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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I know you and I disagree on this...
Date: 2008-02-11 10:32 pm (UTC)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.