Letters to the Editor
-
Sanctimony
I find this "tempest in a teacup" interesting on a number of levels. First, let me say that David Shuster is an idiot. Not for the content of the remark (which as an earlier letter writer indicated, is substantialy true), but for using the vernacular, borderline vulgar, to make a "relevent" comment. He could have just as well said that the Clintons are "taking advantage of the unique position a first daughter holds" or maybe using the stronger phrasing "exploiting the goodwill given to first family members".
But the sanctimony with which many claim that Hillary was slighted rings false. It is true that Chelsea as a grown and highly educated woman can make her own decisions, but it is not in her (or Hillary's) best interest to be out in front trying to sell her mother's candidacy. First of all, it almost seems desparate. A spouse campaigning, in a low key sort of way, is the norm. Children (adult or otherwise), traditionally have been given the role of showing how well rounded a candidate is:
"Not only is he/she well qualified, but his/her kids are so accomplished/cute/well-behaved {depending on age}. This just goes to show that he/she is a good parent as well as a nationaly leader"
With the Clintons, they run into another snag. As a president, the first kids are given a "buffer". The press (generally) leaves them alone and lets them live their life (since they didn't choose to be first kids). When they come out of this, they are expected to be somewhat apolitical (look at Bush's daughter, Jenna, volunteering with UNICIF). So Chelsea engaging actively in campaigning for Clinton is a perceived "violation" of the trust given to her as a first child.
-
Decency
I agree with you, but I don't get Shuster as a scapegoat--even though I'm male and not a friend of "orthodox" feminism. I've found it shocking to see the cheap shots, innuendo, and outright sneers. I find it hard to believe the new icons of the media are even capable of it, but then I turn on the tube and there it is, again and again, and I'm shocked.
It's not just a bunch of old geezers who you'd think didn't know better--at least they were gentlemen--and professional. The new bunch don't know where the boundaries are. It's made me sympathetic to Clinton for no other reason--as has the fact that she's been deserted for the most part by the so-called "feminist" establishment.
What are they doing to defend her? For the most part they've already lept to Obama for reasons that reak of opportunism--even if they are of her same generation and fought all the battles she's had to fight. A sense of loyalty to their own cause seems foreign to them--and I find that odd.
It's like something really stinks in Denmark but nobody can find where it's coming from. I think simply the presence of a woman in the discussion cools them off a bit. As long as the woman doesn't seek real power she seems to be safe--and now that a woman has finally taken a shot at the top she has to fight every step of the way for something as basic as decency.
-
CLINTON'S LETTER IS VERY EXPLICIT
She did not call for a firing, but she pointed out that this comments fits into a pattern that is allowed to go on and on and on at MSBNC. I've been writing complaints about their male hosts blurting comments for years now and nothing ever changed. I respect Joan Walsh for appearing on the network because she helps balance the message that's somehow transmitted, and so she should continue doing that.
However, I'm certain Senator Clinton is hoping that MSNBC takes a long, hard look at what has been going on, for a very, very long time. It is NOT okay to constantly insult half your audience -- women -- with the inappropriate comments I heard made year after year by the likes of Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. They seem to reinforce, boost, and amplify each other, thinking that being coarse about public figures is okay. It's NOT. It is coarse and unprofessional by people who should know better.
I have asked several times that MSNBC put on some strong females to host a political show, and who might temper some of this male-testosterone that goes too far, and they've done close to nothing to tamp it back.
I've suggested that they put on an hour-long show, like "Salon.com" hosted by someone like Joan Walsh and other intellectual-minded journalists from the more moderate progressive press. It would help calm the jock-block down.
You need a stronger female to counterweight Joe Scarborough who makes rude, off-the-mark comments all the time. Someone who pushes back. So far, nothing.
-
It's the double standard
My objection was not to the fact that he used the term "pimped out." It's that his broader point was that using Chelsea for campaigning purposes was "unseemly." But, as has been noted all over the net, all the candidates have used their children in this way. Yet, Schuster singled out Chelsea. It's that same old MSM BS: if a Clinton does it, then it's "unseemly."
-
Can't Have it Both Ways Vis a Vis MSNBC Joan
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm also a woman, and I think that most of the MSNBCers are just vile.
Whatever he meant, and whatever sort of person he is, it was pathetic judgment for Shuster to say this, and frankly, I wouldn't want him working for me. It was an utterly incompetent thing for him to say, and apparently, according to you, Shuster didn't even understand his offense after the fact! So, Shuster is a reporter with such bad judgment that he makes HIMSELF the story and gets a presidential candidate threatening to boycott his network? If I were signing the checks, he'd be gone.
But then, the people signing the checks are also misogynistic Hillary-haters. So they'll keep him -- but they'll let him take the fall for it for a while. Why not. He's the designated scapegoat for this particular episode.
Is Shuster taking the blame for MSNBC's general anti-Hillary tone. Sure. Is it fair? No. Does it matter. HELL no. So Shuster is the straw that broke the camel's back. Big deal. Too damn bad. He is working for a bunch of Neanderthals, and those are the risks of signing up to work with a boatload of fools.
I'll give it Hillary, as she actually has the guts to stick up for herself and her daughter on this. I would cut off MSNBC if they said something so patently disgusting about my daughter too.
I know you admire her, and in this case, you should, Joan. Frankly, you should also follow her example. Because you can't have it both ways. Yes, all networks have their sexists and sexism-- but we all know that MSNBC is the big Daddy of the sexists -- especially lately with all their Hillary-hating and outright misogyny.
So, besides writing about it at Salon, what have you done about it? Have YOU asked MSNBC directly to change the tone?
Or are you too busy cashing your MSNBC checks, referring to Obama's "fluffers" and flacking for Hillary to mention your concerns to MSNBC directly, much less find another place to pundit that doesn't make denigrating women part of its mission statement?