Shuster. Take two.

[brak666]

So, I posted my first reaction to the MSNBC/David Shuster/Clinton debacle a couple of days ago. And it's really stuck in my craw. And I finally figured out why. The question of how offensive the comment was really isn't the point of all this. I happen to think it wasn't particularly offensive. Your mileage may vary. Certainly, it's far less offensive than a lot of the things that have been uttered about the Clintons by Matthews, Scarborough, Carlson, and yes, even Olbermann. And let's make one thing clear. David Shuster did not call Chelsea Clinton a prostitute. He never once implied that she was literally having sex with superdelegates in exchange for votes for Hillary, nor that she was doing it at Hillary's insistence. He was speaking metaphorically and anyone who doesn't realize that is either a blithering idiot, or willfully ignorant. And I've dealt with that in the White House for eight years. I don't want that anymore.

But the real point of all this, is that no matter the level of offensiveness of the comment, the decision to discipline Shuster and the severity of that discipline is an internal matter for NBC news. The Clintons should have no say. If they were offended they should say so and be done with it. But instead, they're making a mountain out of molehill and using it to strongarm the network. It's not appropriate for a presidential candidate to attempt to manipulate a news outlet because they don't like what that news outlet is saying. It's certainly not something I want my president to do.

I've been leaning toward Clinton in the race so far. And let me tell you, I've been overlooking a lot of bad behavior, because I really think she could be a good president. But I can't overlook this. If this is how she's going to deal with criticism in the media, then I don't want her anywhere near the White House.

And it makes me sad, because I was actually fairly excited about her until all this happened. And now I'm just voting for Obama this April because he's my only other option. It would've been the first time since I was old enough to vote that I voted for someone rather than against someone else. And she ruined that for me.

I'm also pretty pissed off at Keith Olbermann right now. Because you know that if it were George W. Bush attempting to strongarm a news outlet instead of Hillary Clinton that I'd be anxiously awaiting a special comment tonight instead of trying to forget that absolutely awful apology from Friday.

Comments

[ladyjax.livejournal.com]

I actually voted Non-Partisan (no pres candidates) for the California primary mostly because I hadn't made up my mind. Both Obama and Clinton have both good and bad points about them least of which are the people surrounding them - the ones who are the noise machine. Witness my recent snits about Steinem and Morgan - like STFU and stop telling me to vote my private parts.

I was hoping when I read your post about Shuster that it was some Clinton staffer who was pushing and saying, "Well,this is what the Clintons think" because y'know, staffers can get a bit loony. But I'm with you, I'd hate to think that the Clintons themselves are the ones bringing pressure to bear. No one should have that much power and we've seen the results of it for the past eight years.

I feel you on feeling sad about a candidate showing their ass. It's a case of the emperor having no clothes. This year we have candidates where I could look at either one, maybe disagree with some of their positions, but not hold my nose and hope for the best. I'm hoping Clinton pulls out of this or at least explains why they went for the strong arm.

(and hell, what politician hasn't pimped out their kids, their relatives, even the family pet to get the vote?)

I know you and I disagree on this...

[jgesteve.livejournal.com]

I realize that it was a metaphor (definition: "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance"), however the insult comes from the fact that this is being applied to two females. So by definition it was suggesting a resemblance between Chelsea Clinton and a whore and Hillary Clinton as a madam. Let's look at a hypothetical, Mitt Romney has his eldest son stumping amongst the superdelegates for him. Do you believe that Shuster would have chosen that same phraseology. I highly doubt it.

As for strong-arming a network, refusing to appear at a money-making event ('cause you know that MSNBC's viewership on debate night will rise and with it their ability to charge for commercial time) for an organization that you feel insulted you and your daughter isn't strong arming. I could get behind your argument if we were talking CSPAN or NPR, someone ostensibly independent and not out to make money, but we're not.

I also think that this is, as you note, possibly more of a straw that broke the camel's back. In fact, I believe that her erstwhile campaign manager made a comment to that effect in the main article I read on it. That it's another in a line of offenses she's received from sources tied to MSNBC and she's frankly done taking their shit and is putting them on notice. So, maybe Shuster is playing the whipping boy because MSNBC brass is/was too scared to take one of their big names *cough*Chris Matthews*cough* to task.

Re: I know you and I disagree on this...

[brak666.livejournal.com]

I think the notion that commentators aren't allowed to offend the candidate is a dangerous one.

We agree on one thing. No one involved has the guts to take on Matthews.

I may just be being cynical, but I question her sincerity. I highly doubt Hillary was horribly offended. She has a bad habit of playing the victim when things aren't going well for her, and this is another perfect example. And now she's bellowing for Shuster's head because she can't get Matthews. I find that offensive.

Maybe it's just my contrarian nature, but if I were running the network my response to Hillary's threat to pull from the debate would've been: "I'm sure Barack Obama will enjoy his hour of uninterrupted airtime."

Let's look at a hypothetical, Mitt Romney has his eldest son stumping amongst the superdelegates for him. Do you believe that Shuster would have chosen that same phraseology. I highly doubt it.

Ignoring for the moment that Republicans don't have superdelegates, I don't know what Shuster would say, but I know I've certainly used that phrase in regard to the way Romney used his children in the campaign. The difference of course, is that I'm not on TV.

So by definition it was suggesting a resemblance between Chelsea Clinton and a whore and Hillary Clinton as a madam.

Again, I must state my opinion that it's actually a pretty fair comparison.

[elrond50.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about this. Though reading some of the defenses of Shuster by Obama supporters made me want to throw up. One of them went so far as to say he was paying Chelsea a compliment.

I'd much rather debate universal health care than anything. One that one point Obama loses me to Clinton.

[brak666.livejournal.com]

Her response to the comment says something to me about what kind of person she is. And I don't like it.

[lunaris1013.livejournal.com]

She's still milking it: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/clinton_in_terms_of_the_fairness_fnc_treating_campaign_better_than_msnbc_77273.asp

[kc-risenphoenix.livejournal.com]

I'd still vote for her. She hasn't come close to doing some of the shit I've seen from other elected officials. People are human after all. My opinion, you mileage may vary.

Plus, I am not paying much attention to ANY of the shit so far. I just can't anymore. I read their opinions on the issues that matter to me. I am NOT going to get sucked into all the drama! I just am not going to do it!

OH! And for the first time ever, I've tagged people in my journal. Guess who that included!?

(we still haven't talked enough about the WONDERFUL music you've given me lately! - just part of the reason you've been tagged! - What is Audra McDonald's "A Little Bit in Love," from. It came across as from "Aida," and I know that isnt' true!)

[brak666.livejournal.com]

She's being petty and vindictive. I actually like her stance on most issues, but this behavior gives me pause. This is not the type of relationship I want the president to have with the media.

The tagging tool on the new version of windows media player sucks. It's from a Leonard Bernstein tribute album. The song is originally from a musical called Wonderful Town.