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

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.