Shuster and I happen to be the same age, and we're both too old for MTV these days. His biggest mistake was his non-apology apology. I believe he said "I'm sorry if anyone took offense"... the implication being that he didn't say anything wrong, some people are just, like, too uptight, man. That's how I interpreted HRC's "not enough" reaction to his suspension and half-hearted apology. That said, it's gone on long enough.

And, yes, Shuster is absolutely the scapegoat for the clownish Matthews. Speaking of non-apologies: "I'm not always politically correct...." (But you are always a preening, ignorant buffoon). Shuster's been a solid reporter, and this just shows the dangers of journalists who want to be pundits. And middle-aged guys who want to be hip.

that kind of places the onus on you, and Shuster, to explain how the Clinton campaign is "dishonorably" using Chelsea, as she does what almost every campaign in my memory, going back to the Ford campaign of '76, has done in using adult children as campaigners. Is John McCain "dishonorably" using his mother? How 'bout when George Bush's nephew cut a campaign commercial? Al Gore's daughters? John Kerry's?

@ncawley

Yes, but the word pimp also means "to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit", which is what Shuster meant. He used a word correctly as it is defined in the dictionary. You (and others) have taken the negative connotation and ran with it.

How is "dishonorably" not "negative"

? As for the "Chelsea isn't available to the press" nonsense: Are you people really starved for "that's why my mom would make a fantastic president!" boilerplate? Did you gain great insights from insights with the Romney lads? This is the most absurd pseudo-controversy I've ever heard of. I'm an Obama supporter, but do any of you really believes the fate of the Republic is jeopardized because Chelsea Clinton called Whoopi Goldberg on the phone? Silly? Absolutely. "Dishonorable"? Please, people, get a freakin' grip!

Dear Fellow Minutiae-Obsessed PoliticalJunkies

It was bluekat, not ncawley, who asserted that it is an indisputable fact that David Shuster was correct in his assertion that there is someting "dishonorable" about Chelsea Clinton making a phone call to Joy Behar, and timhowe who seems to think that Chelsea Clinton's warm fuzzies about the time she and her mom made brownies in the Arkansas governor's mansion will give us insight into whether Clinton or Obama have the better, more workable plan for health care.

All best,

Jim

Exasperated Obama cultist defending the dishonorable daughter-pimp Hillary Clinton.

...but the lady warbling "status quo-wo-wo" did crack me up.

that after "thirty-five years of experience" and being the candidate of ideas etc etc this is the best her campaign can do. Maybe Penn and Wolfson need to go on vacation till the primary is resolved one way or the other. They definitely need to be muzzled at the very least.

Sidebar: Was Jake Tapper a little weasel when he worked here? Or is he just trying to pre-negotiate a contract or something?

than a think-tank conservative trying to be funny.

Poor, poor BoBo

...the use of "success" in the next item underlines that "fight for" was not successful. If they could say "success", they would.

**God These Obama Folks

Have glass jaws**.

...I think this is more a case of a 'glass fist'.

This is just embarassing.

I didn't bother to read past the revolting lead in. There are actually valid reasons not to support Hillary Clinton. I don't know if you've heard of the AUMF? Kyl-Lieberman? Joe Lieberman '06?

"Seriously, how is political reconciliation going in Iraq?

No one ever reports on it."

This guy www.juancole.com reports on it almost everyday. The truth is that every bit of "progress" has been one step up, two steps back, three steps left.

**He was a very effective trial counsel, though he did tend to milk the "aw shucks I'm just a folksy good old boy" angle to the point of annoying fellow and opposing counsel, particularly **

Wow! thank you for confirming my suspicions. I remember thinking during the impeachment farce that the turned up his accent and his "aw shucks" factor about four notches when speaking to the Senate. I wasn't (and am not) an objective observer, so I'm glad to see it isn't just me.

Is this guy not a case study, at least a term paper, waiting to be written? He reveals so much about himself, his delusions, his self-loating (I'm not a bloated social climber! I'm a beefy rustic he-man! It's not at all effeminate that I go to the same colorist as Sally Quinn and Peggy Noonan!) every time he opens that gaping maw to show us the churning, fetid miasmic swamp that is his psyche.

I know I should feel sorry for him, but I really don't.

"Ken Starr? We're not interested in Bill Clinton's sexual activities, and we hope the media will not ask those questions either. We want to know about the Clintons use of their post-White House status to build a personal fortune that allows them to loan her campaign five million dollars."

McCain is smarter and classier than Clinton. God help the country if she gets the nomination.

As soon as I saw that headline, I knew who wrote the article.

Wasn't Chelsea, then about fifteen or sixteen, on this trip?

Was that something else they always said in the White House? If it's too dangerous for Elvis, send the president's teen-age daughter?

I understand you're considered one of the finest academic historians in the country.

You seem to wanna be a pundit.

Keep your day job.