If there was ever a family that knew what they were getting into by launching a presidential campaign, it would be the Clintons. No doubt Chelsea, who generally keeps a low profile, joined the campaign voluntarily. Shuster's comment was obnoxious. He apologized. The victim thing is wearing a little thin.

so she'll debate on Fox News, but not MSNBC?

They're right. Schuster's comment was disgusting, as is Matthews sexist obsession with her. MSNBC has apparently misunderstood the difference between being more willing to have a point of view (a la Olbermann) and using wildly inappropriate language. The Clinton team can only win with this narrative. She's going to get a great deal of sympathy for the attack on her daughter, and she's going to get a great deal of traction that there is a lot of sexism out there working against Clinton.

Thanks, MSNBC. Thanks a lot.

Idiots.

well that guy's a douche bag.

I also wonder if Schuster is going to be fired. Look at Imus. I grant you, he had a long history of that nonsense, but can you really say the former First Daughter is being "pimped out" and keep your job?

This seems unwise to me.

Refusing to debate after making an issue that Obama won't debate. The Clinton campaign seems confused. I know I am confused by some of their actions.

"Some kind of pattern?" HRC needs to stay away from the reliving of Hillary and vast right-wing conspiracy.

I second the Jim Lehrer idea. Why hasn't he had a shot at a debate yet?

Schuster was out of line, and fair enough, but this really illustrates how unwilling the Hillary camp is to go after Obama on issues (or anything else for that matter) these days. She's always been campaigning against Bush, and now McCain, and now the media, and winning points for it, but never against Obama it seems!

Okay, you know, I get it if they won't debate on MSNBC because Chelsea got trashed by a commentator on that network.

But the fact that the Clinton campaign would debate on FOX news channel?

Let's just have some consistent outrage.

Shuster shouldn't have said what he said, agreed. But Shuster ain't no Hannity, he ain't no O'Reilly, or Hume, or Wallace.

Let's have some consistency here.

Well, clearly that was offensive an totally inappropriate. And it doesn't even make sense, why wouldn't her daughter want to campaign for her?

That said, the Clinton's victim shtick is really wearing thin. "Vote for me because you feel bad for me." WTF? It's so obnoxious.

And yeah, it says a lot that she'll Debate on Fox news but not MSNBC even though they've apologized.

MiSogyny NBC!

Kids are off limits.

To be quite honest, who cares? The press concentrates on these non-issues, which the clintons love. Don't talk about issues or record, talk about this nonsense.

I like NPR too, but do you notice gregg d on the election coverage it seems like 80% republican and 20% dem. I know it can't be 50/50 nor should it be, but you would think that they would try to make it closer. I know more about mccain, romney and the huckster than I know about either clinton or obama put together.

Finally clinton camp is figthing back against the naked biases of MSNBC network! anyone who followed that network for last 1 month will know that they hv thrown hillary totally off-board and almost salivating at the sight of obama!

Its time they took a stand and said enough is enough! There has been pattern of abusive comments from MSNBC commentators starting from matthews, shuster, scarborough, brezenski..

PMS-NBC is helping Hillary indirectly with women. No woman is going to like Pimp comment. That's why they'll keep this is the news as much as they can.
Thank u PMS-NBC from HRC campaign.

Loudmouth Chris Mathews should retire and SHUT UP.
Who listens to him anyways??

hey, what are you talking about with the "Obama fans"? I'm an Obama fan and I think this sort of assault on Chelsea is totally out of line. I like the idea of the Clinton campaign making a stink about it - even if it's cynically motivated to garner support. I'm not sure how running simultaneous campaigns for president and against the media will work out but calling a little more attention to the ludicrous things said on supposed "news" programing can only be a good thing. A little pressure on the news commentators to clean up their commentary is a good thing too. I'm all for Obama not talking to Fox News and I think given the stuff that's been said on MSNBC Clinton has a legitimate complaint. Funny that she doesn't have a problem with Fox but one at a time.

"That said, the Clinton's victim shtick is really wearing thin. 'Vote for me because you feel bad for me.' WTF? It's so obnoxious."
So, anyone can say somehing so vile and you can't even protest! protesting that is crying for vote to you??? what about when u obamaloons were crying foul and smelling racism in every single small thing!
talk about victim shtick!

liam, I agree with you. I for one can't forget that Bill Clinton was able to smear the reputation of a 23 year old woman with whom he had sexual relations.

I don't really care that he had sex with her, and I realize it was consensual. Inappropriate, because of the power differential, but consensual. But the fact that he was willing to ruin Monica Lewinsky and call her a deranged liar to save his own political skin, makes it very difficult for the Clintons to get up on their high horse about something like this.

Hillary has stood behind Bill all the way. I find it so hard to understand. I would feel more comfortable supporting her if Bill wasn't in the picture.

I don't believe there's any intentional anti-Clinton pattern at MSNBC. What I DO believe is this is the result of the devolution of public language. A few years back, when I heard a CNN reporter use "dis" as a verb, I knew we'd turned a corner in public speech - and not for the good.

My take is Shuster - who, bring on the flames, I contend is a good reporter - has fallen into the uber-casual scene at MSNBC. It's more like a chat show than news. THIS is what MSNBC - and CNN - need to address. I stopped watching CNN months ago when Soledad O'Brien's replacement spoke to Sen. Jim Webb as if she had no clue who he was, let alone his resume. Disgraceful...

All that said, it seems to me that the Clintons are trying to have it both ways with Chelsea - putting her out publicly while she remains basically mute. Having her show up at a polling place with doughnuts and coffee was certainly questionable... Yes, Chelsea's a private citizen, but she's also an adult. Let her speak for herself - it's been years since she was a schoolgirl in the White House.

Wait a minute, people watch MSNBC?

As a very strident Obama supporter, and a young woman:

Schuster's comment upsets me deeply. My reaction was immediate, palpable, emotional. I will sending an email to...someone...to express my feelings about this. Possibly to the Clinton campaign, to express my sympathies for Chelsea. If I were in her position, I would be in quite a fit of moral indignation about this.

But two things strike me as odd about this:
1) Chelsea ought to be able to speak for herself on this matter. If she's willing to come out on the stump for her mother, she should be willing to defend herself as well.

2) Senator Clinton's (potential) refusal to debate on MSNBC as a result of this comment and (yes, a pattern) of comments made by Chris Matthews, but a willingness to debate on Fox News I find utterly flabbergasting. I am left to conclude that the Senator is not taking a principled stance on which networks deserve and do not deserve her respect, but is taking an opportunity to kick MSNBC for its pro-Obama coverage. The kicking is perhaps deserved. When I want news coverage that's slanted toward my candidate, I go to the campaign website (or, admittedly, HuffPo). But this strikes me as the sort of attack designed to discredit MSNBC in the way that Fox has been discredited and discourage people from watching it. And it will probably work, particularly among liberal women.

If I were MSNBC, I would be all over this: making profuse apologies to Chelsea, but pointing out the hypocrisy of Senator Clinton's debate stance.

If I were Senator Clinton, I would be putting the interests of my daughter over the interests of my campaign and not seeking to revive the unfortunate remarks of David Schuster. I would let Chelsea do that for herself, if she thought it was necessary and appropriate.

Regarding the perpetual victim narrative of the Clinton campaign: what saddens me most about this narrative is that it seems almost necessary, not just for Clinton, but for marginalized demographics. It's the idea that you have to co-opt destructive narratives from the hands of your enemies, and tell them yourself in order to gain agency. I'm not sure it's possible to rend power without this device, even though it is not the only tactic, probably not the most powerful. And, I applaud the Obama campaign for rejecting it's efficacy. That being said, Clinton has been attacked, in a style that is unique, condescending and inappropriate in its tone towards women, for a very long time. If pundits didn't victimize her, we wouldn't have to bare the victim narrative, or we could at least all be as suspect about it, as her detractors. But, she is stepped on in ways that women are uniquely stepped on. The proof is in the pudding.

I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree that the comment was very inappropriate. Shuster should be admonished for it.

What I wish I didn't feel was that Senator Clinton will garner sympathy votes from many based upon it, and will actively seek to do so. A complaint could've been made privately, and in a professional manner. Greg sees it:

"It also suggests that the Hillary camp sees the potential for political gain in drawing media attention to negative and sexist comments made on MSNBC about her and her daughter."

Oy.

So, let me get thos straight... Bill clinton saying obama's iraq record is fairytale is racist, penns using the word cocaine is racist becoz all the obamaloons in blogs and media played the race card to generate sympathy! and now a journalist goes in natinal media and calls chelsea 'pimp' , and u obamaloons think they are doing this to generate sympathy! Some big moth u guys have!

big moth???

you mean, like mothra??

This is not a put on.
If there is anything that is true about the Clintons, it is that doing something like to Chelsea makes them bat#$@% insane.
The publisher of the "Slick Times", no friend of Clinton, has a thank you note for their "No Chelsea" policy personally written by Bill.

Because some folks don't get it: The Clinton campaign decided before the S.C. primary that they were going to turn Barack into the "black candidate" in oder to marginalize him. It wasn't that they or their surrogates aimed to make overtly racist statements; they aimed to make statements that would draw the ire of the Obama campaign and make them look like they were being defensive and crying "racist!" Indeed, they succeeded for a while as the Barack people kept taking the bait.
Thank goodness eminent Democrats called the Clintons on it.

Those idiots at MSNBC are singlehandedly going to cost Obama the nomination. Nothing's more dangerous than a "victimized" Clinton. Taylor Marsh is going to have a field day with this. What a way to pick a president: Let's elect the candidate we feel sorriest for. Ugh. Just wake me when this is all over.

I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree that the comment was very inappropriate. Shuster should be admonished for it.

What I wish I didn't feel was that Senator Clinton will garner sympathy votes from many based upon it, and will actively seek to do so. A complaint could've been made privately, and in a professional manner. Greg sees it:

"It also suggests that the Hillary camp sees the potential for political gain in drawing media attention to negative and sexist comments made on MSNBC about her and her daughter."

Oy.

Too bad they don't go after Fox & hate radio with the same fervor and passion.
As much of a pig Matthews has been and that comment about Chelsea was just plain sexist, it's nothing compared to what goes on over at Fox each and every day with regards to her.

Obviously they see some political advantage in going after MSNBC & I'd venture to guess they see them as more pro-Obama and this is there way of shutting them up AND/OR she's using the sexist thing to stir her female supporter base (in lieu of crying). Just like crying poverty to gain sympathy donations seemed to work for her, although I still thinks she is making up the figure or not telling the entire story.

There's always an angle with them.

I am glad he apologized but MSNBC does this and then goes back to the same old ways. This station has always been for Barack over Hillary! This is a great example of how a network can sway people easily. If you rave all the time for one candidate and then the other candidate is treated as an afterthought then this happens. I hope the Clinton Campaign goes after the network showing how they are so sexist.

I think the news need to watch what they say about anyone and i also think they need to get back to the election... I wish they would let me know how hillary or obama are doing in washington state, nebraska, louisiana, and maine.... i haven't seen any polls out on these states.

I think Hillary will win washington state and Maine but will lose Louisiana and Nebraska between saturday and sunday.

Hillary will likely win Maryland and Wisconsin but will likely lose Virginia, Washington D.C. and Hawaii.

whats up with new mexico....they still haven't claimed a winner... only 99% of the vote counted and still have 17,000 votes to count... so did hillary or obama win? I think Hillary:)

I'm an Obama supporter and the comments by MR Shuster were definately inappropriate! That said I agree with the other post which would ask the Clinton's why they wouldn't debate on MSNBC and debate on FOX? Surely all of us here can attest that FOX news has been far more inappropriate in their coverage of anybody, let alone Clintons. I mean Bill O'reily and practically every personality on their shows displays a deep hatred of the liberal's, Hollywood, progressives, and Democrats (except the ones they like, Lieberman). When someone tells me they get their news from Fox, I realize that they are the 25% that keeps Bush's approval rating from getting any lower.
As far as hosting the debate on PBS, good luck! President Bush's budget cuts funding for PBS and the program, no matter how good it is, does not get the ratings that other networks get. Unfortunately this is about money and publicity more than it is about the issues which is why I kept posting yesterday asking people to tell me how debating on TV was better than campaigning in the upcoming states. It would just see to me that getting a chance to here a candidate in person uninterrupted by commercials is a much better venue of talking about issues. I keep hearing the Clinton supporter's tell me that she talks about issues but I understand her stance on issues mainly from reading not from watching. They keep saying that Mr Obama is worse a debating and so he is scared to debate with her, but then say at the same time that they want to talk about the issues.

I hate this comment system. It will pop up soon, the state was NEW HAMPSHIRE heinrich and del moi. NEW HAMPSHIRE. The racial comments would be stupid leading into sc, common sense. It was New Hampshire.

I watched the segment in question yesterday and while the use of the word "pimp" may have been over the top the response by the Clinton campaign has proven Shuster was totaly spot on. His point is that amoung the Washington media there has been a back room rule that says "Hands off Chelsea." While this may have been valid when she was a 12 year old kid and El Rushbo was calling her the white house dog Shuster point is valid. She is 28 now and if they are going to put her out on the Campaign trail and have her calling celebs than they can't expect the golden rule of Chelsea to remain intact. I have a feeling that this is another attempt by the Clinton camp to generate sympathy and it is going to blow up in their faces, again.

No one in the news media should feel free to call Clinton a pimp, Chelsea a whore, or Obama a boy. I always thought it was a mistake for the Clintons to allow the media to hunt them in the 90s, and obviously, GW Bush kept them on a short leash. The comments Chris Matthews has made alone should be reason enough to Clinton to bail on MSNBC, and you might recall that she has been boycotting Fox News. Obama has also recently appeared on Fox, and had good reason not to with their phony Madrassa story. Should Democratic candidates leave a scorched earth behind them? Doubtful.

We're doing a pretty good job of making sure that John McCain is elected with this petty bitching and back stabbing. I'm not sold on Obama, but calling me names isn't going to help his candidacy. My favored candidate is already out of the race, but I would still vote for Clinton if she is the candidate.

But, I have very strong opinions about putting a Democrat in office. Lots of other folks don't. You wanna hate on Clinton, or say horrible, spiteful things about Obama? Then be prepared to give away the Whitehouse to another Republican president, one that wants to bomb Iran, put conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court, and continue to degrade civil rights in this country.

Agree or disagree like adults, not immature children, or get spanked come November.

I have been so disgusted with MSNBC's coverage for the past months that I finally quit watching the show rather than allowing it to keep irritating me so. I and a lot of other people wrote them letters to voice our objections not only over the biased covereage but over the misogynistic comments and treatment of Hillary and the female guests on the show like Dee Dee Myers who Mathews practically screamed at because she disagreed with him on a point he was trying to force on everyone about Hillary. But the letters did no good and they have only gotten worse.

Chris Mathews started to trying to rile people up from the beginning with comments to stir up race issues.

I heard Shuster asking Gray Davis if Chelsea's calls on behalf of her mother were "appropriate" or some other term he used and Gray Davis laughed at him and said "Of course. This is America."

Why shouldn't she be allowed to campaign for her mother? SHe's not a child, she's an adult! This entire discussion by Shuster is ridiculous. Again, it points to the misogynistic and antagonistic attitude by that network against Hillary Clinton.

They have lost ALL credibility in any political discussion on the Democratic side. Their ratings should plummet now as I and other viewers are turning to Fox and Cnn.

I hope Hillary does not do anymore debates with them.

As for Shuster's "pimp" comment, it is him and his network who are "pimping" for Obama. They are really disgusting. I never did like Shuster much but he's even worse and more dispicable than ever now. Their president must be on Obama's campaign or something.

Rae

I do wish that it was Bill who would show public outrage over the treatment of his daughter. Where's the protective father?

I surfed between CNN, FOX, and MSNBC throughout the evening on Super Tuesday. The anti-Clinton, pro-Obama bias at MSNBC could not be any more apparent.

They have a comfort level with their misogyny and bias that is disturbing. Further, Olbermann has become the new Chris Matthews.

While it gives me no pleasure saying so, FOX really is more fair and balanced.

I'd never thought I'd see the day when I honestly thought that Pat Buchanan and Karl Rove treat a Democrat (and a Clinton, nonetheless!) with more objectivity and respect than those sad clowns at MSNBC.

Nothing anyone has written here before is as disgusting as the drivel being spewed out by the Clinton bashers on this topic.

like the Romney boys weren't pimping for their dad...

This is completely ridiculous. While Schuster's comment was certainly uncalled for and deserves universal condemnation, this mock outrage is just sad. Where was the outrage when FoxNoise was "pimping" the Obama's-a-closet-Muslim-and-coke-dealer story? Nowhere, because they were pimping it themselves. That is, when they weren't trying to turn Obama into Jesse Jackson. And where was Hillary's outrage when Mr. BET started talking about what Obama did "in the neighborhood"? She was RIGHT THERE and said nothing! What's worse, she accepted his patently absurd explanation that he was talking about Obama's community organizing, at least until it became obvious to her that she couldn't get away with it.

The Clintons can't run against Obama so they run against a few cads on MSNBC. WEAK!

The only program host on MSNBC who's worth anything is Olberman. For the others it seems to be what kind of outrageously stupid remark they can make to make themselves seem important. This is also the kind of media attack on the Clintons that will build and build if she wins the nomination. Just wait, we've got months of Rush,Sean,Mark and the other demagogues ahead of us. I'm not sure I want to put up with that again.

I'm sure Fox is probably loving this. Afterall, where else can viewers go except to flip between CNN and Fox when they boycott MSNBC?

Fox pointed out MSNBC's bias in other respects a couple of years ago but I had missed a lot of it. Keith Oberman can no longer beat the drum about Faux news now that his own network employer is doing Bias news.

Mathews and his misogynistic attitudes are killing them. Mathews is clearly threatened by women and jealous of Hillary's success.

Everyone has their own personal feelings to deal with, but when it gets to the point that you can't do your job without allowing those feelings to show and bias your work, then you're out of control and need to take time off or just leave.

It doesn't matter whether the comments were, respectively, sexist or racist. When Obama's campaign questioned whether there might be a "pattern" of statements that they found offensive for *whatever* reason and a low level staff member drew up a list of those incidents, the Clintons went ape-s**t, screamed to the press, played victim, got the memo waved around on national TV as an accusation at Obama, etc., etc. ------------- But when Clinton campaign questions whether there might be a patter of statements that *they* find offensive, suddenly there are conference calls, major headlines, and boycotts.

As Bill himself would say, "Give me a break."

althelia point is very true: if there was real concern about Chelsea's feelings, the thing would be handled entirely differently - privately with Schuster and/or NBC. This is strictly for political advantage and to continue the 'poor me' drama -- just like jumping on the supposed 'snub' was and playing that for all it's worth. ("Well, Chris, I held my hand out in friendship and unity and it's still extended......" ) --- It's a shame people keep being so mean to her that she never gets to talk about all her 'substantive' visions, etc.

I agree that Matthews' comment about the reason for Hillary's successes was tasteless (albeit true to a large extent) and that Shuster's word choice was horrid ... he should have said that having Chelsea make that kind of personal approach to public figures was 'tacky' or 'slightly nauseating' ... which it is.

But, really --- this woman is the one running for president, not MSNBC. Is this how we want the Leader of the Free World to handle conflict? Blow it out of proportion, play the pitiful victim, get on your high horse and start lifelong feuds. Wait! I thought that guy was *leaving* office next Jan......

I am unmoved by the news, since i don't pay to watch advertisements, i.e. subscribe to cable TV. Now if PBS was involved, I'd care.

Does piss me off a bit that one has to pay a third party for the privilege of seeing national politics in action. I haven't found a C-SPAN feed for any debates.

So now we have wedge issue number 2 -- the gender gap. We've seen a spate of HRC-friendly op-ed pieces that are clear attempts to make women mad. Does anyone think this is not orchestrated. Once again, the HRC campaign scores one for divisiveness

Two things can be true and be contradictory:

1) Schuster was out of line and should be condemned.

2) Clinton is playing the victim.

Nobody disputes that the comment was offensive, including the guy who said it. The response, however, is purely and cooly calculated for political effect, not the sign of rightous indignation. She simultaneously gets to play the victim card again for fire up her base (female white boomers), play the "poor, poor me the MSM hates me" card so that any negative coverage gets discounted and work the refs like Bobby Knight by showing them what happens to people who give her crappy coverage. Additionally, she may even succeed in getting MSNBC to go even further over the top in its anti-Hillarism, which in turn will create additional opportunities for her to play the victim and implicitly lay the blame it on Obama.

Interestingly, Obama is the one who showed you could put a news network on your "dead to me" list and get away with it. Before that, Democratic politicians, Hillary included, quaked in their boots at the thought of fighting back against MSM stupidity. The difference is that he did it with class, quietly freezing Fox's reporters out after the Steve Douchebag "This is huuuuuge!" moment over the madarassa smear, rather than all the ballistic hissy-fit drama we're getting from Camp Sayanythingdoanything.

I don't comment often here, but I feel I have to weigh in. I watched David S. last nite doing Tucker's show, and I was struck at how anti-Hillary the entire program was. Even Keith, who I love dearly, gets in on the act on his show. I'm an Obama supporter (a former Edwards supporter), but I think MSNBC really has a credibility problem when it comes to its coverage on Hillary. We've seen this kind of mean-spiritedness with regard to Chelsea before (remember Rush Limbaugh's comments about her being ugly when Clinton was President? Truly reprehensible and horrible).

Schuster was trying to say that Chelsea is fair game now because she's out campaigning for her mother, but I didn't to see MSNBC do this to Romney's kids or even to Giuliani's kids (who aren't even supporting him). I find this very troubling and this is only the tip of the iceberg; it's going to get a LOT worse if she's our candidate. I think Hillary's right to push back. She can't let this kind of thing go unchallenged because it will take on a life of its own.

Obama supporters blah blah blah blah.

The media sells Obama on a silver platter repeatedly, and...the "liberal" supporters who complained and bitched about the SAME media giving a pass on Bush's policies, are suddenly ignoring that the media is giving Obama roses?

I'd be running the other freakin way...

Example: Obama raised 7.2 million since 02/01, all over the news...Hillary loans 5 mil to her campaign, all over the news..with ABC's headline of "Hillary's camp working for free; Stunt?" STUNT?!...Hillary's now outraised Obama with 7.5 million since 02/02, 6.4 of it in the past 30 hours, and, well, where's it being reported?

Certainly not in any headlines.

Michelle says:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/4/124123/6787

Obama attacks ex-Dem president's prosperous 1990's (ultimately damaging the PARTY), and progressive writer Klugman:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663

Obama's arrogant me me me me driven self is all about HIM, just as his campaign is centered around HIM, not the party and the country...When Hillary won New Hampshire, he came up with "she's likeable enough" Tell you what Obama, don't say anything at all next time.

This is just another FEEL SORRY FOR HILLARY moment --- elections are tomorrow again folks.

We either see tears, hear they are broke and now 'we're being attacked'.

Give me a break Hillary.

Schuster was using the term broadly and you know it.

Fox lies about Obama and you are ASK to debate on their station even tho Dems promised to boycott them.

MTV presents..."Pimp my Daughter so I can become President" starring Hillary Clinton. LOL!!!

Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with Schuster's comments. Although crude, it is no secret that politicians will do just about anything to win an election, including having their family members hit the road and campaign for them. Chelsea was "off-limit" during Bill Clinton's presidency, but not that she is an adult and has decided to campaign she is fair game...like it or not.

Schuster's apology was necessary and appeared to be sincere, its too bad the Clinton campaign can't let it go at that. Unfortunately, their attempts to play the victim card yet again and exploit this situation for more media attention only further reinforces Schuster's comments that the Clinton's are "pimping" Chelsea

I know the kids today use the word pimp, but...big mistake. I've said it before and I'll say it again: MSNBC needs more women on their network. Rachel Maddow calls them out on this crap. Mika Brzezinski tries to get a word in edgewise occasionally to try to tone them down (e.g., with Matthews in NH morning after the primary. It's a frat house on some of these shows, and they need sensitivity training. Or to be slapped upside their heads. Sheesh. I do think David Shuster is one of their best reporters, and I hope he doesn't get canned for this.

The Clintons have every right to be upset, and clearly they've been waiting for the right moment to go after MSNBC.

I do have to laugh I see on other sites people blaming Obama supporters and for this, and using words like scum and ***oles to describe us. How is this better or different than what Shuster said?

Chuck Todd MSNBC's chief political analyst spent the day of the SC primary predicting the only thing to be learned from that night's results was how badly Obama's predicted win there would damage him. He'd already digested Bill's "Obama's just the black candidate" meme.

Didn't quite work out that way did it?

Will someone please just make the Clintons GO AWAY? FAR, FAR AWAY? PLEEEEEEAAASE?

It is easy to see why MSNBC does not like Hillary Clinton. I believe it was Bill Clinton who enforced our nations anti-trust laws.

I really am having a hard time understanding why progressives are attacking Hillary. I remember the 90's as a period in which all americans were enabled to enjoy the gains achieved in both our labor and financial markets as well as a time of relative peace and prosperity for our country.

And if you read accounts of the Clinton Administration you see a common thread of where Hillary was usually a more progressive voice than her husband on most issues.

So again, please take some time and reflect before attacking and dragging her and her supporters through the mud. If Hillary does not get the nomination, you will want all democrats to support the candidate, if you expect to win in the fall.

Shuster is a rising star. It would be terrible if he were fired over this. He has a great BS detector and he gets away with speaking truth to power with his mild mannered ace reporter schtick. I'm glad you posted the video because it's very clear from his words and his tone that he was using the phrase in its more generic colloquial meaning (which is relatively benign), rather than its literal meaning (which would be an absurd nonsequitor). Shuster is a young guy and the phrase is used more broadly and commonly among young folks. In context, I think his intent was actually protective of Chelsea while being critical of Hillary's campaign -- that by putting Chelsea in the muddy world of politics on behalf of the campaign, Hillary's making her daughter a target, and isn't that "unseemly", particularly given how protective they've always been of her in the past? Reasonable people can disagree on whether it's unseemly. But to refuse to debate on the network over this non-issue after the guy apologized is so bizarre it's obvious something else is going on here.

What's really happening is HRC is trying to bully MSNBC into softer coverage of her campaign and its obvious troubles. They already have the network's General Manager Abrams completely in the tank for Hillary's campaign -- every night this week he basically staged a vigil for Hillary and demanded pledges from visiting pundits to be nice to Hillary. Following Media Matters attack on Matthews (which was completely justified in my view -- Matthews can be a total lunatic), Matthews bent over backwards to be kind to Hillary's campaign on Super Tuesday. He completely bought the Hillary press release talking points on its win in Massachusetts hook, line and sinker (it wasn't an upset -- she was always leading in that state by double digits). Matthews' interview with Terry Mcauliffe that night was so over the top in its sucking up that even Lester Bangs seem to react with revulsion afterwards when the camera turned to back to him. This is what she's trying to do -- shame them into softer coverage.

We know that taking the high road, as Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore did, does not work. You have to hit back hard and put some stank on it.

She is doing the right thing, and I would hope the Obama campaign would do the same if they were treated this way. They should probably pile on MSNBC too.

She may be playing the victim, but with MSNBC's history (except for Olberman), she probably is.

I'm a delegate for Obama, but I like seeing her hit back at the media. Give 'em hell and don't give up.

For the record, Chelsea was not just 'campaigning' for her mother. She was calling superdelegates and the women on "The View" (guaranteed to talk anything to death), identifying herself and saying "I hope you'll support my mother." Which -- frankly -- IS damned odd! I doubt GWB and Laura ever thought of using Jenna and Barbara in that sort of way.

Terrible wording, he owes an apology for that, but I don't think it was bias or bad journalism to question the oddity of this, esp from someone who is off limits for interviews, even from 9-year-olds.

I've noticed an interesting pattern to the Obama/Clinton supporter postings, here and elsewhere. Obama supporters seem to criticize HRC, her surrogates, judgment, experience and the collective tactics of her campaign. While the comments themselves aren't always accurate or helpful to advancing a dialogue, these are fair targets in any political situation.

On the flip side, HRC supporters frequently criticize Obama *supporters* more often than they do Obama himself. I think there are legitimate issues to be made on both sides, and this is a fine forum in which to do that. So why the "Obamaloons" attacks? When you criticize a candidate's supporters (rather than the person actually running for office), it tells me that you don't care enough to make an actual contribution, you just want to spew vitriol.

This reflects poorly on your judgment, and will color the way people read every subsequent comment that you post. Consider the impact of what you say before you say it.

Good advice for David Shustser, too.

All I can say is..."It's about damn time!".

MSNBC has been disgusting in their constant Clinton (pretty much all of them) bashing. One need look no further than the "Morning Joe" broadcast the morning after Super Tuesday to watch all of them acting as Obama stratagists. Giving nothing but a constant "analysis" of all the things they think Obama should be doing to win the nomination. Whenever it turned to Clinton it would became a barrage of criticism and snide remarks about her, Bill, her campaign or what you.

I was never a big HRC fan, but I can guarantee that MSNBC is helping to drive votes in her direction. Simply disgusting.

They've decided it's easier to fight GE than Obama, that's all.

Shuster's comment was reprehensible - but why won't they let reporters interview Chelsea? Especially now that they've made her the central part of the current story they're pushing.

It's about time someone says enough is enough. First Matthews, and even after his apologies there is no real change in his attitude. Now Schuster. MSNBC management needs to take more responsibility for their staff.

And about Fox. If I understand, Clinton is picking and choosing how to work with the Republican News Network. I seriously doubt if we'll see O'Reilly involved but it would be sweet to see Clinton put him in his place. Both Clinton and Obama already talk with others--such as the Sunday shows so a debate is not much further. It really depends on who the moderators are.

And NPR and PBS? For a debate, forget it. Talk about boring... At least with CNN, FOX, and MSNBC we occasionally get something meaningful discussed and not the swarmy 'let's be calm, quiet, and be nice in the neighborhood' routine.

It's about time someone says enough is enough. First Matthews, and even after his apologies there is no real change in his attitude. Now Schuster. MSNBC management needs to take more responsibility for their staff.

And about Fox. If I understand, Clinton is picking and choosing how to work with the Republican News Network. I seriously doubt if we'll see O'Reilly involved but it would be sweet to see Clinton put him in his place. Both Clinton and Obama already talk with others--such as the Sunday shows so a debate is not much further. It really depends on who the moderators are.

And NPR and PBS? For a debate, forget it. Talk about boring... At least with CNN, FOX, and MSNBC we occasionally get something meaningful discussed and not the swarmy 'let's be calm, quiet, and be nice in the neighborhood' routine.

Too bad they don't go after Fox & hate radio with the same fervor and passion.

As much of a pig Matthews has been and that comment about Chelsea was just plain sexist, it's nothing compared to what goes on over at Fox each and every day with regards to her.

Obviously they see some political advantage in going after MSNBC & I'd venture to guess they see them as more pro-Obama and this is there way of shutting them up AND/OR she's using the sexist thing to stir her female supporter base (in lieu of crying). Just like crying poverty to gain sympathy donations seemed to work for her, although I still thinks she is making up the figure or not telling the entire story.

There's always an angle with them.

In response to the idea that Obama's campaign is all about him...

listen to the pronouns.

For every time Clinton says "I", Obama says "We."

I blogged about this here under the heading "The Obama "religious phenomenon" and why it's good for America".

It's been remarked that it's worth a read. Not to honk my own goose.

This is why Obama will not win the Presidency if he faces Republicans:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011492.php

Don't comment til you read and comprehend the whole thing.

Obama's a politician.

I'm no Hillary fan but I sure don't blame the Clintons for being a bit touchy with respect to any negative or even potentially negative comments about Chelsea. As you may recall, Chelsea was the butt of endless jokes when they were in the White House... jokes that I and many others considered just horribly cruel and ugly considering she was just a child. Accordingly, I sure understand why they would push back on a comment such as the one Shuster made.

Having said that, I also think Shuster did not mean the comment in the way it obviously was received and I believe his apology was sincere and ought to end the entire episode. That the campaign is using this as an opportunity to bash MSNBC and make more out of this incident than it really is indicates to me that the Clinton camp is hypersensitive to what they clearly perceive to be positive coverage for Obama on MSNBC. I know that it has been noted here on TPM,perhaps Horse's Mouth, that MSNBC has been hyping Obama, but my own opinion is that whatever hyping they may have been doing for Obama is not in a category of hype that differs in any substantial way from any other network--cable or otherwise. Yes, MSNBC has been being more positive about Democrats generally than any other, but Hillary has not been in any way mistreated by them. Matthews is an idiot, but that's nothing new, but he too apologized. This demonstration of pique by the Clinton camp is simply unjustified in light of everything else.

I got to the part where it linked to Taylor Marsh.

Then I comprehended everything just fine.

But thanks for the tip that Barack Obama is a politician. I hadn't heard that. Good info.

OK, so yesterday Romney said a vistory for dems is a victory for terrorists and you all are here arguing whether the media treats Obama or Clinton better. Maybe there is a better way to spend your time???

Obama supported an amendment similar to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which he skipped, then criticizes Hillary on:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26361

You people need to vet him more than his pretty teleprompter speeches.

No substance.

Certainly no center.

I got to the part where it linked to Taylor Marsh.

Then I comprehended everything just fine.

But thanks for the tip that Barack Obama is a politician. I hadn't heard that. Good info.

Posted by JoshL
February 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

Oh, you're not listening to a true progressive?

Stick with Obama and his pal Lieberman...I'm sure you'll do just fine.

Well, I guess if Hillary says she can no longer debate on MSNBC because of their alleged bias against her and their willingness to engage in these kinds of alleged attacks, how can she possibly think Obama would debate on Fox after they have consistently used his middle name of Hussein and stated over and over again that he was educated in a fundamentalist Islamic madrassa? Seems like she would have to back him on that one, no?

I don't even think Schuster was trying to compare Chelsea to a whore, but was pushing the equally obnoxious idea that the Clintons are somehow USING their daughter in some evil way. As if Obama is not using images of his cute family to boost his campaign or Bush doesn't use his wife and daughters to boost him. But, no, because it is HILLARY there is something evil and malicious in the fact that her daughter is supporting her.

Josh, Obama is a politician...just thought I'd clue his disciples in, so as not to confuse the issue.

He's a politician in the vein of Hillary, how is he better?

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011470.php#1

And for the record that site is not linked to Taylor Marsh...a PROGRESSIVE.

was so glad to find this article, because I am a former MSNBC viewer (and devoted Olbermann watcher) who will not turn that channel on anymore.

my epiphany came on the night of the NH primary, when Matthews basically called it for Obama and wondered aloud if Hillary would drop out the next day.

Matthews and Olbermann aren't even pretending to be neutral any longer, and the misogyny is palpable. it's really disgusting.

someone above wrote that when Pat Buchanan is the sanest man in the room, you know you're in trouble. I couldn't agree more! it's PBS and CNN for me from now on.

"I agree with you here (in fact, I think most everyone here does):

"Why shouldn't she be allowed to campaign for her mother? SHe's not a child, she's an adult! This entire discussion by Shuster is ridiculous."

That's borderline obvious. However, you go off the deep end here:

"Again, it points to the misogynistic and antagonistic attitude by that network against Hillary Clinton."

That is playing the victim, and it's ridiculous. So far, I've only seen the mention of two guys - Shuster and Chris Matthews - who allegedly made sexist remarks. Having once worked for CNN, I can attest that branding an entire network for the stuff two guys said is so damned stupid it's hard to fathom. That's like condemning the NFL because Pacman Jones made it rain. Please. "

Listen, if the network didn't allow it, they wouldn't be doing it. First it was Mathews only. Shuster wasn't participating. Then once Mathews was forced to aplogize on air because of the outrage over it, Shuster and the rest started doing it too. If the Pres. of MSNBC didn't like it, it wouldn't be happening. Grow up!.. as Joan Rivers would say.

"I've always said that I will enthusiastically support the democratic candidate no matter what but with supporters like all of you...I might have to take another look at Obama and think really hard about it."

How would people on this message board have any effect on the merits of the candidate himself? If a jerk likes Hillary, does that make Hillary a jerk? You are nto makign any sense, my friend.

p.s. For all the cries of "bias", well, the media is always biased. Fox hates Dems. NYTimes is always pro-Hillary all the time, and I haven't ehard any complaints. CNN too.

I've really got to stop reading comments. People talk such nonsense. (not you sponson...)

Time to turn off the laptop and take a deep breath...

Is this a ploy to get out of debates, now that she's exhausted the tactic of publicly challenging Obama to more debates? Is her campaign going to continue to find principled reasons not to appear at debates?

Guess that's why Ned Lamont endorsed Obama.

You getting paid by the post? Or by Taylor Marsh? We got the link the first thirty times you posted it, thanks.

Posted by Scientific
February 8, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink

That's weird considering Obama endorsed LIEBERMAN over LAMONT in 2006:

http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Lieberman...war loving republican.

Scientific...what?

Let's see. Rupert Murdoch holds multiple fundraisers for HRC. Then Murdoch's network repeatedly runs absolutely fabricated stories about a "madrassa" background for Obama. Obama responds with an honorable and justified boycott of that network. Later Hillary agrees to "debate" on said "news" network but people point up their obvious bias and suggest other venues are more appropriate. Coincidentally, about this time the best political reporter on cable news, never known for his bias, uses some very stupid but common slang when talking about Chelsea Clinton. HRC seizes on it to cut off talk of a "reasonable venue" for the debate with Obama. What did I miss?

Posted by sponson
February 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink

Um why is the media so fired up about Obama?

The same media that all us liberals bitched about for giving Bush passes all 7 years of his Presidency?

But but but; the burning question is; has Hillary actually voted to go to war with MSNBC, or will she later claim that her vote was to have it settled in the United Nations.

I haven't voted for a democratic candidate President since '92 and Obama has me interested in doing so again. (I voted Green in safe Dem state of Cali.) Couldn't stomach Bill after he ran so hard to the right after '94 Repug wins. Hillary has run hard to the right since she ran for the Senate. Obama gives me hope for true progressivism in America again. You may say it's false hope, but I have zero hope that Hillary will do anything remarkably progressive. It would be more of the same Dem reactionary stuff where the Repugs still write the rules no matter who has the majority or the White House (look at Congress now). It's been that way with the Clintons since '94 and I have no reason to expect different. I'll probably vote Green again if Hillary gets the nomination.

Destardi, I'd suggest get off this Lieberman thing. It is not a winning issue for you.

Before the Democratic primary in CT, Obama supported Lieberman. So did Hillary

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/05/politics/main1774454.shtml

Got that? Hillary. Supported. Lieberman. In. The. Primary. Too.

After Lamont won, Obama campaigned for him and helped him raise money.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/27/ap/politics/mainD8L0MB280.shtml

Hillary? Cue the crickets. Yet another Hillary Clinton profile in courage.

You lose on this issue, got that? It's a loser for your. Lamont was Obama's campaign chair in CT because, when the chips were down and the choice was between supporting the party or keeping on Joe's good side in case he won, Obama supported the party, and Lamont, and Hilly turned in one of her patented profile in courage moments.

So what I'm saying here is that you might want to consider heating up a plate of STFU on this issue and moving on to something that paints your candidate in a more flattering light. Assuming you can find something like that.

It amazes me that people who can't spell or construct a coherent sentence nonetheless feel justified in calling others stupid, foolish, or naive. Come on. If you want me to take your ideas seriously, put down the bong, and type with BOTH hands. Sheesh.

At first when reading these comments, I thought gosh, Clinton supporters sure are hysterical over this and by comparison the Obama supporters seem to concede that Shuster's careless attempt to talk slang with Chris Matthews was indefensible. Then I realized it's all just destardi. My apologies to all other Clinton supporters, I was beginning to get a bad impression of you due to just one commenter.

Isn't Chelsea old enough to stick up for herself. Sheesh, we've got women being killed in Iraq younger than she is.