View Full Version : "Pimped Out" Chelsea Clinton Comment Gets Anchor Suspended
Polly
02-08-2008, 07:45 PM
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/chelsea-comment-angers-clinton-camp/20080208160509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Chelsea Comment Angers Clinton Camp
By BETH FOUHY,AP
Posted: 2008-02-08 20:06:17
Filed Under: Elections News
SEATTLE (Feb. 8) - A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may not participate in future MSNBC debates after one of the network's anchors made a distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign. Here, the Clinton family is seen in Chappaqua, N.Y., on Feb. 5.
In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party "superdelegates" on her mother's behalf.
Wolfson called Shuster's comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.
"I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network," he added.
MSNBC said Shuster, who apologized on the air for his comment, has been temporarily suspended from appearing on all NBC news broadcasts except to offer his apology.
"NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks," MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said, adding the network was hopeful the debate would take place as planned.
Clinton and Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. The Clinton campaign has pushed hard for as many debates as possible with Obama, but Wolfson said the Feb. 26 debate could be jeopardized.
Wolfson pointed to what he called a pattern of tasteless comments by MSNBC anchors about the Clinton campaign. Weeks ago, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible by her husband's philandering.
Ahhh...the Clinton machine steam rolls on....
Christine
02-09-2008, 06:33 AM
So anchors are not allowed to comment on political campaigns? Free speech at work! :rolleyes
Danielle
02-09-2008, 06:58 AM
I agree Christine. This is a stupid over reaction.
The Clintons didn't make the decision to have him suspended. The network--part of an enormous corporate media empire--did. News personalities who are paid a whole lot of money every year by media empires aren't guaranteed the right to say whatever they want without their employers taking action. I don't know whether I agree with their actions or not, but it's not a free speech issue, or an issue of the Clintons presecuting or silencing anybody. There is no legal action being taken against the host, which is where it would become a free speech issue. It's all the private corporation's actions, and this is just how corporate capitalism works.
In any case, it was a stupid and insulting comment, and should have been apologized for.
I know the Clintons didn't make the decision. But they do threaten and put pressure on people to get what they want. In this case, it was pulling out of debates and not having future ones on that network until they were mollified.
I don't watch MSNBC. But I do feel if his role was simply that of an anchor then he should not be editorializing. If he has more of a commentator role then while an apology might be nice, it shouldn't be necessary as he isn't supposed to present an impartial news report.
Danielle
02-09-2008, 02:49 PM
I agree 100% Jo. I didn't mean the suspension was an over reaction so much as the pulling out of future debates.
gr8mommy
02-10-2008, 07:39 AM
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. He may have chosen a not-so-nice term for the way Chelsea is being thrown out there, and since she's an adult I don't think it is wholly accurate. But threatening to pull out of the debates is just an underhanded way for Clinton to 1) get even more press and 2) get a little sympathy for her daughter being 'dissed'.
Any one of us would go after the media for going after our kids, especially our daughters with a comment like that. If Obama's daughters were old enough to have a comment like that made about them, he'd do the same thing. Every parent would proect their daughter when the slur implies she's a not a "good woman." I think no one should use the phrase "pimped out" about any woman.
I think it is an unfair and sexist remark, especially when Chelsea has restricted her role in the campaign to mainly behind the scenes. She has not been putting herself forward.
Danielle
02-10-2008, 01:01 PM
Compared to what was said about Chelsea when her father was president (and she was a minor), that was extremely mild. I recall her being referred to as an "ugly duckling" etc. She is now a grown woman and honestly, a fair target of media criticism. If you want your children to avoid all media criticism, don't run for president, otherwise expect it and teach them to deal with it.
Besides, the media is hardly known for their tact and tastefulness.
gr8mommy
02-10-2008, 01:29 PM
I think it is an unfair and sexist remark, especially when Chelsea has restricted her role in the campaign to mainly behind the scenes. She has not been putting herself forward.
I disagree. She won't talk to the press, but she is out there in the public eye shaking hands and making photo ops.
They can't have it both ways.
I agree with Denise. She is actively campaigning for her mother. It isn't the same as when she was 12 years old. She is now an adult, who is choosing to work for the campaign and therefore, fair game to the press. Yet the Clintons get angry when the press asks questions about her and seem to think the old rules from her childhood should apply. They should...if Chelsea was living her life away from her parents political ambitions. But she isn't.
I don't have an issue with Hillary reacting as a mother. I have an issue with how they wield their power to try to control the press. Unfortunately for them, the press isn't nearly as love with them as they used to be. I kinda like they are getting fair treatment for once.
Concerning the pimped out comment, it is tasteless. An apology would have been nice from the beginning. Though I am not sure I can blame the guy for not rolling over and offering it willingly.
Unfortunately for them, the press isn't nearly as love with them as they used to be. I kinda like they are getting fair treatment for once.
I don't think the press is being fair to the Clintons. I think they are being extremely hard on them. While I would prefer Obama to get the nomination, I feel like the media has been giving Obama a free ride the entire primary season, whereas they are really going after the Clintons. I'm not paying enough attention to the Republican candidates to know if they are doing the same sort of thing with the candidates there, but I can understand why the Clintons are annoyed with the media, because it really doesn't seem like they are holding Clinton and Obama up to the same level of criticism and scrutiny at all.
It sort of reminds me of the 2000 election, where the media would jump on every single thing Al Gore said or did, but pretty much gave Bush a free pass the whole time. I don't know why the media does things like that, and so clearly favors one candidate over another. But it seems pretty clear to me that the mainstream media massively favors Obama over Clinton, and is skewing the coverage of the campaign in that direction. That's not to say I think the Clintons are saints, but I really don't think they're as bad as the media is making them out to be, or that Obama is as good.
Kristi
02-10-2008, 02:21 PM
That is ridiculous. I don't understand why the anchor would suspended for that. :rolleyes
I don't think the press is being fair to the Clintons. I think they are being extremely hard on them. While I would prefer Obama to get the nomination, I feel like the media has been giving Obama a free ride the entire primary season, whereas they are really going after the Clintons. I'm not paying enough attention to the Republican candidates to know if they are doing the same sort of thing with the candidates there, but I can understand why the Clintons are annoyed with the media, because it really doesn't seem like they are holding Clinton and Obama up to the same level of criticism and scrutiny at all.
It sort of reminds me of the 2000 election, where the media would jump on every single thing Al Gore said or did, but pretty much gave Bush a free pass the whole time. I don't know why the media does things like that, and so clearly favors one candidate over another. But it seems pretty clear to me that the mainstream media massively favors Obama over Clinton, and is skewing the coverage of the campaign in that direction. That's not to say I think the Clintons are saints, but I really don't think they're as bad as the media is making them out to be, or that Obama is as good.
I agree that they are being too easy on Obama. But I do feel that Bill Clinton in particular as given them many points to question is his speeches.
I agree that they are being too easy on Obama. But I do feel that Bill Clinton in particular as given them many points to question is his speeches.
I think the Clintons are certainly asking for some criticism. I just have to imagine that Obama must be, too. The media really seems to want to make this out to be an Evil Hillary versus Saintly Obama thing, and for some reason that worries me, because I don't know if they'd turn around after he got the nomination and start attacking him. But, maybe the media lovefest would continue. Who knows?
gr8mommy
02-11-2008, 06:41 AM
It sort of reminds me of the 2000 election, where the media would jump on every single thing Al Gore said or did, but pretty much gave Bush a free pass the whole time.
It's all perspective, my dear. I saw that election season the complete opposite way. And for the record, I voted for Gore.
It's all perspective, my dear. I saw that election season the complete opposite way. And for the record, I voted for Gore.
Some of it is perspective. But, I do remember reading analyses comparing the number of negative media pieces written about Gore versus those written about Bush, and they were wildly disproportionate. Before the election, the mainstream media produced far more negative pieces about Gore than about Bush.
And, I'm sure that if you were to do an analysis now, the mainstream media is producing far, far more negative pieces about the Clintons than about Obama. I honestly can't think of a single negative piece about Obama that I've seen. Other than some quickly brushed-off comments about "lack of experience," I do think the press is going extremely easy on him, whereas they are slamming the Clintons at every opportunity. I like Obama more, but for all I know I only like Obama more because of the media coverage.
It's all perspective, my dear. I saw that election season the complete opposite way. And for the record, I voted for Gore.
:noway I never would have guessed that.
It is interesting to me that a few of the negative things that have been discussed about him here in Chicago have not mad it much into th national press. For example, his ties to Tony Rezko, who has been actually charged with several counts of wrongdoing. Hilary raised this issue at one of the debates, and the commentary after was, outside of Chicago, no one knows who Rezko is.
The real problem is that Obama is not being thoroughly put through his paces in the primaries, so it is going to happen during the general election process, and that is probably bad news for Dems. Obama has not had experience with the kind of down and dirty politics that usually accompany presidential elections. His election to the Senate was not that difficult, so he may not have a team ready for the onslaught that will come from the Reps.
gr8mommy
02-11-2008, 02:53 PM
:noway I never would have guessed that.
Don't be so surprised! :wink I was concerned about Bush's lack of international experience, mostly. After the election debacle, I was disgusted by Gore's sore loser behavior, and I was impressed with Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I did vote for Bush in 2004.