Open Thread on Chelsea

-

chelsea clinton.png
MSNBC’s David Shuster is in some hot water for comments he made about Chelsea Clinton. They were inapproporiate. He knows it and has apologized.
But this raises the issue of the flame-outs we are seeing in many quarters of this presidential race. The innuendo, harsh attacks, Fox News style bravado that demeans the potential quality and importance of this election seems more pervasive.
I have some other stuff that has kept me off-line today, but I’m sure many of you have views on not only this Chelsea Clinton incident but also about the deterioration of serious political commentary today.
Maybe it’s always been this way or perhaps the trends are well known to just about everybody, but on some level, the tabloidization of serious news seems to me to be getting worse.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

80 comments on “Open Thread on Chelsea

  1. abiodun says:

    Robert Morrow: your hatred knows no bounds!You have been peddling this garbage for 16 years.

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    karenk…. yessss indeed.
    serge… I always like to ask Robert Morrow why he’s so obsessed with other’s sex lives. He can’t seem to answer. Maybe he should sign-on as PeepingTom.
    What does it say about John McCain, a supposedly grown man, picking on a very young girl, or any grown man, for that matter?
    Meanwhile, Mad TV had a great term today, “Patridiotic”.

    Reply

  3. karenk says:

    …thanks for the link to the womens media center. Great article from someone who articulates better than I ever could what I always say…”Wherever we are, no matter what country or society, women are ALWAYS second class citizens”
    It’s so true too, everyone thought the guy yelling “Iron my shirt bitch” at Hillary was a joke. But face it, if someone yelled, “Shine my shoes nigga boy” to Obama, I hardly think it would be considered a joke.
    It’s so frustrating too that if you are a feminist people accuse you of hating men, or being against them. I believe feminism helps men as much as women.

    Reply

  4. toplu email says:

    ilan
    I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
    However, I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
    Firma
    Oyun
    ilanlar
    iş ilanları

    Reply

  5. Tom says:

    MSNBC gushes over Obama. That’s what Hillary’s vengeance is all about, a hissy fit as writing appears on the wall “Obama is America’s favorite” all helped along by MSNBC.

    Reply

  6. serge says:

    Robert Morrow is a professional, if delusional, Clinton-hater. It would be a mistake for anyone to get down in the muck to do battle with him.

    Reply

  7. mollycoddle says:

    There is a huge discrepancy in how the candidates-and their families-are treated. If Shuster had said something similar about Michelle Obama, the black community would have been screaming for his head. He would have been fired, and political correctness would have been the order of the day.
    He has apologized several times, and I hope that he will not be fired. What he said was offensive, but he is a talented reporter, and he has learned a valuable lesson. Which, I hope, will be the point of this sorry episode.

    Reply

  8. TonyForesta says:

    Not to further agitate POA, and with all due respect, (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that) – I think Chelsea is beautiful.
    POA is correct in that while we contemplate and focus on this “irrelevant bullshit” the more pertinant issues confronting America are ignored.

    Reply

  9. susan says:

    w2, Here’s Josh Marshall’s take on it: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
    Not Fired?
    A number of readers have written in to question, or much more than question, our latest headline on the Clinton/Shuster story — namely that Hillary Clinton is demanding that Shuster be fired.
    First of all, some have criticized Greg Sargent’s reporting. But let me make this crystal clear. I personally signed off on the post and I wrote the front page headline myself.
    Some have said that Clinton’s letter to NBC wasn’t written clearly or that she was saying that suspensions and apologies were not enough, that what was needed was a broader reevaluation on the network’s part of its attitude to women and Hillary Clinton in particular.
    Simply read the key passage …
    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.
    Some readers seem to believe that Clinton is saying that it’s not about suspensions or apologies. It’s about MSNBC’s need to reevaluate its pattern of behavior.
    But there’s a fatal flaw with this strained interpretation. Look at the actual words. If that’s the case, why does she qualify ‘suspension’ with the adjective ‘temporary’? That tells the tale right there. The alternative to a temporary suspension is a permanent one, which is clear English we call ‘firing’.
    I give the Clinton campaign the respect of knowing that they’re no slouches with the written word. And the words in this letter were clearly chosen with great care. The point of that passage was that merely suspending Shuster was insufficient — that he needs to be fired. That’s what they meant. And I have little doubt that Shuster and the MSNBC execs understood the meaning the moment they read it. I think it would be wrong to shy away from making that clear.
    –Josh Marshall

    Reply

  10. w2 says:

    Clinton did not ask for Schuster to be fired. Here is her letter:
    Dear Mr. Capus,
    Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster’s comments.
    I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
    However, I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
    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.
    There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.
    Sincerely,
    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    After the NH primary, Chris Matthews who has a history of making sexist comments was called on the carpet and forced to apologize for some crude comment he made about how Clinton got elected in New York. He apologized. The next morning on Scarborough’s Morning Joe the wagons were circled and all the pundits and analysts were outraged that he should have had to apologize. The tone on that network has gotten worse since that incident. Then Schuster made the pimp comment. The next morning he gave a non-apology — sorry if you were offended by what I said…
    Apparently they didn’t take the issue seriously until enough women wrote into NBC and complained.
    Clinton did the right thing by asking NBC to “look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.” She didn’t say that he should be fired, only that they need to reign in their analysts.
    It’s about time that bullshit is called on the allowance of sexist drivel to fill the airwaves. We no longer tolerate racist comments and we being progressives, should not condone sexist language either.

    Reply

  11. TonyForesta says:

    Or…. do we vote for the democrat and hold the dim hope of some relief, some balm in Gilead that will focus more on the best interests of the American people, and less on the wanton profiteering and fascist machinations of the cabals, klans, coteries, oligarchs, and cronies in or beholden to the fascists in the Bush government.

    Reply

  12. TonyForesta says:

    One thousand thanks for the macabre, horrifying, and yet humorous link to David Michael Green.
    Democrats or the democratic party are either complicit, or woefully incompetent. Sadly, Americans are left with the proverbial lesseroftwoevils choice. Do we lurch back to the fascists and certain neverendingwar and all the bloody costly burdens the people must endure and finance, pernicious pursuit of division, radical separation of thehaves, from thehavenots, wanton profiteering, and ruthless betrayal and perversion of the rule of law, the Constitution, every principle that formally defined America, and the American people.
    “Deliver us from evil!”

    Reply

  13. Sandy says:

    Interesting how full the world is of women haters.

    Reply

  14. Beth in VA says:

    This is the equivalent of Britney Spears coverage. In the meantime, Senator Obama just won four states, including a decisive sweep in Washington State and the Virgin Islands. Ahh, to be in St. Kitts now…

    Reply

  15. ... says:

    robert morrow, is that you??

    Reply

  16. MSNBC says:

    Got To Hell Hillary! Shuster remains, and you remain a senator whether you get the nomination or not; hopefully NOT! Cunt!

    Reply

  17. ... says:

    Matthews promised to try to be “clearer, smarter,” and finally averred, “Saying that Senator Clinton got where she’s got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now that it comes across just as nasty. Worse yet, just as dismissive.”
    Under pressure from feminist groups and his own bosses at MSNBC, Chris Matthews apologized yesterday for remarks about Hillary Clinton that he now admits sounded “nasty.”
    For 10 days, the “Hardball” host had doggedly insisted he was just reciting a bit of history when he said on the air that “the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    kirk, this is 2 strikes against nbc, not 1… matthews was the earlier dude that said derogatory remarks… i am sure the clintons are getting tired of the smears and only recourse is to reconsider doing air time with them… you don’t seem too informed..

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    But mums the word on Mukasey, eh Hillary?
    Its alright for Mukasey to wipe his ass with our Constitution, but by God don’t you dare insult Chelsea.

    Reply

  20. susan says:

    HILLARY WANTS DAVID SHUSTER FIRED
    2/9/08
    Clinton doesn’t think a temporary suspension fits the crime by MSNBC’s David ShusterSen. Clinton’s letter to Steve Capus, president of NBC News, pretty much says it all:
    Dear Mr. Capus,
    Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster’s comments.
    I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
    However, I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
    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.
    There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.
    Sincerely,
    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    Reply

  21. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Airheads.
    I rest my case.

    Reply

  22. Carrie says:

    Mr. Pissed, hiya! Came bye to see if you were here. You remember I asked you to listen to my song for Barack and you liked it but was embarassed to say so. I know Mr. Pissed you liked it. How could anyone not! I put it on here again for you and the rest so you can know how I really feel about Barack and to cheer you up with some love in your heart. I just know you like it Mr. Pissed, you just have to!
    Play my song! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnUsInBQws
    Sincerely,
    Carrie

    Reply

  23. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Up until this thing, I was torn between the two. I am now more inclined to Obama than anytime up until now.”
    ROFLMAO!!!
    Because of this irrelevant bullshit?
    What about Obama’s position that Bush has not committed “grave and intentional breeches of the President’s authority”?
    Or what about Hillary’s complete lack of any substantive efforts to rein in Bush these last seven years???
    No, by golly gee damn, this informed voter is going to reject a candidate by their reaction to a reporter’s inconsequential slur. The war, health care, the ignored crimes of the Bush Administration, their subservience to Israel and AIPAC, their silence about Mukasey’s recent declaration that Bush is above the law, all these issues pale when held against this highly explosive issue of Shuster’s public gaffe, and Hillary’s historical reaction to it.
    Welcome to airhead politics, by airheads, for airheads, about airheads.
    God help us.

    Reply

  24. Kirk says:

    On the one hand, I didn’t think Shuster’s choice of words or phrases was wise. I thought it was worthy of an apology.
    The thing that bothered me more, however, was the reaction of the Clinton campaign. Rather than accept the apology and move on, they made noise that they would have to reconsider appearing on that network for a debate.
    As I recall, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have made some mistakes over time. They asked to be allowed to move on and the public gave them that chance. The Clinton’s are talented people and the country benefits from their service. Shuster is a talented person who also made a mistake. Apparently, the Clinton campaign expects what it is unwilling to give.
    I am in Pennsylvania. It is not unlikely that Pennsylvania will decide who really wins or loses between Obama and Clinton. Up until this thing, I was torn between the two. I am now more inclined to Obama than anytime up until now.

    Reply

  25. gqmartinez says:

    It hasn’t gotten worse, IMO. The only difference is that the majority of the progressive blogosphere is on the same side as the MSM in this fight so there is essentially no push-back from liberals/progressives. In fact, they seem to be joining in the pile-on. A little too giddily for my taste. The “fairy tale” comment which in no honest way can be considered racist or even dealing with race at all was rolled out all over the MSM and progressive blog as proof of Clinton’s racism. Obama, in a speech, talks about Hillary’s “claws” coming out and…….silence.
    If anything, this race has revealed the true colors of the online progressive community.

    Reply

  26. Fed Upppp !!! says:

    Chelsea is not all that terribly ugly! Why do you all have to keep putting that up here, jeez! She reminds me of a young Eleanor Roosevelt, and if she goes along in life to accomplishments comparable to Mrs. Roosevelt you all will be singing a different tune. She’s young and just starting out. Why would you all make fun of a young lady trying to do her best. Have a heart for peace’s sake! Would you ever like things like these said about your daughter? You’d cry in your pillows at night you would.

    Reply

  27. jimmyjump says:

    Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
    Because her father is Janet Reno.
    -Senator John McCain in prepared remarks, 1998

    Reply

  28. Duke,S says:

    Reporters should be reporters.
    Talk show pundits should be talk show pundits.
    Reporters should not offer opinions.
    Most of the blather on cable news shows is not helpful analysis of important news. It is high paid laziness designed to foment controversy as a medium for commercials.
    David Shuster’s comment was stupid. Less stupid than the system that pays more for people who make stupid comments than for people who practice actual journalism.

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Susan, you probably just witnessed the antics of a future President of the United States.
    You know, Steve will kill me for naming this guy, but we have a local ex-senator, a Republican by the name of Phil Wyman, whom I have had occassional business dealings with. On a community level, this guy is one of the cheapest, most petty, and morbidly insipid human beings I have ever had the displeasure of coming into contact with. I wasn’t around when this guy was voted into the Senate, but I find it unfathomable that this man could have shown the voters his true nature, yet still attained office. Unbelievably wealthy with local property, this guy would short you a nickel on a dollar debt if he thought he could get away with it.
    Once in a while, I seem to fantacize that he is the exception rather than the rule, (in my more optimistic flights of fantasy), but then the reality of the last decade or two comes into focus, and I am forced to accept the premise that he is undoubtedly the rule in Washington.
    The real scary part is that this scumbag has lost his last two attempts to slime his way into public office. Why scary? Well, because I find it hard to believe that it is because the voting public has seen him for what he is. Observing modern politics, it is more likely that his opponents were just far more adept at hiding their own propensity for self-serving sleaze and deceit.

    Reply

  30. Kathleen says:

    Bahgwan… I’m all in favor of openess and an ability to be frank about one’s own sexuality…. what I don’t get is why be so curious about other people’s private business? I don’t care who else is doing what, as long as it doesn’t involve rape or molestation. I can only conclude that people who are immature and unwilling to take charge of their own lives, can be so preoccupied in others’ sex lives. Of all the things to criticize in a candidate on their positions(pardon the oun)why focus on something that has no national import and dosen’t affect anyone else? Duuuh!
    Meanwhile back in the Beltway….it seems to me that for a black man with a Muslim father and a name like Barack Hussein Obama to be so popular, is a meaure of just how opposed to Busholini’s GWOT the American voter really is.
    Particide In Six Easy Steps
    Diligent Democrats Demonstrate Dumbness Daily
    By David Michael Green
    08/02/08 “ICH” — — Suppose you had a political party you were trying to get rid of. How would you do it?
    Would you give it some cement shoes and toss it into the bay? Would you roll it up in a carpet and drag it into the trunk of your car in the middle of the night? Would you put out a contract on it?
    If the latter sounds appealing, no need to get your hands dirty messing with any nasty mob guys from Jersey. I know some very upstanding establishment folks whoÂ’ve perfected a killer formula (pun intended) for particide. TheyÂ’re called Democrats, and they know how to get the job done right.
    In fact, they’ve demonstrated it again for the umpteenth time just as I’m writing these words. Yesterday, that tough guy Harry Reid laid down the law for congressional Republicans thinking he wouldn’t play hardball on the much-needed economic stimulus package now working its way through Congress. He told them: “Well, I think that if they think this is a bluff, wait until we have this vote and they’ll find out if it’s a bluff. I’m not much of a bluffer.” Then, today, he completely caved into their pressure on the bill, proving – though perhaps not quite in the manner he intended – that he is in fact not much of a bluffer, after all, even if he is from Nevada. Nor, as it turns out, is he much of a negotiator either.
    Yep, ladies and gentlemen, if itÂ’s particide youÂ’re after, Reid and his fellow Democrats would be happy to show you how itÂ’s done. ItÂ’s pretty simple, really. There are just six easy steps that you need to follow to take out a political party thatÂ’s grown a bit, shall we say, inconvenient.
    First of all, make sure it does nothing. If youÂ’re looking for a good way to anger voters, hereÂ’s the best. Have them send you to Congress to address a host of their urgent concerns. Let them invest their full faith in you to rescue them from all the effects of a country gone completely off the rails. Let them believe and let them hope. Then do nothing. Crush their pedestrian little dreams in your blood-soaked hands by protecting corporate interests instead. Spend two years racking up not a single notable legislative accomplishment, and then go before the voters asking for another term. TheyÂ’ll remember your name.
    A second excellent technique is to fail to block the worst tendencies of the worst president ever, the very mission you were most entrusted with by the voters. If they hate this presidentÂ’s stinking war, make sure you give him the money for it every time he asks. Send all his reactionary nominees to the Supreme Court after they mock you in bullshit hearings. Yeah, go ahead. Allow a supporter of torture and Constitution-shredding to become the highest law enforcement officer in the land. Etc., etc. Get it? Sure, you can go through the motions of opposition, but at the end of the day, be sure to bungle it so badly that you leave everybody scratching their heads and wondering which party actually controls Congress.
    Next, while youÂ’re at it, donÂ’t do anything to make this hated president and his administration accountable for their manifold crimes of the century. Treat them as though theyÂ’ve got pictures of you in some airport menÂ’s room somewhere that theyÂ’re threatening to release if you dare do anything remotely resembling oversight (or patriotism). Let these guys absolutely run rampant thrashing the republic in every imaginable way, while you sit on top of your congressional majority abdicating any responsibility for protecting the people who sent you there to protect them. Show the public how tough you can be by investigating the use of steroids in baseball, while lies about war and illegal phone-tapping and torture and suspension of habeas corpus go ignored. Keep your priorities straight and youÂ’re guaranteed to score points with the voters, for sure.
    Of course, not only must you fail to oppose an insane kleptocratic dictator, but itÂ’s crucial that you also have absolutely no program or ideas of your own to offer. I mean, who canÂ’t never not get no excitement going about nothing? Er, something like that… Anyhow, the point is that a political party without ideas is like a car without wheels. And it will go just about as far, too. If you want to get rid of your party, be sure to be about nothing whatsoever.
    And yet, even while trying to be the Seinfeld of political parties, you will no doubt sometimes accidentally advance some sort of popular idea or another, despite yourself. You know, like a million monkeys at a keyboard… When these inadvertently beneficial bills are immediately destroyed by the obstructionist minority party – who continually overuse and abuse parliamentary tactics you (of course) never dreamed of all those years when you were in the minority – make sure that nobody in the voting public knows about it. You could run around screaming about them continually blocking you from doing the peopleÂ’s business, but that would only increase public sympathy for you. And since youÂ’re trying to kill your party, you surely wonÂ’t want to do that. No, like a good Democrat, you want to make sure the other guys never have to pay for their crimes.
    Finally, one of the very best things you can do to destroy a political party is to avoid at all costs articulating an alternative narrative. Play ball on their turf! Let the other guys define the issues, frame the discussion, and paint you in the worst possible light – as deviants, traitors, cowards and haters of your own country! Now you’re talkin’, my friend. You want your house robbed right? Hand the door key to the thieves! You want your car crashed properly? Park it on railroad tracks! You want your party rubbed out completely? Let the other guys make the rules, fool! Heck, if you really want to make sure of your party’s demise, you can even encourage them steal elections you’ve actually won! It worked in Florida and Ohio!
    If these six steps seem like a ridiculously reliable way to destroy a political party, thatÂ’s because they are. Still, they may not be entirely infallible. This year will be the acid test.
    The good folks running the Democratic Party have assiduously followed the above formula to the letter, carefully dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’. But damned if the recalcitrant right isn’t failing to play ball! What’s up with that? Have Republicans become so intractable nowadays that they’re even blocking the Democrats’ own self-induced demise? Is destruction obstruction the latest GOP game?
    Or are Republicans just following their own particide formula, which – needless to say, like everything they do – is more disciplined and effective than even this fine blueprint belonging to Dumb DemsÂ’? It kinda looks like it, after all. Consider their prescription: Take the biggest surplus in the history of the federal government and turn it into the biggest deficit. Fight a hugely unpopular war. Get caught lying about the rationale for it. Block efforts to save the planet from a looming environmental crisis, while pretending it isnÂ’t real. Allow religious crazies to deny effective medical treatment to suffering humans in order to protect about-to-be-destroyed blastocysts. Get caught in all manner of corruption and sexual ‘deviancyÂ’ while interminably preaching your own holier-than-thou sanctimonious purity. Shred the Constitution in every way imaginable. Load the government up with every incompetent low-wattage political hack you can find stuck behind a church pew somewhere. Make the whole world hate us. Use the federal government to prosecute people on the basis of their party affiliation. Stand by and watch one of the countryÂ’s major cities drown. Destroy a foreign country. Destroy the middle class of your own country. Be asleep at the wheel (at best) when the country is attacked. Fail to come even close to winning a war against the people you blame for that attack. And so on…
    Quite a litany, eh? Yet, for all their best efforts, Republicans still canÂ’t seem to get the Democrats to put the GOP out of its stinking misery. Still canÂ’t get them to investigate. Still canÂ’t get them to impeach. Still canÂ’t get them to win. So now Republicans have brought out the big guns, engineering what looks like a massive economic recession on top of everything else. And theyÂ’re throwing people out of their homes in droves so that Wall Street can profit even more. Right before an election, too!
    Yes, indeed. These guys arenÂ’t messing around. Democrats seeking to kill their party are going to have to work extra hard in 2008, thatÂ’s for sure! Six steps may not be enough. If Democrats want to rub themselves out this year, they may need a seventh.
    Get on their knees and beg the public not to vote for them? Nah. Too subtle.
    Change their name to the Socialist Party? Nah. It might actually increase their share of votes.
    Have their own sex scandals? Nah. Been there, done that.
    Something else is going to be required to kill the party off for sure this year.
    Oh, I know! They could nominate Hillary Clinton!
    David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers’ reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, http://www.regressiveantidote.net.

    Reply

  31. susan says:

    Trash talking pollutes the whole country.
    Recently, while at the grocery store, I watched a young mother take a can of soup away from her little boy and put it back on the shelf.
    The little fellow, who was not more than four, burst into loud howls and then looked at his mother and bellowed, “You Suck!”
    The mother went on with her shopping as though nothing had happened. The crying child kicked at the floor for a while and then raced after her yelling more insults.
    The people in the soup aisle, who witnessed the melt-down, looked as though they wanted to paddle the kid AND his mother.
    I pity the teachers who will soon be trying to deal with that child.

    Reply

  32. Glen says:

    Chelsea is a nice looking young gal who on no account deserves to be drug thru the mud. Why should she be treated different than any other child of a Presidential candidate. Have any of you ever heard anything bad said about Bush’s daughters? about McCain’s children? about Romney’s boys? about Huck’s children? I could go on …… but you all get the point. The children of candidates are off limits, they have nothing to do with selecting a president, period. So this fox pas by Shoemaker is just a blip in how we as a people have conducted ourselves in the past and how we shall continue on the high road when it comes to the children. Over and out.

    Reply

  33. Bahgwhan says:

    Kath, I beg to differ. If only everyone came clean with there sex lives we would not be so curious, would we? People are always hiding what they truly love to do most. Why? Get it all out there and free oneself of the burden of hiding it and the fear of exposure and the anguish when others find out the detailed particulars of your intimacies. Let It All Hang Out, as we used to say, and the prurience will take care of itself. We all have to loosen up and not be so uptight. Hiding ones deep biological love for the sensual and sexual has led to the destruction of many persons pure of heart, and its all because the fig leaf fell. Take it off yourselves. Take it all off and revel in your existence.

    Reply

  34. Bill R. says:

    Steve, I don’t know where you have been hiding. Trash talking has been the mode, particularly with the advent of right wing radio. It turned much worse in the 90s. Your Republican friends saw Limbaugh get away with it, and Don Imus and the rest of them get away with it, so they picked it up. Our big brave national hero, John McCain apparently saw that it was quite okay to say the president’s daughter is ugly and the reason is that she was conceived by an ugly Lesbian. No doubt he got great laughs from the Republican audience. His only regret seems to be that he got caught. A great snapshot of his character.
    I wish that Hillary Clinton would have interrupted a supporter when she referred to Bush as “that bastard” instead of smiling. I wish that John McCain had not laughed when and had intervened when a supporter referred to HRC as “that bitch.” The culture has become meaner and it’s become quite all right to degrade persons who you disagree with or with whom you compete. And you can see ample evidence of it here in the blogosphere. But I have to say that the Republican Party and their surrogates in the talk radio realm have done more than their share of pollution of the American political consciousness.

    Reply

  35. Kathleen says:

    Robert Morrow … you’re pathetic…again, why are you and other Repugs so obsessed with others’ sex lives???? Is your maturation level arrested in permanent prurience???
    Actually, the MSM seems to be run by prurient old farts, desperately dependent on Viagra and more preoccupied with addicted blonde sluts than real events of consequence in the world.
    More important to me than who uses their kids in a campaign is which elected officials voted for the war, but kept their own kids safe at home.
    Shuster and every other A-hole in the so-called news using derrogatory terms for women or any group should have a career change.

    Reply

  36. David says:

    The photo is a marvelous counterpoint to the ugliness of Shuster’s (and even moreso McCain’s) comment, Steve.
    Pimp might have lost its coarser meaning in youth lingo, but not for either Shuster’s generation or for any of us older folk. It was a terrible gaffe, one for which I think Shuster is likely genuinely sorry, and I hope his apology will be accepted, and that he will return as a champion of moving away from this sort of gutter discourse in something as crucial to the civil body politic as the outcome of a presidential election.
    This is not Survivor Bowery. It is a key component in the future of both America and the rest of the planet. American voters are still the single most important shapers of our domestic and global futures, for good or for ill, in the choices they make, because not all candidates represent the same franchise – not really.

    Reply

  37. susan says:

    “No wonder we are still Iraq…”
    Carroll, Have you read this piece by Matt Taibbi?
    “The Chicken Doves Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends”
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves
    Everything I’m reading leads me to believe that we are going to be in Iraq for a long, long time.
    Rich man’s war; poor man’s fight.

    Reply

  38. cornycob says:

    Typical Media.
    Still, MSNBC is clearly bowing to pressure from the Clinton Camp. Duh!
    The Clinton’s say bend over, and the media is more than happy to reply.

    Reply

  39. YankeeClipper says:

    “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
    — Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.
    http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/the_worst_thing_thats_ever_bee_1.html

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    Looking at some of the comments on here we can see who the cable shows are appealing to with their low brow mentality.
    Partisans who are more interested in sluring whoever they aren’t for politically instead of concentrating in what’s important.
    No wonder we are still Iraq.
    Five US soldiers killed on Friday in Iraq: military
    11 hours ago
    BAGHDAD (AFP) — Five US soldiers were killed Friday in Iraq in two separate attacks, including one in Baghdad, the US military said in statements on Saturday.
    “Four (US) soldiers were killed when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while the soldiers were conducting a combat patrol northwest of Baghdad” on Friday, said the US military.
    Another soldier was killed and three wounded by a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle in the At Tamim province north of Baghdad on Friday, said another statement.
    The latest deaths brings to 3,957 the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, according to an AFP tally based on independent website http://www.icasualties.org.
    The frequency of attacks on US troops in Baghdad has picked up noticeably in the past weeks.
    Since the beginning of January, coalition soldiers have been targeted in attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDS) once every three days on average, according to US military commanders.
    Explosive devices are the main cause of US deaths in Iraq.

    Reply

  41. Sara B. says:

    Re: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.” — Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.
    Well, well, well, I happen to remember that John McCain has a heretofore unexplained Negro child in his family that apparently was conceived by his wife in one of her drug crazed lost weekends! I have seen references to this many times and can not help but believe it to be true. I believe I saw the child in a McCain family picture, and I must say, if there is any testament to John McCain being 120% pro-life it is that family photograph. But people in glass houses should not throw stones, John.

    Reply

  42. mc says:

    I don’t think Chelsea was being “used” by the Clinton campaign before the remark. It’s pretty clear that they are using her for everything they can get – post remark.

    Reply

  43. ... says:

    lol poa!your posts are consistently good!

    Reply

  44. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Since the Clintons now so vehemently deny that Chelsea is being pimped, the question that necessarily follows is to ask if Chelsea is still a virgin”
    I suspect that when an ass asks a question, a number of asses will leap forward to answer. I doubt you are an exception to this rule.

    Reply

  45. ... says:

    susan as someone else mentioned above, if it was directed at obamas wife, these same obama cheerleaders would be viewing it very differently.

    Reply

  46. wecht says:

    Since the Clintons now so vehemently deny that Chelsea is being pimped, the question that necessarily follows is to ask if Chelsea is still a virgin.
    Remember how Bill wagged his finger at us and vehemently denied having sex “with that woman!” These vigorous denials of pimping Chelsea sound like the same Clinton arrogance to cover a truth.
    Thus, we can better get to the truth of the matter if the question posed above is honestly answered by an unimpeachable source.

    Reply

  47. susan says:

    anyone who thinks that a Shuster would get away with the same remark about Elizabeth Cheney or Jenna Bush-or Michelle Obama for that matter-and “suffer” the same consequences- is delusional.
    Bravo to Hillary for hitting back on this. the double standard that is applied to the Clintons is appalling.

    Reply

  48. Carroll says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at February 9, 2008 09:01 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ditto.
    And about Chelsea, the remark about her is why I quit listening to the cable talk shows and pundits. I don’t know how to describe these pundits except as something resembling a clique of bitchy little highschool girls.
    The only channel on my TV that even comes close to giving me any “news” reporting is BBC. Pathetic.

    Reply

  49. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, if this is what it takes to tittilate the sensitivities of the average brainless American, here, have at it…..
    “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
    — Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

    Reply

  50. lina says:

    “the tabloidization of serious news” ???
    MSNBC is serious news?
    If someone as smart as Steve C. posits this notion, we’re in worse shape than I thought.

    Reply

  51. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its worse than that, Dennis. The two party skit has become a tool of division, designed to keep the masses squabbling about inane horseshit, like this ignorant inconsequential bit of non-issue this thread is premised on.
    Like it or not, the anarchists might be traveling the right road, because I suspect, in the not too distant future, my immediate surroundings will be my vital area of concern, and the state will have no vested interest, or capability, to provide security, except through extreme and fascist police procedures. This whole damned thing is falling apart around our ears, and an examination of the content of this blog, over the course of the last coupla weeks, really underscores the depth of the people’s denial.
    If we allow ourselves to be made into serfs, we probably deserve to be serfs.

    Reply

  52. Dennis says:

    Regarding POA @9:15 above. That’s what is meant by the “bewildered herd”.
    Reminds me of buffalo hunters – never shoot in the middle of the pack, rather pick’em off one at a time from the sides. Then each member of the herd thinks, “What, me worry?” Nobody is shooting at me.
    Americans are easily distracted and misled. They’re raised that way. Just take a look at the politically correct history books used in American schools.
    Then it continues with the mainstream media whose job is to keep them distracted and misled.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  53. DonS says:

    I dunno. Listening to the clip, Shuster’s inflection was not malicious. Doesn’t matter, other forces were at work.
    So, fer god’s sake, we’ve got this sex obsessed media (programming and advertising) that isn’t really fit for any young person to watch, and the elderly need a guide to keep up with the innuendo. What do we expect. As they say; pass the smelling salts.
    The real obscenities go unnoticed, right before our eyes. Maybe if the Congress hired some/more Hollywood types to stage hearings, complete with bimbos. “This Was Your Country!!” starring Sen. blah, blah, blah . . . kickbacks prvided by XYZ and other corporate sponsors!!!
    I personally think the reportage standards are way low but, specualting here, all this drama surrounding Clintons would be more sympathetic if Bill hadn’t gotten caught and provided the excuse for low sexual standards as a backdrop.

    Reply

  54. jim miller says:

    —I got pimped by best buy…
    —My cell company pimped me…
    —it’s 2008 people and no longer does the ” PIMP” word caryy the same connotation or meaning that it did, nor has it since the late 80’S. Nor is it considered a gender related word…this latest episode is a perfect example…was used to describe female to female relationship.
    —current meaning: leveraged/ positive highlighted/ certainly not used the majority of time in current culture to describe part of the prostitution trade.
    —Now that we have left the 80’s and are back to the new millenium, an accurate use of the word would be to describe how the HRC campaign is leveraging this episode to recapture attention and a strategic advantage with 2 major networks….OPEN YOUR EYES….this is ceratinly not Imus redux, nor is it as disgusting as the nazi reference…..those terms still hold their meaning
    I regret to do this but where is the focus on Iraq, not just the tragic deaths of our brave soldiers but what of all the innocent Iraqi’s that have been slaughtered?
    Why wont our AG investigate or prosecute torture? What have we become?
    Where is the outrage? is it focused somewhere else? A decent Political Sceince professor, born after JFK, would suggest that the Clinton campaign is pimping(gasp) the media, the accussers and the apologizers…never underestimate the Clinton machine….getty up!

    Reply

  55. AnotherPissedOffAmerican says:

    I am with you, pissed off. Here is Charles Pierce over at Media Matters:
    For the past couple of weeks, they’ve just gotten blatant about it. The administration of George W. Bush is bound by no law, bound by no precedent, bound not even by the forms of democratic self-government, let alone its actual substance, which is being used as a throw-rug in John Yoo’s den these days. They will torture and the Congress can do nothing. Their powers to spy, to search, and to seize are unlimited and Congress is not remotely entitled to know even what those powers are. They can imprison without trial. They can force corporations — and, indeed, individuals within the government — to violate the law. They are not subject to treaties. They are not subject to oversight, nor even subpoenas. Read this swill from yesterday. Through his actions, and from the mouths of his minions, George Bush is now claiming fully the powers of a tyrant, by any reasonable definition of the term.
    This is the only issue in the presidential campaign. It is the only truly existential threat to the country. Everything else — health care, climate change, campaign finance, the deficit — mean nothing if we fail on this fundamental issue. I don’t know where the two Democratic contenders fall on this stuff — their campaigns have been damnably vague about it — but I know John McCain will be immeasurably worse. His anti-torture bill allowed torture. His “compromise” on judicial nominations allowed the Democrats to maintain the right to filibuster as long as they promised never to do so. This allowed Roberts and Alito to skunk through in order to deface the constitutional order, likely for the rest of my lifetime, and McCain has promised to let a theocratic loon like Sam Brownback to help him pick his own judges.

    Reply

  56. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Meanwhile……
    Five U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq – military
    REUTERS
    Reuters North American News Service
    Feb 08, 2008 23:57 EST
    BAGHDAD, Feb 9 (Reuters) – Five U.S. soldiers were killed in attacks in Iraq on Friday, the U.S. military said on Saturday.
    Four of the soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb while on patrol northwest of Baghdad, the military said in a statement.
    The other soldier was killed by an explosion near his vehicle during an operation in northern Iraq, it said.
    Thirteen U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq this month, according to icasualties.org, an independent Web site that tracks military deaths in the country.
    Since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, 3,957 U.S. troops have been killed
    http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=39455
    AND NOT ONE OF THESE TREASONOUS LYING PIECES OF SHIT IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND IN OUR CONGRESS, HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR LYING US INTO THIS MESS.

    Reply

  57. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its the fuckin’ Twilight Zone.
    Mukasey says he will not enforce Congressional subpoenas, yet you people natter on about Chelsea and politics like a bunch of yentas.
    These people are tearing your democracy right out from underneath you, and all you seem able to do is drool over trivia.
    Good God, wake up, America.

    Reply

  58. leo says:

    I’m just tired of the Clinton campaign, tired of the drama queens, the endless ploys for sympathy, the faux innocence and mock outrage, and the attacks on the press.
    None of the other campaigns need to play this game and only the Clintons look the worse for it. Shuster’s comments were rough but Chelsea is being used by the campaign, he shouldn’t have been suspended.

    Reply

  59. Bartolo says:

    Shuster is not successfully making the conversion from reporter to analyst, at least from what I see on “Morning Joe”. This kind of edgy sarcasm belongs, if at all, on A Daily Show.

    Reply

  60. Shirley says:

    What if this word had been used concerning Obama’s wife?

    Reply

  61. Dawg says:

    Thank God Imus wore out “ho'” or Shuster mighta been that sacrificial goat after he blurts “Chelsea was out ho’ing fo’her momma.”

    Reply

  62. TonyForesta says:

    The complicit parrots, propagandists, disinformation warriors, and perception managers in the socalled MSM hate allthingsClinton.
    Yet any creature stooping to the depravity of sliming candidates kids is beyond reproach, a reprobate, and undeserving of the peoples trust, goodwill, or faith. Ignore this fascist blabber. Focus on issues and defanging and dethroning the fascists in the Bush government.
    “Deliver us from evil!

    Reply

  63. Mike Meyer says:

    FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH,call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often, and spread it around.
    THOMAS PAINE WROTE One half of the human race has always oppressed the other half, namely men oppress women.

    Reply

  64. ... says:

    hey sandy.. yer welcome.. sums up a few things.

    Reply

  65. Sandy says:

    Thanks so much… for the Robin Morgan piece. I appreciate that.

    Reply

  66. tomj says:

    So doesn’t the fact that Shuster was placed on leave over this issue prove the point that Chelsea is somehow off limits?
    But there seems to be something more here that we don’t know about. Shuster doesn’t usually go for this type of thing, and his guest hosts were obviously stunned by the idea even before the pimp comment.
    But the term has been recently watered down. There are now shows like ‘Pimp my Ride’, The term has become more generic and less offensive to some people. As I said before, my daughter seems to use this as a generically okay thing, more like advertising or promotion. Weird, I don’t like it, but in can get into your vocabulary.

    Reply

  67. memekiller says:

    Thank God they’re doing this. The media has to be brought to heel. I hope Harry Reid is not the coward he appears, and is using the salivation of liberals and good prospects of Democratic victories this election to strong arm the Telecoms into some major soul-licking for their retroactive immunity. I also think the Democrats should make some kind of media reform a major part of a platform to let them know what could happen if they keep acting like they’ve been acting and we take office: bust up the monopolies, limit ownership for Clear Channel, a return of the Fairness Doctrine and requiring free, unproduced air time for candidates as part of a comprehensive campaign reform.
    Having control of the FCC will be nice, too, as well as bringing back oversight of campaign irregularities, etc. If I were CNN, I’d start thinking right now of how to replace the low rated Glenn Beck with someone people will actually watch and willing to report the news. I also wouldn’t want to be ABC producing rewrites of history fitting anti-Clinton conspiracy theories, or any of the networks who refuse to accept advertising money from non-Republican groups.
    It’s obvious the media does not take its journalistic responsibilities as the fourth branch of government seriously, and we need to bring some checks and balances into the system any way we can.

    Reply

  68. Robert Morrow says:

    CHELSEA IS PROBABLY THE SEED OF WEBB HUBBELL, NOT BILL CLINTON. PERIOD. (Vince Foster was not the only law partner Hillary was screwing …)
    Do I have “proof” of this? No. Nothing more than Chelsea’s big lips, Webb Hubbell’s big lips, (Bill’s thin lips) & that fact that their noses and cheeks. And the fact that Larry Nichols SWEARS that Chelsea is the seed of Webb Hubbell.
    When Hillary, her lover Vince Foster, and wild Bill came to DC in 1993, they made Webb Hubbell the #3 man at the Justice Department. Why #3? Because unlike the top 2 slots it did not involve a Senate confirmation, where the ugly and embarrassing details about Hillary’s true relationship with Hubbell might come out. I.E. that Chelsea is the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton.
    Carl Bernstein in “A Woman in Charge” (p.253) is obliquely refering to this when he writes “Foster vaguely repeated his fear that the confirmation process [of Hubbell] would hurt Hillary. He seemed to know something that Nussbaum didn’t.” (p.253) So the Clintons dodged a Senate confirmation of Hubbell and put him at #3 in Justice. Likewise, Vince Foster, who was Hillary’s longtime lover and emotional husband, was put in the #2 slot in the White House counsel’s office, as a way of “hiding” him, although he was in effect over Bernie Nussbaum.
    I think one big reason Vince Foster killed himself on 7-20-93 was because he felt he was failing Hillary; he was very hurt over her rejection of him in DC, and thirdly Foster was mortified that HIS affair with Hillary would become public after the WSJ starting running editorials about him asking “Who is Vince Foster.”
    In Vince Foster’s mind, he was the best friend and emotional husband of Hillary and Webb Hubbell was the father of the only child Hillary ever had. And Bill was a roving pervert whose political coattails the Arkansas Mafia was riding on.

    Reply

  69. Jim says:

    I yield to no one in my loathing of al Foxeera, but I think this goes back farther than their existence. Everyone is desperate to be clever and in this case, a middle age man thinks he’s being hip. It’s actually kind of sad.
    Shuster is one of the brighter lights on MSNBC, the network that gave us Tweety, Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, as well as Dennis Miller’s wacky take on politics. I think Shuster just figured this kind of crass cheap shot was the path to your own anchor’s chair.
    What’s almost a pity is, the misogyny and vulgarity of Shuster’s phrasing will eclipse the fact that, once again, the press holds the Clintons to a different standard (and I’m an Obama supporter). I can’t remember a campaign going to back to Ford/Carter in ’76 in which the campaign didn’t use the candidates’ families in whichever capacity they could. My god, I know how many daughters Steve Forbes has. McCain and Bush use their parents. Liz Cheney is interviewed by pundits as if she has some political accomplishment other than a happy (for her) accident of birth on her resume. Why in god’s name is Chelsea Clinton campaigning even noteworthy.

    Reply

  70. Jason says:

    There is a deterioration of serious political commentary *on television*, but I don’t see a significant deterioration in other media outlets, like newspapers. The low quality of network political coverage is unfortunate, but when you have 1 hour of news, 24 hours to fill, and pressure to keep ratings up and costs down, it’s not surprising most of the time is filled with talking heads and commentators trying to entertain through outrage and anger. (I know this case is different, but I think that’s part of what you are talking about, Steve).
    Furthermore, I wonder if the perceived increased in incivility is partly a function of just having more media out there. There are more news stations, more reporters, and more stories than ever before. Let’s pretend the number of media outlets tripled from 1987, and you watch 2x as much news now. It’s going to seem like the numbers of jerks doubled, although the jerk ratio is still the same. That number will even seem higher because all of the shocking moments will make news and spread around the Internet, whether you saw the moment first-hand or not.
    There is also the “genie in the bottle” problem that marks all societies with protected free speech. Once you cross a line, it becomes more acceptable to cross the line again unless there is significant public outrage, and sometimes that’s not even enough. The scope of what’s taboo eats eaten away at, often slowly enough to bother people but not to incite large outrage.
    There’s a lot more to say on this subject, but I’ve gone on long enough as it is.

    Reply

  71. Joe Klein's conscience says:

    Nat Felton:
    Do you remember what that same “Saint” McCain said about Chelsea 10 years ago(when she was either a HS senior or college frosh)? Talk about low class.

    Reply

  72. Nat Felton says:

    I was disgusted by Romney’s remarks, but not surprised. It was just a few days ago that John McCain was saying Obama and Clinton were “waving the white flag of surrender.”
    But what do you expect? We’re a country that tortures now. Name-calling is kids’ stuff.

    Reply

  73. Dennis says:

    Regarding “serious political comment” [by the mainstream media]. What a joke!
    There are better comments and observations and more truth told by the independent media (of which the internet is a main player).
    Plus the money, that is why the mega media corporations and the telecoms want control of the internet; too many Americans breaking out of the “bewildered herd” and thinking for themselves rather than conforming to the “good American” script as they are supposed to.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  74. Angel says:

    I don’t believe Chelsea is being “used” by HRC and the campaign. The Clintons have made it known for years that any decision to campaign would be Chelsea’s alone to make. She started out very slowly by just being at events, then she started a speaking role and that has now grown to something more. To say the campaign and her own mother are “pimping” her is outrageous. She is a family member who is on the campaign trail. She should not be subjected to anything that other children or family members are. And that is the problem. I dare you to identify one statement made by any member of the mainstream media about the Bush daughters, the Cheney children, Edwards’ daughter, Mitt Romney’s sons, etc., that compares to what David Shuster said. Shuster (and all journalists) should not be talking about the people they are covering. They should be addressing the news in a straightforward manner and leave their personal opinions to themselves. If you can’t understand that then I feel for you. And I don’t see any double standard for Clinton to agreeing to debate on Fox News. They have called her names for over 16 years, but as far as I know they have not picked on Chelsea. That is what this is about.

    Reply

  75. ... says:

    i like what Robin Morgan had to say about the double standard towards hillary and her family.
    http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

    Reply

  76. tomj says:

    The comments were at least weird, but my teenage daughter has somehow immunized me against the use of the word.
    But this comment is nothing in comparison to the institutional support of this type of thing at Fox. And since Clinton as agreed to debate on Fox, the double-standard is interesting.

    Reply

  77. plainbrown1 says:

    I’m not quite sure what the “outrage” is about. Chelsea Clinton, who was rightfully protected as a White House child, is no longer a kid. While I can understand why as parents the Clinton’s would want to protect her from critique, they can’t have it both ways. Chelsea is an adult and they are beginning to use her as a surrogate for Hilary’s campaign. That’s an adult role. For weeks Chelsea has been campaign wallpaper, posed behind her Mom during campaign stops. Then she stepped outside that passive role and took an advocates role. I certainly understand her desire to engage in the family business and even more her desire to help and support her Mom. But when she steps up to that role she is as open to comment – fair or foul – as any other campaign surrogate.
    The tenor of the remark was crude, but it was not particularly personal to Chelsea. It was, in fact, more a critique of the campaign and , at least impliedly, of Hilary for using her in that role. Is it somehow unfair to critique the way the Clinton campaign is managed?
    In any event, Chelsea, welcome to the family business – politics. Not the most pleasant of endeavors, but if you have the ability to trek through the muck, one where you can do some good if you’ve a mind to.

    Reply

  78. Dan Kervick says:

    Unfortunately, Steve, I think it has always been this way. In fact, I believe that over the course of American history most of our campaigns have been on average much more brazenly scurrilous, and cognitively unhinged, than what we typically see today. I doubt that serious commentary has deteriorated to any lower level than it has always occupied in the mad circus of American democracy, fueled by its raucous yellow press.
    It’s interesting to realize that no matter what the candidates say of do, or don’t say or don’t do, they can’t fully control what is said. Whenever you have millions of people yammering about the race on a 24/7 schedule, some of these people are going to suffer cases of verbal incontinence from time to time, and emit some pretty messy id blasts. Just recently we had one person describe Obama as “the first woman president.” Another referred to an Obama campaign ad as similar to Nazis marching through Skokie. The shock and schlock goes with the territory.
    One thing worth noting is that as far as the Democratic candidates themselves go, this has been a remarkably gaffe-free campaign, especially given how long and exhausting it must be for the two principles.

    Reply

  79. Angel says:

    It is getting worse but it has been very bad for a very long time. What bothers me is that the Clintons seem to be held to a different standard than everyone else. And Democrats in general are held to a different (tougher) standard than Republicans. The media destroy perfectly decent people in their attempt at humor and ratings. It is sickening. Rush Limbaugh started this and it has seeped into the mainstream meaia so badly that now Keith Olbermann is taking part. I give a hearty thank-you to the Clinton campaign for bringing this issue to the forefront. However, there will be payback for sure because the good ol’ boys will not stand being punished by a woman’s complaints.

    Reply

  80. susan says:

    I was really bothered by it. I like Shuster as a rule and this just made me howl. Why is it that our entire national discourse has to be focused on hatred of women? Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, going on about Mitt being a “douchebag.” the constant references to Hillary as “cold” and as a bitch. MSNBC has been doing this for some time, with Scarboro and Abrams spewing vitriol on any female target every chance they get.
    what is this? is the male-dominated media and political realm soooo threatened by a smart woman that they just have to destroy her? and by extension put the rest of us in our “place?”

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *