Letters to the Editor
-
Oh come on
Shuster has nothing to apologize to Hillary or Chelsea for. He expressed a valid opinion in a humorous if off-color way that is more or less within the bounds of today’s cable networks. If sufficient numbers of viewers are offended by this locution, then MSNBC should warn their talking heads not to use the word “pimp” and we can all move on. But it should trouble all of us that a would-be defender of the Constitution (including the first amendment, one hopes) would seem to be saying that Shuster's comment merits an even more severe punishment than he has already received.
Would anyone even know about this if it weren’t for Hillary going on the warpath with her poll-tested Mama Bear persona set at full roar? I doubt it. Her “outrage” has insured that people will parse Shuster’s statement far more than it deserves to be, putting her daughter’s name in the same sentence as words like “prostitution” and “whore.” This very behavior is why people accuse the Clintons of, how shall I put this, the deployment of their daughter in meretricious ways.
The annoying thing is that the Clintons can dish it out but they can’t take it. When Bill ran against the first Bush, the Clintons aggressively pushed the story of Bush’s supposed mistress. But when others subsequently wanted to discuss Bill’s extensive infidelities, it was the “politics of personal destruction.” The hypocrisy is all too familiar to those of us who never liked this clownish pair, and gradually dawning on a lot of others who may once have had some affection for them.
-
In response to David Blixt
Amen:
On Cnn's unbearable visual noise. And on the idea of Obama weighing in.
-
clarity
Hillary Clinton herself weighed in with a letter to NBC News, insisting: "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient. I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language." On "The View," Barbara Walters claimed Clinton was asking for Shuster to be fired (others also read her letter that way, though I didn't)...
I also did not read Clinton's letter as necessarily asking for Shuster to be fired. However, it wasn't clear to me what Clinton was asking for. What did she want? Why didn't she explain what she wanted?
Shouldn't we expect more clarity from someone who wants to be leader of the free world?
-
apparently
we'll do anything to avoid talking about, you know, the issues. the MSM is guilty of both sexism and racism in this Democratic primary to the detriment of both remaining candidates, not to mention the country as a whole.
shuster's comments were thoughtless. but chelsea is a grown woman who refuses to speak to the media as though she is made of glass (ie, the perfect "clean" face that the clinton campaign seeks out as it digs deeper into the mud). racists and sexists ought to be ostracized and punished for their thoughtless comments. done and done. now get over it.
-
camel's backs and scapegoats
While Chelsea Clinton is an adult and has to be prepared for some kind of backlash when campaigning for her mother, there are two things that I would say in response:
1) Calling someone's filial loyalty whoredom is excessive and excessively rude regardless of age.
2) Maternal instincts don't dim just because one's child has rounded the corner towards 30.
So I can well understand Senator Clinton's profound loss of shit over this. I'd be outraged too.
However. While the letter doesn't explicitly call for Shuster to be fired (like Solis Doyle "stepped down," you know?), it can easily be read that way. And that, to me, is an over-reach when Senator Clinton's anger is more justifiably directed towards a network that has tolerated all sorts of ill-tempered remarks at her expense.
MSNBC isn't going to do more than make a token effort at addressing their coverage, settling for a band-aid in the form of disciplining Shuster - someone who presumably doesn't have any advertising revenue inked against his name on the quarterly performance reports.
Net result, a proper reporter botches it, triggers the next level of ire from a candidate who's been absorbing a beating, gets turned into a scapegoat to satisfy the candidate, her supporters, and the corporate executives, and what's changed? Nothing.
-
How come it's okay to bad mouth Chelsea?
Would Shuster, or anyone else on teevee, say the same about Jenna or Not Jenna, about Cheney's offspring, about the five Mittrons who served their country by working on their father's campaigns? Why is it always okay to badmouth Chelsea for doing nothing more or less than the multitudinous children of other candidates and political figures?
-
Was Walsh's "fluffer" innuendo against Obama also racist?
Obviously it was sexist. But would she have said the same for a white candidate like Bill Clinton?
-
About More...
Than Hillary, Chelsea and Shuster. It's about the 90's and the Clinton witch hunt. It's about Al Gore and the lies and mud slung at him. It's about John Kerry a true life military hero that was swift boated. This is about standing up and saying I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Good on you Hillary and I now wish I'd have voted for you.
-
Give em hell, Bill
Can you imagine what Harry Truman's response would be if a similar slur were made about his daughter Margaret? He would have punched Shuster in the nose. Bill Clinton should seriously consider it. I am sure most fathers of daughters would cheer him on.
-
@ Anon and fluffing
Anon @ 12.55 - using the word "fluffer" in relation to Bill Clinton wouldn't be innuendo, it would be a matter of documented fact.
-
But, um, she IS being pimped out
I don't think Shuster implied she's a whore, I think he was saying that the Clintons are sending her on missions to woo superdelegates. It's a modern way of saying something, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that the Clintons attacked MSNBC for this.
If anyone should be suspended for misogyny over at that network, it's Chris Matthews. Duh!
-
I don't think Clinton is "playing" protective
I think she IS protective. Yeah, Clinton's attention to this issue is part of what's keeping it alive, but if I'm reading the room(s) right, it doesn't seem to be helping her. Is it possible that Senator Clinton is...sincerely pissed off? Because she is sincerely protective of her daughter? (Who, true enough, is now an adult, but sure wasn't when the national media FIRST had a go at her.) But HRC haters seem to think that she is incapable of sincerity, ever...
I basically agree with Joan Walsh here. And her "fluffer" comment may sort of occupy the same contextual space as Shuster's (though don't forget that "fluffer" is also a common term for people who fix up the interior of houses on the market), but she also wasn't referring to a candidate's daughter.