Letters to the Editor
-
Defending Your Own
It is funny how every time a Reporter is under attack the members of the Tribe rush to their defense or seek to minimize the harm with terms like 'scapegoat'. Yet when specific Democratic politicians like both Clinton's and Gore are regularly slimed by mainstream press (Matthews, Russert, Shuster, Rich, Herbert etc.)through filter of their mindreading novellas - we hear very from our Liberal columnists, like our dear Joan. (With the exception of Krugman who so aptly coined the phrase "Clinton Rules" or at least one author of a Vanity Fair article.)
-
@ Wearedoomed: STATE IT LIKE IT REALLY WAS...
Dearest WeAreDoomed:
I just wanted to remind you that Senator Clinton was not the only one on the Senate floor when the vote for the war was made.
There were republicans, democrats, Senator Kerry who endorsed Obama and former Senator John Edwards.
Oh yeah, remember Colin Powell? He even had pictures of the ficticious WMD's, before the senate vote and showed them to the UN and the world.
Maybe, it is time for you to be fair in your headlines and comments.
We all know we are at war and we are all against it, but don't keep putting all the blame on one person.
Also, your comment about using her daughter and husband in the campaign, was idiotic. At least it was her family and not Oprah.
My direct quote to you is:
"WORK ON THE PROBLEM AND MAYBE WE CAN ALL FIND THE SOLUTION....."
-
@ ncawley et al
I don't argue that she's playing the victim in this situation, since frankly I like to see a parent who defends their child--regardless of the "child's" age. Another poster saying that they were disgusted when McCain once embraced Bush after Bush had maligned his child during the 2000 campaign has my sympathy. The ability to defend your offspring may not be so different from the instinct it takes to defend your nation.
That said, I think Clinton should be careful about over-reacting to perceived attacks and making them overly personal. MSNBC has been sexist, but this is against all women, not only Hillary or Chelsea.
Today I read this from her campaign's website Hillary's Hub:
www.attacktimeline.com
She documents every single instance of Obama criticising her since the campaign began. There's no explanation of when she had criticised him first. Just situation after situation--the title says it all : attack timeline.
It's this kind of black-and-white thinking (pardon the pun) that makes me think worry about her. We live in a nuanced world. If you take every criticism as an "attack" and respond defensively, you will waste precious time and energy fighting perceived enemies, rather than accomplishing what you wish to accomplish.
If I had been Clinton's campaign manager (ha ha, right?) I would have pushed her to be all about health care. Instead she seems to have spent too much energy trying to push Obama into the Rick Lazio roll. Or to dangle the skeletons in Obama's closet in front of him until the public gets frightened and runs into her camp. Neither strategy draws attention to her strengths.
MSNBC shouldn't be sexist--but that's true for all women they belittle, not only Clinton and her daughter. I hope that she is holding them into account not merely for herself and her campaign, but for the sake of all the American people, including the women she hopes to one day govern.
-
I support Senator Obama in the primary
but I completely agree: I wish he had decried the statement, too. I've been sick of the misogyny directed at Senator Clinton for some time, and the "pimp" remark was tasteless (even if unintentionally so). (There's been a lot of intentional tastelessness out there -- a lot.) I also agree with you that Shuster is being scapegoated. I hope that he is able to return to work.
Thanks!
Laura
-
@ dataguts
Hillary is in El Paso, Texas, campaigning. It has a population of 80% Latino. She knows what she needs to do. She can't make a difference if she doesn't win.
-
She's not "riding in"
Senator Clinton is well within her rights to speak out, its not just riding in for her daughter. She personally was being criticized as though she was the pimp sending her daughter out to do unseemly work. She's allowed to respond to criticisms of her personally.
-
What Is Our Role In This
I have said in comments here and elsewhere about Shuster's comments that as long as other men allow these comments among their male peers, and think they are acceptable, we will continue to hear all sorts of sexist commentary. Whether it was intentional or not is not the issue. If somebody unintentionally slips and uses a racist comment, do we allow that? No.
It is everybody's responsibility that believes in equality without boundaries to call others on the use of questionable sexist language. That means that you, too, Joan, have a responsibility to speak up.
However, we will make real progress when men take on other men about their use of sexist language -- and that means progressive men in the Democratic Party, as well.
-
This Is Why our News Media Needs to Be Spread Across Many Independent Sources
Why are we talking about David Shuster when NOBODY HAS EVER EXPLAINED why G.W. Bush had a box on his back inside his jacket during one of his debates with John Kerry?
Or why the Supreme Court installed him as POTUS?
How about Republican-sponsored Diebold voting machines? Is David Shuster more important?
Are we as a nation going to let GWB fade happily into obscurity without ever having to answer for his big time fuck-ups?
Would we all rather talk about the news media instead of demanding that our government leaders answer tough questions?
-
Chelsea "unseemly"?
What bothered me was not as much the "pimped out" part as it was his opening sentence that "there's something just a little bit unseemly " that a daughter would ask people to support her Mom. "Unseemly?" What kind of family did Mr Schuster grow up in that he would consider it "unseemly" for a daughter to support a parent?
-
It's not about Chelsea ...
and it's not about the naughty thing Shuster said and it's not about "whining" (as so many Hillary Haters have accused her of doing).
It's about Hillary striking back against an unrelenting, decade-plus campaign of hate against her and her husband. A campaign of hate that MSNBC and their fellow travelers have never questioned, as serious journalists would. A campaign of hate whose propaganda the MSM has been all too happy to parrot.
I agree with Joan that Shuster is taking the fall for a lot more than his transgression alone. Wow, such a shame.