager, Mrs. Clinton came on stage shortly afterwards, and did not condemn Bob Johnson's inappropriate comments. For several days, Mrs Clinton maintained that she did not see anything wrong with the Bob Johnson's comments. Hillary finally said the comments were inappropriate at their next debate after the public uproar that followed Johnson's comments. So let's be fair, Obama has condemned the comments, it is time to move on. Flogging this issue is not going to get Hillary more votes, it is time to on. Both Shuster comments and Bob Johnson's comments have no place in the public domain, and we should all vigorously reject these kind of comments in the strongest possible terms.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Have you ever used poor judgement? Think you should be fired for it? We have become a hateful, judgemental people that want to see the other guy go down. Let's get him. After all, I would never do anything stupid---nor would anyone in my family. He screwed up, but hmm, listen to Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? Now there is real hatred.

Posted by: lemoyneb | February 9, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Racism vs Sexism: The good and the bad about this election is that we can openly talk about these two painful inequalities, but that somehow because we choose Barak over Hillary, we are comfortable standing up against racism but sexism takes a back seat.
There is no way we should not be outraged that a taletened young lady who's name happens to end in Clinton, should be treated in the media this way under any circumstances!!
Why is it that Mitt's 4 sons can travel across the nation advocating his dad, and not a word get's said, except maybe an "Ah isn't that nice". On the other hand we have to listen to the media mention crying every other segment in reference to Hillary not Mitt.
There are 2 inequalities prevelent here and we can not let the media feel good about champion one while trouncing all over the other one.

Posted by: proud_american2 | February 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

I won't rehash these refuted Clinton "scandals." Many others have done a good job at this already.

But, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with either the national archives release nor the Marc Rich pardon. However, Obama did as recently as 2005 receive a quid pro quo from an indicted political fixer named Rezko, in the form of a lower price on his house and the purchase of a piece of adjacent property from Rezko's wife. Nothing has been aired about this very real potential scandal directly involving Obama himself.

Obmama is no Mr. Clean, that's for sure.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Obama has condemned these comments himself, or has his campaign handlers done so? There is a vast difference. Were Obama himself to condemn these comments, his condemnation would receive very wide distribution. However, his handler's condemnation will draw no such attention.

If Obama had been insulted racially, Hillary herself would condemn the language. Obama has sat back and watched Hillary bashed by sexists for months. He's been silent.

This is not about bashing Obama. This is about a double standard that has to cease.

And, sexism affects over half of the people in the world. Likewise, it is a tornado ripping through people's lives. Don't diminish it.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton Scandals are real. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and I still like him, but my love for my country trumps my loyalty to any party, cause or person. The Clinton scandals are not manufactured by the right wing, they are true.

I saw Bill Clinton lie on TV, I saw it, I was not told. I saw evidence that Bill collected money from Marc Rich (a felon) for his Library fund, and then granted Rich an executive pardon. Ex-prez Carter called Clinton's actions reprehensible, that is the bitter truth. This has nothing to the National review, right wing conspiracy, or anything like that. Up till today, the Clintons have refused to release the names of the donors to the Clinton library fund and Hillary' WH papers. That is the problem some of us have with the Clintons.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Let's be fair Obama has already condemned the comments. Please do not turn this issue into a national tragedy. A tornado affected TN and a few other southern states last Tuesday. There are other serious issues facing this country. Shuster has been suspended for his over the line, inappropriate comments, we should not allow his irresponsible comments like this to cloud other important news going on in the country now. I think we need to move on. Obama bashing or McCain bashing is not going to get anyone more votes, rather it would only make your candidate look desperate.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Most of the "Clinton scandals" if not all were manufactured by Richard Scaife's slime-rags, such at the National Review, aimed at destroying Clinton. People on the "left" buying into the scandal-mongering of the Clintons should see the documentary, "The Hunting of a President," before buying into the rightwing manufactured and packaged b.s. regarding the Clintons. Remember, these people had a lot to lose from a Clinton presidency--namely, the tax breaks that they later got from GW Bush.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

We have had male presidents long enough in this country. They have yet to impress me on their abilities to do anything right. Maybe it is time we have a woman. After all they are true nutures of our children. The ultimate shame on all of us is we allow idiots like these gentlemen who are supposed to report the truth instead of their opinions and feelings injected into or made part of the news. I was almost swayed over to the Obama side of the house but will not do so amymore. Those of you who cannot see the ugliness in such comments either you aren't married, have no daughters, hate your spouses, your parents didn't teach you any manners or dicency, male pigs who are uncomfortable with women and their brains on many issues, or just plain stpid and have no respect for your mothers, sisters, and daughters.

Even with the shoe on the other foot it is not a comment fitting of your father or brother. We take things too lightly in this country. It is the same reason many us end up voting and electing idiots to the highest office in this country. We put those who run this country on the pedastal first, we complain about them, we make their lives miserable and allow those who should be held to the same standard get away with such comments.

What these gentlmen and many others have shown here is it takes a bigger ...... to know a smaller one. All they have shown is they are smaller than they think they really are. Shame on all of you who would agree or even allow such dispicable actions and situations. I hope when some one say something like this of your loved one you have the guts to remember how you disgraced another, regardless of the circumstances. Where I was brought up and raised I would have been over at your house to call on you. Simply put, you, all of you who work in the environment where you serve the public ought to be fired immediately for unprofessionalism and lack of sensitivity. You have no business in such positions of responsibility. Shame, shame, on all of you. Look at yourself in the mirror and and see if you see the picture of the woman who gave you life looking back at you.

Posted by: ams_tuia | February 9, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Davestickler wrote: "At the same time, it's important to remember that the comments were made by a newsman, not by Obama or his campaign. Just as it wouldn't be fair to hold it against Hillary if a newsperson made a racist remark about Obama, it isn't fair to hold this against Obama. I recognize that this is unsatisfying, but it's also only fair."

Dave, had Obama been racially insulted, Hillary herself would rise to the occasion and condemn the abuse directly. Yet, nothing of the sort has happened in the national media even ONCE.

On the other hand, Hillary has been the object of continual, constant misogynist trash-talking, and Obama hasn't raised an objection himself even ONCE. This makes Obama complicit in the media's sexist treatment, just as the silence on Hillary's part under the reversed circumstances would amount to her complicity.

That's the double standard that Obama has enjoyed. He would do himself a great service were he to condemn all the sexist remarks aimed at his primary opposition. But my guess is that he won't.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 9, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

to InspectorOh~

It is not true that Chelsea Clinton "blew off a 9-year old writer from Scholastic magazine". In fact, Ms Clinton apologized to the girl and explained that she was not giving interviews to anyone. She did ask the young student if she wanted to have a photo taken together. The young girl was "elated" and accepted the invitation. I saw some coverage of this on the teevee -most likely on MSNBC, BEFORE it commenced its full-fledged assault on Hillary and everything else Clinton - now including Chelsea.

Posted by: lwalsh1201 | February 9, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton scandals of the 90s damaged President and Mrs. Clinton. The Media did not damage Mrs. Clinton. To be honest with you, I do not think Obama is getting a free ride, I have read a lot about his problem with rezko, his present votes etc, so I do not agree with you that he is getting a free ride.

To some of us Clintons = Scandals. I can list a few for you: Marc Rich Money for Pardon Scandal, Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal, Travelgate, Lying under oath(felon?), law license suspended for unethical behavior. That is the problem some of us have with the Clintons, this has nothing to do with the press or Obama. The Clintons have refused to release the names of the donors to the Clinton Library Fund and Hillary's White House papers. That's why i am not supporting Hillary's candidacy, nothing to do with the press.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 9, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Unless Howard Wolfson is Hillary in drag, Bill in disguise, or Chelsea wearing a Halloween costume, his behavior triggering this episode has no bearing on the Clintons' sensitivity/insensitivity. The guy's job is to defend Hillary and keep her name in the news. He's not paid to stay off the toes of you Clinton-haters but to stomp them.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 9, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Shuster's comments were inappropriate and out of line, and MSNBC made the right decision in suspending him. Furthermore, I agree that our society tends to look the other way when we see sexism.

I understand that the feelings this incident elicits certainly make it easier to vote for Hillary and harder to vote for Obama, because good people have an instinct to right wrongs.

At the same time, it's important to remember that the comments were made by a newsman, not by Obama or his campaign. Just as it wouldn't be fair to hold it against Hillary if a newsperson made a racist remark about Obama, it isn't fair to hold this against Obama. I recognize that this is unsatisfying, but it's also only fair.

Posted by: davestickler | February 9, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

It was only a matter of time before MSNBC became a horrid parody of itself, as Olbermann might say, "the worstest political commentators in the world ...".

Just listen to a little MSNBC "political analysis." There's the uber-glib Chris Matthews referring to Senator Hillary Clinton: "Mr. Clinton & his wife," or "The Clintons" or "Billary" etc. etc. Or just derisive laughter about Hillary. Follow that with a dollop of commentary by that deepest of know-nothings Pat Buchanan. Has anyone read his book? Why is this man given a prime spot on TV? How course and crude and empty can we get?

Posted by: erickoe | February 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

People in public life - especially those in the media - should be setting higher standards of conduct. MSNBC did the right thing by suspending Shuster and issuing an apology. Other networks should follow their example. Many Americans - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - are simply fed up with the constant barrage of trash.

Posted by: keith_in_seattle | February 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Something is seriously wrong at MSNBC. I sent this letter to Steve Capus several weeks ago, after the Matthews' commentary had reached a "climax" (that is, I believe that he receives what amounts to sexual gratification from it):

From: Rectenwald, Michael
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 7:55 PM
To: phil.griffin@nbc.com; steve.capus@nbc.com; letters@msnbc.com;
hardball@msnbc.com
Subject: From a guest and viewer: Chris Matthews's Obsessive Clinton Dementia

Dear MSNBC,

I have been viewer and a guest of your network for several years. I appeared numerous times on "Scarborough Country" before Joe moved to the "Morning Joe" show. I appeared, infamously, on Tucker, regarding the David Vitter mini-scandal.

Over the past months, I have been horrified at the treatment of Hillary Clinton by Chris Matthews. I find Chris Matthews to be nearly obsessed, in a sick way, with Hillary Clinton. This obsessiveness has not only been misogynist, it has also been downright insane.

Chris Matthews has a special, heavyweight hankering for Hillary hate. His animus appears to be especially personal, as if she's somehow slighted him, or refused him a date. He misses no opportunity to scorn her smile, ridicule her delivery, or sneer at the color of her dress. He spares nary a minute bolstering any opponent she might have, be he Obama, Edwards or even a Republican. He's like the DC sniper, lying in wait, always on the hunt for Hillary. His guests try to change the subject, embarrassed for his custom-fetishized caviling.

Matthews even appears to be embarrassed about his own behavior on occasion. His recent apology bears some witness to this. However, the singular case of ascribing her success to Bill Clinton's "messing around" is just the tip of the iceberg. His vitriol is much more widespread and deep.

As a Democrat and a liberal activist, I find it impossible to watch "Hardball" any longer. Matthews is unrepentant, despite his recent apology. I believe he will continue to bash Clinton irrationally for as long as he is on the air. I also think his misogyny will continue unabated after a while.

I urge you to remember the lesson of Imus, and do something before this recidivist misogynist makes an irrecoverable mistake.

Sincerely,

Michael D Rectenwald

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Yet, Chris Matthews who offends women daily is still employed. Wow, I sure don't get NBC's standards.

Posted by: mhitchons | February 8, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, dpchen888

Cheers,
Michael.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

James,

In fact, it was Hillary who was being likened to a "pimp," and thus Chelsea to a "prostitute." That's the analogy that Shuster set up, and the reason that he should be fired immediately. Please, like-minded people, please go to this page and click on the email addresses to send your emails to MSNBC brass to stop the misogyny!

http://www.legitgov.org/rectenwald_msnbc_on_matthews.html

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Funny, if the Clinton campaign did not threaten to pull out of the debates MSNBC would not have suspended Shuster. Why the networks always have to be pressured to do what is right?

Posted by: robnon | February 8, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

I say fire Phil Griffin, NBC news executive. The sexist comments from Imus, Matthews and Schuster demonstrate extremely poor leadership from a national news organization.

Posted by: greensea | February 8, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

mrectenwald,

Not bad! I particularly enjoyed the line "let them go home to beat their wives in private."

I am an under 30-something Clinton supporter who is fed up with the abuse that she is subjected to.

If you cannot understand why Shuster's comment is offensive, then you are misogynist, except you just don't know it.

Posted by: dc210 | February 8, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

How many other children have campaigned for their parent? I wonder how Reagan would respond to such a reference to his daughter Maureen regarding her contributions during his bid for the presidency in 1980 and his reelection campaign in 1984! And what of the contributions of the current Bush's daughters to his recent presidential campaigns? Did anyone refer to them as pimps? How would Romney respond to his sons being called pimps? I suspect I could go on with similar references for every person who ran for public office in this country! Anyone who supports this kind of kindergarten name calling is evincing the level of decadence to which this country's "democratic process" has fallen. Where is substantive debate on the major pressing issues this country faces in 2008? Obfuscated by such dribble, I presume! I encourage Ms. Clinton to boycott the upcoming MSNBC debate.

James Hewett
West Hartford, CT

Posted by: freeradical3 | February 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

msnbc has a show called Sex Slaves in America, which it repeats often, and in prime time, after the political commentary. The show description says millions of women are bought/sold around the world. I am sick of reading this on my guide on my tv, sick of the use of women as a slave in the title. Kids and young people see this displayed week after week on msnbc, even if they don't watch it, this title and description keeps popping up. Why is this show on? Why does msnbc keep using this degrading subject as repeat entertainment after political shows???? Don't say the show is an expose documentary for the education of the public about a social problem, and thus insult my intelligence on the purpose of this show. My disgust is vast.

Posted by: ellen1 | February 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

msnbc has a show called Sex Slaves in America, which it repeats often, and in prime time, after the political commentary. The show description says millions of women are bought/sold around the world. I am sick of reading this on my guide on my tv, sick of the use of women as a slave in the title. Kids and young people see this displayed week after week on msnbc, even if they don't watch it, this title and description keeps popping up. Why is this show on? Why does msnbc keep using this degrading subject as repeat entertainment after political shows???? Don't say the show is an expose documentary for the education of the public about a social problem, and thus insult my intelligence on the purpose of this show. My disgust is vast.

Posted by: ellen1 | February 8, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

msnbc has a show called Sex Slaves in America, which it repeats often, and in prime time, after the political commentary. The show description says millions of women are bought/sold around the world. I am sick of reading this on my guide on my tv, sick of the use of women as a slave in the title. Kids and young people see this displayed week after week on msnbc, even if they don't watch it, this title and description keeps popping up. Why is this show on? Why does msnbc keep using this degrading subject as repeat entertainment after political shows???? Don't say the show is an expose documentary for the education of the public about a social problem, and thus insult my intelligence on the purpose of this show. My disgust is vast.

Posted by: ellen1 | February 8, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton scandals of the 90s damaged President and Mrs. Clinton. The Media did not damage Mrs. Clinton. To be honest with you, I do not think Obama is getting a free ride, I have read a lot about his problem with rezko, his present votes etc, so I do not agree with you that he is getting a free ride.

To some of us Clintons = Scandals. I can list a few for you: Marc Rich Money for Pardon Scandal, Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal, Travelgate, Lying under oath(felon?), law license suspended for unethical behavior. That is the problem some of us have with the Clintons, this has nothing to do with the press or Obama. The Clintons have refused to release the names of the donors to the Clinton Library Fund and Hillary's White House papers. That's why i am not supporting Hillary's candidacy, nothing to do with the press.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 8, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

NBC should FIRE that pig-headed, attention grabbing Shuster. Everyone seems to say these offensive things and either pass it off as a joke or say they have been misquoted. Such fools.

Posted by: robnon | February 8, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Were you born this stupid or did you pick it up like a communicable disease? Dear god, what a moronic post.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 8, 2008 05:33 PM


Bill Clinton did someone's daughter in the Oval Office, a girl younger than Chelsea and they get mad that someone commented that they pimped their daughter. The Clintons don't care about someone elses daughter but just say something about their daughter and all hell breaks loose.
Bill and Hillary are total hypocrites.

Posted by: info4 | February 8, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

First off, let me state outright that I am in NO way a Hillary Clinton supporter. In fact, I will never vote for her under ANY circumstance. I am a proud independent who is praying for an Obama/Richardson ticket at this point.

With that said: this was a completely stupid and indefensible remark. Shuster is a sniveling little nebbish who speaks like he's the past victim of a nerve gas attack, and I literally have to mute the sound every time he is on. Not only are his mannerisms and voice completely irritating, but he has a big mouth and a pompous attitude to boot. If this whiny little chump is the left wing's idea of a great media spokesman, then its no wonder they cant create their own version of Fox News.

But MSNBC is full of them, with Chris Matthews being almost as unwatchable as Shuster, with his shifty eyed leering conman smirk of self satisfaction, as if he really thinks that he is unbearably adorable. MSNBC needs to clean house and start over, the experiment failed. We turn to new channels for the NEWS, not to watch some self-adoring chump like Matthews (and the EXTREMELY overrated Olbermann) mug for the camera and pretend he's our media hero.

Or almost just as bad, effete mousey vapid shallow little WASP mannequins like Contessa Brewer, Alex Witt, or that candy colored clown they call "Heidi" on CNN and their breathy phony "thankSOmuch" to everyone from the weathergirl to the paid "analysts" who seem to live in their greenroom, gushing over one and all as if theyd just rescued their baby from a housefire. These women need to be selling jewelry on QVC or hosting Romper Room, not reading hard news.

And dont even get me started on "Morning Joe", with Scarborough and his flaky sidekick MEEKA doing a pathetic Ronnie and Nancy schtick, right down to Meeka's nauseating stares of adoration at her manly host-fella. We need another Cronkite in a MAJOR way.

I was never crazy about Imus, but in retrospect, he was the best thing on MSNBC (and a damn site better than "Morning Joe" in any sane person's universe). As for Shuster, please, PLEASE, Dan Abrams, cut this loser loose permanently. Then work your way thru cutting and pruning the rest of your lame staff and grade Z anchors and anchorettes, and try turning yourself into a real news agency. Your ratings will thank you.

Posted by: saintsubversive | February 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

tismyseason,

What outlandish statements? The Clintons said nothing remotely racist. Rather, Obama's campaign, in a desperate move to win South Carolina, took some innocuous remarks, reframed them out of context, and fed them to a Clinton-scandal, race-patronizing, hungry press, who fed on it like a gourmet meal. In fact, Obama ADMITTED this in the very subsequent debate! He suggested that his campaign had been over-zealous in trying to racialize the comments made by the Clintons.

Folks, we are being played. The media is attempting to use race as a wedge issue to drive the Democratic party into disarray. Obama is more than willing to accept this APPARENT benefit. Little does he know that should he be nominated, all hell will be let loose.

It is blatantly racist on the media's part to patronize Obama on the basis of his race. This is exactly what it is doing when it exempts him from criticism and treats him like a poor darling in need of protection from the Big Bad Clintons. He's accepting it, but he's actually doing a great disservice to the country, and to African Americans in general, for doing so.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

ezboy03,

What "hatchet job" have I done to Obama? If you mean my suggestive reversal of roles and the subsequent uproar that would follow, that is not at all a bashing of Obama. I am simply pointing out the outrageous double standard that his candidacy has benefited from, and from which Mrs. Clinton has been seriously damaged. My question is simply why.

I asked, what would happen had Shuster instead said, "It seems like Obama is pimping out his wife Michelle for super delegates." I guarantee he'd have been fired immediately and the network would have been lambasted by every reputable news organization in the country. But because it's a woman candidate that's been insulted using her daughter as a proxy for the misogyny directed at her mother, another weak apology was issue and Shuster was merely "suspended." If Obama's wife or daughters had been abused as such, heads would roll.

It's time for Obama fans to accept that their candidate has benefited greatly from a double standard, kids-glove treatment that frankly is racist. It involves racial patronizing. If you don't know what that means or how it works, I suggest you read Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Giving Obama a free ride is actually a racist maneuver that implies that he needs special treatment and cannot handle the kind of criticism that a non-black candidate can.

I think there is more to this whole thing than meets the eye. I suggest that Obama, and by extension the entire Democratic party, is being set up for a later slaughter.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

I find this ludicrous. As many outlandish comments the clintons have made, I'd have thought someone would've been fired by now. Anyhow, its all a ploy. The hit has already been made on Obama's head, UNFORTUNATELY. I truly believe the government will have him assassinated befor they allow him to become president. sad, but, true. our democracy isn't quite democratic as some foolishly believe. too sad. i wish we could actually have a president the PEOPLE put in office.

Posted by: tismyseason | February 8, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

No matter how much one hates the parents, their child (or children) is innocent. It is not a sin nor a crime for a child to help his or her parents even if his or her parents are bad. In fact, we should encourage our children to do all they can to help their parents unless of course it is sinful or illegal. May be David Shuster and those who agree with him never learnt basic human decency from their parents in their early ages or their teachers in kindergardens. If so, they should go back to school to learn it before they join the civil society again. Otherwise, please go and live in the zoo.
Bill

Posted by: signaturepieces | February 8, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

I pointed out in posts several months ago that MSNBC was becoming increasingly GOP and anti-Clinton oriented. This just proves the point.

I trust Mrs. Clinton WILL NOT participate in the MSNBC debate. Let Obama endorse the pimp remark by appearing by himself. Since it's the sort of remark Obama himself could be expected to make, it should not be difficult for him to endorse it.

It's high time these overpaid television actors playing the role of news reporter were reigned in.

Posted by: ram9478 | February 8, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

I pointed out in posts several months ago that MSNBC was becoming increasingly GOP and anti-Clinton oriented. This just proves the point.

I trust Mrs. Clinton WILL NOT participate in the MSNBC debate. Let Obama endorse the pimp remark by appearing by himself. Since it's the sort of remark Obama himself could be expected to make, it should not be difficult for him to endorse it.

It's high time these overpaid television actors playing the role of news reporter were reigned in.

Posted by: ram9478 | February 8, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

I pointed out in posts several months ago that MSNBC was becoming increasingly GOP and anti-Clinton oriented. This just proves the point.

I trust Mrs. Clinton WILL NOT participate in the MSNBC debate. Let Obama endorse the pimp remark by appearing by himself. Since it's the sort of remark Obama himself could be expected to make, it should not be difficult for him to endorse it.

It's high time these overpaid television actors playing the role of news reporter were reigned in.

Posted by: ram9478 | February 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

In No Way should Schuster be suspended or otherwise punished for this comment. Give me a break! After everything that Bush has said and done over the last 7 years, THIS is what sends the Clintons over the edge into fits of indignation???? F you Hillary, F you Bill and F you Chelsea. Unlike you, I care about my country. . I don't give a rat's a$$ about your poor little bruised egos.

Posted by: ohhbehave | February 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the media darling whom these commentators are using to provide cover for their misogynist anti-Hillary bashing. I for one am not falling for it, nor are others, as I see. The free ride Obama has gotten is legend. He is the media's darling. The question is why. I don't think that the country's advantage is the reasoning. I suggest rather that he's being set-up for a later slaughter. The strategy is to take out the leading Democrat first, then the second-leading. The point is to drive up ratings, but also, to make sure that nothing like federal regulation gets to these networks and their advertisers.

The announcers have little idea of this, but I suggest that the rhetorical environment that they foster is being encouraged behind network closed doors. The whole point is to destroy the Democrats, using Obama as a foil.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

prehwaldt,

Don't count on Shuter, Matthews, or any of the abatement of misogyny among any of the MS/NBC "news" and commentary anchors. History has shown that the network is all too tolerant of recidivist sexists like them and only does something about it when advertising revenue is threatened. That's the next step to take here.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Michael Rectenwald,

You can endorse Hillary without attacking other candidates. This kind of language puts people off, your candidate Hillary needs all the help she can get, and if you are a real supporter you will tone down your language, so you don't put people off. We are all offended by Shuster's language, but I don't think the Clintons need the hatchet job you appear to be doing here.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 8, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

I've always felt that the families of political candidates should be off limits to the media, no matter what the party affiliation is. The focus should be on the candidate, who chose to seek public office. Their family members should not be up for public scrutiny.

Posted by: bpower31 | February 8, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

I don't recall hearing anyone talk about Mitt Romney "pimping out" his son Tagg, or any of his other boys.

I don't recall hearing anyone talking about John McCain "pimping out" his daughter, who is blogging away on the campaign trail.

I don't recall hearing anyone talking about Liz Cheney four years ago, being "pimped out" to try to help the Bush/Cheney ticket reach out to the GLBT community.

I guess being "pimped out" only happens if the candidate is a woman.

I've got a lot of respect for David Shuster as a reporter, but this comment went way, waaaaayyyyy over the line. I look forward to him coming back, and I hope this kind of thing never occurs again.

Posted by: prehwaldt | February 8, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

I have spent near sixty years of involvement in politics. In every campaign someone always accuses the media of giving a candidate a free wide.Never have i ever witnessed such a blatant cover up as the one in progress for Obama.And I agree the NBC team fas led the pack.Who is Obama? Where did his personal wealth come from? What had he ever succeeded in doing in life? What is he and Opra's true connection with Rev Wright. Does he to have a truckload of dirt? I am from the heartland and here is what I am hearing in the past several weeks.I don't believe the country is prepared for a black, or woman president. Mc Cain is to old and unstable.We are being led right back to the sixties.He certainly isn't another Martin Luther King.The media is electing our next President.In closing i will add I am a independent. As of now my principal will not permit me to cast a vote for the unworthy three

Posted by: rlhemmert1 | February 8, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that was the original essay by Morgan. I have to find part 2.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

A well-known and very savvy politician once said "If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen". Seems some people want to dish it out but they can't themselves take it.
What the h---, they're all phonies anyway. Photo-Ops, Sound-bites, and TV have combined to make all politicians paper tigers and wimps, too scared of their own shadows to speak their minds. Oh how I miss "Give them Hell, Harry".

Posted by: tucanofulano | February 8, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

For those who haven't seen Robin Morgan's redux of "Goodbye to All of That," see this page. It is quite eye-opening regarding the acceptance of sexism in our culture:

http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Letter sent to NBC and MSNBC. They have responded to me previously and I have appeared on the network dozens of times. I will not appear there again:

MSNBC MISOGYNY CONTINUES UNABATED
Rectenwald, Michael

Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:35 PM
To:
Capus, Steve (NBC Universal) [Steve.Capus@nbcuni.com]; Griffin, Phil (NBC Universal) [phil.griffin@nbcuni.com]; Letters PF (MSNBC Interactive) [Letters@msnbc.com]; hardball@msnbc.com


Dear Mr. Capus,

I suggest that you take a look at this page of commentary about MSNBC's "news" coverage of the primary race, and especially the anger and disgust voiced by many erstwhile viewers of your network:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/08/msnbc_suspends_shuster_over_cl.html

Your misogynist, Hillary-hating OLD boys club is driving thousands of viewers away, and the obvious racial patronizing of Obama is sickening and racist in itself.
Citizens for Legitimate Government is turning up the heat on your network full of sexist pigs.

See:

http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_report_240108.html

and

http://www.legitgov.org/rectenwald_msnbc_on_matthews.html

Your anchors, esp. Matthews, seem unable to keep from "picking up" the sexist and nasty commentary regarding any female named Clinton. Are they getting some sexual gratification from their regular surrogate wife beating tirades?

I suggest you take these sick people off the air and let them go home to beat their wives in private. They are not worthy of network television. If not, we will continue to pressure you and will make this another IMUS situation, as it deserves to be!


Sincerely,


Michael D Rectenwald, Ph.D.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Shuster's comment reminds me of Limbaugh's derogatory comment concerning the looks of an adolescent Chelsea Clinton shortly after the 1992 election. As a male voter, it's sad to see that some males are really afraid of female success - must be an inferiority thing.

Posted by: keng1971 | February 8, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS NOT TRUE, NBC: MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said, "NBC News takes these matters seriously...."

Schuster often defames Republicans and the network does nothing. He has said much worse, but not about a Democrat.

He clearly has no business as a talking head on any program that purports to convey facts, something MSNBC used to do.

Schuster is brash and uncompromising about his opinions; only difference this time was that he targeted a Democrat, and the most thin-skinned, holier than thou, Democrat at that.

MSNBC encourages those comments about Republicans (per Keith Olbermann) but against a Democrat, that's over the MSNBC party line.

Posted by: llrllr | February 8, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't normally get all PC about comments like these, but I think the uproar -- and the suspension -- is justified in this case. Shuster's remarks are part of the years-long jihad MSNBC has waged against the Clintons, which has re-intensified in the months since the network's debate in Philadelphia in October. Even the most trivial event involving the Clintons -- which now includes Chelsea, apparently -- is distorted beyond all proportion or rationality. They are held to a standard no one else is held to, or COULD be held to. Shuster's suspension comes on the heels of Chris Matthews' recent apology over demeaning and insulting comments about Hillary. The next day on "Morning Joe," Shuster was "infuriated" that Matthews was forced to cave to political pressure -- proof that he just didn't get it, and probably still doesn't. The outrage extended far beyond women's groups and other organized forces to anyone with a sense of decency, propriety and fairness who also happens to live in this century, not in the gender-warped days of Matthews' youth. Journalistic fraternity seemed to blind Shuster to Matthews' offense. But even that misses the point. Matthews has been saying things like this FOREVER and never been called on it. If it was said in isolation, you could forgive it. But it was part of a pattern that was so obvious it seemed planned and sanctioned from above. That's why Shuster's rather stern penalty surprised me -- I had given up hope that any of this would ever be noticed, or stopped. Voluntarily or not, Shuster may have fallen on his sword for Matthews. After all, MSNBC can't afford to lose two Imuses in one year.

Posted by: suzyqueue2u2 | February 8, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I love Chelsea, so the remark to me sounded sympathetic, even funny, in its attempt to exaggerate her predicament. Reportedly, she is shy and uncomfortable in the limelight. Only upon consideration does it seem mistaken in its use of a sexual metaphor, but ONLY because Chelsea's age and gender will give it wings for use by contemptible liars, who will now feign to have heard on MSNBC news that "Hillary pimps out Chelsea".

Posted by: jhbyer | February 8, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I just feel like everyone's got to get a little thicker skinned. Let's face it, if candidates refused to deal with networks every time they said something really stupid there would be no interviews or debates. And maybe the networks do all need to try to be a little more politically correct, but look how much time has been wasted over this - and, it seems we are losing someone who is 'usually' one of the more reasoned voices on MSNBC.

I think part of this problem was that Chelsea isn't a little kid anymore, but it still seems as if she and her parents are allowing her to play that roll. If she's going to be out there on the campaign trail there will be occasional hard knocks and if the Clintons want to shield her they need to continue to keep her hidden away - though that still doesn't excuse Schuster's error in judgement.

Posted by: shannons1 | February 8, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris says: "At least Obama's not taking donations from Washington lobbyists like Hillary is."

Here's a better link that should open your eyes about Obama's sources.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

This NY Times article show how Obama claimed to have written legislation to regulate the nuclear industry.

However, it was watered down so that any extra reporting was "voluntary".

Obama then received very large campaign contributions from the same nuclear power company.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the fact that a comment which would be offensive to anyone if it didn't have a "Clinton" attached to it causes so many to claim it is justified, simply because it was applied to a Clinton. Where has common decency gone? If he had said that McCain was "pimping" his mother by having her campaign, would it offend you? What if he had said that Romney was pimping his sons? Or Michele Obama was being pimped by her husband? It is offensive, and the fact that MSNBC has an obvious Obama bias (and with Matthews and Mitchel having what borders on Clinton hatred) does not make it acceptable. It seems that some think it is OK to attack Hillary and Bill for all sorts of things, real or imagined, simply to have something to talk about. I realize that informed discourse is not encouraged anymore in the media, but the "gotcha" and sly or not so sly trashing of someone just to sound like a pundit in the know is not informative and frankly about as enlightening as a chain letter. Let them go back to reporting the news, not making nasty comments about those in the news and if they don't, then suspend away.

Posted by: tmslatton | February 8, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

It's been a pattern for months now; they should suspend Mathews and Russert along with Shuster. At least Tucker openly admits that he is anti Clinton, but the others cowards hide under the journalistic umbrella of so called fact finding to push their agenda. I am so tired of Russert's shallow political history lessens when he plays tapes what somebody said 15 to 20 years ago as if it's a crime to be change a view. I used to enjoy Hardball and Meet the Press but these days I find the MSNBC political team simply manipulative to a spectacular degree. Watch good old PBS or even better CSPAN if you want to find the truth.

Posted by: wassiv | February 8, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

To me it seems black men come down like a ton of bricks on Don Imus when he referred
to black women as ho's.
Why, don't a group of white men, come to the defense of their white women, and hit
David Shuster over the head with a hammer.

Posted by: electress | February 8, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I already heard Shuster apologize this morning on Joe Scarborough's program - one which probably gets more viewers than Tucker Carlson's.

Shuster clearly did not intend that phrase in the old sense. For heaven's sake - MTV has long has "Pimp My Ride"! What we REALLY should be talking about is how so-called news programs have grown so casual that such language is accepted.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | February 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Let's try this analogy for the Obamaniacs:

"It looks like Obama's wife is being pimped out by Obama to win over the super delegates."

NOW try and tell me that this would not be object of hundreds of hours of commentary and rage by the Obamaniacs and the other networks!!! Give me a break, you HYPOCRITES.

I am endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Sincerely,

Dr. Michael Rectenwald.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

It's been a pattern for months now; they should suspend Mathews and Russert along with Shuster. At least Tucker openly admits that he is anti Clinton, but the others cowards hide under the journalistic umbrella of so called fact finding to push their agenda. I am so tired of Russert's shallow political history lessens when he plays tapes what somebody said 15 to 20 years ago as if it's a crime to be change a view. I used to enjoy Hardball and Meet the Press but these days I find the MSNBC political team simply manipulative to spectacular degree. Watch good old PBS or even better CSPAN if you want to find the truth.

Posted by: wassiv | February 8, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should call the comment into question, but don't over blow the controversy. That makes it seem just like a political ploy instead of a real concern. After all, Hillary goes on Fox News despite all the nasty things said about anyone who is not conservative. Why not boycott them? I think it will do more good for women for her to be firm in her criticism but not over the top. I am not a Clinton supporter, but I think men should be criticized when they say disrespectful things about women on television. The same thing said about women saying disrespectful things about black candidates, such as her saying that Obama is irresponsible just for wanting to talk to our enemies. She should have been called on that one. It was disrespectful coming from a Presidential candidate. Of course, Obama just turned it back on her, instead of throwing a fit.

Posted by: goldie2 | February 8, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA'S TIME FOR RECONCILIATION HAS COME:

Here's a place to start:

cslang.blogspot.com

PASS IT ON

Posted by: charlessamuellang | February 8, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews has attempted to hide his sexism under anti-racist cover and thinks that people are too stupid to see it. And Shuster is just as bad. I agree with the idea that the executive over these people is misogynist, as Tucker, Shuster and Matthews are all PIGS. Every last one of them should be fired. They are absolute PIGS. Matthews is a disgusting slime-ball.

It's time that MSNBC stop the misogyny!
See this action and respond using the email addresses provided!

http://www.legitgov.org/rectenwald_msnbc_on_matthews.html


Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

"Let me use Schuster's analogy with more appropriate language: "It seems that Chelsea is being used by her mother in an expedient way fitting of Hill/Bill's modus operandi." Is that appropriate enough for the Clintonistas? The truth is the truth."

Wordy, but acceptable.

And you could leave all the proper nouns blanks so folks could fill them in with "Michelle" and "Barak" or the name of just about any other close relative of a candidate and the candidate's name.

Posted by: WylieD | February 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

I hope he looses his job, I will not be
view NBC. I sat thru Chris Matthews, and
the pundits during the New Hampshire debate, and this just is not acceptable,
and I don't care what generation, or what
dictionary you refer to. Pimp equals
prostitution/public woman.

Like other candidates, the people they trust the most in their campaign is their
families, and they are the ones often getting things done.

I listened to John McCain, regarding his
response to "what are going to do about the
bit.h", he said, good question, and followed by laughter. He also went after
Chelsea when she was 13 with his joke, why is Chelsea so ugly, her father is Janet
Reno". He'd be the last person I'd ever for.

Knock it off NBC!

Posted by: electress | February 8, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I am very offended by Shuster comments too, but I would ask that we do not politicize this - by attacking Obama or McCain. People can see through attempts to try to use this incident to curry votes for Hillary. This is not the place to do that. Shuster's actions are despicable, but it should not be politicized.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 8, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I hope he looses his job, I will not be
view NBC. I sat thru Chris Matthews, and
the pundits during the New Hampshire debate, and this just is not acceptable,
and I don't care what generation, or what
dictionary you refer to. Pimp equals
prostitution/public woman.

Like other candidates, the people they trust the most in their campaign is their
families, and they are the ones often getting things done.

I listened to John McCain, regarding his
response to "what are going to do about the
bit.h", he said, good question, and followed by laughter. He also went after
Chelsea when she was 13 with his joke, why is Chelsea so ugly, her father is Janet
Reno". He'd be the last person I'd ever for.

Knock it off NBC!

Posted by: electress | February 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

The hatred of women evident on MSNBC is disgusting. Most days, it takes less than five minutes for some allusion to sexual activity to be made toward overtly or covertly toward some member of the Clinton family. (this pimping comment for example) This is unacceptable to decent people, and the sign of sick minds at MSNBC. As to Obama, their difference in comments is astonishing. Respectful comments, no "oreo" remarks;"boys will be boys". I don't know what you folks are smoking, but Shuster, following Matthews remarks shows a pattern and it is slimey.

Posted by: zaney | February 8, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Of course, if these remarks were made with reference to Obama's wife, the cries of RACISM would be voiced every five minutes and the network would be issuing major apologies, firing Shuster and even executives' heads would roll.

The different responses proves that sexism is far more ubiquitous and acceptable today than racism and of course, Hillary Clinton has been the victim of MSNBC's misogyny for months, if not years. See Chris Matthew's ridiculous remarks and eventual (weak) apology. This network is hiding sexism beneath an 'progressive' anti-racist cover.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Lest we all forget. General Dynamics/Electric has
been profiting off of Rockefeller Wars for
some time. Shuster should have known better.

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Shuster must have a dirty old mind.
What a nasty old pervert.

Posted by: tammyb112 | February 8, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Shuster must have a dirty old mind.
What a nasty old pervert.

Posted by: tammyb112 | February 8, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The battering of Hillary Clinton's presidential race has had such a negative impact on her success that I believe she should finish this out, she's fighting for her life her, and then sue every news network that has bashed her. This has gotten out of control and it's only on Hillary, not Obama.

Posted by: lillypriya | February 8, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Shuster must have a dirty old mind.
What a nasty old pervert.

Posted by: tammyb112 | February 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

What a low life SOB David Shuster is to say something like that on a purported news channel. Some here have said Chelsea Clinton is a big girl and she should be able to take it. She is and she can. However I don't chose to take it. I will be boycotting MSMBC coverage for the duration of the election season or until Shuster and the Carlson show producer is fired. I have grandkids that are just now coming of age and they watch the news. They are pre teens and young teenagers. I do not want them exposed to lowlifes like Shuster. I do not think MSNBC has a right to violate civilized standards of discourse. The pimping statement was reprehensible, bad manners and done for cheap gratuitous Clinton bashing. It tells me that the MSM has ceased to be reporters of events but have decided to intervene personally and corporately in the stories they cover. Frankly the country as a whole right, center, left, red or blue has the lowest opinion of media that I have ever seen in my long life including this fish rap. I believe that assessment is richly deserved. I don't have to prove that statement the evidence in on your bottom line. It is proved by the falling circulation, viewers and add revenue of US media. Frankly the old Soviet controlled media in Russia had more credibility than our print and broadcast media today.

Posted by: bfc1949 | February 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I have been completely dismayed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann throughout the campaign season. Until now, I've always counted on Chris Matthews for his passion, energy, and love of this country to at least give people a fair shake in a debate or conversation. Sadly, MSNBC has joined many of the media outlets who do nothing to broaden global or national perspectives or challenge us to think for ourselves. That said, I am weary of the media bias all around and equally weary of such a careless attack on the very gracious, bright light of the Clinton Family.
Sincerely,
Nancy Dyal
San Francisco

Posted by: nancydyal | February 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Shuster's punishment is justified. You've got to be more responsible on the airwaves. I've been watching the TV coverage with growing dismay. The media is becoming so compromised what with CNN and NBC putting James Carville, Paul Begala and Pat Buchanan on air to comment on the election. Every time I see Buchanan, for instance, I wish a header appeared under his name: Sister works for Romney campaign. I also wonder why the cable shows bother to feature partisans from the campaign. What do they expect from this other than canned, disingenous answers. All sense of fair play has vanished. No wonder Stewart has such a field day lampooning these buffoons. Where have you gone Huntley and Brinkley?

Posted by: lteitelb | February 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Again, I agree that Shuster was very wrong, his comments are offensive and very wrong, but this has nothing to do with Obama or McCain. The fact remains that the Clintons ran the most corrupt administration since Nixon left. Please google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons. Here are the Clinton scandals: Monica Lewinsky Sex Scandal, Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal, Travelgate, Lying under oath (felon?), law license suspended for unethical behavior...

I will vote to reject the Clintons, so Bill would not be using his position to starting granting pardons to felon for Cash. Up till today, the Clintons have refused to disclose the names of the donors to the Clinton Library Fund and Hillary's White House Papers. Can someone tell me why we should return this couple to the White House? There are 350 million people in the country and we do not have a monarchy system of government. Reject the Clintons. Vote McCain. Vote Obama

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 8, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

The rabid anti-women behavior on MSNBC lately has got to stop. They should not call themselves a "news" organization. The maturity level is shocking to see a bunch of locker room boys insulting women, along with their cheerleader girlfriends (Nora O'Donnel and Mika B.) going along with the boys is disgusting.

Posted by: ragindemo | February 8, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

The news media has gotten very callous and insensitive in their comments over the last decade. They are supposed to present the news, not be partisan in their comments.

Posted by: insinc1 | February 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Schuster's comment was just plain sexist. No one every said that Romney's son, Tagg, was being pimped out, when he campaigned for his father.

No one ever said Jena Bush was being pimped out when she was promoting her book about children in 3rd world contries. His comment suggests that double standards are alive and well.

Posted by: blueiris87 | February 8, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

freepak says: "There is nothing that Shuster has to apologize for with regards to his comment. It is correct"

The only thing that is correct is that you are projecting your own morals (or lack thereof) onto others.

As I recall you are an Obama supporter. Tell me if this is not correct. I am having a hard time these days telling apart the FAR Left from the FAR Right!!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing that Chris Mathews, Tucker, Goodmorning Joe with his darling Mica and his guest, constantly or pushing the envelope and degrading Hillary but constantly are upbeat on Obama. Tim Russert and Brian Williams are close behind. MSNBC endorses Obama without a wink of the eye and we put up with it. This lanuage has to stop. How many times do they have to be scolded? This campaign is proving that Hillary is being attacked by the media, the left wing and the right wing. What in the world are they trying to do to the voters? God forbid. Hillary so far has survived and is ready on day one to be our next Commander and Chief. She has the smarts, the fortitude and the charisma to be our Commader-In-Chief.

Luz and Peter

Posted by: Lucille4 | February 8, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The radical and rabid Republicans and intellectually deficient Democrats who support Shuster are in the wrong on every count. Chelsea is an intelligent young woamn who is capable of making her own decision to
support her mother's campaign for president.

Posted by: judnphil | February 8, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments on this forum portray a most disturbed segment of our populace. The vitriol spewed here says more about those making the comments than their subject. To me it shows that through discourse such as this, Americans fully deserve Bush-Cheney and they will deserve McCain with all of his delusions or Obama's hope without hope. While the latter may propose a new ideal, it is unlikely that he will act upon it. The honeymoon which began too early will last only for so long. Once the Clinton's are shoved aside the people will need some other tabloid to cling onto. I have seen everything from the idea that Hillary is complicit in her husband's affairs to the idea that she's too cold but weak as a woman, and now pimping her daughter. Reading these comments make me feel less American than ever before. All of this simply reflects the utter irrationality that ultra-liberal and conservative alike. The Clinton's brought the Center together, and it's clear that neither left nor right want that sort of progress for America. Somehow the world couldn't accept John Kerry simply stating a fact about Lynn Cheney for instance, but when a gross and egregious comment such as this is made by a "reporter", and it's debatable? Shame, shame, shame! Hillary should boycott any forum hosted by MSNBC, the Fox news of the left wing. Left or right, bias is still wrong!

Posted by: brain2020 | February 8, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

to cymric: If we do not like their tactics (aka those who call people pimps) then we should not imitate them, please.

Hillary had some overzealous supporters too. The Obama campaign did blame Hillary for it.

Obviously that wasn't true. Nor is it true that Obama was responsible for Shuster's remarks just because Shuster is a zealous Obama supporter and cannot keep that out of his commentary.


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments on this forum portray a most disturbed segment of our populace. The vitriol spewed here says more about those making the comments than their subject. To me it shows that through discourse such as this, Americans fully deserve Bush-Cheney and they will deserve McCain with all of his delusions or Obama's hope without hope. While the latter may propose a new ideal, it is unlikely that he will act upon it. The honeymoon which began too early will last only for so long. Once the Clinton's are shoved aside the people will need some other tabloid to cling onto. I have seen everything from the idea that Hillary is complicit in her husband's affairs to the idea that she's too cold but weak as a woman, and now pimping her daughter. Reading these comments make me feel less American than ever before. All of this simply reflects the utter irrationality that ultra-liberal and conservative alike. The Clinton's brought the Center together, and it's clear that neither left nor right want that sort of progress for America.

Posted by: brain2020 | February 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

now I know for sure why I watch other programs. Hard to believe msnbc could hate a
woman and her family this much.

Posted by: jpalmer1932 | February 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I can bet you that we will elect a black man before a woman. Sexism is the last acceptable bias someone can have in this society. It permeates our society in a subtle but explicit way. All you have to do is listen or watch our entertainment. David Shuster probably to this day does not see that in himself. And, when held to account most offenders will minimize it. It is only because Hilary is running for president that we have seen the true colors of the Shuster's, Matthews, and Russerts.

Posted by: sandnsmith | February 8, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Obama and his campaign continue to present their man as the second coming of Christ. The messiah whips up the crowds to a frenzy at every event, turning political rallies into foot-stomping, screaming, chanting revival meetings.

In the meantime, Obama supporters reveal themselves on every message board on the internet as crude, inhumane, shameless misogynists, attacking Hillary Clinton even in this instance when Shuster has clearly gone over the line in his assault on this mother and daughter.

Obama supporters are the most shameless crew I've ever encountered anywhere.

Posted by: ichief | February 8, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Let's see - according to the posters, it is not okay for Don Imus to refer to Rutgers basketball team as "nappy headed hos" but it's okay to refer to Chelsea Clinton's campaigning for her mother as "being pimped out". Nope we're not racists in this country but we sure are misogynists. Wonder if MSNBC et al will refer to Oprah as being pimped out by Obama?

Posted by: cymric | February 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

What's amazing is that despite the onslaught of the media, (especially, Chris Mathews, Tucker, Goodmorning Joe program and his darling Mica Brecinski, whose father is on the Obama team, and they all promote Obama, plus the Chicago Daly machine along with the big star, Oprah, not to mention the Republican spinners, and right wing press, Hillary has survived and is ready to continue her campaign to the Presidency. This campaign should be about issues, which Hillary is superb in laying out to the public (Obama is not; he always speaks in riddles). How dare any of the reporters, anchors, and especially, Brian William and Tim Russert with their question "Got ya". They are so biased and it shows. Chris is so excited to down Hillary. You may have Keith who is half way decent, but not always. Give us a break. Fire the idiots. Chelsea is Hillary and Bill's daughter. She is showing that she loves her mother and is trying to expose the younger crowd to what her mother is about. Hillary is proving she has the fortitude, the smarts, and the charisma to be our Commander-in-chief. Hail to our Chief, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Lucille4 | February 8, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

gormley says: "Hillary Clinton's daughter is helping out with her mother's campaign. So? Why does this jackass Shuster seem to think that there's something wrong and "unseemly" about that?"

I was shocked to see the veracity of the far left against Hillary - I've thought of it as Swift Boating on the Left! It's because Obama has portrayed Hillary as a dangerous war monger who loves Bush.

And the Obama-ites like Shuster are looking for any excuse to attack the Clintons -- even if they have to go through their daughter!

PS. I should have added that I do think Obama has enough class not to attack Chelsea. He's just trying to win an election.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

gormley says: "Hillary Clinton's daughter is helping out with her mother's campaign. So? Why does this jackass Shuster seem to think that there's something wrong and "unseemly" about that?"

I was shocked to see the veracity of the far left against Hillary - I've thought of it as Swift Boating on the Left! It's because Obama has portrayed Hillary as a dangerous war monger who loves Bush.

And the Obama-ites like Shuster are looking for any excuse to attack the Clintons -- even if they have to go through their daughter!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

truthseeker1: I don't agree with it either. But there's a difference when the "child" is a 28 year old adult working full time with the campaign. I would have found it disturbing if Chelsea had not been involved with the campaign, led a normal life, and someone had made that comment. But this isn't the case here.

Posted by: chris30338 | February 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

i think that MSNBC has crossed the line each week they make Hillary their punching bag while barack obama gets a free ride for the media.. he is their golden boy ... chris matthews ego is so big that when my daughter met him in an elevator she told him my mother really likes ( not anymore) your show and he replied " it is good to be me and he meant every word.. report the news dont create the news .. i used to think shuster was great but he apparently is a sleeze like matthews . so now msnbc when matthews or shuster come are on off goes the set...

Posted by: delgirl27 | February 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

chris30338: I am sure "pimping" is not the worst thing Chelsea has or will ever hear in her life.

So? It always a cheap shot and a character slime to go after a candidate's children.

If using gutter talk is the only way Shuster can express himself as a reporter -- then he has demonstrated his gross incompetence and deserves to be canned.

I've been disappointed by the lack of any real substantive issues here at the Washington Post and most of the media.

Shuster lacks substance AND uses gutter talk to try and fill in the void.


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The fact that MSNBC has now had two such misogynistic incidents, one with Shuster and one with Matthews, tells me that there is a misogynist in charge at MSNBC. First the person responsible for these two foul mouthed newspersons should be fired, then the two men who made the disparaging remarks should be fired as well.
None of this reflects well on Obama. He needs to make a statement telling his supporters that such behavior is unacceptable . Unfortunately, he set the tone with his feigned distress over having his dream called a fairy tale.

Posted by: bghgh | February 8, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

You know, my problem isn't with phrase "pimped out." True, it's damned distasteful, but it's just a phrase. What I find ridiculous and offensive is the press taking perfectly normal activity - in this case, a family member helping with a campaign - and implying that it's something corrupt, questionable - "unseemly." Why does the media CONSTANTLY do this with the Clintons? And NOBODY else?

Hillary Clinton's daughter is helping out with her mother's campaign. So? Why does this jackass Shuster seem to think that there's something wrong and "unseemly" about that?

Posted by: gormley14412 | February 8, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

At least Obama's not taking donations from Washington lobbyists like Hillary is. To date, Hillary has collected over $1 MILLION. And she now claims that she's the candidate to bring change??? I guess they'll be giving out a lot of free nights in the Lincoln bedroom if she wins. That's what happened the last time. Also, when are the Clinton's going to disclose how much Marc Rich donated to the Clinton library?

Posted by: chris30338 | February 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

to: bghgh

I am sure Obama is not a misogynist.

He was attacking Edwards when he was doing better in the polls too.

I posted the areas I was angry at Obama at. Actually he is close to Hillary (although not as good) on the issues. And he is still 1000 better than any Republican running!

Obama will get my vote if he wins the nomination, even if I think he has unfairly attacked the Clintons during the primary.


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

See: Identity Politics: Sexism, Racism and the Political Imaginary By Dr. Michael Rectenwald 24 Jan 2008
http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_report_240108.html
Dr. Rectenwald and Citizens for Legitimate Government addressed this issue long before others did. See also: Tell MSNBC to Stop the Misogyny! http://www.legitgov.org/rectenwald_msnbc_on_matthews.html

Posted by: lorifromclg | February 8, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but Chelsea's a 28 year old adult with a $200K job on Wall Street. If she's going to be a full time member of her mother's campaign then she should be able to take the heat.

Posted by: chris30338 | February 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Example #5 Obama praises Ronald Reagan's charisma instead of Clinton's management of the economy

Obama praised Ronald Reagan's "charisma" in an interview, plus said Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Bill Clinton took this as a personal insult.

Why? Bill Clinton did a superb job managing the finances of this country when President ** decreasing the massive deficits the country he inherited from Reagan/Bush Sr., and decreasing them every year - under both Democratic and Republican congresses -- until the US had surpluses in Clinton's last two years in office.

Remember, when Bush first came in office he kept repeating how the US had "surpluses as far as the eye can see?" The projections were based on Clinton's steward of the economy . Even Alan Greenspan (a Republican) praised how Clinton did a great job on the US economy on a Sixty Minutes show a few months ago.

Paul Krugman wrote an article in the NY Times why he had a problem with Obama's praise for Reagan. Per Krugman, "Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect. ... Contrast that with Mr. Obama's recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." .. where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?scp=4&sq=krugman&st=nyt

Obama was praising Reagan's charisma because he saw himself (Obama) as also possessing/sharing in great charisma.

But was it really Reagan's charisma that expanded the Republican Party. Paul Krugman has analyzed this time period before and concluded the reason the Republican Party grew, was almost due entirely to White Southerners being angry with Lynden Johnson's social legislation that help blacks fight segretation.

This wasn't charisma - this was policy.

#6 Bill Clinton is now called a racist for observing there are more black voters in South Carolina, and this was probably a factor why Hillary lost the primary there.

When Obama won the primary in South Carolina, Bill Clinton commented to the press it was due to a large proportion of the Democratic base in South Caroline being black. Clinton added that Jessie Jackson had also won a primary once in South Caroline (but had not done well after that.)

There was another uproar led by the Obama camp that this again was proof the Clintons were racists. Television news reveled in the controversy that Bill Clinton was showing anger. (He was angry -- but at being falsely accused and savagely attacked.)

Some of the frenzy died down after more calm heads noted that even black commentators had stated how Obama should do well in S. Carolina because of the high percentage of blacks voting in the Democratic primary. Other analysts had noted Hillary received higher support among women voters.

If Bill Clinton's remarks were racist, wasn't everyone else's remarks too? And if one wanted to start this game, did that mean anyone who observed that more women voted for Hillary - were misogynists (women haters?)

Against this background, Obama was campaigning how only he could get people to work together and pushing his charisma and vision.

Many editorials picked up how mean and unfair those bad Clintons were to poor Obama.
.
#7 Obama is still claiming that it is Hillary who is harshly attacking him.

Just prior to Super Tuesday, Brian Williams of NBC interviewed Obama and asked him how he would handle it if the Right Wing starts attacking him after being nominated.

Obama replied coolly that he wasn't worried, because the Right Wing can't attack him any harder than the Clintons have.

Is anyone REALLY that gullible and stupid?

I would have liked Obama a LOT more if he had stayed honest on the issues. But he would not have been as successful if he was not out there trashing the Clintons.

He lost MY vote because of it!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

What I want to know is how many of these misogynistic remarks reflect Obama and how many reflect his supporters. That is the question I want answered before the general election.
If Obama in any way condones the way his supporters treat women, then he doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher.
Why is this rude disparagement so common among Obama supporters?

Posted by: bghgh | February 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

I've been surprised to see the number of Obama supporters think Shuster's comments were ok.

It is exactly this attitude why I first switched away from Obama.
Although I will still vote for Obama if he wins the nomination - I am going to vote for Hillary in the primary.

This is how the Obama camp lost me:

Instead of discussing the issues, Obama bases a lot of his campaign attacking the Clintons. Of course, he claims it is they who are attacking them.

But let's look at the record.

Example #1 Obama's character attack on Hillary as a "Witch"

Background. To be fair, the media was calling for Obama to attack Hillary.

After an early debate, Obama declared he would always negotiate with the enemy. Hillary responded this was the wrong approach, and that sometimes one couldn't negotiate with the enemy. Obama said a few days later that he would attack a country if they were terrorist too.

But Obama was looking for an attack back on Hillary. It is unfortunate in my mind that he chose to do this - not through a challenge or debate on the issues - but as a character attack..

Obama appeared on the Saturday Night Live show on a Halloween skit: Instead of dressing up in a Halloween costume, Obama dressed up "as himself" An actress playing "Hillary" wore a witch costume. The actor playing "Bill" called "Hillary" a real witch. Obama (playing himself) stood by watching calmly and presidentially at the fighting.

Comedy and parody is one thing. But Obama's presence meant he was part of it. This crossed the line.

Turn it around to see why: Imagine if Hillary had appeared on a comedy show with an actor portraying Obama as a secret practicing Muslim smoking cocaine. (a caricature the Right Wing has already put out on Obama, so it is not something I have made up.)

Would this seem like dirty politics. Of course.

Would anyone think it hypocritical if Hillary went around afterwards insisting she got people together and was a visionary? Absolutely.

If Obama had only played dirty politics once, I probably would have dropped it. (The media ignored how Obama effectively called Hillary a witch.)

Example #2 Hillary is Declared a Racist for her Martin Luther King remarks.

Hillary delivered a speech describing how political leaders were needed to partner with social leaders. She used Martin Luther King and President Johnson as an example, where President Johnson actually pushed the laws to desegregate the South, although they were largely based on King's moral principles.

The Obama campaign immediately called up the press to report that Hillary had grossly insulted Martin Luther King and was a racist. An Obama state campaign worker wrote up a multiple pages of "proofs" that Hillary was really a racist. Obama not call them off at first. His first public statement on the matter was to pronounce Hillary Clinton's comments on King as "unfortunate."

Obama only changed his mind after he and Hillary Clinton reached a "deal" on the matter.

Why, I thought, did it take a deal? Why didn't Obama do the right thing initially. Anyone could tell this was not a racist comment.

Example #3 Obama keeps distorting Bill Clinton's position on the Iraq War,

Obama insists that Bill Clinton was for the invasion of Iraq.


But here is Bill Clinton on 2/7/2003 on CNN: He wanted to wait for the UN inspectors to find WMD before invading Iraq. He said if it was a mistake you couldn't bring dead people ack.

*"Maybe in the end, the rest of the world just has no will to carry out the U.N.'s decision that's 12 years old now that he has to be disarmed," Clinton said. "But we don't know yet know that, and I always tell people, when you got the only real super military in the world, you can kill people next week or the week after that, or the week after that, but you can't bring them back. So I don't see that it hurts our country any to give Mr. (Hans) Blix a little more time if that's what he wants."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/judy.desk.clinton/index.html
Clinton wanted to first TRY sanctions, more selected military attacks, etc - -FIRST before a war to occupy a soverign country.; plus he was more worried about Bin Laden and North Korea than Saddam
"there are more pressing issues for the United States, such as Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda terrorist network and North Korea restarting its nuclear program.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/index.html

Obama kept repeating that the Clinton were for the war, even after they complained this was a gross distortion of their position.

Indeed, Obama needed to bash the Clintons on the war. It was necessary to hold himself up as a great visionary and leader who was the only person who would have kept us out of Iraq.

Example #4 Obama insisted that only he had the vision to be opposed to the Iraq War ... and

Obama repeated the theme that Hillary was a war monger for her vote on the War Resolution that gave Bush the powers to invade Iraq.

Except that Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004 (after the Iraq War had started) and therefore never voted on the War Resolution.

The Clinton camp noted that both Obama and Hillary had essentially identical voting records on Iraq, once Obama became Senator in 2004.

Obama claimed the Clintons were unfairly "attacking" him for making this statement.

Obama did publicly state his opposition to the War In Iraq - while out a private citizen. But many of the Democrats who voted for the War Resolution on Iraq were also opposed to the War. They voted for the War Resolution anyway so that the country would be prepared "if" Iraq really had WMD. The public was calling their Congressmen to put aside their partisan differences and show the world that America was united to take up force, if necessary to protect its citizens.

Hillary's position was that it was correct to vote to unite behind a leader in our time of need.
She has said "if" she had known that Bush was a liar (PLUS the Republicans would solidly support Bush afterwards) she would not have voted for it.

But no one had that kind of crystal ball back then. And if Iraq really was dangerous, it would have been a catastrophic mistake to sit idly if terrorists were working with Saddam on WMD.
.
Most Democrats - those who voted for and against it, said it was a very difficult decision.

Obama leaves out this background - and makes it sound like if he had been in the Senate then, this would have been an easy vote for him.

But no one knows that for sure. Did Obama also know - for sure there was no chance of WMD in Iraq?
I don't think he had any more of a crystal ball than anyone else.

But this has perhaps been Obama's best strategy of tearing down Hillary Clinton to present her as a war monger, while he (Obama) makes "great" decisions.

I see it as great staging and fiction.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

winoohno:

You do realize we are at war, right? Do you also think that FDR should have not kept state secrets during WWII?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

afellow1:

"Pimp" does have non-sexual connotations -- it's not necessarily derrogatory unless you think it was actually meant sexually -- see definition above.

truthseeker:

You have me confused with someone who WANTS Hillary or Obama to beat McCain.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

The Media is OVER-REPORTING on the primary when it goes out on tangents and hypes controversial issues like this one. I would like to see more coverage on what is happening in Congress. For example, why has the Washington Post failed to cover the landmark legislation proposed by Sen. Specter and Sen. Kennedy titled "State Secrets Protection Act" which would give whistleblowers and others a venue to bring lawsuits against the government where the Adminstration has cited "state secrets" privilege. There is a LOT of info our government does not want you to know about... and this legislation might open the floodgates so the PEOPLE can learn what's been happening since 9/11.

Posted by: winoohno | February 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a high level of disrespect toward Hillary and her family.
35 years of public service derves better.
The Republicans mean machine created this during the 90's and Obamas followers seem to now follow the same hate rhetoric. I hope Obama loses else the White House will be run by an other divider. Rank and file democrats are a bit tired of the nasty Republicans and now the Obama campaign followers.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

bill57:

"Pimp" does have non-sexual connotations -- it's not necessarily a "slur" unless you think it was meant sexually -- see definition above.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

This comment further shows how biased the new media are against Hillary Clinton's candidacy. And I say this as a former newspaper political reporter and editor. Obama is a creation of the media, the darling of the media, who doesn't get the tough questions from MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post or network babblers. Of course, the Clintons should be upset and this reporter should be tossed. The media coverage of this race has pushed me to being a staunch Clinton supporter. Yes, Oprah, it is the time, and SHE is the ONE--the one with a track record of service to her country!

Posted by: afellow1 | February 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

TO JakeD:

You do realize that the Right Wing Attack Machine has run the Clintons through their attacks (and Obama has added to it).

The Right Wing has not run Obama through their attack machine yet - -and won't start unless he wins the election.

If you doubt the power of the Right Wing, may I ask you: What is it that it is only "bad" if a Democrat has an affair?

Need more examples?
Al Gore never said he "invented" the internet. He said he created the internet, in the context he got crucial financial funding for it. Al Gore was not a crazed environmentalist. He was trying to warn this country of real dangers.

* The Swift Boaters told us John Kerry was a traitor to his country and hated the Bible. (There as even an effort to ex-communicated Kerry from the Catholic Church for his support of gays and abortion.)

Do you REALLY think the Right Wing is going to go easier on Obama because they are inspired by his charisma and vision?

Or do you think they'll play slimy (as we have already seen played in a few places) claiming Obama is pro- Muslim, is a cocaine user, hates his country (reference the video on Snopes.com where Obama does not hold his hand over his heart shen everyone else is.) Then Obama does have far less experience than McCain; Obama has questionable ties to a business who is now in jail.

Or do you really believe Obama when he said recently that the Clinton are attacking him as hard as the Right Wing ever would???

I don't!


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

osiris1997

I just wanted to say you are very intelligent. Sadly that is something our wonderful country lacks.

Posted by: JohnsonP426 | February 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

TO JakeD:

You do realize that the Right Wing Attack Machine has run the Clintons through their attacks (and Obama has added to it).

The Right Wing has not run Obama through their attack machine yet - -and won't start unless he wins the election.

If you doubt the power of the Right Wing, may I ask you: What is it that it is only "bad" if a Democrat has an affair?

Need more examples?
Al Gore never said he "invented" the internet. He said he created the internet, in the context he got crucial financial funding for it. Al Gore was not a crazed environmentalist. He was trying to warn this country of real dangers.

* The Swift Boaters told us John Kerry was a traitor to his country and hated the Bible. (There as even an effort to ex-communicated Kerry from the Catholic Church for his support of gays and abortion.)

Do you REALLY think the Right Wing is going to go easier on Obama because they are inspired by his charisma and vision?

Or do you think they'll play slimy (as we have already seen played in a few places) claiming Obama is pro- Muslim, is a cocaine user, hates his country (reference the video on Snopes.com where Obama does not hold his hand over his heart shen everyone else is.) Then Obama does have far less experience than McCain; Obama has questionable ties to a business who is now in jail.

Or do you really believe Obama when he said recently that the Clinton are attacking him as hard as the Right Wing ever would???

I don't!


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

osiris1997

I just wanted to say you are very intelligent. Sadly that is something our wonderful country lacks.

Posted by: JohnsonP426 | February 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

TO JakeD:

You do realize that the Right Wing Attack Machine has run the Clintons through their attacks (and Obama has added to it).

The Right Wing has not run Obama through their attack machine yet - -and won't start unless he wins the election.

If you doubt the power of the Right Wing, may I ask you: What is it that it is only "bad" if a Democrat has an affair?

Need more examples?
Al Gore never said he "invented" the internet. He said he created the internet, in the context he got crucial financial funding for it. Al Gore was not a crazed environmentalist. He was trying to warn this country of real dangers.

* The Swift Boaters told us John Kerry was a traitor to his country and hated the Bible. (There as even an effort to ex-communicated Kerry from the Catholic Church for his support of gays and abortion.)

Do you REALLY think the Right Wing is going to go easier on Obama because they are inspired by his charisma and vision?

Or do you think they'll play slimy (as we have already seen played in a few places) claiming Obama is pro- Muslim, is a cocaine user, hates his country (reference the video on Snopes.com where Obama does not hold his hand over his heart shen everyone else is.) Then Obama does have far less experience than McCain; Obama has questionable ties to a business who is now in jail.

Or do you really believe Obama when he said recently that the Clinton are attacking him as hard as the Right Wing ever would???

I don't!


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

At the beginning of the campaign I was no fan of Hillary. Truth be told, I STILL wish Al Gore were running, but he isn't. And as hard as it is to admit this, I am starting to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton and will more than likely be voting for her next week. "All is fair in love and war" but slurring a candidate's daughter is going to far. And it's not a matter of being PC or not. It's just plain wrong.

Posted by: bill57 | February 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Good point, TrueHawk.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Not the greatest choice of words by the correspondent, but this groveling to apologize is so silly. You can't expect someone to talk all the time to never err in the choice of words. Who wants monks who comtemplate each word before responding? Quick wit and snappy comments are much better.

Posted by: TrueHawk | February 8, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

JohnsonP426:

You do realize that every recent poll shows McCain beating (not in a sexist, spousal-abuse way) Hillary in the general election, right?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

I just love it when people know what's appropriate for my generation. I am a 22 year old, African American female and...I am disgusted by the comment. For those that think that "pimped out" is generational and it's something "young" people say you are incorrect. Classy,intelligent, young people do not say words like that, especially in a professional setting. There is nothing about the word "pimp" that is hip...It's offensive and please believe if any one ever related that to any of my female or male family members they will be met with a fat lip. Even though I am an avid and very proud Hillary supporter, I would never imagine the media saying anything negative about Mrs. Obama. I have to agree that sexism is running rampant in this campaign. I certainly remember CNN's little faux pass when reporting about African American women and their voting reasons. Calling those of us "traitors to our race" if we didn't vote for Obama. Honestly, I've stopped watching the news, because they have been reduced to sad, petty, sexist children. And I have also never realized how many men (black,white and women) are actually sexist pigs until now. But to me every sexist insult adds fuel to the Hillary fire and makes me (and many other women AND men) want her to be Madame President more and more.

Posted by: JohnsonP426 | February 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Same here, PutDownTheKoolaid, and back away from the ledge ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

I was thinking about voting for Mr. Obama the last few days but a friend of mine told me to go check the blogs... and see this changes that Mr. Obama's voters were talking about. The last few days I have been doing just that... I definitely don't want to be associated with that kind of change. If pimped out is O.K. to use on Hillary's beautiful daughter because it is obviously not offensive ... it would also be O.K. to say that Mrs. Obama was being pimped out... Oh I forgot that is sexist and uncalled for. Shame on anyone that feels that it is ok.

Posted by: sam-a-roman | February 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

From the above fine article by Howard Kurtz:

"Last month, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews expressed regret for suggesting that Clinton's political success can be traced to sympathy stemming from her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky".
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I say enough with this already. Does anybody believe that? Of course not. Does Mr. Matthews think anybody thinks he is adding to our knowledge of who the best person is to vote for President; Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Barack Obama? I tell you Mr. Matthews, I feel and I believe the rest of America feel you are deliberating trying to inflame a long dead issue, something that will have no bearing on anything, including who will be the best president, and you're only trying to get some headlines for yourself. "Mr. Matthews: nobody is listening. You are talking to yourself".

I believe....now with this Shuster incident, we are tuning out MSNBC for any news.

I say again to the two major campaign staffs .. look at C-Span or NPR (National Public Radio) or forget the whole thing... we'll just get our news from the newspapers.

Thank you.

Common Sense Bruce

Posted by: CommonSense12 | February 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Shuster apologized this morning on "Morning Joe." Obama had nothing to do with what came out of Shuster's mouth. Is the the new fake tears moment? or the new "the boys are piling on" moment? or the new gender-baiting moment? How many points is this worth in the ballot box?

Clinton supporters see Clinton bashing. Obama supporters see Clinton abetting. Either way the Clintons will find a new spin to help themselves.

Obama will just have to win the old-fashioned way: ask for your vote, demonstrate he's worthy, and trust that you'll pull the lever, fill in the little oval or stand up for him at the caucus.

Posted by: jade_7243 | February 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"As Truman said, if you can't stand the heat . . ."

I write, others decide. I am perfectly comfortable with that arrangement.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

More evidence of ethically bankrupt media. The American public has no commercial television network that we can depend on for real news. There has been such a deterioration of NEWS reporting into the gutter that as a country we are becoming dangerously ignorant of facts. Dumb the country down while claiming they are "giving the public what they want". What school of no ethics, morals or sense of responsibility are these "reporters" coming from? Trash talk is all they know.

Posted by: jkbuchko | February 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"If the Clintons can successfully use this kind of pressure to silence their critics in the media while they're still just RUNNING for the presidency"

Yeah, just like they've been able to silence Maureen Dowd and the hundreds of other virulent Clinton-haters in the punditocracy.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

intcamd:

Yes -- see above.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

QUOTE from earlier:

I am appalled and disgusted by the way MSNBC has displayed their dismay over HILLARY CLINTON'S RUN FOR PRESIDENCY! This shows how bias and childish, and extremely bias opinions finally got some attention. I have completely stopped watching MSNBC AFTER SEEING HOW IT BECAME THE "OBAMA NETWORK" THEY WORSHIP AND DROOL OVER HIM LIKE HE WAS MESSIAH COMING DOWN TO EARTH! I am SO DISGUSTED BY DAVID SHUSTER AND WISH THESE WHITE AFFLUENT TRUST FUND BABIES WOULD REPORT THE NEWS AND LEAVE OUT THEIR ANGER AND FRUSTRATIONS! THAT WAS A FREUDIAN SLIP HE DID...AND IT SHOWS HOW MUCH HATRED MSNBC HAS FOR A WOMAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENCY...I WONDER IF THEY TREAT AND TALK ABOUT THEIR SISTERS AND MOTHERS LIKE THAT... I am so disappointed over the news and how they have handled the coverage of the election...99% of the MEN in CNN, FOX AND MSNBC HATE HILLARY AND ONLY REPORT WHEN THE POLLS ARE AGAINST HER.. I WISH THE BIAS REPORTING WOULD STOP AND #### HILLARY DO NOT SHOW UP TO THE DEBATE #### IGNORE MSNBC AND DO NOT GIVE THEM INTERVIEWS!!!! WHAT THEY DID IS DIGUSTING!!!! THESE WHITE CONNECTICUT MINORTY MEN NEED TO BE CLAMMED UP AND HILLARY PUT THE CABASH ON THEM!!!
Unquote.

THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY! I HAVE STOPPED WATCHING MSNBC (except for one viewing of Dan Abrams)BECAUSE OF THE BIAS. WHO DO THEY THINK ARE WATCHING THEIR SHOWS? THE YOUNG KIDS? NO, THEY WOULD RATHER BE WITH FRIENDS SHARING BEER, WATCHING FOOTBALL, ETC. IT'S OLDER AMERICANS AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS A COMPLETE TURNOFF. LITERALLY!

Posted by: jbh13 | February 8, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should be happy that this was said...She should think of all of the free press she is recieving today...what would happen if the media left her alone and didnt even report on her anymore and she was forced to buy advertising for all of her press releases

Posted by: SOFLCHEF | February 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Since people are trying to rationalize this word by suggesting its vernacular usage, I guess it is OK to say Obama is pimping his wife to get some African American votes in South Carolina?

Posted by: intcamd | February 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

PutDownTheKoolaid:

Someone else claimed I made a "sophomoric" argument -- pointing out a pattern of crying everytime it gets tough as evidence of how she will deal with Iran or China is not a "sophomoric" argument -- I noticed you skipped right over the part of my post pointing out your AD HOMINEM attacks, though, while complaining about someone else's strawman argument.

As Truman said, if you can't stand the heat . . .

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Yea right, they would not back out of these debates they were calling for. So what, that was exactly what she was doing. The Clinton's are sneaky!!!!

Posted by: QuietStormX | February 8, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's a rather disturbing thought:

If the Clintons can successfully use this kind of pressure to silence their critics in the media while they're still just RUNNING for the presidency, what chance is there for getting investigative, and even critical, reporting on them AFTER they're (re)elected?

Of course, it's not like Americans care about the news anymore, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 8, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

People calling the reaction to this remark by Shuster as misplaced or "faux" outrage are really misguided.

Do you remember when everyone had to run for cover (for some reason I have yet to understand) if they referred to Obama as "articulate"?

But "PIMP" is OK.


Posted by: lennyjazz | February 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

People calling the reaction to this remark by Shuster as misplaced or "faux" outrage are really misguided.

Do you remember when everyone had to run for cover (for some reason I have yet to understand) if they referred to Obama as "articulate"?

But "PIMP" is OK.


Posted by: lennyjazz | February 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Dear MSNBC:

The recent attention garnered by David Shuster's comments regarding Chelsea Clinton reflects how we in this country fall prey to the status quo of politics. This "Clinton camp outrage" seeks to accomplish two things:

1. To galvanize Clinton's base, women voters, by standing up to what the Clinton camp incorrectly demonizes as misogynist programming on the part of MSNBC.
2. To avoid the necessary tough questions expected of Tim Russert during the February 26th debate.

We unfortunately have witnessed this type of politics time and time again. In 2004 the pertinent issues of the presidential campaign were the Iraq war, social security, rising college costs, rising healthcare costs, immigration, etc. We, however, went off on a tangent, and as a consequence gay marriage and John Kerry's Vietnam record became top stories. Bush galvanized his base, got reelected, and subsequently failed to make any progress on the prevailing problems of our nation. Let's not repeat this cycle. If the Clinton camp wants to make this an issue and boycott the MSNBC debate, then by all means allow them to do so. In doing so, however, I ask that you not cancel the debate. Simply allow Barack Obama that opportunity to air his plans for America. You can be well assured that the Clinton camp will reconsider if they see this as the alternative. We have to fight back against status quo this election, and I appreciate you for trying to force our candidates to win on policy rather than on politics as usual.

Posted by: jedon | February 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Poor choice of words. But...

The Clintons should be very careful putting their daughter out as a campaign spokes person. Politics is a nasty business. It's one thing to have their children appear along side the candidate. It's quite another to have them appearing on their own as an advocate--their message better be completely positive, and I mean 1000% pure as the driven snow, or you run the risk of having them judged in the same way a spouse would be if used to attack the opposition.

At to the journalist involved, he made a mistake. Maybe he could have gotten away with in if he was talking about Governor Clinton's daughter, but not President Clinton's or candidate for President Clinton's daughter. What he did wasn't as bad as plagiarism, but it is going to engender some type of discipline. We should all remember the glass houses theorem and that we all are capable of mistakes in our own lives of that caliber before calling for his head.

Posted by: ThomasFiore | February 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"attacking the reasoning behind my remarks as "sophomoric""

Your argument was sophomoric. 76 year olds are perfectly capable of making sophomoric arguments. My father does it all the time.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Last one, PTKD:
You have put people on the defensive at all; to do that, you would have had to mount a valid argument that stands strongly. You have not done that. And when the weaknesses inherent in your arguments are pointed out (poor word selection, unsupportable statements, etc.) you hide behind "Don't tell me about it; I don't care."
And finally, in a salve to the ego, you try to turn the tables to indicate those of us who have come to understand the nature of your argument and discount it of defensive when, in fact, I suspect most of us are dismissive. Sorry to burst your PhD bubble.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"It is all right to be wrong"

By the way, what do you propose that I admit being wrong about?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Amazing. More than 250 responses about an incredibly stupid controversy. Is there ANYONE either at the Clinton campaign or among Hillary's supporters who are under 50?

David Shuster's use of the word "pimping" on the air may have struck some as unprofessional, but hey, the guy is, what?, in his late twenties or early thirties, and that term is in common usage nowadays among folks in his age range. The word no longer carries a primarily sexual connotation to those who aren't old enough to remember watching Tony Baretta getting the "word on the street" from Rooster (and if you got that TV reference then you're probably one of the ones who are yelling about how terrible Shuster is).

Using such a "charged" word was a stupid thing to do, of course. And Shuster compounded his stupidity by not just taking the ample opportunity the other folks at the table were trying to give him to apologize for any misunderstanding of what he meant, and then restating his observation--that the Billarys use of Chelsea to try and appeal to the superdelegates while simultaneously maintaining that their daughter was a "private person" who the media should leave alone was pretty hypocritical and a little exploitive--in better, more professional language. But a suspension? Give me a break!

With this idiotic overreaction following fast on the heels of its smackdown of Chris Matthews last month for stating an obvious truth--that Hillary's senatorial career is in large part due to sympathy garnered by her victimization at the hands of her husband--MSNBC is fast losing any claim to having an independent voice. The network is becoming just as much a bootlicking tool of the old-guard Democratic establishment as Fox News is of the rabid right.

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

The men behind the curtains(Gremlins I like
to call them)are the same men or family
names who own central banks across the
planet-like the central bank of America
aka. The Federal Reserve. These are the
same names that control most oil
production like BP,Shell,Chevron,Exxon,
Mobil,etc..No wonder we STILL use it.
Anyway, this is the same family tree that
is pushing for the North American Union.
The same family printing the dollar into
toilet-paper-status to make way for the
Amero-REMEMBER NAFTA?
Nonetheless, this same family has been
getting willy out of trouble for years.
I should say families. Rockefeller,Morgan,
Rothschild,Warburg,etc...
"We shall have world government whether
or not we like it. The only question is
whether world government will be acheived
by conquest or consent."

Paul Warburg
Architect of The Federal Reserve System

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

As many have said, if someone had said that Obama was pimping his old lady there would be hell to pay.

Words have meaning.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

That last post what for "PutDownTheKoolaid".

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

WashingtonDame

My advice to you:

Buy a dictionary, because you obviously are lacking in your vocabulary knowledge! when I say buy a dictionary I do not mean the latest urban dictionary either!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

when are the clintons and other represenatives going to realize they actually lose in the eyes of the public when they try to strong arm the press for what ever reason. it looks a little soviet whether its republican or demacrats doing it. this whole issue seems to be misguieded at best and cold and calculating sour grapes of someone who smells defeat and is looking for any handy excuse beside her own political choices. "pimped out is an accepted metaphor and adjective or phase in the current langauge and appears everywhere as an adjective a common example hillary may not be familiar is the option to "pimp my profile" on my space surely this isn't a reference to prostitution of the members...or rupert murdock wouldn't stand 4 it since he is so concerned about protecting the minors on the site...i'm confused why was this a big deal if not excuse shopping... hillary please dump your policy wonk and go back to representing the people or your real life gyurations mite remind people of the money aspects and the ironic fact that representatives seem 2 bee up 4 sale which is ... is... the correct anogy 2 prostitution i think and why we need a third part that is 4 the people

Posted by: artistkvip1 | February 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Are there any other Democrats who divide the party as much as the Clintons? There may be, but I can't think of any.

This Clinton drama is exhaustive. I hope if Hillary is elected we won't have 4-8 years of Clinton scandals/dramas etc. I can't bare it again. I think that anything that happens will be a media festival if the Clintons are in anyway involved.

Within the party women and men are attacking one another over sexism. More division.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | February 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

"You seem to be using the Bill defense: I can say anything I want--forgetting that the number one principle in writing is to make sure I express myself so clearly that people will not misunderstand"

Where did I do that? I was misunderstood by someone who was careless in reading my remarks. I constantly brought up context as a key metric.

" you may tout your PhD all you want"

Where did I do that? I said it as a retort to someone who was boasting about his academic credentials, as a way of saying "so what?" Just like I said to the person with the genius level IQ.

" and berating the student on the way to a PhD simply is another example of debate by attack."

You mean the person who claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that I defend Bill Clinton's behavior towards women? The person who claims to read my mind? What I told him was perfectly fair, and was a lot gentler and kinder than he will get out of his advisor or committee if they are any good.

"It is all right to be wrong; I'm pointing this out because it may be hard for a PhD to admit it when they are."

It is all right to be wrong. This sounds like something we might say to a small child. What gives you the idea I have a hard time admitting that I am wrong? I promptly admitted that I was wrong about Chelsea being a Rhodes Scholar and called it sloppy.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I love to read people rationalizing this use of the word "pimp" by Shuster.

It is really rather benign, they say.

Like the media pimping the whole democratic voting process.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I guess your ad homimen "hopeless suggestion" that I grow up (I am 76 years old) or attacking the reasoning behind my remarks as "sophomoric" is a sign of mature, civil debate to you?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has crossed the line many times in the past. In trying humiliate Clintons and their campaign, MSNBC reporters have thrown all caution to the winds. I used to think that FOX News were bad, but now MSNBC has a group of both male and female reporters who want to outdo each other in their mission to demonise Hillary and her family. Damn it, you are reaching the living rooms of American families, and such vituperative, sexist comments on top of the most partisan coverage of the campaign sends an unmistakable message of loss of control at the very top of MSNBC. To target the daughter of a presidential candidate in this manner is the ultimate disgusting behavior of a major network reporter. If the network thinks that they are covering this campaign fairly, it is not aware of how fair-minded people think that the network has over-reached to the point that it is difficult to watch their comments without a bitter after-taste. It is sickening to watch a major news network go down this path in not only constantly spinning the camapaign against Hillary Clinton, but also channeling its entire resources to demonise individuals selectively. I think that they will do great harm to Obama campaign on whose behalf they are orchestrating such despicable coverage and hate talk. I think that the reporter should be dismissed, not merely suspended. The talk show host should also be taken to task for creating this environment within the show.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse


Why don't we just FIRE anyone anchor who says anything the Clintons don't like?

Or elect the Clintons and they'll try to
keep critism from polluting this democracy.

It's a small incident, bt the third in a week. Bad precedents.

Posted by: whistling | February 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

This faux outrage is EXACTLY why I can't stand the Clintons, especially Hillary. "Pimped out" is a common phrase and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with prostitution. Anybody who is that thin-skinned has no business being anywhere the Oval Office, much less this nation's nuclear arsenal.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | February 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

The "Sweet Ole Boy" should be fired. This sort of journalism has no place in what is proving to be a very spirited democratic process. Look at the numbers. American people are tired of the few who think that the public is stupid and need to be "lead" by idiots like this who have a personal agenda.

Posted by: alvin12 | February 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

osiris1997

WOW!!! I am impressed with your honesty! It is nice to see that there are some honest Obama supporters!!!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

This faux outrage is EXACTLY why I can't stand the Clintons, especially Hillary. "Pimped out" is a common phrase and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with prostitution. Anybody who is that thin-skinned has not business being anywhere the Oval Office, much less this nation's nuclear arsenal.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | February 8, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

What would they say if Chelsea refused to compaign for her mother? Probably that Hillary was a terrible parent.

Posted by: astephens | February 8, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the multiple posts. Malfunctioning internet connection.

Yes, I was wrong about the Rhodes Scholar thing. It was sloppy, but doesn't change my general point about Chelsea's level of education and accomplishment.

As for "genius level IQ", is that supposed to confer credibility? The comment I saw was completely garbled, and I don't think it was just typos. In any case, nothing you have written strikes me as genius level. I could say blah, blah, blah about my credentials, but why bother? I am perfectly happy to have people judge my arguments by what I write, right here, right now.

As for splitting hairs over the meaning of "exploit", I think that many of the comments here have clearly expressed the notion that Chelsea is, to a degree, unwitting about it. Some have been quite explicit in this regard. But if your comment has not, don't come back and tell me about it. I really don't care.

Clearly I have put (and held) several people on the defensive here. That pleases me.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

PDTK:
You seem to be using the Bill defense: I can say anything I want--forgetting that the number one principle in writing is to make sure I express myself so clearly that people will not misunderstand--and then when those comments are remarked upon, I will simply hide behind the BC defense of being misunderstood or taken out of context or--heaven forbid!--the media distorted the truth. In fact, you may tout your PhD all you want but so far you are the one who has defended your position weakly, and berating the student on the way to a PhD simply is another example of debate by attack. It is the Hillary defense this time--attack a word or phrase out of context and build your argument around it.
It is all right to be wrong; I'm pointing this out because it may be hard for a PhD to admit it when they are.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

whistling

You are evidence that morons breed too! Obama should quit whining like a little girl everytime someone mentions the fact he is a confirmed dopehead! I find it amusing that he plays the race card to get blacks to vote fr him and then tells whites not to forget he has a white mother, and by the way everyone needs to forget that his father was a militant muslim from a muslim country that is currently in termoil!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

jontasch

To make such an absurd comment about how "Pimped out" has several possible meanings is commenserate with saying that the word N----r has several meanings also. A words meaning is derived from the context in which it s used and there was and is no mistake in the meaning behind this sexist and deplorable comment. Such sexist and disparaging remarks, like racists remarks, have no business being broadcasts on what is supposed to be a news network!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse


Hillary & Co. should suck it up and take it like a man. Instead they apparently plan the path of centure by bullying. Fire everyone who says boo.

And ofcourse the Clints are nervous about any talk of Chelsea; those widely believed rumors are still out there.
Hillary says she's been vetted? Not even started.


Posted by: whistling | February 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

NBC needs to decide whether it wants to be a respectable news organization or a TV version of an Internet blog where anything goes. You put people like Matthews, Olberman, Shuster et all on the air and this is what you get. Last week it was Matthews. Ah the Peacock must be proud.

Posted by: yyz | February 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

It has been apparent for some time that MSNBC is very biased towards Hillary Clinton campaign. The remarks made by Shuster is only further proof of this fact. I am an Obama supporter, but the level of hostility toward Mrs. Clinton on MSNBC is apalling. Obama does not need that to win. I find it somewhat disconcerting that some on this post would suggest that Shuster's ignorant comments should be seen in the light of the latest interpretation of the word pimp by the younger generation. I am African-American and if If I were a prominent figure, a news reporter, pundit, or elected official, said that Obama is my "N" (the N word). All hell would break loose and I would probably be fired from my TV job or would have a very difficult reelection. Problem is, a lot of young black people use the word as a term of endearment and see no harm in its usage. The same thing applies to the word pimp. David Shuter should know better. I guess he thought he could get away with it though since he was on MSNBC-oops excuse me-I mean the Obama network. Finally, for those who think Bill Clinton played the race card in South Carolina you are absolutely wrong. I can tell you that the race card is played here all the time, most recently late last year when a black judge was running for the South Carolinia Supreme Court. Bill Clinton did not play the race card, the press did.

Posted by: osiris1997 | February 8, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"however, to read any more into it or call someone "uneducated" because they use slang in their daily speak smacks of the elitism."

Oh, I see. Now I'm an effete snob.

Did I say anything about using this term in private conversation among confidants? No. Indeed, I made specific reference to context in most of my posts. On air. General audience. Your grandmother. Business dinner. Your boss. Stuff like that. Lots of it.

My point about being uneducated is directed at all the people here who don't seem to know the difference, the people who seem to think it is okay all the time, anytime.

Trust me, I can speak the vernacular all the way down to trailer trash if the situation calls for it. I just know when, and when not.

Geez, what is with all the straw men arguments around here?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Are there any other Democrats who divide the party as much as the Clintons? There may be, but I can't think of any.

This Clinton drama is exhaustive. I hope if Hillary is elected we won't have 4-8 years of Clinton scandals/dramas etc. I can't bare it again. I think that anything that happens will be a media festival if the Clintons are in anyway involved.

Within the party women and men are attacking one another over sexism. More division.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | February 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I want to throw out one more thing to the three or four or five people I've been tangling with here: don't put words in my mouth. It is poor rhetoric. If you study my comments, you will observe that I don't do this.

As for the PhD student, you've got a tough row to hoe with your lack of rhetorical skills.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

You are on, Put Down.

You are defining exploitation so narrowly--just as so many have defined pimping--that you fail to put it in the proper context.
All you have to do to exploit someone else is to use someone to gain benefit, he act of utilizing someone for a purpose, It does not have to be nefarious, as you infer. So to the extent that Hillary Clinton uses her daughter to gain benefit from that use, she is exploiting Chelsea.
Next?

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

"jmschwarz, learn how to write."

"As for those of you who keep saying that Clinton is exploiting her daughter, this belief strikes me as extremely chauvinistic. A 28 year old Rhodes Scholar being exploited?!?!? You speak of her as though she is a child. Think about it."

What I can say of the quoted post from PutDownTheKoolAid is this: The only thing I see related to me is the substanceless ad hominem attack. The note I add to that is to see the follow-up that I posted about the non-proofed version appearing rather than the corrected one I pasted into the comment box. It's typing, not writing. FWIW, I have a genius-level IQ by a mile and a higher verbal aptitude than the avg. for PhD's in English from Harvard (or anywhere else for that matter)--based on GRE's.

I submitted another comment that hasn't posted here addressing your other comments quoted above. Given that it seems that they won't be posted here, I repeat:

Chelsea was NOT A Rhodes Scholar. Bill was. Wherever you got that idea is beyond me. An adult? Yes. Sexist and partonizing to refer to her as a "child?" Yes, I don't think they'd be doing that if she were male.

Here's too Skunk adn Right.

Posted by: jackstpaul | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I want to throw out one more thing to the three or four or five people I've been tangling with here: don't put words in my mouth. It is poor rhetoric. If you study my comments, you will observe that I don't do this.

As for the PhD student, you've got a tough row to hoe with your lack of rhetorical skills.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RetCombatVet | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Are there any other Democrats who divide the party as much as the Clintons? There may be, but I can't think of any.

This Clinton drama is exhaustive. I hope if Hillary is elected we won't have 4-8 years of Clinton scandals/dramas etc. I can't bare it again. I think that anything that happens will be a media festival if the Clintons are in anyway involved.

Within the party women and men are attacking one another over sexism. More division.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

jontasch

Your post about the word pimped out having several meaning is about as absurd as someone saying that the word N___ger also has many meanings. The meaning behind a word is derived from the context in which it is used in and such was clearly evident last night!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"however, to read any more into it or call someone "uneducated" because they use slang in their daily speak smacks of the elitism."

Oh, I see. Now I'm an effete snob.

Did I say anything about using this term in private conversation among confidants? No. Indeed, I made specific reference to context in most of my posts. On air. General audience. Your grandmother. Business dinner. Your boss. Stuff like that. Lots of it.

My point about being uneducated is directed at all the people here who don't seem to know the difference, the people who seem to think it is okay all the time, anytime.

Trust me, I can speak the vernacular all the way down to trailer trash if the situation calls for it. I just know when, and when not.

Geez, what is with all the straw men arguments around here?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Just goes to show that Shuster shouldn't even BE a reporter-no sense of judgement whatsoever, completely unprofessional, and (worst of all) you can see comtempt in his face. Oh! I guess that could describe MOST of the reporters (sic) on MSNBC.

Posted by: rwag44 | February 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The word "pimpin'" has become standard contemporary lingo to mean any use of another person for profit -- either actual or virtual. The reporter was being culturally hip, but perhaps because he's one of those young hotshots trying to move up the ladder of the corporate media establishment, he thought he could get away with it. Not to be politically incorrect or anything, but that attitude is also a "white guy" thing -- goes with the territory of taking one's cultural position for granted. Maybe MSNBC should give its cravenly ambitious Barbies and Kens some classes in manners and common courtesy. Remember when those qualities actually mattered?

A.F. Cook
www.redzonepolitics.com

Posted by: derenbaker | February 8, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"if you have issues with Shusterman's comment, then you should have issues with Bill's disgusting behaviour toward women."

Who says I don't have issues with it? I never said that. As for the rest of your comment, it is pure projection.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Typical of the MSNBC media outlet that also has a news story on its site for viewers to vote on Hillary's ten worst outfits. How completely sexist! Of course in this age of political incorrectness it is perfectly acceptable for these journalistic hacks, who are in bed with the republican party, to make gender based stereotypical comments while portraying completely innocent comments by anyone on the Clinton staff as having racial overtones! Of course these are a lot of the same people that giggled about O.J.'s comments about beating his wife in an exercise video!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

The media really needs to back off all the negative attacks on any candidates. This attack on Chelsea and the "cult" story attacks on Obama need to stop now. The media should be ashamed. There is too much at stake here and we need a fair and balanced election without interference from the media.

Posted by: zb95 | February 8, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"I feel like Hillary supporters do whatever they can to ignore the fact that Hillary has voted for the Iraq war several times. "

Bingo. This is the number one reason I support Obama.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama trots his children out all the time,
Edward's daughter went everywhere campaigning. The Rommney sons were every where, but it seems to be only the Clinton's who are using their daughter????
PlEASE TO EVEN SUGGEST THERE IS NOT A BIAS HERE........

Posted by: karenann1730-politics | February 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse


For those faulting the usage of the term as unprofessional, I would agree. However, it is yet another thing to say the term is always inappropriate. No, it is not for use at a business dinner. However, it is quite common in everyday talk.

I will agree that it was a poor choice of words - however, to read any more into it or call someone "uneducated" because they use slang in their daily speak smacks of the elitism.

Posted by: klpaolilli | February 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Putdown...

Have a good evening...you are a flip flopper..your pre-doc training obviously didnt' teach you how to stick to the discussion and thoroughly debate and support your argument..shooting off meaningless words that don't connect doesnt suppport your argument..if you have issues with Shusterman's comment, then you should have issues with Bill's disgusting behaviour toward women....if not, you have double standards and/or have not thoroughly debated your argument or have not stated clearly stated your position..end of the subject...gotta go! (PhD-101)

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Many of these comments miss what I think is the real point in all of this. We have encouraged the junk on 24 hour cable by allowing sleezy, partisan, tasteless reporting to substitute for real journalism. Professional politicos love this stuff and use it for their own purposes, but when the coverage is adverse they cry foul.

The television networks, cable and otherwise, are owned by large corporations who long ago sacrificed news content for entertainment posing as news. Many of these same organizations have intentionally slanted news content to further their own economic interests, and very little of it is "liberal."

How can anyone in the world be surprised or offended that a hack like this guy said something tasteless and provocative. That was his job and he was simply sinking to the standard that we have tolerated. As for the Clintons, responding this way to a stupid throwaway remark by an obvious idiot is just cynically creating a headline. I, for one, am sick of this.

Read your newspapers, folks, and turn off the tlevision completely. Vote against candidates who shamelessly game the system. We get what we deserve by tolerating all of this foolishness.

Posted by: tammany | February 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree Shuster crossed the line, and I resent the language he used. There is no excuse for that kind of comment on a very decent young lady, who i think is very well-behaved but my focus is on the elections and my plan to vote against the Clintons for these reasons: The scandals - Monica Lewinsky Sex Scandal, Marc Rich Money for Pardon Scandal, Travelgate, Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal, Lying under oath (felon?), law license suspended for unethical behavior.

Also the Clintons have refused to release the donors to the Clinton Library fund, and Hillary's White House papers which includes her work on the failed healthcare reforms of the 90s.

Please google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons from the 90s.

These are the reasons why I am voting to reject the Clintons and I believe if ethics, integrity and morals matter to you, you will also reject the Clintons. Their rap sheet is too long, and anyone with this kind of rap sheet should not be living in the White House. Also if Bill gets back to the White House, he would think he's been rewarded for all he made the nation go through in the 90s. I do not want Bill to start granting pardons again to felons for cash as he did with Marc Rich. I rest my case. Reject the Clintons - Vote McCain or Vote Obama

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 8, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that not one of my adversaries here has made any effort to defend the proposition that a 28 year old, highly educated, well-traveled woman can be so easily exploited. Especially one who has spent her whole life observing hardball politics.

Interesting indeed.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

While perhaps this was a regrettable slip of the tongue, I think the Clinton's outrage is out of proportion. It seems more of a way to remind voters that Hillary is a mother, morethan anything else.

Chelsea is no longer an awkward teenager - I had no problems with the fact that they had a blanket ban on discussions concerning their daughter while they were in the White House. It's hard enough to be a teenager without your acne, bad hair and braces being beamed to the world.

But Ms. Clinton is now a self-possessed and poised young woman, aged 28 in a few weeks. She appears to have chosen to campaign for her mother, when before, she stayed away from any form of statements surrounding her parents' political lives. The fact that she started to campaign late last year when the primary/caucus season - and that she left her job at a management consulting firm to work at a heavily pro-Clinton hedge fund in 2006 - says to many that she is, in fact, another tool in the Billary political war chest.

Her parents have taken the art of negative campaigning and media manipulation and raised it to an art form. Now that a member of the media is engaging in the level of communication they engendered, NOW they are shocked and horrified? They can't have their cake and eat it as well.

I don't necessarily condone the language or the strict interpretation of the slang, but the sentiment probably isn't too far off the mark. I wonder what stings more - the fact that they were compared to pimps or the fact that the media is seeing through their tricks more clearly this time around.

Posted by: Chasmosaur1 | February 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Jayne

The only thin skinned individual in this campaign is Obama, or is it Obaka, who whines like a two year old with poop in his pants every time someone brings up the fact that he was a drug addict at one time. Chelsea was never engaged in any kind of activity that could warrant such a truly disparaging remark. Of course, in these days of political incorrectness it seems to be perfectly acceptable to say any lie or disparaging remark about a white individual while it is taboo to even say the truth if it offends a black person. Gow up and get real and quitcampaigning for preferential treatment, which is defined as prejudicial disciminatory behavior!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I feel like Hillary supporters do whatever they can to ignore the fact that Hillary has voted for the Iraq war several times. That is a shame to the democratic party because there is a lot of blood & money on that vote. Sure, it would be great to see a woman president because they have been oppressed in the past, but compared to African Americans, women have had it much better (not that race and gender should be a determining factor anyways... but unfortunately people usually identify themselves heavily along these lines). And lastly, as someone who studies writing & rhetoric, I notice how the Clinton strategists play the feminist card to the max (i.e. proclaiming to America in a somber mood that she had to loan her own campaign five million dollars). This persuasion tactic really stirred up the fact that men have had better financial opportunities in the past and to no surprise it worked because her campaign raised six million dollars in the next two days after that. Oh and- I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November.

Posted by: pg6959 | February 8, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"AND you will have to do a heck of a lot more to convince me that Hillary isn't enjoying this kerfuffle"

Straw man. Learn to debate.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

In the Movie "Training Day", the main charactor (played by Denzel Washington) a dirty cop emeshed with city council and drug money, said, "pimp the pimps and play the players".

Why does that remind me of Rove ? Rove seems to be starting his bravo sierra on international cable tv again. Rove claims McCaiin is beating Clinton in national polls. What national polls Karl ? Seems to me this is deja vu all over again going back to 2006 midterm elections. Rove stated the same kind of crap before his head was handed to him on a silver platter. Nice try Karl. Follow the money ?

Otherwise, I guess my homey Shuster was trying to be hip and the Clinton camp said well, I guess we won't be debating on MSNBC. The irony of this situation is that on this past election night Chris "Softball" Mathews gave Shuster the task of enticing Obama onto his show for an hour long interview.

Look, one of the old barons or tycoons of the past was put in a position of firing one of his most gifted employees that made a mistake costing the company big bucks. The employee got called into the boss's office. This kid thought for sure he was going to be let go. His boss asked him what he had learned through the affair. After listening to the kid, the boss said good. I am going to keep you as I just spent $100,000.00 on your education. Back then that was equivelent to I million bucks I would bet.

Posted by: truthhurts | February 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"Definitions of words evolve overtime, and younger generations claim termans invented by older generations as their own."

Thanks for the lecture. Schuster's audience isn't just the MTV, Gen Y crowd. It includes your grandmother.

Once again, I must harp on the same points to get it through all the thick skulls around here: there is a time and a place to drop the decorum, but it isn't on a television news broadcast. And again, tiresome though it may seem, I must use the same analogy: would you use this terminology with a boss or a business client?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse


Too bad the sexist, anti-Clinton hacks at MSNBC can't stop shooting off their big mouths long enough to go out and dig up some REAL news..


APNewsAlert
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Associated Press has learned that a classfied Pentagon assessment has concluded that prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have prevented the military from improving its
ability to respond to any new crisis.

Boycott NBC Universal.

Boycott General Electric.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

PD-
Don't have to prove it. I merely said it appears that you are a supporter. And based on the fervor of your rather flimsy argument in defense of the woman, I think that is a reasonable assumption. But of course, as I am sure you are aware, since you HAVE a PhD, there is nothing to prove if all you have done is state an opinion. And, no, much like one of the two Democratic candidates still in the running, I don't have to accept bait.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"sorry everyone is not a Clintonian...Did you feel the same for poor Monica Lewinsky"

I am not a Clintonian. By what logic do you draw that conclusion? As for the rest of your remark, it is pure straw man argumentation. Who are you to put words in my mouth? I have not said anything at all to indicate that I support or defend any of the behaviors you mention. If this is the best you can do, then you are a long way from deserving a PhD.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Too bad the sexist, anti-Clinton hacks at MSNBC can't stop shooting off their big mouths long enough to dig up some REAL news..


APNewsAlert
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Associated Press has learned that a
classfied Pentagon assessment has concluded that prolonged wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan have prevented the military from improving its
ability to respond to any new crisis.

Boycott NBC Universal.

Boycott General Electric.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"PutDown,

It appears your are a staunch Clinton supporter; fine."

Absolutely false. Show me the evidence you have used to draw this conclusion.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

PutDown,
The English language is a funny thing: what one person hears and is offended by may not offend another. Definitions of words evolve overtime, and younger generations claim termans invented by older generations as their own. You would have to be a heck of a lot more convincing about the damaging inflected by the term used than you or anyone else on this list has been to convince me the use of the word deserved a suspension and groveling by a media outlet. AND you will have to do a heck of a lot more to convince me that Hillary isn't enjoying this kerfuffle and is even stoking the discussion. Few things in life are going to resonant with women than a mother's outrage -- for a woman who decries gender politics, this woman has cornered the market on subversive use of it.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I heard this comment last night and was very pleased that Bill Press defended her. I thought it was rude, crude and socially more than unacceptable.
I'm happy to see that MSNBC has suspended young Mr. Schuster for it.
It was an insult to all women.
To suggest that working for a political campaign, especially when you're related to the candidate is comparable to prostitution is outrageous.
It's akin to suggesting that women out in public should wear burkas in another culture.
God help someone who would have made the same comment about Michelle Obama.
It was a Don Imus moment and young Mr. Schuster is getting a lesson in respect that he needed to have.
Schuster is a good reporter. It's apparent from the quality of his apologies today that he didn't make the comment in a malicious manner, but there is a low quality to a number of commenters on the Washington Post who would cheer for such debasing treatment, as they take that attitude toward Senator Clinton on a regular basis, reading into everything she does the most base instincts. They have no reason to render such contempt except that they just don't like her. So they rip her motives limb from limb, without any proof or reason, except they are deliberately trying to denigate in the coarsest manner possible.
It's as contemptable as any racist remark, in that it denigates her sex.
This kind of intemperate behavior is not kind, not "Christian." It is just crude, in the worst way.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | February 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

PutDown,

It appears your are a staunch Clinton supporter; fine. But if you cannot see a woman who is heavily into attempting manipulation of the media (and the electorate) with these carefully orchestrated scenes, then you are unlikely to be open to any sort of objective discussion of merit of the candidates. Support away, but before you do, perhaps you should put down the koolaid.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

PutdowntheKoolaid

I will definitely have that discussion with my advisor...sorry everyone is not a Clintonian...Did you feel the same for poor Monica Lewinsky when she was exploited by the President while she was on her knees having oral sex with him in the white house (sorry for the graphics...but you don't seem to get it) for a tradeoff as an internship and not to mention that Monica was much younger than Chelsea...Wouldn't you consider that a form of prostitution? C'mom you have a PhD...use your head..Were you hooping and hollering to Mr. Bill about using a woman, somebody's daughter in such a nasty and disgusting way? Or are you just biased to the Clintons and poor Chelsea....Double standards...maybe?

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"I understand censorship, and I understand when someone is trying to impose it."

Are you claiming that Schuster can say whatever he wants on the air? Does he own the airwaves? Does he pay the license fees? No. It is not his network. He is an employee, and employees cannot say just anything they want to while on the job and representing the company. To call it censorship is ludicrous, and shows just how little you understand of the concept. What if Schuster said the F word? That is generally protected speech under the Constitution. Would you call it censorship then?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Mainstream media is the biggest loser of this primary season.

Their bias reporting--putting Hillary in the negative light while giving Obama a free ride--doesn't sit well with my sense of fairness.

Based on their prediction, Hillary is supposed to finish by now. In fact, Hillary is still standing.

I think we really should watch TV news as entertainment--not like real news--because they are not credible. All those pundits all have their own agenda. They are not objectively commenting anything but inputting their subject opinions.

Since I have my own opinions, I don't need their opinions.

Posted by: wenmay2002 | February 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

PutDown...
THen try this one on: Hillary Clinton is exploiting the gender card again by her ridiculous outrage over an insignificant incident. One would think she need the sympathy vote for an election coming up....tomorrow??????? Naw, can't be. She would never stoop to ANYTHING so base as to try it yet again.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"I understand censorship, and I understand when someone is trying to impose it."

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Somehow the wrong, non-proofed version of my comment above was posted despite having pasted in the new version. I'm not that illiterate.

Something I saw posted somewhere:

Olberman--MSNBC--referred to Gen. Petraeus being "pimped out" by George W. last fall to push W.'s war agenda.

Was that sexist of Keith? If not, what was it? Was it as offensive as Shuster's comment about CHelsea? Mustn't it be for those that think the comment about Chelsea was so offensive for the sake of consistency and non-hypocrisy?

Posted by: jackstpaul | February 8, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

If Bill was allowed to trash each and every women he was one or another way involved with, and still was allowed to stay in White House, who, to the hell, can dismiss Shuster about the little comment about Chelsea. How is Chelsea better than Monica Lewinsky, ot thousands wome, whom Bill Clinton trashed one or another way? Is this 27 years old a royalty or what? She is not smarter, not a bit better looking, or more nice natured than a lot of these women. So, how come that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are running back to White House after all trashing and offences the females of this country withstabd form them, but Shuster is susended because of one little and not very offenseve comment about Chelsea?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"I happen to have an MBA and currently a PhD candidate."

I happen to HAVE a PhD. Why don't you follow my suggestion and throw in the word "pimp" during a conversation with your advisor or members of your dissertation committee, and see whether they think using this term is a sign of maturity?

Also, I will reiterate, once again, that the obsession with the idea that someone of Chelsea's age, intelligence, and experience, could be exploited is strongly suggestive of a sexist, paternal attitude.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann says much worse about Bush every night and I would drop dead of a heart attacks if MSNBC brass made him apologize for it.

Just further example of how the overwhelming majority of news outlets are partisan liberal outfits. Kind of like the Post.

Posted by: bobmoses | February 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Remember what Harry Truman said? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: kdk1960 | February 8, 2008 06:23 PM

Truman also publicly threatened to punch a newspaper entertainment critic in the face after the writer published a column that ridiculed his daughter, Margaret Truman, and her singing ability.

Very true and famous story.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

PutDownTheKoolaid
I understand censorship, and I understand when someone is trying to impose it. I don't like the what is said and so I am going to force you to remove the what I don't like and punish the one who said it.
And in threatening to pull out of the debates, the Clinton campaign added blackmail to the mix: if you don't do exactly what I tell you to do, I'll just pick up my ball and bat and go home and then you'll see how many viewers you will get. That will show you.
Hillary Clinton is using her daughter to reach her goals, but she wants to use her while keeping her off limits to anyone else. You can't have it both ways, Hillary: once you bring Chelsea on the campaign, once you have her calling super delegates to try to sway them to Chelsea's mom, once you have her calling news shows, you have opened her up to scrutiny by all.
The choice of words were poor, I will grant you, but the suspension was too stiff a punishment. MSNBC broke under the pressure, and my respect for them has plummetted: they should have stood by their reporter, who did apologize, and NEVER, NEVER allow a candidate to dictate anything.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

jmschwarz, learn how to write.

As for those of you who keep saying that Clinton is exploiting her daughter, this belief strikes me as extremely chauvinistic. A 28 year old Rhodes Scholar being exploited?!?!? You speak of her as though she is a child.

Think about it.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

PutDownTheKoolaid

I happen to have an MBA and currently a PhD candidate. I just have enough common sense to realize when a nut puts their daughter on front street to gather votes..she's throwing her child to the wolves, especially if the mom's a TIGER!! The parents are pimping their daughter for superdelegate votes....They're down to crunch time...

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Here is yet another example why I'm glad I don't have cable.

Posted by: ssomo | February 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

So when is noted journalist Rush Limbaugh going to apologize for his "an@l poisoning" comment.

Posted by: buffysummers | February 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Censorship is a terrible thing, and that is what this unfortunate thing is about."

Obviously you do not know what the word censorship means. There is no censorship going on here. Schuster is being punished by his employer for acting unprofessionally. I suggest you call your boss a pimp, then complain about censorship when you are punished for it.

I suppose it isn't surprising that defenders of this vulgar usage are lacking in critical thinking skills.

As for Chelsea Clinton being exploited, it is extremely patronizing to suggest that a 28 year old Rhodes Scholar is being exploited. Clearly Chelsea is doing it of her own free will, with full understanding of what she is doing. If you want to criticize someone, criticize Chelsea, and do it straight up without the childish, misogynist language.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Remember what Harry Truman said? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: kdk1960 | February 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

An unfortunate choice of words, but Schuster's message was accurate in terms of how Hillary was using her daughter to her advantage.

Posted by: ftro | February 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

s it sexist if Shuster made the comment once in his life without particular respect to gender? Would it be sexist if Schuster has used the tem "pimp" as a general figure of speech in relation to both sexes? Would it be sexist if he's used it 20 times in relation to a male but only one--for Chelsea here--for a woman? Would it be sexist if he ahs used the label for women repeatedly but not for men exhibiting the same behavior? No, no, no, no, yes.

This is exploitative victim -politics over the use of a label that is used for men often as well. We don't even know if the use of that label in that non-sex/prostitution context is more prevalently applied to women or men or vice versa. If it is used proportionally, or more regarding men that women does that make it sexist? I'd say "no."

Ditto what someone somewhere said about Emily's List hypocrisy other of sexism given that they exist to serve the sexist purpose of supporting only female candidates. Imagine if such an organization existed to promote only male candidates.

The sexism of Shuster doesn't rest on one comment, in my mind.

Is MSNBC sexist? How can an entity be sexist? I'd say it can be if there's a pastern of hiring and tolerating the behavior of people exhibiting sexism, such as Fox being a conservative network--clearly.

Instances of 2 long-time employees making putatively sexist comments about Clinton doesn't make the network sexists.

I think Matthew's comment was absolutely adn horrifyingly sexist. He completely demeaned Hillary's success as merely subordinate to Bill's success. That's traditional sexism. Hillary is obviously sufficiently intelligent, skilled, articulate, broadly and deeply knowledgeable, assertive, strong, and numerous other things to be a well-qualified and successful Senator and serious Presidential candidate. Matthew's completely dismissed her own skills and abilities. In any recognition of such a highly talented person without knowledge of his or her sex, I can't imagine anyone not recognizing Hillary as being fit to be a major political figure.

This is victim -poltics over the use of a labnel that is used for men often as well. Wed on't even know if the use of that laebl in that non-sex/prossstituion context is more rpevalentyly applied ot owman or men or vice versa. IF it is used proportionally, or mroe regarding men that women does that make it sexists? I'd say "no."

Ditto what someone somewhere said about Emily's List maccungin other of sexism given that they exist to serve the sexist purpose of supporting only female candidates. Imagine if such an organization existed to promote only maale candidates?

IS MSNBC sexists? How can an enitity be sexist? I'd say it can be if there'a paptern of hirign and torlating the behvaior of people exhibitng sexism, such as Fox being a conserative network--clealry.

Instacne of 2 long-time employees making putatively sexist comments about CLinto doesn't make the network sexists.

I think Matthew's comment was absolutley adn horrifyling sexist. He compeltely demaend Hillary's sucess as merely subordaitne to Bill's ssucess. That's tradtional sexism. Hillary is obvilus;y sufficcnetly intelligent, skilled, articaulte, broadly and deeply knowledagbe, assertive, satrong, and numeorus other things to be a well-qualifed and successful Senator and serious Presidential candidte. AMtthew's compeltely dismiseed her own skills and abilties.

Did SHuster demean CHelsea such? No.

Posted by: jackstpaul | February 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"There, I said it! Deal with it!"

Okay, trash talker.

I do not know any educated person who would use such a vulgar expression in a public setting. The rationalizations being written here are lame. The expression is laden with misogynist overtones, particularly when applied to parents with regard to their own daughter.

I ask again: how many of you would use this expression at a business dinner?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

PC? How about Condi bending over for Osama?

Posted by: Garak | February 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Censorship is a terrible thing, and that is what this unfortunate thing is about. Clinton has artificially flexed her muscle to silence someone, and those who support that heavy-handed tactics are complicit. The Clintons stuck Chelsea in front of the mainstream media and have used her to advance their goal; by voluntarily involving her they they made her fair game. They can't have it both way and now complain about the nature of politcs.
But call me a cynic. I am appalled that Hillary Clinton is once more playing the gender card. This lionness defending her cub is so far over the line that I recoil at the sight and sound of it. If women are EVER to be considered equal, they must learn to take this sort of rough and tough environment without resorting to games. For all you women who have embraced Hillary because you are empathizing with her, get over it: I don't want the president of the US blackmailing the media when things don't go his or her way.
And, finally, this is such great publicity for Clinton that I'm surprised she doesn't give the guy a few bucks for his efforts.
Way overblown reaction by Hillary, way overblown by the folks who want us all believe this woman has the right to censor, blackmail, pretend outrage, etc. Shame on all of us who get swallowed whole by this performance.

Posted by: graytok | February 8, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I agree...the Clintonians did pimp Chelsea...they had her begging the superdelegates to "please vote for my mommy"...not to mention that she begged those nuts on the "View" to endorse her mommy..but in the same voice they are quick to say that endorsements don't mean anything..They did pimp Chelsea, in every sense of the meaning of the word..There, I said it! Deal with it!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"That's what "pimping someone out" means"
-------------------------------------
Uh huh. Would you use this expression at a business dinner? Oh, never mind. I forgot that you work at a car wash, and wouldn't understand what that means.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I like Shuster, but that was a stupid remark. If he needed to, he should have pointed out that Chelsea refuses to talk to the press but is wiling to be available for photo ops because she is less polarizing than Bill. How else could he have said that?

She's a stage prop. She is 28 Y.O. If she is being "used" by her parents, then she made that decision. That alone speaks volumes and doesn't offend anyone.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

You don't build yourself up by tearing down others.

Posted by: Claire120 | February 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh please. The Clintons desperately push poor Chelsea out on the trail when she obviously has no stomach for it. Somebody calls them on it (albeit tastelessly), and they milk their outrage for everything they can. Sickening.

Posted by: jonfoo | February 8, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I suppose we're each entitled to our own standards. I choose to set mine a bit higher.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps MSNBC really stands for MiSogyNistic Boys Club. After the hateful comments of Don Imus, Chris Matthews and now David Schuster, it's obvious this bunch of misogynistic loud mouths have obvious problems with women and are particularly threatened at the thought of having a women president.

Now wonder their ratings are so low.

Posted by: mamcgi | February 8, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

PutDownTheKoolaid:

Don't you agree that Team Clinton is using Chelsea to make a sympathetic appeal to voters and superdelegates?

That's what "pimping someone out" means - just like Huckabee is "pimping out" Chuck Norris, Obama is "pimping out" the Kennedys and Oprah, McCain is "pimping out" Charlie Crist, and Clinton is "pimping out" Eliot Spitzer. This is such a stupid controversy.

Posted by: rezlieg | February 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"Or, the Iranians? Or, the Chinese"
--------------------------------

The reasoning behind these remarks is sophomoric. ...
Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid


===================

I think that's the idea.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Yup, the trash talk defenders are out here in full force. Probably the same jerks who prance around the living room when a football player gets hurt. It is all part of the coarsening of our society.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

The word "pimp" actually has multiple definitions, including "to exploit (in a non-sexual way)
---------------------------

The remark was plainly derogatory. I would suggest growing up and admitting it, but I see that in your case it is a hopeless suggestion.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

onestring:

You've come a long way from the heady days of Al "Count Every Vote" Gore . . .

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

There is a serious lack of understanding what the term "pimp out" means in today's vernacular. It's not appopriate for a reporter to use it on the air, but it's certainly very common in slang and informal talk these days. To borrow a dated slang term - chill out.

Posted by: klpaolilli | February 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

....azzezewale.....I totally agree with you.....Shusterman explained himself...and what he meant....just like Bill Clinton and Hillary explained themselves when the made the comparison of Obama's campaign vs Jesse Jackson, the fairy tale run for presidency, it took a white President to change the civil right laws, oh...Bill.using the subliminal protocal that all politicians use and know about to generate race baiting...need I go on...

Interestingly, there is always some upsetting incident that hurts the poor Clinton's feeling the day before a big election...Is this their way of getting free advertisement or sympathy votes...because we all know darn well that those Clintons have THICK ALLIGATOR SKIN! I guess this is her way of getting more delegates...you go Girl!! A woman's gotta do what a woman's gotta do!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

As for CNN,Wallstreet journal and u-tube
blogs, I've been trying to communicate
through these since early '07. Silly me
didn't notice they're being devoured by
Murdoch. At least FOX has the guts to
edit and distort my communications in
the public's face-THAT I can respect!

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"If Hillary can't even take a reporter's comment then how will she take on the Republicans?"

"Or, the Iranians? Or, the Chinese"
--------------------------------

The reasoning behind these remarks is sophomoric. Being able to handle the role of President does not mean accepting offensive remarks about one's own offspring. I assert to the contrary. What would it say about Clinton if she DIDN'T defend her family honor?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT?!!!

Posted by: gblaw101 | February 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I missed this comment as I no longer watch MSNBC. I got sick and tired of all their "men" and the way they ran their mouths dissing Senator Clinton. Why are they so afraid of a woman? They belong to the neanderthal class who still think women should be barefoot, pregnant , and in the kitchen. Many first class countries have a woman in charge. We should too. Tune them out; write to the network and tell them why you have.

Posted by: Claire120 | February 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

they completely distorted schuster's comments which in all fairness is wrong....that's what they do...distort your records!!!! Everybody knows what he meant by her campaign is pimping her out...it's not like he said her campaign is sending her out for prostitution...the sentence is clear they are using her for political gains....the word pimp means to promote..if they don't debate on msnbc fine..who cares go to your buddy mudorch on fox...hook up with o'reilly while you are at it!!!

Posted by: azeezwale | February 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

PutDownTheKoolaid (seriously)

The word "pimp" actually has multiple definitions, including "to exploit (in a non-sexual way)" or "advertise"

Check out dictionary.com : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pimp


Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe in freedom of speech. Speech I agree with is free. Speech I disagree with should be censored. So I guess I don't believe in freedom of speech after all. The best antidote to speech you disagree with is more speech, not censorship.

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The comment of David Schuster was inappropriate, he shouldn't be suspended; he should be FIRED from his job. I believe in freedom of Speech, but it has limitations. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Any human being would be appalled if they'd be accused of pimping a family member.

Some people has the habit of dehumanizing another human being to make them feel good. How would you feel if that is done to someone you love and care about?

Posted by: supremalex | February 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it amazing that, in this campaign where no white man is running, so much of the heat is coming from race and gender issues?

Why is that? Because Team Clinton perceives a strategic advantage. It wants to make the campaign about Obama being black and about Clinton being a woman. At bottom, a cold-hearted calculation - Clinton's identity group (ladies) is much, much bigger than Obama's (blacks).

Arguably, this opportunistic and purposeful manipulation of race and gender is even more destructive than overt racism or sexism. Instead of freeing us from our categories, it traps us within them.

Posted by: rezlieg | February 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Can't have you cake, and eat it too, hillary.

Keep your daughter out of it, if you want her to be kept out of it.

If Chelsea is calling on super delegates, she is no longer just smiling and waiving daughter, there to promote the family image.

It makes her a high level campaign operative, and she needs to speak to the press.

Posted by: onestring | February 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

cnash320:

Rather than forcing us to guess which of the many, many offensive comments you think Bill Clinton should apologize to Barack Obama for -- and instead of writing long posts asking for said apology over and over -- how about you QUOTE one or two that you think were most offensive?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

azeezwale, I suggest you study the dictionary definition of "pimp", "pimped", and "pimping" before sharing your ignorant view of what is or is not derogatory. It is a patently misogynist term, regardless of whether it finds daily use among your lowlife cohort.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"If Hillary can't even take a reporter's comment then how will she take on the Republicans?"

Or, the Iranians? Or, the Chinese?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

That's a good, but inadequate beginning. Let's work on housebreaking Tweety

Posted by: MadDogDem | February 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

....Zuckermand.....Do just what you are doing now...visit those stated news stations' websites, newspapers and magazines, click on their past news reports, you get the stories in length and verbatum....It's quite simple. It's called doing research. It's all there...I am pretty sure you are smart enough to find it...By the way will the President be making that apology to Obama?

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The comment of David Schuster was inappropriate, he shouldn't be suspended; he should be FIRED from his job. I believe in freedom of Speech, but it has limitations. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Any human being would be appalled if they'd be accused of pimping a family member. Would you accuse a father or a mother of pimping their children when their children is having them work in low paying jobs to put food in their table?

Some people has the habit of dehumanizing another human being to make them feel good. How would you feel if that is done to someone you love and care about?

Posted by: supremalex | February 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The comment was patently offensive, but I'm not surprised that so many just blow it off, or worse yet, use it as a springboard to express their own hatred of the Clintons. I am an Obama supporter, and I have a lot of problem with the Clintons, but acceptance and rationalization of this kind of offensive remark shows just how much the for-profit infotainment media has cheapened discourse in this country. Sure the hate-radio bigmouths like Rush say far worse things, but that is no reason for letting this kind of garbage slide.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 8, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

More sleazy personal attacks on the Clintons by the media ! What else is new? So Chelsea is being "pimped" now, real nice slander towards women, wow, you "reporters" should be ashamed! this is very common with these tabloid quality reporters on MSNBC and CNN too. They should ALL be suspended like Mr. Shuster, what a hack.

GO HILLARY!!!

WE LOVE YOU CHELSEA!!!

Posted by: Hillary08 | February 8, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

seriously all the hrc supporters shut up!!! this is getting very annoying...obama gets his fair share of bashing on msnbc dan abrams and like...karl rove calling him lazy even your very own bill!!! someone on this post is talking about if it was michelle obama there would be a loud uproar....how loud is do you want this issue to be as it is right now...Get over your sexist selves...there is nothing wrong with using pimping it's an english word and is not even close to being derogatory!!!.

Posted by: azeezwale | February 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

David Shuster is an outstanding reporter. This is RIDICULOUS! If Hillary can't even take a reporter's comment then how will she take on the Republicans? Grow a backbone Hillary. This is the reaction from someone who has been "vetted"? Give me a break.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | February 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

zuckermand:

I can't speak for cnash320, but if I had to guess it would be either the MLK Jr. / Lyndon Johnson analogy or the "fairy tale" comment. YMMV.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Did Maureen Russert write this snide comment for Davey? Timmy loves to bring up Hillarys Today Show comment about the "vast right wing conpiracy" every chance he gets. And God help us, but the biggest drunken blowhard, Chrissy Matthews, is so broken hearted that his "Main Man" Rudy is out of the race.

They are a bunch of pompous bullies that think they are all so clever...they all belong on Fox, except for Keith Olberman and Dan Abrams.

Shame on NBC and MSNBC.

Posted by: adfxb | February 8, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

God forbid you say anything against the clintons!!!! you'll get hung by the gallows....if george bush was to start crying against all the reporters that have done name bashing then we'll have no journalists left....chelsea decided to get into politics...at that point she has chosen to move away from the same kind of cover that can be attributed to the bushs' daughters or like...she's 27 for crying out loud...Lights out for the rich and famous seriously!!!

Posted by: azeezwale | February 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

It is clear that comments like:

"
Obama supporters are using this issue as a way to attack the Clintons and defending David Schuster over his comment last night that Bill and Hillary were "pimping out" their daughter. Some Obama followers think that the comment was totally acceptable. This is the time for Obama to step up. Will he say that the comments were offensive and his supporters should agree? Will he ignore the issue? Will he satnd by while some of his supporters defend Schuster and blame the Clintons?
Posted by: ericr1970 | February 8, 2008 04:30 PM "

are written by those who want to take every opportunity and cloud the issues and create chaos so then they can redefine the events for their benefit.

There are no discernible conflicts in this issue between Obama and Clinton supporters.

GOP supporters however would write-in comments like these to create confusion and subsequently hate between the two groups.

Posted by: hjd789 | February 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Shuster shouldn't have used the term, but, once again, political correctness conquers all. "Shill" would have been better.

Take a look a "Urban Dictionary" and the word pimp, when used as a verb, means to promote. Here's the quote:

"to pimp is to advertise (generally, in an enthusiastic sense) or to call attention in order to bring acclaim to something; to promote"

I concur that both parents and offspring should be "off limits" in Presidential Campaigns. That is, however, until they inject themselves into the process. Chelsea Clinton's been holding rallies, calling Superdelegates etc. In short, doing everything her father's doing, short of race baiting and attacking, and doing it better, by the way.

Shuster will be back on the air, chastised to be sure. The cynical amongst us can't help but wonder if the Clinton Campaign, after clamoring for weekly debates, now wants out of the Cleveland one not because of Shuster's comments, but that they suddenly realized that Tim Russert's hosting it.

Again, Shuster's off base, but the Clinton's "outrage" is nothing but a media ploy for free coverage. God, when will this primary season ever be over? To think so many want yet another replay of the Clinton 3 Ring Cirucs. Come on McCain, Obama, Huckabee or, God forbid, Mike Gravel. Get Bloomberg and fast!

Posted by: NoMugwump | February 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, are some of you people okay in the head? Do any of you boars have a woman or female in your lives that you either love or respect--a mother perhaps even? (I have my doubts on that because some of you don't even have simple human decency).

You Obama supporters/ Hillary-Haters really need to change your diapers and grow up. I can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination so all of you can just go away and never be seen or heard from again.

Posted by: sovereignty4me | February 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"Bill and Hillary Clinton are touchy about the word "pimping" since Bill was pimping Mr & Mrs. Lewinsky's daughter Monica. I guess for the Clintons saying "pimping" is worse than actually pimping.

Chelsey is older than Monica Lewinsky was at the time Bill pimped her. Seems like a double standard."

Were you born this stupid or did you pick it up like a communicable disease? Dear god, what a moronic post.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I am shocked at Schuster.

This is the first time I have heard criticism of a family member supporting their candidate.

I am so sick of the almost universal hackery and foul comments aimed at Hillary Clinton by all sectors of the media.

It is like a new form of political correctness:

To belong to the new feverish boy's club we are not allowed to say anything good about Hillary Clinton and we are not allowed to say anything bad about Obama.

A chill is in the air.
Violence is in the air.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

this is just unbelievable...hillary has a thing with election nights...once she starts to whine...you know election night is pretty close...I feel bad for shuster...he explained his comments after the phrase...meaning chelsea can't talk to the press but she can call delegates on behalf of her mother...I don't get this stuff chelsea is not off limits to the press!!!! This has to stop...I hope someone stands up to them on this...I pimp my ride...pimp myself(new clothes), pimp my car...Is it fair to america that they can make racist comments and say they are being misinterpreted even though it's clear that they are not and then they visibly distort other people's comments...this women's rights thing is going too far....what about men's rights?

Posted by: azeezwale | February 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I am shocked at Schuster.

This is the first time I have heard criticism of a family member supporting their candidate.

I am so sick of the almost universal hackery and foul comments aimed at Hillary Clinton by all sectors of the media.

It is like a new form of political correctness:

To belong to the new feverish boy's club we are not allowed to say anything good about Hillary Clinton and we are not allowed to say anything bad about Obama.

A chill is in the air.
Violence is in the air.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC Should not have suspended Shuster. He should be fired. It is obvious that most so called journalists covering politics on TV don't like Hillary. They should try learning their job. They never knock daughters or sons of Republicans and never ask one of those war lovers who appear as experts what are we winning in Iraq. Because almost all of those GOP patriots say we are winning now. While on the other hand they claim those Democrats leaders are unpatriotic and raising the white flag When are those journalists going to ask anything of importance about the war we are supposed to be winning.

Posted by: lemondrop1 | February 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YES

AMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cnash320 | February 8, 2008 05:02 PM

While that's very ranty and all, I couldn't help but notice the glaring lack of an actual example.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Boycott NBC until they bring back the truth. Until they bring back SHUSTER!

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

laplumelefirmament
Wall street last time I checked was republican and run by Rupert Murdoch who also owns FOX and SKY news hmmmm what a great unbiased article

Posted by: lisa18 | February 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

So the campaign can do it, but David Shuster can't say they're doing it. Jeez. Seems like the Clinton campaign is making way too big a fuss over this and I'm a Clinton supporter. We all know what Shuster meant, just like we all knew what Hillary meant with the Lyndon Johnson remark and what Bill meant with the "fairy tale" comment. This is smack dab in the midst of silly town.
David Schuster is one of the last best reporters on the networks. They would do well not to do anything to drive him from the business.

Posted by: simsink | February 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YES

AMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

First of all I'd like to say,as someone who does not even like David Schuster, I think it outragous he is being subjected to suspension. Who are the Clintos that they can force further humiliating him with multiple on his knees apologies?
Boy oh boy. You news networks are shameless.
Again, David nor MSNBC are people or places I like but this takes the cake.

I am sorry for you David. Maybe now you see what the liberals are really all about when it comes to free speech? Look for another job because your being fired can't be far behind!

Posted by: delsa | February 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

One more thing, cancel the debates, have an Pow Wow session with Obama on the Obama network. He will lead us inspires us and be the our prozac for the day.

Hillary and Obama cancel the debate and everyone else DON'T BUY ANYTHING FROM GE

Posted by: lisa18 | February 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

To all of the above: You miss the point. Reporting has become the latest form of entertainment. Go back and review the questions asked by moderators in all the 'DEBATES" held this election cycle. Many more than half (almost all when on NBC networks) of the questions were inane and had nothing to do with what the candidates proposed to do if they won the general election. None of the pundits mentioned above are serious about informing the American people about the issues and where candidates stand on them. It's all about entertainment and "punking" the candidates. Mary Hart does a better job than the political press.

Posted by: othernovak | February 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has reduced itself beneath the Jerry Springer show. Truly disgusting! First it's Chris Matthew not it's David Shuster.

Luckily being dead last in cable news rating, not many people have seen this garbage.

Posted by: jsindc | February 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

This is about SEXISM plain and simple
ITS ALIVE AND TRUE IN 2008!

Posted by: lisa18 | February 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Imus is Racist?

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a highly dangerous development when political advocacy broadcasting such as virtually all of MSBC, literally all of Fox News and shows such as Lou Dobbs start pretending to be Newscast Shows.

I love Keith Olberman, but let me tell you, to see him masquerading as an anchor in any debate really is over the line. All this stuff is political theater not news. Murdoch started it tarting up respectable newspaper such as the London Times and then concocting "Fox News". Since then, it's been a race to the bottom and the floodgates have opened.

And Shuster is definitely a partisan when it comes to his reporting, just no doubt about it. This guy is smart and perceptive, but he does have an ideological ax to grind.

His comment about Bill and Hillary pimping out their daughter was way, way out of line. It takes a lot to sink to the sleaze level of Bill and Hillary, but David Shuster seems to have lowered the lowest common denominator.

Posted by: xanpar | February 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

the "pimp" factor hit pretty hard.
Nonetheless, let's put some light on this
fact.
The Supplemental War Funding program the
Clintons drafted during the 90's
recruited(?) on-line massage therapists-
PROSTITUTES! Along with many other forms(?) of White Collar Criminals.

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I do not think supporting your husband, wife, mother or father is being "pimped out". And how is it that some arrogant suit on a cable news show needs to understand what Senator Clinton's daughter's freaking reasons for supporting her own MOTHER!! And further, why are you guys worried about how a bunch of a**es are covering of Clinton v Obama? Why do any of you care about the opinions of fat windbag like Chris Matthews? I don't need coverage from a tool network like CNN or CNBC to tell me how to vote. They havent' been right yet! I am damn proud of the choices I have. Both of the Democrat candidates are intelligent and compassionate and can run rings around the idiot in residence in the White House or the grumpy old man on the other side. The bunch of farts on the network should not be getting all your attention and passion - the candidates should. Focus on that!

Posted by: LABC | February 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

alyce_b:

I assume your parents are not issuing press releases, scheduling, transporting, or otherwise facilitating you advocating for your causes / candidates?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

i am an obama supporter, but shuster is clearly wrong, and to debate that point is silly. but look at msnbc- they clearly have not learned anything in the past year. only after imus was there any diversity in there televised lineup. and they still have archie bunker- i mean pat buchanan on regularly (seriously he was out of step since the 80's). chris matthews seems flat out insane on days, tim russert is clearly biased towards clinton. i mean he actually smiles(like a plump felix the cat) when there's good clinton news and frowns when there's good obama news. so shuster is only a signal that the msnbc culture created by neutron jack welch is off kilter.
and yes we don't need 4 consecutive presidents from 2 immediate families.

Posted by: jacade | February 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

what does David Shuster screwing himself have to do with either the Clinton or Obama campaign?

the answer is NOTHING

Move on people --

Posted by: awb75 | February 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a highly dangerous development when political advocacy broadcasting such as virtually all of MSBC, literally all of Fox News and shows such as Lou Dobbs start pretending to be Newscast Shows.

I love Keith Olberman, but let me tell you, to see him masquerading as an anchor in any debate really is over the line. All this stuff is political theater not news. Murdoch started it tarting up respectable newspaper such as the London Times and then concocting "Fox News", all to get his right wing view into 'polite society'. Since then, its been a race to the bottom and the floodgates have opened.

David Shuster definitely is partisan when it comes to his reporting, just no doubt about it. This guy is smart and perceptive, but he does have an ideological ax to grind.

His comment about Bill and Hillary pimping out their daughter way, way out of line. It takes a lot to sink to the sleaze level of Bill and Hillary, but David Shuster seems to have lowered the lowest common denominator. Good work Shus.

Posted by: xanpar | February 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

While it was not "TV" appropriate, I don't think there was any strong animous in using the phrase. The term "pimped out" is fairly common these days and has strayed from the close association with prostitutes.

I hate to bring up the generational gap - but, well there it is.

Posted by: klpaolilli | February 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The real pimp is Bill Clinton who pimps not only his wife for President but his daughter Chelsea to help his wife get elected so he can assume a defacto role as co-president with her. The truth hurts. But it is refreshing when we see what MSNBC tries to do to suppress it. Our media corporations are no different than the government controlled media in dictatorships like North Korea, who have a monopoly on what is permissible to express in public and what is not. Shame on MSNBC.

Posted by: thedefendant | February 8, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"I sure would appreciate it if one of you throwing this charge around would put up a quote to back it up. You don't sound credible." ...zuckermand....

Duh... either I have been watching coverage of Bill Clinton and his tasteless comments and behavior on cnn, msnbc, nbc, abc, and reading credible news reports by newsweek, new york times, washington post, etc or maybe I just imagined all of that. I got a better one...maybe you are just upset because the truth hurt...the Clintons slung mud and now mud is being slung back and now all of sudden....they have gotten their feelings hurt....again the comment was inappropriate but Shuster has apologized...now can you get Bill Clinton to apologize to Obama? Simple...yes or no...

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm boycotting NBC and MSNBC. I hope Hillary does the same

Posted by: krm22201 | February 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Elefant- I agree with you to have an Inspirational hour with Obama on the Obama network.

Politics should not come in to place here. I think SEXISM is what's at place. So stop blaming either party...Just be observant of how ignorant MSNBC have become and how they treat women. SEXISM!!!! ALIVE AND TRUE IN 2008!!!!

Posted by: googlerocks | February 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

OK

1) I demand an apology from the Clintons for polluting our airwaves with smut for years and years as a result of his Lewinsky problem. "Pimp" is small potatoes compared to the reporting that came out of that.
2) I think Chelsea should demand an apology from her parents for drawing so much attention to a remark that no one noticed but them, and they only noticed it because they poorly calculated that they could use it to their political advantage.
3) I think the Clintons should also demand an apology from all the bloggers and anyone else who has used language far more offensive than this in a public forum. Go take a spin on any blog on the web, and you'll find language far worse than this. (This blog included). The internet is every bit as public as cable news.
4) I think the Clintons need to step in and tell us all what to say, what to do, what to wear. I'm really struggling right now with where to go to dinner tonight, so it would be great if they could step in and recommend a good restaurant downtown.

Posted by: anjos | February 8, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman about the same age as Chelsea and I'd like David Schuster to know that if I advocate for a cause or a candidate it's not because I'm being told what to do or "pimped out" as he put it.

His use of slang did not offend me so much as the implication that a grown woman doesn't have a mind of her own and is only active in politics because she's being ordered around by other people.

Posted by: alyce_b | February 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse


Boycott Saturday Night Live.

Boycott 30 Rock.

Boycott NBC Sports.

BOYCOTT THE OLYMPICS.

Force General Electric and NBC Universal to confront and address the sexist and slanted coverage that's coming out of its news division.

It's February.

February is a ratings month for the networks and their local affiliates.

Boycott the peacock and make it operate fairly.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Fine, bsimon, Barack and Michelle are "pimping out" their two daughters, Malia Ann and Sasha -- is THAT better?

P.S. to CommonSense12:

Before this thread was UPDATED, it did in fact include a reference to Shuster's apology on the Morning Joe show.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm the HIGH NEGATIVES comment ...again ..by the Reactionary Pubs...Hillary only has high negatives with only HALF of the Pubs..The same 1/3 of the population that thinks Bush is doing a great job...

I think Chelsey Clinton was unfairly dirged by Shuster because the he and the Press could not behave like a bunch of spoiled paparatzi(sp).

BUT the really harsh and disgusting comments are printed right here.

At any rate Hillary and Obama are great competitors and look forward to their Debates. They at least discuss real world issues. They take real world questions.

ANYone who would consider McCain with his endorsement of Bush has drank too much Koolaide.

ISSA

Posted by: Issa1 | February 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Bill and Hillary Clinton are touchy about the word "pimping" since Bill was pimping Mr & Mrs. Lewinsky's daughter Monica. I guess for the Clintons saying "pimping" is worse than actually pimping.

Chelsey is older than Monica Lewinsky was at the time Bill pimped her. Seems like a double standard.

Posted by: info4 | February 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I would say the best revenge is to boycott the Obama Network oops I am mean the Peacock network and General Electrics. Cancel the debate obviously they should just have a question answer inspiration hour with Obama, have him Inspire us and make us feel good.
Hillary should boycott all appearances with the Obama network. That's it I said my peace.

Posted by: Elefant | February 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Another thing...let me get this straight..duh....Obama is suppose to step up to the Media and demand an apology made about Chelsea Clinton when the Clintons have made a series of horrible accusations against Obama and also sent out anonymous emails filled with lies about Obama, his upbringing, and his family. You Clintonians are literally off the chain....What a retarded request..common sense people....common sense.....please....

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey ssk_76,

can you please not write in ALL-CAPS. We hear your screaming loud and clear. Stop pimpin' the keyboard!

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I, also, have noticed how the swooning, biased media treats Obama so lovingly and disses Hillary at every turn.

It may act in Hillary's favor, though, because everyone I know wouldn't think of staying home on primary or caucus night.

Both Clintons hold a favorable rating with Democratic voters of 70%.

I know that I only watch MSNBC to glean any small bit of information or 2 second photo of either of the Clintons. After this fiasco is over, I will never watch Chris Matthews again.

I have already decided the same thing for Wolf Blitzer, et al.

I already refuse Carl Bernstein or Dick Morris to be on my television. I don't even bother myself to get worked up over those two guys. They are living off the Clintons, trying to sell books - they wouldn't be able to earn a living otherwise.

I used to think Brian Williams was unbiased, but he is getting to be like the rest, and my goodness, I almost forgot to name the worst one of all - Tim Russert. I don't let him on my t.v. now - I'm not waiting til this is over to get him off my t. v.

I just thank God for my channel changer or I would be p . . d off all of the time.

If Hillary is our president, we will stand a chance of making our world good again. If she is not, McCain will chew Obama up and spit him out because of his past - his dealings with Rezko were not honorable, and we don't even know now how much Rezko is supporting Obama's campaign now.

Obama did write letters on his state senate letterhead to city and state officials that netted Rezko fourteen million dollars to Rezko of taxpayer monies.

Rezko was picked up by the FBI very recently to be incarcerated and to stand trial this month for influence peddling.

Rezko, a Syrian, also receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east.

You can't tell me, for sure, can you, that REzko isn't involved in this campaign to help Obama get the presidency.

Rezko held fundraisers for Obama that netted him several hundreds of thousands of dollars while Rezkos tenants went without heat for the winter.

I am sure if Rezko is up for trial for influence peddling, and Obama and Rezko were friends for 17 years, there is probably a great deal of involvement, still, in Obama's self-serving interest to become the president when he doesn't have the experience or credentials to be.

Can you imagine Obama in the White House with a long time friend and associate like Rezko - and have access to our nuclear weapons.

Go ahead and swoon over Obama, be as mesmerized as you want to be. He will still be around preaching somewhere after the election. Just don't try to put him in the White House. Obama and McCain both would be the worst thing that could happen to our country right now. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Quoting from the above report:

"Last night, after Shuster made the remark as the guest host on "Tucker," Clinton spokesman Phillippe Reines contacted him and said the pimping reference was offensive. Shuster e-mailed back that he was referring to the fact that Chelsea is making calls to convention superdelegates but refusing to talk to the press. Shuster did make that point on the air -- after his pimped out comment, which was not delivered as a joke.

Reines was incredulous at the lack of an apology, but Shuster stood his ground".

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


There is no apology here at all. Mr. Shuster is saying he meant to say exactly what he said.

My suggestion is that David Shuster update his resume, and start looking.

And let the two campaign teams find another host... such as Brian Lamb of C-Span. C-Span is certainly 100% neutral.

Thank you.
Common Sense - Bruce

Posted by: CommonSense12 | February 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I suppose if you are running low on campaign funds, this sort of free sympathy publicity will do. I, for one, am sick and tired of the melodrama the Hill and Bill and now Chill show generates. I don't want four more years of it. I'd like four more years of competence and a little basic unity about what might be good for our country.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I've never had a post deleted before, but two of mine now have when I've tried to make this point:

Was this a poor choice of words by Schuster?

Yes.

Is the Clinton camp using this for personal gain?

Yes.

Both are wrong. If the Clintons want to express outrage over this after all of the lives they've destroyed through their politics of personal destruction, they're more than entitled to.

But the big picture in the end is for the Clintons to reframe the debates and to get them both on CNN which is a much more Clinton friendly network. Or to get MSNBC and the press to be afraid of being critical of their very manipulative tactics.

In the end that's the point of all this.

Posted by: Caliguy75 | February 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has been ridiculously biased in favor of Obama on the Democratic side of this campaign since before the Iowa Caucus. Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews are the worst offenders -- these two disparage HRC using sexist and mysogynistic languaage that is really quite shocking, given that it is 2008, and not 1908. This network has done nothing to reveal Obama for the empty suit that he is (at best), or to expose the dangerous views he harbors (Jeremiah Wright).

Posted by: mooshu20 | February 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Over a year ago, when a downgraded my cable service I lost access to MSNBC. I used to enjoy watching their political commentary, but now I see that it has degraded to the gutter level. I have actually begun to notice that even Fox is better than CNN and MSNBC, because as someone said "at least I know where they are coming from". I was hesitating to switch to Verizon FIOS because they don't carry MSNBC in some markets. Now that MSNBC is down in the gutter, I will happily switch over to FIOS.

Posted by: wp123 | February 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

yellodragon, if you're looking for a comparison of what Clinton and Obama have done, here's a comparison of their Senate records for you:

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law), the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate), the 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law), the Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (in committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

Anyhow, there's no excuse for thinking Obama "lacks substance".

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree with David Shuster who I think is an awesome reporter..this is so odd - I was just thinking yesterday that msnbc is my favourite of all the political talk channels.
I think Clinton is pimping out her daughter. It's more fact then derogatory. If you use someone who wouldn't necessarily want to be out there in a public way - it's pimping.
We never heard from the daughter until now (by the way, I really like Chelsey Clinton). I guess Hilary finding her voice wasn't enough - she has to use what she can.

Posted by: dedonald | February 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

wp123:

I have already stated that Shuster should not have used those words, but he has a point about Chelsea refusing to speak with the press -- you would agree that it is completely within the right of a free press to objectively note when someone declines to be interviewed like that, right?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

There is more to this then meets the eye MSNBC and NBC Microsoft GE have been extremely unprofessional in allowing this obvious misogynic ranting on public airways for a long time now, they are beyond offensive ho, pimps, I turned them off way back and wrote to NBC, MNSBC General Manager and 3 host at that time I wont tolerate women being referenced in this disrespectful manner, Microsoft and GE are making a mistake perpetuating this behavior women are the women who are the purchasers of electronics.

Posted by: p_peppermint | February 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

HI IJUST DISCOVERED THE INTERNETS AND ONLY TYPE IN CAPS. I WILL NOW GO WATCH SOME RADIO.

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse


Boycott The Today Show.

Boycott Meet the Press.

Boycott Morning Joe.

Boycott Universal Pictures.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"the definition of "pimp" as in EXPLOIT (in a non-sexual way), yes, Michele Obama is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way -- "

Considering the context of the Shuster comment, actually Michelle Obama is not being 'pimped out'. His point was that Chelsea is being used by the campaign but is unavailable for public statements or comments.

Posted by: bsimon | February 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

ssk_76:

Do you know what the definition of "niggardly" is?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Shut up.
Report.
We don't want to get into your ideas.
Tell us what you 'see.'
Don't tell us what you 'think.'
Pretty simmple.
And if you can't handle that by the time you make it to a network, you have no damned business being there.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 01:03 PM
------------------
Can I get an AMEN to this post?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Talking about Obama's 'CHANGE'and'YES WE CAN', I haven't seen any kind of strong record from Obama about what he can do for America or has done for America as a senator. On the otherhand, Hillary has a impressive record of changing America. We elected a smooth talker two times in a row...what did that bring us ? We understood a great talker as an idealist like Obama, therefore, we need a great leader as a realist for changing economy in whole America strongly, Right?

Posted by: yellodragon | February 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

For all of you insensitive Obama supporters (who see no wrong in someone verbally assaulting a young lady who has done nothing wrong), I say Congratulations! You are "pimping out" quite well for Sen. Obama.

Posted by: wp123 | February 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore:

I, at least, agree with your call to boycott Olbermann.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT OBAMA OR HILLARY ETC. BUT READING THIS MORNING ABOUT SHUSTER'S COMMENTS JUST MADE ME SICK TO MY STOMACH. MSNBC HAS REALLY SHOWED HOW SEXIST, UNFAIR AND BIASED THEY ARE TOWARD ONE CANDIDATE. ITS ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE FILLED WITH WHITE RICH MEN WHO CAN'T STAND SEEING A WOMAN EXCELLING. SO YOU SEE A YOUNG MAN LIKE SHUSTER TRYING TO FIT IN WITH THE GOOD OL' WHITE TRUST FUND MEN . THAT SLIP WAS NOT A SLIP IT WAS A SIGN OF ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IN THIS SOCIETY. WOMEN SHOULD NOT ALLOW ANY MORE SEXIST REMARKS. I DON'T CARE IF OBAMA OR HILLARY WINS. I AM JUST DISGUSTED ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN AIRED. DON IMUS GOT FIRED, IF THIS WAS A REMARK ABOUT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN SUCH AS OPRAH. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIGGER AFFAIR. SO I AM SAYING STOP THE HATRED AND KEEP YOUR UNEDUCATIONAL SEXIST, SICK REMARKS OUT FROM THE MEDIA.

### NBC SHAME ON YOU, I WILL NEVER EVER BUY PRODUCTS FROM GENERAL ELECTRICS## MSNBC WILL FOREVER BE DELETED FROM MY CABLE NETWORK.. I WILL NEVER WATCH THEIR SHOWS EVER AGAIN. AS A WOMAN I AM APPALLED AND SICK TO MY STOMACH TO DEGRADE A GIRL LIKE THAT. SHAME ON YOUR MSNBC AND I HOPE HILLARY AND OBAMA CANCEL THE DEBATE!!! GO CHELSEA!

Posted by: ssk_76 | February 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary you're losing New Hampshire?

WAAHHHHH!!!!!

Hey Hillary Super Tuesday looks bad.

WAAAHHHH!!!!!

Hey Hillary Iran is Attacking.

WAHHHHHHH!!!!!

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

the comment was very much inappropriate as were the commentts that have been made in the past by Bill Clinton about Obama....Posted by: cnash320

I sure would appreciate it if one of you throwing this charge around would put up a quote to back it up. You don't sound credible.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Zukerman.....if your post is correct in that Michelle Obama is being "pimped out in a wierd way" for participating with others for a "get out and vote rally" .....then it would mean that Bill Clinton was REALLY being "Pimped out in a wierd way" as he seem to have gone literally NUTS prior to the S.C. primary....therefore Shuster shouldn't be suspended because his comments about Chelsea were on point....I am just trying to get a clear understanding of what you are saying....

Although we can agree that Shuster's comment were inappropriate, he did apologize which Bill Clinton has yet to apologize for playing the race card against Obama and saying really degrading things about him and his run for the White House. You can't have your cake and eat it too. When you wallow in the mud...you come up dirty....

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

zukermand:

Using the definition of "pimp" as in EXPLOIT (in a non-sexual way), yes, Michele Obama is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way -- now you just need to add a crack-dealer reference for Barack ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Now Obama is supposed to apologize for a comment by the media. Hahahahaha! Hey, Clinton, your desperation is showing!

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Someone said: "I hope women realize what is going on here and respond by voting in droves for Hillary Clinton."

In order to vote in droves, you need to get people to the polls, which requires canvassing and advertising. Which in turn requires $$$.

Something y'all ladies have less of than us blokes.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse


Boycott Chris Matthews.

Boycott Keith Olbermann.

Boycott Brian Williams.

Boycott the peacock.

Boycott General Electric.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey David. I owe you a beer. Good call, buddy. I suggest a national boycott of MSNBC advertisers until he is reinstated. They don't like it when you stray from the party line.

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are using this issue as a way to attack the Clintons and defending David Schuster over his comment last night that Bill and Hillary were "pimping out" their daughter. Some Obama followers think that the comment was totally acceptable. This is the time for Obama to step up. Will he say that the comments were offensive and his supporters should agree? Will he ignore the issue? Will he satnd by while some of his supporters defend Schuster and blame the Clintons?

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Its about time someone put the muzzle on Shuster, I say fire him. This is the same fellow who for many months had said the Karl Rove will be indicted. Week after week, an never later apologized. He gets more things wrong then right, but he does fit in with the rest of those pundits on MSNBC. However, Shuster is suppose to be a Reporter. At least thats the impression. Matthews is in the Tank for Obama, an he has been crossing the line as well.

Posted by: eafcat | February 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Can you imagine how enraged Barack Obama would have been if Shuster and Chris Matthews reference Michelle Obama in the same way they referenced Chelsea?


Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Is MSNBC mad????? Shuster was making the point that Chelsea's off limits status disappears if she actively starts to campaign. This is utter nonsense.

Posted by: dggst6 | February 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

krm22201:

According to the UPDATE, Shuster was suspended not fired. Do you believe that Don Imus should have been fired too?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I love how the right-wing trolls here are acting outraged at the insult of Chelsea by the Obama-supporting MSNBC.

C'mon folks, they are just trying to cause dissension among Democrats.

Right ssk_76? Right TAH1 and YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore?

Please go back to Free Republic where you belong.

Posted by: wirro | February 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I am a little surprised at the comment that Shuster made because he normally doesn't make such comments....the comment was very much inappropriate as were the commentts that have been made in the past by Bill Clinton about Obama....I guess it really hurts when the shoe ends up on the other foot. As for MSNBC being pro Obama....I beg to differ....all you nned to do is tune into Dan Abrams @ 9:00pm EST...you can't tell me that Dan Abrams is not subliminally campaigning for Hillary...because during his show, he shows real compassion towards Mrs. Clinton and her run for the White House....even getting extremley upset at times as if he's ready to throw the book at Obama and his supporters. Hmmm...is he on the Clinton's take or did they promise him a job in the White House? lol

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

This is just ridiculous - terms like "pimped out" are common in modern language and has almost no bearing on prostitution per se. For example, the term "pimp my ride" is an expression (and popular show on MTV) that focuses on automobile improvement and aggrandizement. The Clintons taking such a harsh view only speaks to their ego, which isn't a good thing at this point in the campaign. David Shuster should be allowed back on the air (after a required apology just to get this thing over with).

Posted by: Kalbi74 | February 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

awb75:

Did you notice that the UPDATE deleted any reference to Shuster's apology?

zuckermand:

I disagree with the need to suspend him -- the man apologized, so I am uncertain as to why more action is required -- perhaps you should talk about "civility" with some of those posting here?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC should be boycoted by clinton. They are clearly promoting obama. This network no longer has any credibilty or intergity, Fox news has just been elavated from the bottom. Obama has gotten a complete pass from the press. Resco helps him buy his house in chicago to tune of $300,000. and obama votes for his projects. Yet he claims not to take from lobbyist. He never voted Aganst the Iraq war because he was'nt in the senate, But when he had the chance to vote on Iran he never even showed up just like he did in the state senate. His Iraq position is a fairy tale. Wait untill McCain and the republicans go after him it will be a blow out. They are praying for Obama and the press is trying to deliver his on a silver tray. It will be the american people who will suffer.

Posted by: 9841 | February 8, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Shuster is a protege of Chris Matthews. The sexism at MSNBC is reprehensible and must be addressed by NBC forcefully. Firing Shuster was a good first step.

More on sexism at MSNBC:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110011

Posted by: krm22201 | February 8, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It's the time delay between the insult and apology that will hurt Shuster and MSNBC most, as it has damaged other media reputations. The delay (and initial refusal to even acknowledge the mistake) implies that Shuster didn't get it until MSNBC brass explained it to him. If media personalities want to avoid escalating mistakes like this they should take an immersion program on PR crisis management, particularly if they're on the air. Here's a good start:
http://www.perfectapology.com

Peter

Posted by: pfg | February 8, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

BOYCOTT GENERAL ELECTRICS!!! BOYCOTT MSNBC IGNORE NBC

Posted by: ssk_76 | February 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama for America campaign today announced that Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy will hold a Get Out The Vote Rally in Los Angeles"

Doesn't it seem as if Michele Obama is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech?

Posted by: ahamill | February 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign has handled the situation masterfully.

The conversation is now about the tasteless nature of the description that Shuster chose to use to represent the campaign's use of Chelsea.

The last time I saw the technique used so skillfully, it was Tony Snow, early in his days as the White House spokesperson. A reporter asked him a loaded question, that deserved an answer. Tony responded "I'm not going to touch that tarbaby."

The resulting outrage was over the alleged racial insensitivity of the term 'tarbaby', and the original question was entirely forgotten. It was an absolutely brilliant move on Snow's part; clearly the Clinton campaign has likewise learned how simply the chattering class can be manipulated.

Posted by: bsimon | February 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The thread has been UPDATED to reflect the fact that Shuster was suspended by MSNBC -- score another one for the Clintons.

Posted by: JakeD

...and decency, civility and the quality of our public discourse.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

this is really a pity

Yes he used the wrong word - but he apologized this morning on Morning Joe - and he did clearly explain his point

This is the Clinton campaign wanting th debate moved to FOX and not on MSNBC - but this has noting to do with the Obama Campaign or Senator Obama

David Shuster made a mistake
but MSNBC has totally over reacted

Lets hope cooler heads prevail and Shuster is back on the air very very soon
and not muzzled

Because he may have expressed it badly but what he said was correct

Posted by: awb75 | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

It was stupid to say but the term means to degrade yourself for something and I kind of agree. It is pretty pathetic to have your daughter calling Senators, Congressman, Governors, and Democratic elites begging for their vote. Imagine yourself doing that- calling your mothers/fathers work associates to ask them to support her/him, I'd do it but I wouldn't like it and if someone said I was whoring myself out I'd kind of agree.

Posted by: danh72 | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary the victim.. Thats nothing new..

Posted by: TennGurl | February 8, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If this had been about Obama and his family or McCain and His family, there would be a public outcry.

No woman today should be disrepected in the way Chelsea and her Mother were. Unbelievable suspension is not enough, a message should be sent, the man needs to be fired.

This is a historic moment for Chelsea watching her Mother run for President, Chelsea is a grown woman and has the right and the desire to campaign for her Mother. This is pure beating up on the Clintons. The one thing about Hillary is through all these years she raised a great daughter and protected her daughter as she was growing up. This is bias, it is gender bias and discrimination.

Posted by: lsmith | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The thread has been UPDATED to reflect the fact that Shuster was suspended by MSNBC -- score another one for the Clintons.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

#### MSNBC AKA THE OBAMA NETWORK ### BOYCOTT THIS CHANNEL

This is how we report news! David Shuster all that educational training and you still somehow show what a sexist you are!

If MSNBC, NBC aka GENERAL ELECTRICS!!! called Oprah pimped out by Obama. this would make head line news on CNN, FOX, ALL OVER THE MEDIA. BUT BECAUSE ITS HILLARY NOBODY CARES!
NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO TOUCH OBAMA. WHY CAN'T THE MEDIA JUST REPORT AND STOP BEING BIAS FOR ONE CANDIDATE OR THE OTHER.....
THIS SHOWS SEXISM, AND WE AS THE PEOPLE SHOULD SIT AND TAKE IT!!! NO BOYCOTT THE DEBATE BOYCOTT MSNBC BETTER YET DON'T BUY PRODUCTS FORM GENERAL ELECTRICS

Posted by: ssk_76 | February 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

No one's saying the words weren't a poor choice. But does this warrant national attention and the Clintons threatening to boycott MSNBC?

Again, the real issue here folks, is for the Clintons to be able to get both debates on much safer terms -- CNN.

And despite the word choice, again, there is truth in Shuster's comments. Why on earth is the daughter of a political candidate calling superdelegates asking them for their vote?

Posted by: Caliguy75 | February 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

There you go, the power of money speaks louder than the Bill of rights.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay is an amazing chronicle of alchemy and other epidemics that have been foisted on societies over the past six hundred years. Very few people recognize these schemes while they are in play.

Are you a participant in the largest confidence game in the history of mankind?

MSNBC should boycott the Clintons. That would be a public service.

It is not too late to break the spell

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

Posted by: fiormat | February 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton calls Barack Obama's position on the war in Iraq a "fairy tale" and he's suddenly labeled by MSNBC as a bigot"

He criticized the credulous media coverage as a fairy tale, not Obama's position.

Clinton:
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years AND NEVER GOT ASKED ONE TIME, NOT ONCE, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Give me a break.

[applause]

This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports.

[Former independent counsel] Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa.

But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there."

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

This whole network (MSNBC) is off-base.

Not only is Schuster trying to spread his filth but the lady that they have on from the Houston Chronicle has about as foul an approach to the Clintons as he has.

Her problem is that everything that she says when reporting on the Clinton campaign is a joke. I have never seen her not making a joke of the situation. I guess that is part of her lack of confidence - laughing at everything, regardless of how serious a situation can be.

She supposedly is reporting from the White House, but she is not what one might say, distinguishing herself. I wonder how she is even recognized as a White House Correspondent and what happened to those individuals that were great correspondents to the White House that at one time represented a great network, i.e., NBC.

I do not watch FOX but I have begun watching CNN - from whence I came when I switched to MSNBC.

MSNBC - What a disappointment.

Posted by: ma12205 | February 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

David Schuster was way out of line and you don't need to be a Clinton supporter to realise that. If the Obama campaign was smart they were also say so. Why do you feel the need to defend this idiot? Instead the Obama campaign just keeps up the nasty posts.

Posted by: Democrat08 | February 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Come on, is this really so bad. An apology should be enough, why fire him?
All the Clinton folks on here bytch and whine about the news coverage of her on MSNBC but Dan Abroms is completely pro Hillary. If you want to watch pro Hillary coverage check out CNN. Plus, most of the political pundits once worked for the Clinton admin. The same folks who chant her mantra: '35 years of experience'. So where is the bias against Hillary?
One more thing, if Obama is getting a free pass what is he getting a free pass on? He's been scrutinized about his record, past, home, votes, supporters even his kindergarten ambition.

Posted by: priceisright | February 8, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

GENERAL ELECTRICS OWN NBC AND MSNBC!!! PUT THE DOTS TOGETHER AND YOU GET PEOPLE LIKE DAVID SHUSTER TO MAKE COMMENTS LIKE THAT...

#### HILLARY BOYCOTT THE DEBATE DO NOT GIVE IN TO THESE REMARKS NOR ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE. BOYCOTT THE NETWORK #####

ENOUGH OF THE GOOD OLD BOY'S CLUB!!! I AM SICK OF HEARING THEM TEAR HER APART...BILL OREILY HAS BEEN MORE BALANCED THAN THE HEN PECK AT MSNBC...

IF HE SAID PIMPED OUT MICHELLE OBAMA OR OPRAH..JESSE JACKSON WOULD SLAUGHTER DAVID SHUSTER THE WORLD WOULD NOW THIS....

Posted by: ssk_76 | February 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

By the way, the real story here will be the Clintons attempt to reframe the parameters of the debate so that they're on CNN and a very friendly Wolf Blitzer will ask the questions. Instead of having to take hard hitting questions from Brian Williams and Tim Russert.

That's the point of all this, folks. Much more than their daughter's feelings -- the irony of it all is they're doing the very thing they're supposedly outraged by.

Posted by: Caliguy75 | February 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: Jayne | February 8, 2008 11:59 AM

The Clintons are ridiculously thin-skinned sometimes. The phrase "pimped out" no longer has anything to do with prositution. Grow up, Billary. This is exactly the kind of crap you pull that has me supporting Obama."

Jayne, are you insane?


Posted by: yudong2 | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse


Hmmmm..

Let's see if I have this right..

Bill Clinton calls Barack Obama's position on the war in Iraq a "fairy tale" and he's suddenly labeled by MSNBC as a bigot.

Two weeks later, MSNBC says The Clintons have "pimped out" their daughter and that's just political "reporting."

Okay..

Remind me to never watch MSNBC again.

Or buy anything that says "General Electric" on it.

Ever.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth...
Anyhow, that's my two cents.

Posted by: davestickler

I think you're overcharging. My countertheory is Barack Obama is the Green Lantern and he's doing it all with the ring. Sshhh. I think you owe me.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

This is news?

How about another opportunity for the Clintons to play victim. Geesh, this gets old.

Matthews' comment about the sympathy idea may have been politically incorrect, but it's partly true. There are women who identify with her solely for that reason. Had it not come from a male it would have been received differently. If he had said all women are for her for that reason, that would have been over the line, but the fact that some do is just fact.

I sincerely hope MSNBC will not be bullied by the Clinton campaign as they try to stifle free speech, i.e. anyone holding them accountable for what they say and do.

They're brutal in how they engage in their own politics of personal destruction, but then flip out over this?

I will say it again. Everything the Clintons do is for personal gain and exploitation. They are experts at portraying themselves as victims when they are the bullies. South Carolina forever changed the way many dems now see them and rightfully so.

Their crap is not only starting to hit the fan, but a lot of it's landing right back on them and it's grows more and more pathetic every day.

Posted by: Caliguy75 | February 8, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I think people are getting sick of all the FOX/MSNBC/CNN pundits, the militant women and Hillary, the cultic followers and Obama and the foaming at the mouth Rush, Coulter et al.

McCain will win the day.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth -- and this is intended more as an explanation than as an excuse -- I think the media's treatment of the two candidates is caused by the old "norm of reciprocity".

By all accounts, Clinton is distrustful of the media -- probably in large part because she learned early on to think of the media as scandal-chasers. Her campaign has a full-time staff of spinners, and I don't think you can argue that she and her closest surrogates didn't say some dishonest things about Obama leading up to South Carolina. So, because the Clinton campaign seems to have such a cynical attitude towards the press, the press is much more comfortable covering the Clinton campaign with reciprocal cynicism.

Obama's campaign has, by contrast, employed fewer spinners. That's not to say that they haven't tried to spin things on a number of occassions, but I think it's fair to say that, on the whole, his campaign is less concerned with spin than hers is. And the Obama campaign has, in general, a less paranoid attitude towards the press, and seems to make a stronger effort to view others in good faith. So, the media feels less comfortable taking cheap shots at a candidate and campaign that it feels is cleaner.

I know this is a pretty nebulous set of claims, and it certainly doesn't excuse comments like Shuster's. But I think it helps explain why the media has been more willing to pull out the brass knuckles when criticizing Clinton.

And I think it also does reflect somewhat on Obama's leadership style, on the sort of press he'd be likely to receive in a general election and as president, and on the way that he relates to people on a personal level.

Anyhow, that's my two cents.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

it was only this morning that i was thinking good about david, watching him try to have a rational discussion on the morning joe show, only to have the bufoon star of the show, big mouth scarborough cut him off and keep up his ludicrous rantings that the war is good, the surge is working, and dems are withering traitors. i' like to meet him in an alley, and we'll se if the chicken hawk can live up to his big mouth. so sorry schuster made this unfortunate remark, cause i did sort of like his approach up to now, and hope he can redeem himself. yes, we dems do believe in redemption.
mike m.

Posted by: mikem42 | February 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Jayne, I understand, this is not offensive to you, because Black people use the word very often, right?

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

BitterPill:

You haven't read the British press if you honestly have yet to find anything bad about Chelsea Clinton's personal life.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

If he used the word to discribe Michelle Obama's work for her husband, he would be called "RACIST". Al Sharpton and Jackson would be outside the NBC tower till he gets fired

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 8, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, a lowlife mongrel like Jayne is used to being pimped by her dad and now is doing the same to her daughter and little sister and so does not think it is a big deal to use those words. But to millions of more normal people in the country, it is a highly offensive word.

Posted by: intcamd | February 8, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"I was a supporter of the Clintons right up until the point that Bill shamelessly pandered to the lowest form of racism in South Carolina...
Posted by: Jayne"

Assuming you are charging him with racism, that's a very serious charge, one that should only be leveled with the greatest of care. On what would you possibly base that?

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

If he used the word to discribe Michelle Obama's work for her husband, he would be called "RACIST". Al Sharpton and Jackson would be outside the NBC tower till he gets fired.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Shuster's comments are disgusting. MSNBC has been shameless in their degradation of Hillary Clinton and shameless in their promotion of Obama, 24/7.They are totally sexist, always snarking about women, attacking Hillary constantly. Mika (her father supports Obama) just sits there and plays along, which is really galling. MSNBC is the Obama network. It's very telling when Fox news is more balanced than MSNBC and CNN. Ask yourself why the corporated owned media is promoting Obama? BEcause, they know he's unelectable. It's so obvious, they are trying to destroy the Dems chances of victory in November. They fear Hillary.

VOTE SMART ** VOTE HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!

BOYCOTT MSNBC - BOYCOTT OPRAH, WHO BETRAYED HER OWN GENDER, WOMEN WHO MADE MILLIONS FOR HER, SHE BUILT HER ENTIRE CAREER AROUND WOMEN, SUPPORTING WOMEN, CELEBRATING WOMEN, AND WHEN THE TIME CAME TO PUT HER MONEY WHERE HER MOUTH HAS BEEN, OPRAH CHOSE RACE OVER GENDER - BOYCOTT OPRAH!

SOLIDARITY SISTERS!!!!!!! WE WE WILL NOT LET MSNBC AND CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA PICK OUR PRESIDENT - VOTE HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TAH1 | February 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse


Try this on for size, MSNBC..

Have either of those squawking airheads David Shuster or Chris Matthews say the Obama campaign is "pimping out" Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey

..and let's see what happens.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The Obama supporting scumbags jump on Bill Clinton as a racist for his fairy tale comment but believe that calling Chelsea a prostitute is fine.

These people are pathetic, disgusting creatures who don't meet the stand to be called human beings. If this is what their hero Obama inspires in them, then he and his supporters are beyond contempt. That fool Rush used to make fun of Chelsea's looks when she was a teenager in the Whitehouse, but even he did not stoop to calling her a prostitute,as the Obama supporting rascals have done.

I am already beyond the point of ever voting for that man who inspires millions of people to spew venom and throw epithets at people like Chelsea; if the Obama supporting lowlifes keep this up, then millions of Clinton supporters will follow suit if ever that prophet of hatred becomes the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: intcamd | February 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will not release their tax returns. Is this a smoke screen to take eyes off of that and the fact that they will not release White House records either? They are asking people to vote for them, but are not being transparent. Why? Barack has released his tax returns.

Posted by: dan | February 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

You're right, svreader, it does come down to who is most qualified. Let's compare Senate records.

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law), the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate), the 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law), the Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (in committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

So who's the candidate of substance?

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled and disgusted by the way MSNBC has displayed their dismay over HILLARY CLINTON'S RUN FOR PRESIDENCY! This shows how bias and childish, and extremely bias opinions finally got some attention. I have completely stopped watching MSNBC AFTER SEEING HOW IT BECAME THE "OBAMA NETWORK" THEY WORSHIP AND DROOL OVER HIM LIKE HE WAS MESSIAH COMING DOWN TO EARTH! I am SO DISGUSTED BY DAVID SHUSTER AND WISH THESE WHITE AFFLUENT TRUST FUND BABIES WOULD REPORT THE NEWS AND LEAVE OUT THEIR ANGER AND FRUSTRATIONS! THAT WAS A FREUDIAN SLIP HE DID...AND IT SHOWS HOW MUCH HATRED MSNBC HAS FOR A WOMAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENCY...I WONDER IF THEY TREAT AND TALK ABOUT THEIR SISTERS AND MOTHERS LIKE THAT... I am so disappointed over the news and how they have handled the coverage of the election...99% of the MEN in CNN, FOX AND MSNBC HATE HILLARY AND ONLY REPORT WHEN THE POLLS ARE AGAINST HER.. I WISH THE BIAS REPORTING WOULD STOP AND #### HILLARY DO NOT SHOW UP TO THE DEBATE #### IGNORE MSNBC AND DO NOT GIVE THEM INTERVIEWS!!!! WHAT THEY DID IS DIGUSTING!!!! THESE WHITE CONNECTICUT MINORTY MEN NEED TO BE CLAMMED UP AND HILLARY PUT THE CABASH ON THEM!!!

Posted by: ssk_76 | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Bitterpill8:

In response to your very persuasive comment -- insert rolling eyes here -- "Jayne's idiotic remark about the thin skinned Clintons betrays a level of stupidity or ignorance about how the MSM has treated the Clintons over the years":

I think you need to go Cheney yourself.

I was a supporter of the Clintons right up until the point that Bill shamelessly pandered to the lowest form of racism in South Carolina. I haven't heard Hillary apologize for any of his remarks. I am well aware of how the Clintons have been treated over the years, but I don't think that gives them any excuse to behave the same way or worse. Whining about the slang term "pimp" to describe, accurately, what they're using their daughter for, even while engaging in trash talk themselves, earns them no points for character or courage.

Posted by: Jayne | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whom one supports, there is a standard of decency to uphold in the press. The press has failed in its attempt to either coronate King Barack or Queen Hillary. MSNBC especially has tried to force its collective opinions on its viewers rather than being fair to them.

They have maligned almost all candidates except for Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. this is not good journalism.

Incidentally, I do not think Schuster made an effective apology. he basically said if he offended anyone he was sorry. He still has not seen the error of his statement.

The nine year old reporter said Chelsea was very nice to her. Like other candidates families, Chelsea has no obligation to speak to the press.

It is surprising that even Keith Olbermann has began to partake in this unacceptable form of journalism. Pat Buchanan has been much more impartial. about the only person on MSNBC that is balanced is Dan Abrams.

hopefully, this will serve to correct the blatant disregard for impartiality on MSNBC. If not, their ratings will suffer.

Posted by: LadyEagle | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Shuster was trying to be one of the boys and just wanted to get off a good line he could brag about later.

But that's the problem. Can you imagine Chet Huntley or David Brinkley saying such a thing? Journalists have changed -- not necessarily for the better.

Here is the barometer to be used here: What would the outrage have been if Shuster had said this about Michelle Obama or McCain's wife?

My guess here is it would have been a lot higher and louder.

Posted by: dwright53 | February 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse


Nice work, MSNBC..

You've let your sexist Obama cheerleader Chris Matthews turn David Shuster into Ann Coulter.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

This is not funny. With all the candidates out there having their families promoting their candidacy, why did Schuster pick the only daughter of the only woman running? No one criticized Romney's children, Bush's children, Gore's children, Cheney's children, etc. for promoting their parent's candidacy. Local, state and national politicians' families work for their candidacy. Why single out Chelsea Clinton (a smart, perfect, lovely young lady) for this kind of comment? This is not a common term that we all use. It still has very negative connotations and belongs in the gutter, not mainstream cable TV. At the very least, Schuster should be suspended and perhaps get some counseling and training as to what is respectful of women and what is not. He owes MSNBC's female viewers and the Clinton family a huge apology and a promise that he will never be such a clod again.

Posted by: MNUSA | February 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It all comes down to who is the best qualified and the best role model.

Obama used cocaine repeatedly.

What kind of meesage does that send our children?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

SEXISM is rampant and MSNBC should do more than make their commentators apologize they should fire them.

I hope women realize what is going on here and respond by voting in droves for Hillary Clinton.

When some jerk held up a sign in NH at at Hillary rally saying "Hillary iron my shirts" most of the press laughed it off. Can you imagine is the same jerk held up a sign at an Obama rally that read "Barack shine my shoes", what the uproar would have been.

It is time to hold the press responsible for what they do and say. If it is a finable offense to have our children hear a dirty word on TV this is even worse because it perpetuates for another generation that sexism and insulting women is OK.

Posted by: peterdc | February 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

And just who is David Shuster anyway - he's not exactly a household name with any credibility - he's certainly not "must see" in my house. He's certainly no Kieth Olberman, that's for sure.

And if you think the concept of pimping is not offensive any context whether it's your ride or your daughter or your sister then we are in a sad state

Posted by: eastportgal | February 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The decision of whom I would support did not come easy to me; in fact, I didn't make up my mind until after Bill's series of offensive comments that basically hinted to I, as an African American was incapable of making a choice of whom I would support based upon issues and not on race. As an African American woman, I must admit that I was and still am very proud to have the first woman and the first African American leading the race for the next President. But, more importantly, I was and still am proud that they are both the best candidates that we've had on any ticket GOP or DNC at least in my adult life. Prior to the mud slinging I thought the perfect ticket would be a Clinton/Obama ticket and I still do, but hope that the damage is repairable--I'm pestimistic to that fact. Personally, I believe that a better ticket would be Obama/Clinton, but as we all know if we're truly honest on this subject, America would never elect a 70+ year old woman which would be Clinton's age after two Obama terms if she decided to run for President. I know this sounds sexist, but it's the truth. However, if by some miracle the two of them emerge from this mess on one ticket, it's a ticket that I will definately support. I will also support a Clinton ticket if Obama, whom I now support does not get the nomination.

Shuster's comment was inappropriate, and I believe an apology is in order, but I don't understand why anyone would believe that it's Obama's responsibility to comes out and strongly condemns Shuster's on it--he didn't make it, and I don't believe that he would ever make a comment such as that, nor would he support it. I also don't see how Shuster's comment compares to Bill's comment comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson after he won SC. Shuster is not a member of Obama's family or staff and Obama certainly cannot control the comments of media. Also, while I believe Shuster's comment was definately sexist, I watch MSNBC on a regular, and while I believe the reporting is somewhat bias against Hillary, I don't recognize it as being sexist as much as it is that the reporters have a personal bias against Bill and Hillary. I agree with the Clinton supporters on this blog in that I believe that if asked who they support, most of the reporters mentioned on this blog would definately choose Obama over Clinton simply based upon the way they are reporting.

I'd also like to add that I too find it interesting that Chelsy is being used (not pimped) to solicit super-delegates--does fall right in line with Hillary's sympathy strategy that she uses when she's falling behind...play on women, play on children--like speaking at high school events. I'll just be happy when this whole thing is over and we can look forward to supporting the Democratic candidate to Presidency and get that idiot George Dubya (you can call me unpatriotic or whatever for that comment) out of office and start the healing of our Nation!!!

Posted by: Beingsensible | February 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"...Shuster did make that point on the air -- after his pimped out comment, which was not delivered as a joke..."

Okay, so what's up with Shuster's high pitched giggle after he said this disgusting thing? Look at the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxgw04Y0Fc

I'm sorry but does he giggle when talking about Iraq, Iran, the economy or the futures market?

It was intentional and it was wrong. As a mom of a daughter I say the Clintons have every right to be outraged.

Posted by: JenQ | February 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

The word "pimp" actually has multiple definitions, one of them a verb, meaning "to exploit". Check out dictionary.com : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pimp

Posted by: jontasch | February 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

That's how Black people talk, so Obama supporter do not care.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Why don't they concentrate more on the little things that make Hillary the person she is... Like the fact that when her husband was in the Whitehouse she had a standing order for secret service and most subordinates, to not make eye-contact with her.

How about other offensive behavior (to her staff especially) when she actually made it into her Senate Office?

I think the only people still believing that the Hillary you see on TV these days, is the person she actually is, are those same people that have never had to deal with her pre-presidential personality on an intimate level.

I can honestly say that HAD she been a better person overall in the past, I think I would have voted for her. As it stands, I (and anyone else including most of her "workers") would vote for anyone BUT her. Unfortunately those of us that have had the opportunity to see who she is first-hand, will never sway those that gleen all their "knowledge" from the press.

God help this country if she takes the reins.

Posted by: LL22102 | February 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC does appear to have a bias regarding the coverage of Clinton vs. Obama. A week or two ago, when the "Morning Joe" show had Mike Barnacle on, they talked extensively about how wrong it was for the Clinton campaign to allegedly interject race into the discussion. Immediately after that, Barnacle said, and I paraphrase, that Hillary is like a man's first wife at a probate hearing! And then, they all laughed, like good old boys, including Mika Brzezinski. There appeared to be no awareness of the utter hypocrisy of using sexist commentary while calling a woman on supposed racism. I find it very disheartening that a serious female candidate still has to face this kind of "reporting" in this day and age.

Posted by: smcdermi | February 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

This is worthy of a worst person spot by Olberman but will he go after his colleague...I doubt it.

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 8, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

A really unfortunate remark. I understand that the word "pimp" means different things to people of different ages, but the consideration should be whether some people are offended by it, not whether some people *aren't*.

Anyhow, it doesn't change my support for Obama, who I still believe is the most qualified candidate.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed by some of the trimmers here. Agreed David Shuster is a good reporter. But for months now the MSNBC crowd have taken to beating up on the Clintons. Jayne's idiotic remark about the thin skinned Clintons betrays a level of stupidity or ignorance about how the MSM has treated the Clintons over the years. MSNBC has a pattern bring pro-Obama and anti-Clinton. I don't question their right. I just question their lack of integrity. I have yet to find anything bad about Chelsea Clinton's personal life or work ethic. I can recall some other first daughters who has an extra drink or two and I did not want them to be beat up.

The Clinton campaign, if it has the guts, should boycott MSNBC and not give any interviews to any MSNBC reporters and pundits. At least that will be a good reason for MSNBC to continue being anti- Clinton. MSNBC is a corporation in the business of making money. Nobody appointed them to represent me and question candidates on my behalf.

Posted by: bitterpill8 | February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Why must we--as a society--always express everything in vulgar terms, especially when it relates to illicit and immoral sexual behavior? Perhaps the younger folks are "used to" these filthy terms and do not find them offensive, but there are many of us who know their original and/or current derivation, and we find them disgusting. I don't want to hear about people's fornication, urination, homosexuality, divorce, adultery, prostitution, molestation, rape, pornography and other forms of vulgarity! Choose OTHER nouns, verbs and adjectives . . . and leave the filth at YOUR home, not mine. Thank you.

Posted by: aerospacemajor | February 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

OK, MSNBC's Schuster's comments are offensive. Compare them to what Bill Clinton has said and implied about Obama. Has Hillary Clinton apologized about Bill? She sure has muzzled him without apologizing or firing him. Hillary Clinton will not admit mistakes. That combined with her flip flopping (license issue, campaign focus....), incompetence (health care reform), extremely poor and perhaps pure politics judgement on central issues (Iraq, Iran), vindictiveness towards perceived Democratic adversaries (Cooper), racism (pointing out in a debate that hispanics are taking jobs from blacks based on ONE conversation she obviously wanted to highlight).....etc, I would say Hillary Clinton is getting a pass by the media. Yeah bring up Renzo and we can talk about Travel Gate, release of her papers.....etc.

Posted by: cbday | February 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Shuster should cry on camera ...

Posted by: eemr | February 8, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Has America already forgotten how Bill Clinton gave out pardons to the highest bidders at the end of his 2nd term? Or how they 'pimped out' stays in the Lincoln room in the WH?
The media are just regular folks like everyone else. When they don't like a candidate, they usually, but not always, have a pretty good reason.

Posted by: veeve | February 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has reached the nadir. They think because Mr. Olbermann has a point of view, they can sick Tweety on women in general and Hillary specifically; now, MSNBC serves as a stage for Dan Schuster's college boy gutter talk. Enough is enough.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are really a particular breed. So "pimp out" is not insulting? It has nothing to do with, let's say, sexism and male chauvinism? Not even a little bit? I guess not on "your books". However, you are very sensitive about race and whenever someone mentions something that is even remotely connected to the fact that the candidate you support belongs to an African-American group and that this may play some role in his campaign you go berzerk and start screaming racism. On my books, that is called double standard. In fact, I actually don't care what you think. What bothers me is that Obama and his campaign people show the same symptoms from time to time .

Posted by: sego | February 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I see how this comment is offensive. He clearly wasn't suggesting that she was offering sexual favors to super delegates in return for their votes. Someone needs to tell these folks that pimp is often used with no reference to prostitution. Also, camp Clinton should also realize by now that drawing attention to anything sexual as it relates to their campaign is a bad idea. All it does is remind people of Bill's White House escapades.

Posted by: anjos | February 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Any Obama supporter who doesn't think "pimped out" is offensive, consider how you'd feel if that comment was directed towards your guy. Um, yeah. I can hear the howls ringing right now and they should! Whether you support Clinton, Obama or McCain there has to come a point when these reporters are held accountable for grossly inappropriate comments and kudos to MSNBC for doing so this time.

Now, if only they could do something about the mostly indrectly offensive but deeply irksome bias on the part of every other MSNBC (aka, The Obama Network) anchor against Senator Clinton and for Senator Obama. That would be nice, too.

Posted by: tracyandreen | February 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC is formally renamed to "Obama Networks"

Posted by: dave_whal | February 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC is totally in the tank for the Obama campaign. It is non stop, wall to wall propaganda.

Posted by: mbateman52 | February 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Dan Abrams will put this in his "Beat the Press" segment. Clearly a mistake by Shuster, who while an excellent journalist, sometimes lets his emotions get the better of him. He should apologize. But, why doesn't Chelsea ever talk to the media? It's almost Cheney-esque. If you're going to actively campaign, you should be available to the media. How long before Shuster's comment ends up in a Clinton fundraising email?

Posted by: jezebrowski1 | February 8, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign will do anything to avoid the story of the day: why Hillary is losing. Just another idiotic attack to get the media to cover something else.

Two comments about the substance of the "gaffe."

1) In my book, "pimped out" is no big deal. To work at any level in politics is to prostitute one's self in some degree -- and I ought to know, I did it for almost ten years.

2) Does the Clinton campaignj really think that Chelsea will sway any superdelegates? What a stupid idea.

Posted by: nick.jacobs | February 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to say, Kudos to CMMS1.

Posted by: cap92847 | February 8, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree that the comment was very inappropriate. Shuster should be admonished for it.

What I wish I didn't feel was that Senator Clinton will garner sympathy votes from many based upon it, and will actively seek to do so. A complaint could've been made privately, and in a professional manner.

Another thing. The real sadness of all of this is that Clinton's machinations in situations such as these only drive more and more people away. Why?

Because no matter how much we want to, we simply can't trust her intentions. I wish I could be convinced that her campaign - not her or Chelsea directly, which I found odd - making an issue of this was strictly about righting a wrong.

But I simply can't. And that's a big reason I cannot vote for her in these primaries.

Posted by: Scientific23 | February 8, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If shuster apologizes then he is worthless as a reporter. He is easily intimidated by billary and will be biased in favor of them from now on. If billary is willing to put their precious daughter-of-convenience out there, then she is open to all press scrutiny, plain and simple.

Posted by: skinsneednewcoaches | February 8, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

What in the world happens to these journalists when they get in front of the camera a few times? I always applauded our "free press" and the work these guys did to get a story and inform the public. But I see this happening over and over again. They become so carried away with themselves, so egotisical they can say the most outrageous and hurtful things about people, not based in fact, but personal opinions you might share over a beer at the pub. It's not only at Fox where we can take it for granted but MSNBC esp. Matthews, CNN's Lou Dobbs ("If I say it, its true") Glenn Beck and even Keith has become really arrogant. I don't think people are leaving tv news--I think tv news is leaving the people....I know I don't watch it much anymore.

Posted by: eham3 | February 8, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Edwards supporter, voted Obama in primary.

Shuster should be suspended a week or two without pay. That will get the empty talking heads' attention and make them a little more serious. Brokaw has been railing against his collegues stupidity for weeks now. A quick suspension will do much more than Tom's admonishments.

Posted by: LeRiverend | February 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Some of the past earlier debates have been more like reality tv, political theater, with the egotistic TV moderators injecting themselves into the conversation,trivializing the candidates to co-stars,who get fewer speaking lines and reduced billing.

Why can't the debates be held by the League of Women Voters on C-SPAN?

Posted by: rdklingus | February 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If you are deeply offended by the phrase "pimped out," then you only validate the stereotype of Hillary voters: too old. I'd stake that, privately, Chelsea isn't particularly offended; she's young enough to understand the context of the remarks.

Posted by: priestd | February 8, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

This just shows exactly how out of touch Hillary is with people under 50 and why Obama is so successful connecting with this group. The phrase "pimping" has long ago come to describe something pushing or promoting a product. You can probably thank Jim Rome, et al for this but anyone in tune with mainstream culture knows that in Shuster's context, he wasn't in anyway connoting prostitution. Hillary is just trying to score cheap political points as usual.

Posted by: BushMustGo | February 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

People are certainly free to reject the idea that Hillary Clinton would make a good president, but good God I am sick to death of the canard that she is "willing to do anything" any more than any other serious Presidential candidate in the electronic media era. John McCain has somehow emerged as the candidate who "stuck to his guns" despite all the positions he has done a 180 on since 2000. Many have held up Bill Clinton's history of womanizing as an example of the Clintons' collective moral bankruptcy, but I wonder if Obama had any compunction about accepting the endorsement of that infamous serial monogamist Teddy Kennedy? (and I say that as someone who grew up in a household where JFK's photo was side by side with the Sacred Heart)

Posted by: Cossackathon | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Dear "jmfromdc"

I think you need to look up the definition of sexism. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. Calling the Bill & Hillary tag-team "Billary" is not sexism.

"as ugly as calling Obama an "oreo""

I didn't do that. You did. Classy.


Posted by: Jayne | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

If the comment was about me, I would teach him a life time lesson like his pal Dan Imus.

Posted by: alexm_ethio | February 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm not all that offended by the term given the context nor am I offended by an apology. I am offended by the notion in a so-called democracy that superdelegates that allow themselves to be smoozed and courted off-stage like they are celebrities might decide the outcome of this contest.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Campaign Diaries just posted a clear chart as to what the Feb. 5th delegate count looks like, with state-by-state breakdown of where Obama and Clinton stand. CLinton is currently ahead but most of the 70 delegates that haven't been awarded yet are from Obama states. Check out the chart: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/02/february-5th-delegate-count.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Gennifer, Paula, Monica. The Clintons have had a lot of experience with bordellos. Just fits a pattern I guess. Instead of standing up to Bill, she blamed the "right wing" conspiracy. The only conspiracy going on was in the Oval Office... and she was part of it so she had a political future.

Posted by: jsherm45 | February 8, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter who thinks Shuster owes Clinton an apology. I watch MSBNC a lot, and an irony here is that Shuster has frequently defended Hillary against attacks by Scarborough and others. I don't think he harbors any animosity to Hillary; I think he was just totally and inexcusable insensitive and therefore should apologize.

P.S. I'd like to see Howard Wolfson demand that Fox News apologize to Obama before agreeing to debate on Fox, as Hillary has done. Fox, you may recall, is the first TV outlet that gave credence to the false story that Obama attended a muslim madrassa.

Posted by: LincolnDuncan | February 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I have found MSNBC to be extremley biased in favor of Obama. Chris Matthews, Timn russert and Keith Oberman have disgusted me lately with their reporting. many many woman are noticing the bias against Clinton and are tuning you guys out. I used to love K Oberman, but as of last week, he is no longer allowed in my house. He is falling in with the rest of the old white bastion of "talkers" who spew their opinions as if they were the last word and fact. Especially on super tuesday, tim russert was such a ...... His face when Hillary's numbers came up exactly as he was downplaying her vistory as not very big and then she was "creaming" obama, his face fell and he looked so sour. What is this networks probelm, afraid of telling the truth? Go ahead and push your candidate, i thought news was supposed to be objective but i can tell who each person is supporting, isn't that unethical? You guys were my last hope of objective news, so now i just read the interent and don't waste my time, excpet to note your advertisers every now and then so I DON'T BUY FROM THEM.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I cannot understand why Bushie has never been called on to come clean about his and Condi Rice's ongoing affair even to this day..his 4 day drinking binges going on now, his crack record, Laura's killing of her friend, Michael Douglas in Texas. Nothing is every in the news about how abusive he is to Laura, calling her a b----
to the news guys..yet Hillary and family is a target everyday. At least Bill got help for his problem..oh I forgot Nazi Bush turned to the Lord and Cheney. Yeah if he a christian, then the rest of us are all Mother Teresas. Now we have to listen to Old Worn Out McClain talk out of both sides of his mouth and he is without a nose..he lodged his nose up Bush's you-know-what and he will be just the same ole crap that is in power now. The Saudi money (authorized by the Bush Nazi Gang) is now going into Obama's pot..the nazi republicans know if Obama is the chosen democrat then the people will not be voting for him due to his race and muslim religion. Get smart Americans. Wake up and elect a smart person..Hillary.

Posted by: JMS2 | February 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

That Mr. Shuster's comment was in poor taste is undeniable. But in directing all comments to the inappropriateness of a very young man's choice of words overlooks an issue of even greater importance. I refer the the votes of the Super Delegates to the Democratic convention. These leaders of the Democratic Party presumably voted in their local precincts for the candidate they wish to elect. Why should they get a second vote at the convention? This reminds me of the past when nominees were selected in back rooms by political political operatives.

Posted by: marmac5 | February 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

No matter who you support, misogyny is unacceptable. This is not at all about political correctness.

This isn't some self-absorbed MTV fantasy show. It's a mainstream news organization and Shuster went way over the line of acceptable commentary.

It's hard to imagine a more anti-woman statement, short of using the 'c' word. Those who defend it need to get a grip on reality and review their own capabilities for mature and civil behavior.

This is elementary stuff, folks, that my kids learned by middle school, not to be PC but to be decent citzens of the world.

Posted by: ka.hayden | February 8, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Pity David Shuster. He was only trying to be one of the MSNBC boys. Their bias toward Obama destroys their credibility as "reporters" of news. People are no longer taking seriously the political analysis of Matthews, Scarborough, and even Russert. The guys better wake up. The Democrats are way smarter than this. I support Senator Clinton, but even to me, their molly-coddling of the Obama campaign smacks of trying to help a guy they do not believe has what it takes without their help. They should respect Obama and let his message speak on its own. Better yet, I would like to see them respect the American people who are viewing them as entertaining monkeys. What a waste of air time that could be better used to report the news.

Posted by: epperlytrudel | February 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Whats the big deal? One Ho talking about something he knows alot about. Mr. Shuster is pimped by the conservative right favorite big dog GE (NBC). Sounds like one HO (Hoe) pointing his finger at someone else not realizing their are three of his own fingers pointing right back at himself. Some HO's (HOES) like Rush Limpwrist are so busy poping pills they never let the facts hold them back from spewing more lies to through off the general population from the truth.

Posted by: kinter.3 | February 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

On the subject of tasteless comments about Chelsea Clinton, can anyone guess who made this one:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father and Hillary Clinton is her mother."

It was John McCain, speaking at a 1998 GOP fundraiser.

It's not that he's a thug who attacks opponents' children, you understand. No, he's a straight-talking "maverick".

Posted by: kevrobb | February 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Shame does not seem to be a part of Shuster's vocabulary. His behavior is a reflection of the way he was raised and I think his parents failed him. Most intelligent people know how to express themselves in an appropriate and respectful manner. His obvious misogynist slip is just one more pile on from the anti woman gang at MSNBC. It has seemed to me obvious that MSNBC is racing to the bottom of the barrel cesspool reportage. I guess that is where they think they can get the Jerry Springer National Enquirer kind of viewers. I have actually begun watching FOX because at least you know where they are coming from and lately they seem to be more even handed. People have to realize that there is no fair and balanced news. They have all become shill pieces and rags pushing there own viewpoints. You have to search out the information if you want to get the facts. These so called news readers and opinion hacks are just a bunch of gasbags that like hearing their own voices. What a pathetic bunch of losers. Shuster is such a jerk that he doesn't even realize how insensitive his comment is. Well just your typical day at MSNBC. You should all be proud of yourselves. What upstanding professionals.

Posted by: mrsnivel | February 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The level of attacks against women is alarming. Everyone of you that has a mother, sister, or daughter would never want that phrase used to describe her helping you. If slang was acceptable, the "N" word would be in prevalent use and everyone would think that nothing was wrong with that either.

Posted by: CariAdamonis | February 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Howard,
Shuster's comment is just one example of MSNBC's out of control anti-Clinton bias (except Dan Abrams). Even Tim Russert has jumped on the Obama bandwagon.
I normally don't defend Fox News, but over there they are actually more balanced in their reporting about the Democratic race than MSNBC and CNN.
Obama has gotten special treatment by TV and print media all along, while Hillary and Bill have been trashed and ridiculed.

Posted by: mehuwss | February 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

To in_awe

That stuff about the Chinese and the Clintons is absolute GOP propaganda. How can you tell a Republican is lying? His lips move. Even if it were true, it would not come close to the Reagan regime selling missiles to Iran while telling our allies they should not deal with people who take hostages because it encourages them to take more hostages.

Posted by: chopin224 | February 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The Big Media has been giving a free ride for this phony "rookie' salesman. This is not a suprise because all the media are against Clintons.

Look at the TV coverage, it's all about this phony salesman. I'm tired of seeing this phony on the TV.

What happened to that REZKO connection? Is he gonna return that house and lot that he bought from this scum? I don't think so because they are both scum....

Posted by: graysce101 | February 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Shuster's comment was way over the line. I hope Obama comes out and strongly condemns this kind of comment. It's almost in the same league as Bill C. comparing him to Jesse Jackson after he won SC.

Posted by: Nissl | February 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Yup, HRC hasn't sealed up the nomination because the media is out to get her. The coverage that Obama is getting has nothing to do with the fact that for the first time in at least a generation there's a politician on the scene who inspires people and makes them feel good about this country, and that this year's primaries have had an historic level of turn out and Independents and Republicans are voting for Obama in droves. Nope, it has nothing to do with that. It's just some talking heads who don't want HRC to get elected.

More likely "the media is out to get Clinton" thing was started by her campaign. You ever notice that whenever the Clintons are in a jam it's everybody's fault except there own?

Posted by: dc_counsel | February 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

]] Could David Schuster really do Chelsea anymore harm than what her father did to her when he had the tawdry affair in the Oval Office? Who, in fact, committed the greater offense here? And, which, in fact, will have a more lasting effect on her psyche? Yes, Mr. Schuster's offense was done by words, but her father's sexual abuse (call it what it was) of a young intern in the White House no less was by action. Posted by: dukey | February 8, 2008 01:31 PM

So dukey, are you saying it's OK to verbally abuse every woman whose father had an affair, or just the daughters of men you don't care for? Well, I have some news for you, and you're not going to like it. You're an enabler of abuse against women.



Posted by: maribelle | February 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

So, was Romney pimping out his sons when they were working on his campaign? Or does Shuster not realize that there are male prostitutes also?

Posted by: onlytheshadowknows | February 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Folk, you'all are watching too much TV and spending too much time having silly arguments in blogs like this one.

May I suggest reading a book, taking a walk, engaging in a sport, having coffee with friends at a cafe, and, mmmmm, having sex with your partner.

To the Media: can't you write about the important issues of the day instead of the cheap trivia.

Posted by: pbarnett52 | February 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The television industry doesn't understand that there is potentially a huge market for a 24-hour news channel that delivers news with a serious, insightful, and responsible tone, instead of trying to provide "entertainment". The channel could even cover world news. But it's not going to happen because nobody's creative enough to see past the short-term bottom line, instead of seeing what could be successful in the long term. So we're stuck with Shuster "pimping", Lou Dobbs, and the Fox News clowns.

Posted by: johnc_80 | February 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Could David Schuster really do Chelsea anymore harm than what her father did to her when he had the tawdry affair in the Oval Office? Who, in fact, committed the greater offense here? And, which, in fact, will have a more lasting effect on her psyche? Yes, Mr. Schuster's offense was done by words, but her father's sexual abuse (call it what it was) of a young intern in the White House no less was by action.

Posted by: dukey | February 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton wasn't even my fourth choice for the Democratic nomination, but the way the mainstream media have treated the Clintons makes me root for her, and I may well vote for her next week.

It's pretty obvious that these talking heads want Obama to win the Democratic nomination and they've already gotten their wish on the Republican side.

Of course, that's the same thing that happened in 2000, where the press liked Dubya because he seemed like such a regular guy while Gore seemed stiff and standoffish. So, we end up with the worst president in American history, thanks in part from the slant put on the campaign by these smug birdbrains.

Keep spinning, you clowns. You'll end up getting us another idiot in the White House.

Posted by: jheath53 | February 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

j_rhymes, do you pimp win a pimp prize based on pimp the number of pimp times you use the word pimp in a pimp post?

Of course you like the right-wing media. Regards to Rush...

Posted by: LABC | February 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I used to think that the Main stream liberal media is better than Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. After watching these Obama Partisans(Pimps) like Schuster, Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, I think the right wing media is far better. At least the right wing media is honest about their intentions. These shameless pimps at MSNBC should atleast have the decency to say that they support Obama, instead of lying about their intentions

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Who cares.. Now he will be a Hillary shrill because NOW and Emily's list went after him too.

Posted by: TennGurl | February 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I used to think that the Main stream liberal media is better than Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. After watching these Obama Partisans(Pimps) like Schuster, Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, I think the right wing media is far better. At least the right wing media is honest about their intentions. These shameless pimps at MSNBC should atleast have the decency to say that they support Obama, instead of lying about their intentions

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

An apology is not enough IMO. Shuster has been consistently and viciously anti-Clinton for some time now. He is the second biggest offender on MSNBC (Chris Matthews has been the worst but probably only because he gets more air time than Shuster).

About the only un-biased commentators on MSNBC lately have been Dan Abrams, Pat Buchanan (never thought I would agree with him on ANYTHING but at least he can separate his personal feelings from his commentary), and Craig Crawford. I'm disgusted at the way the media has been distorting Clinton's record and making personal attacks on the whole family.

Posted by: staugust1 | February 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Maybe MSNBC can learn from this and raise the intelligence standard on their network. Having an on-air personality like Shuster use the phrase "pimping someone out" is not only inappropriate and unprofessional, but also base and childish. Given that CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC seem to be in a race to the bottom away from smart and informative news, maybe MSNBC (and NBC) can change course and try to elevate the level of discourse and analysis.

Posted by: johnc_80 | February 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I used to think that the Main stream liberal media is better than Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. After watching these Obama Partisans(Pimps) like Schuster, Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, I think the right wing media is far better. At least the right wing media is honest about their intentions. These shameless pimps at MSNBC should atleast have the decency to say that they support Obama, instead of lying about their intentions

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing that Shuster has to apologize for with regards to his comment. It is correct.

Posted by: freepak | February 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Dear " Jayne"
Sexism is as ugly as racism. Your reference to Hillary Clinton as "Billary" is as ugly as calling Obama an "oreo". UGLY, UNJUSTIFIABLE, Better left in the trash can of intolerance.

Posted by: jmfromdc | February 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Shuster's verbally abusive comments against Chelsea should have gotten him fired. There should be a zero tolorence level to this on MSNBC. The obvious unpleasant and spiteful intensity of his verbiage merely compounds the fact that MSNBC should not tolerate this abuse against a woman.

Men have tried to use these types of abusive sexist remarks against women for far too long. It needs to stop. It does not need to be excused away with even more platitudes as if it should be an accepted norm because "look over there - see how it is used" and tuff if you don't like it.

Firing Shuster would be the best way MSNBC could apologize.

Posted by: maribelle | February 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Look, the comment was offensive, pure and simple. I am an Obama supporter, and for the same reason blatant attempts to question his religious faith, comments like Shuster's are completely inappropriate. One does not have to stop being civil because we are engaged in a political competition. I think that is what Obama is trying to overcome.

Posted by: callahandc | February 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has been acting as a pimp for Obama for the last one year. The main pimps are Schuster, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams and Tm Russert. The way they acted in the Philadelphia Debate and the lies they have been telling continuosly are ample proof of that

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Of course he should apologize and then he should be dismissed. It is not only a foul insult, but it betrays a sexism of the most sordid kind. Had he made this comment about Obama pimping out his wife you can be sure MSNBC would have fired him on the spot. Dismiss him and show some class, MSNBC.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | February 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has been acting as a pimp for Obama for the last one year. The main pimps are Schuster, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams and Tm Russert. The way they acted in the Philadelphia Debate and the lies they have been telling continuosly are ample proof of that

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Lets face it , the Clintons have very high negitives , that's why Hillary is un-electable and bad for this country. I think this guy was a bit out of line , but he was speaking the truth. The Clintons will DO ANYTHING to regain power , including tossing there Daughter to the wolves , if that's what it takes.They are SHAMELESS people.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has been acting as a pimp for Obama for the last one year. The main pimps are Schuster, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams and Tm Russert. The way they acted in the Philadelphia Debate and the lies they have been telling continuosly are ample proof of that

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

This was a very poor usage of vernacular on Mr. Shuster's part. Were Chelsea Clinton still in high school and campaigning on her own, then there would be a lot of truth to Mr. Shuster's implication, just not his words. Rather, she is an adult and I am certain she could have opted out of campaigning altogether.

However, Ms. Clinton should make herself available to the press; at one appearance she blew off a 9-year old writer for the Scholastic magazine. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney's children spoke to the press during the 2004 campaign, as did Senator Kerry's daughters and step-children. Even John Edwards and Barak Obama have allowed their below voting-age children to talk to reporters. Still and all, it is very odd that Ms. Clinton was 'phoning super-delegates. That has the dank odors of desperation about it, like a failing car dealership's cable t.v. commercial.

Posted by: InspectorOh | February 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse


Shut up.
Report.
We don't want to get into your ideas.
Tell us what you 'see.'
Don't tell us what you 'think.'
Pretty simmple.
And if you can't handle that by the time you make it to a network, you have no damned business being there.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

what is it about these media hacks? John Gibson, meet David Shuster.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

freespeak, I must have missed the edit of Obama saying this comment. It was a comment made by a CNN host, not an Obama operative. And I don't think any true Obama supporter thinks that this is okay.

Posted by: LABC | February 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

For offensive comments, see http://hillaryclintondebates.com/

Posted by: buffalofunkstudios | February 8, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has consistently been insulting to most of the presidential candidates and their families. The sole exceptions have been Obama and McCain. Their commentary is smug, anecdotal, trivial and often confuses straight reporting with editorializing. Their anti-Clinton bias, especially by Chris Matthews, has already been a widely reported but is not limited to just him. Their various hosts, Scarborough, Tucker, Olberman sound like loud mouthed frat boys just sounding off and enjoying their own camaraderie. There is a whiff of sexism that permeates much of it, and a bully boy style that is offensive. Shuster is a smart and ambitious reporter and is getting
into a bad habit of copying their same negative tone.

Posted by: rdklingus | February 8, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe there are people who think this kind of comment is acceptable in American politics.
Are these the same voters who tell us that their candidate, Senator Barack Obama, can change the tone in Washington?
Hey, Obamaniacs, he's obviously failing miserably.

This comment has no place in American politics.
If Obama supporters think it does, they shame their own candidate's message.

Posted by: freespeak | February 8, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

These political pundits and reporters spend too much of their time shooting off their mouths trying to look cute and not enough time covering the bases of good reporting..

MSNBC should fire him, the same way they fired Don Imus for essentially doing the same thing.

Actually, Imus was only horsing around when he shot off his mouth.. Shuster was supposedly presenting a serious report about an election.

And I would suggest it would never cross the minds of the anti-Clinton airheads at MSNBC to say the Obama campaign was "pimping out" Oprah Winfrey in Iowa and California.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I saw the segment of Tucker last night and it was offensely said, and EVERY other person on the show jumped on him immediately to repudiate the remark (he did not). As they pointed out, many people have endorsed Obama and made calls for him (Oprah, etc), but do not do interviews.

Posted by: kawilson69 | February 8, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Totally disgusting and is about par for the media lately.
If it is not Hilary then it is her daughter, being assaulted verbally.
Such good guys in the media these days!
Too afraid of a good, and effective woman becoming President, is what I suspect is their problem.
I cannot believe what I have been seeing lately, although nothing surprises me anymore.
I mean after Bush, Obama?
Need I say more?
All talk and no substance, as usual.

Posted by: hesk77 | February 8, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Surprising- he is usually very professional. He should apologize but not a huge deal. These on-air types obviously are getting tired so they are going to make mistakes.

Posted by: cjroses | February 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Billary at all and am a big fan of Shuster's. But when I heard him say that is morning, I thought it was completely out of line. Not necessarily for the "pimp" connotation but because the whole premise was off-base. Heck, so what if she's politicking for Mom and shunning the media? Shuster, who is normally balanced in his reporting, seems especially anti-Clinton lately...in fact, ever since Matthews was called on the carpet.

Apology? The only apology should be to the viewers for injecting heavy personal bias into his reports.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

j_rhymes, then why are so many people voting for Obama? Get a life. The comment was inappropriate. It could have been said better. Matthews comment could have been said better as well.

Posted by: jaco302 | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I suppose the "Pimp My Ride" show will now have to change their name. Give me a break.

Posted by: Ireland2 | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

cmss1:

No where does it state that the CANDIDATE has to give the press interviews either -- I agree that there should not be personal attacks -- but, it is completely within the right of a free press to objectively note when someone declines to be interviewed.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

And speaking of offensive comments...

"second generation SONY ARBO"

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, reporters, GET OVER YOURSELVES. If Chelsea doesn't want to give interviews, she is perfectly within her rights. Nowhere does it state that if a person campaigns for a candidate they have to give the press interviews.

This is the kind of nonsense that makes normal people loathe the media.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

zukermand:

"The alternative, share a party with such unreasoning hatred, is depressing."

Perhaps you've never been to DailyKos or heard of Bush Dereangement Syndrome?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Let me use Schuster's analogy with more appropriate language: "It seems that Chelsea is being used by her mother in an expedient way fitting of Hill/Bill's modus operandi." Is that appropriate enough for the Clintonistas? The truth is the truth.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I think Shuster's error was the same as frequently occurs in reporters' posts to this site. As the pace quickens they often forget when to switch from "outside voice" to "inside voice". Their personal conversations, where they openly express their loathing for Sen Clinton and her family, spill into their professional product in the form of snide, simpering sneering entirely inappropriate and harmful to our political discourse. For this reason, I frequently point out how childish and unprofessional is their product. I do wish others would join me in holding them to a responsible and high standard, regardless of whose ox they gore on that particular day. It's important.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has been acting as a pimp for Obama for the last one year. The main pimps are Schuster, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams and Tm Russert. The way they acted in the Philadelphia Debate and the lies they have been telling continuosly are ample proof of that

Posted by: j_rhymes | February 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

trisha2 - watch Dan Abrams if you want MSNBC pro-Hillary coverge, 9:00 EST.

Posted by: RollaMO | February 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The P.C. police strike again...

Posted by: ModestProposal | February 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad Schuster is apologizing. It was an indefensible, degrading comment. I'm actually pretty blown away that he used it because he seems like a reasonable guy. It just goes to show how insidious sexist (and racist) language still is in our society -- for him to not even understand that the comment was incredibly sexist and degrading is a problem.

p.s. -- fervent Obama supporter here, and a woman.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I think it's fair to say the critics of Sen Clinton among the commenters on this site have jumped the shark in terms of basic human decency. I do hope they are, in fact, the GOP operatives posing as Obama supporters they seem to be. The alternative, I share a party with such unreasoning hatred, is depressing.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

this is honestly pathetic. you all claim that clinton has no emotions, that she's robotic, and so forth. but you are the ones who are being inhumane through your childish comments.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

it would be just as easy to say that obama is being pimped out by oprah, 1/2 the kennedy family, and the media itself.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Don't do it, David!

Until there is some evidence that the second generation SONY ARBO artificial intelligence offspring android is actually capable of detecting offense, I'd say no harm, no foul.

Posted by: filmex | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

are you serious?

what if someone said that YOUR daughter was being "pimped out"? it was an unnecessary, inappropriate, and cruel comment.

no candidate deserves a journalist calling them any name or offensive reference, so why would it be okay to do the same thing to their family member? how is this a thin-skinned behavior?

these 2 incidents on MSNBC alone prove that the media is incredibly biased against clinton.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me that the analogy is fitting, given the Clintons's pimping out of the White House during his reign. Anyone remember selling access to Bill via the Lincoln Bedroom? What about transfer of top secret technology to China after Bill's fund raising activities with Chinese government surrogates? How about Bill's influence peddling this year for uranium exploration that is netting him $100MM+? Suddenly Hillary can afford to "donate" funds to her own campaign. Yuck - how slimy can you get?

Posted by: in_awe | February 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are ridiculously thin-skinned sometimes. The phrase "pimped out" no longer has anything to do with prositution. Grow up, Billary. This is exactly the kind of crap you pull that has me supporting Obama.

Posted by: Jayne | February 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company