Geez, and I thought they were too hard on Bill when in office. Let go already. She is ridiculous. My daughter would tell me to back off, she can take care of herself, which she can. I would never act like this, is this what we will be subjected to when in office, whining over Bill and Chelsea's treatment, just shoot me.

Of course, that doesn't really make sense. Even though she's quite right that there can be said to be a "pattern" of inappropriate comments and hostility to her at MSNBC, I don't believe anyone, including HRC, has suggested that he, Shuster, has made offensive comments before the Chelsea remark. Most have come, instead, from Chris Matthews.

So, why do you fire Shuster because of the "pattern?"

Because Matthews is untouchable?

I think someone on here said that the real beef was with Matthews, but since he's untouchable, Shuster proved an adequate scape goat. That seems about right. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I think she's got a right to be pissed at Matthews and boy would it be nice to see him get fired.

The bad thing in all this is that it's Shuster. He is unusually even-handed in his reporting. If it was Matthews, I'd be glad to see him go. Most of the talking heads think they can say anything. Sometimes there should be a moment of reflection, such as this.

But, what if Clinton hadn't raised a stink?

The problem with Clinton is "damned if she do, damned if she don't".

Whatever the case may be the comments were not newsworthy but were worth some entertainment points! And hey at least this way Clinton stays in the news by complaining about coverage while the real news is how the states voted in the caucuses! I mean seriously if this is an issue why is not behind closed doors/ in private, is there something about airing dirty laundry in public which is good for the news?

On another note I find it completely hypocritical for her to be complaining about patterns of abuse when the FOX network has consistently had patterns of abuse towards Gays, Liberals, Democrats, progressives, etc. Where is the outrage there?

This is so silly. The clintons playing the victim card again. I don't want victims as the president, I want leaders.

On another note and again off topic. There was an interview with scalia on bbc world this morning that I heard on NPR, while sipping my chardonay, and it was truly frightening. I am trying to find a link. The guy is unhinged. This interview should be cut and pasted into ads this november and dems will win 70 percent of the vote regardless of the nominee. Dems need to retake the white house, get 60 seats in the senate and freaking impeach this guy. He is truly dangerous. I'm sick of him wiping his a** with the constitution, when he can find a copy. Maybe tpm could do a post on the muckraker site on this. Unbelievable.

Pimping out something to someone? I pimp out a car ride to a friend of mine all the time.

The dictionary and the language opens up many definitions to the same words or phrases and I'm sure Shuster didn't mean anything sexual.

I called my mom a hag once when I was about ten and an old guy about burnt me at the stake. Hag = old/older person. Their probable definition: 1. an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.
2. a witch or sorceress.
But for all they know, I could have meant as a metaphor: 1. bog; quagmire.
2. a firm spot or island of firm ground in a bog or marsh.

Three things:
1. Shuster's comment was stupid; C is a grown woman and not being used by anybody.
2. Shuster is actually one of the good ones; on balance, he's been an actual journalist; that is, someone who seeks the truth instead of someone who, like John King, passes along Republican talking points (Democrats say down is down, Republicans say up is down).
3. Going after Shuster and not Matthews, and going after MSNBC and not Fox, makes no sense and so you have to ask deeper questions about the strategy here.

She is vindictive and petty. That's about all she is. What a leader.

She wants MSNBC to clean up their act: how they do it is up to them -- but a slap on the wrist and half-hearted apologies won't do it.

That doesn't settle anything, does it? Sounds like what she really wants is for someone else to be fired (hint: better watch your back, Chris Matthews). Or maybe the whole network could just blow her. I think that's what she's really saying. Poor Hillary. She's just trying to claim her crown and they're being so mean to her.

Hillary Clinton's concession speech: "I HATE ALL OF YOU AND I HOPE YOU DIE!!!!" (Runs off the stage screaming.)

I, for one, am delighted to see Hillary beating the shit out of MSNBC. Al Gore and John Kerry allowed themselves to be used as piñatas by the media and never fought back. There was a reason that the media gave Bush a free pass and ganged up on Gore: they were afraid of the pushback from the Bush organization. Most of the media are ignorant, cowardly jackals; they attack the helpless and flee from the strong.

Here's a link to that Scalia interview mentioned a while back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7238665.stm

As for Shustergate, she is starting to look Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Thanks for the link cswartout. The guy is a loon and he is sitting on the Supreme Court. WTF.

Just one point on the reasoning for going after MSNBC rather than FOX.

Only an idiot would compare the two networks. Only republicans watch FOX, democrats know that they slant everything in defense of republican views. It makes perfect sense to go after MSNBC because they speak to the base of the voters in the democratic primary.

Just what we need: Passive aggressive leadership.

I think we are all losing track of the bigger picture here. A lot of the media coverage of the election has been pompous, self-serving bullshit. Hillary is a big, fat target for them and they know it. The MSNBC crowd has been pounding Hillary for Nielson points for the last 6 months. Cable news has lowered the level of journalistic standards to National Enquirer standards. If everyone is cool with that, then fine... just be ready when they turn on your candidate next. If/when Hillary drops out, then the media jackals will need to find a new target. Will it be the upstart Obama or their old friend and "maverick", St. John McCain?

Personally, I feel as a democrat who suffered through the media's lame response (non-response) to the swiftboaters, that we are better off demanding a higher standard from the so-called journalists and not just accepting their racing to get the "news" on the air. Lazy reporting and potty mouth commentary serves the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.

Finally, demanding a higher standard from Fox News is an exercise in futility, so why bother? It's better to starve that beast by ignoring them (in this regard, I think Hillary is wrong to accept their invitation to debate.)

Still have not seen where Hillary says Schuster must be fired.

TPMs bogus headline: "Hillary: Schuster Must Be Fired" was just plain bad journalism.

And now you've succeeded in turning this story into hate-fodder for the Obamacans.

Congratulations!

TPM is better than this. I HOPE you examine this dark hour in the history of TPM and CHANGE things for the better in the future.

Josh - seriously? You think this "proves" that she wants Shuster fired.

I have no idea what you're smoking (or reading), but you're not in touch with reality. She has a valid point and she's articulating it. MSNBC has been egregiously unfair, and it's up to them what they want to do about it. There is a pattern; she's called them on it, and the ball is in their court.

That's all she's saying, Josh. She's not calling for anyone's head. If you read anything else into it, that's your bias showing.

I think she addressed it perfectly.

Shuster's comments are borderline fire-worthy. Not HER call to make. There IS a pattern to MSNBC's editorializing what should be straight political reporting.

I commend her on this statement.

And for those who say 'ugh again with this Hillary' or 'vindictive, etc'... She was asked this in an interview. If she didn't respond everyone here would be complaining that she ducked the question.

Let's have just a little more intellectual honesty on this board please. This isn't Red State or some bogus right wing crap.

I have to admit that even though I think Clinton is going seriously overboard on this one, Bill from PA makes a great point. People are really getting tired of the flagrant amateurism of the mainstream media and their sliming of public figures. Clinton is striking back here while she has an opportunity to "change the pattern" of MSNBC as she claims. If she can get Fox News on the ropes too, then all the better. We don't need a sacrificial lamb with Shuster, but we do need to start holding these people a little more accountable seeing as they are delivering so much information to the general population. While I'm voting Obama for his agenda and his message, I certainly would not get my feathers ruffled if Clinton won in a fair contest and went out to kick some repug behind (vindictive or otherwise).

I'm glad she's laying down the law as to what is or isn't out of bounds. The media has been after the Clintons, no holds barred, for years. She is giving notice that should she be in the White House come January that she will not put up with such crap. I'm glad she is.

As for Schuster, he either is one of the stupidest guys around or he allowed himself to be used big time. Quite obviously MSNBC has given free reign to their anchors to indulge their anti-Clinton bias. Perhaps the management felt once they had semi-shut up Chris Matthews they could allow or compel others to take up his mantle. Shuster's a grown up. He should have known better.

If a sitting United States Senator is pushing for a journalist to be fired for something the journalist said, that Senator should not only NOT be elected president, but should be censured by the Senate for violating their oath of office in which they claim to support and defend the United States Constitution.

Obviously the continued pushing of this story by the Clinton campaign says a lot about the judgment of Hillary Clinton and the type of President she would be. After 7 years of this type of tactics with the Bush administration, you think the American people would be ready for something else. Sheesh.

To Recap what I am NOT saying:
1) David Shuster's comments were okay. NOT saying that.
2) Misogynism doesn't exist. NOT Saying that.

What I am saying:
1) Elected officials shouldn't demand firings of reporters for opinion/analysis statements. We have libel laws. They work, and shockingly those who put themselves in the public sphere don't get as much protection as those who don't put themselves out there.
2)Clinton is thin skinned and if this is an attempt to stay relevant during her string of losses right now it looks terrible, and is a terrible political strategy.
3) the terribleness of the strategy raises legitimate judgment questions about Clinton.
4) Clinton is acting like the Bush administration on this point and therefore reveals that she is not true change in washington.

cdalygo, Thank-you. Bob Miller, too. The rest of you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Look, I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, but every time I read one of these benighted comment threads in which venom for the Clintons seems to overcome the ability to think straight, I begin to wonder if I made the right choice.

Let me first point out that Hillary was answering a question - not releasing a statement from her campaign. If anyone was propagating the issue of David Shuster it was John Harris, though I don't fault him for asking. Let me also point out that Hillary's note, which formed the basis for previous comment threads, was also a response - to a communication from MSNBC.

In both, what she was making clear is that suspending Shuster was beside the point; what concerned her and her campaign was a pattern of demeaning comments, and she might have added, in the service of wildly biased and inaccurate reporting. And I include David Shuster in this, although I have personal interest in having him fired, like Hillary.

This is not about protecting Chelsea; Mrs. Clinton's note took the issue beyond that, although the notion that describing a grown daughter's desire to work in her mother's campaign for a Presidential candidacy as being "pimped out" by her mother is essentially not any kind of insult to both mother and daughter, even though no one thinks that it was meant literally, strikes me as absurd on its face. It doesn't matter that "pimped out" is used metaphorically; the metaphor was insulting enough.

Can anyone here even begin to imagine anyone at MSNBC using that language to describe Michelle Obama's role in her husband's campaign? Of course you can't. And the reason is this; aside from the racial implications of such a remark, the only political figures about which you can say anything, literally anything, and no matter how demeaning, how cruel, and most of all how untrue as to factuality,and know that you will never be called to any kind of real account, are Bill and Hillary Clinton. And for those of you who may express concern for David Shuster's career, contretemps as only upped his status in the boy's club which masquerades as our free press.

I find it hard to believe that many of the comments I've read in this thread or others here at TPM are being written by any actual Democrats, so tinged are they with right-wing tropes. To the extant that any of you really intend to vote for Obama in November, believe me when I tell you that you are undercutting him by your attitudes to the Clintons.

To win in November, the Democratic Party is going to need to be united. I want Obama to be the candidate, but a comment like Mrs. Obama, that she wasn't sure if she could vote for Hillary were she to be the candidate, almost changed my vote within hours of going to the polls. Comment threads like these, so filled with wrong facts, and with no understanding of what the politics of the nineties was all about, fill me with despair, not hope. Get it through your heads, the Clintons are not the enemy. I don't like to refer to any American presidential candidate as "the enemy," but John McCain will be carrying on the policies of George W. Bush, and those policies are the enemies of what most of us think this country is supposed to stand for.

Yes, MSNBC should revisit its policies, then fire Schuster and if not also Chris Matthews, put him on notice that he seriously change his ways or he's out next. In bigger picture, MSNBC is at risk of having and sustaining a hostile workplace by the attitudes it allows and by lack of evidence otherwise, encourages and profits from. Clinton, and Obama if he wants to show some guts, can force some timely political pressure on them now (and some pressed upon employees can and very likely will dig into MSNBC's deep pockets for their hostile workplace in the future.)

That's not what Leah said, wmd. What she did say was just about everything I intended to say here.

Like her I voted for Obama, and I want him to win the nomination. But every time I come to a discussion board and see professed Obama supporters parading their hate around like it's a showdog I'm revolted and embarrassed. The Free Republic website may be a phenomenon of the right; freeperism -- rhetorical ugliness as a competitive sport -- obviously is not.

As for the posting that started this discussion thread: Josh, it doesn't matter how many times you misuse your headlining privilege to try to bludgeon the facts into line; they won't budge. This second statement is virtually identical with the first and it doesn't support your argument. You're wrong.

Leah A: i agree with you whole-heartedly

wmd: it makes plenty of sense. the policy differences between 2 democrats isn't like that between a dem and a republican, so everyone must make up their minds on other factors (unless healthcare is your issue, then there is a substantive difference between Hillary and Barack)... what doesn't make sense, wmd, is your comment above that Hillary is "thin skinned"!!! she has put up with a tremendous amount of unwarranted abuse and keeps fighting on undaunted. i truly admire her as a warrior for the democratic party. i agree with Leah A that that "I find it hard to believe that many of the comments I've read in this thread or others here at TPM are being written by any actual Democrats."

Hillary is wrong on two counts. First, Shuster shouldn't be punished for anything taht Chris Matthews or Tucker Carlson has said, and two, MSNBC is the only cable network who features someone as forward thinking as Keith Olbermann.

If anyone should be fired, it's Carlson.

Awww, you hurt my feelings mattie. I am so shamed now by your logic and persuasive argument. By the way, how are you able to totally escape reality like you do? I read your posts and they are the silliest distortions and lies. A lie is a lie buddy. I really think that you should go to hillaryis44.org, you will be more at home there.

We second that motion, MA.

What Shuster said was nothing less than the truth and Clinton knows it.

Period.

Shuster should get his own show.

Everyone here who never laughed at the things that were said about the Bush twins please step forward. All three of you. If Bush had demanded the sanction of anyone who said negative things in print about his daughters, we would have screamed censorship.
Chelsea is 27, a Stanford grad, a hedge fund employee. She is very capable of calling super delegates and TV personalities. I'm sure she is also capable of calling MSNBC executives. But this whole issue does keep the Clinton campaign near the top of the news cycle for a few days, and does bring in sympathy from mothers (and fathers) out there. That very well could be a part of it.
(Has anyone checked with MTV to see if Chelsea has been booked on an episode of Pimp My Ride?)

I cannot believe you people. Sure, some of you are right-wing trolls, but surely most of you are not and yet you act as though the possible nominee of our party is a monster. I preferred Edwards because he was the real progressive. I am dismayed by the weak and half-hearted reformed offered by Obama, dissatisfied but slightly happier with the somewhat more serious reforms offered by Clinton. None of them are perfect. I will proudly vote for any of them.

But I have to say, you all really make me question Obama's leadership. He is encouraging a cultish devotion, somewhat like Bush did, and that's unhealthy in a democracy. It's human to enjoy hero worship, but it's bad for the country.

The unhinged Clinton hatred emanating from you Obama supporters is ridiculous. I am worried that he has done nothing to discourage the cult of Obama, we don't need heroes in the White House. We need presidents.

Kenhighcountry --

Give it a rest. Not one reporter ever implied that Bush was prostituting his daughters. Nor did they use language suggesting that he was exploiting them for his own gain, or abusing them to benefit his political career. The Bush twins were in the news because they made news by having drunken run-ins with the police. Chelsea was called a victim of Hillary's pimping by David Shuster simply because she did what every other adult off-spring of presidential candidates has done -- she helped the campaign. If you can't see that suggesting that Hillary is pimping her daughter is out of line, well god bless you. And I don't want Chelsea fighting this battle. I want the Clinton campaign using all of the power it can muster to let MSNBC know that this time the democratic party is not going to roll over and accept the usual sliming.

While I agree that the pimp line was insensitive and warranted an apology, I think it's all been blown out of proportion now and completely discredits Hillary's argument that Obama "hasn't been vetted as she has," taking media controversy. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, I don't prefer to put all of my eggs in a basket full of bricks. Where there's a Clinton, drama follows.

Oh, for God's sake. This is total phony-baloney outrage.

I mean, what is it, exactly, that HRC is so outraged about? What's the basis for this "I am a mother bear protecting her cubs" posturing? Is she actually saying that she understood Shuster's remark to mean that the Clinton campaign was charging money for sexual access to Chelsea? Does she believe anyone, anyone at all anywhere in the whole world, took the remark as suggesting that Chelsea is literally a prostitute? I know HRC herself isn't that stupid, but does she honestly think we are?

If this is how she acts now, what can we expect if she gets elected? If Putin says "Hey, I like the way you've pimped Air Force One, with those nice lace curtains and leather seats," can we expect her to launch the missiles? Jesus. It was a somewhat crass way of making a perfectly valid point -- a point, I might add, to which HRC has successfully avoided responding, on account of this simulated outrage.

If Shuster gets fired over this, I hope he sues the network. If he does, put me down for $100 for his legal defense fund.

On the other hand, we have this from the husband of the self Proclaimed Warrior Princess who wages perpetual war against all Republicans.

January 25, 2008
Bill Clinton: John McCain and Hillary are 'very close'
Posted: 06:45 PM ET
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are very close, Bill Clinton says.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are very close, Bill Clinton says.

(CNN) — If Hillary Clinton and John McCain become their party's presidential nominees, the general election race is likely to be a love-fest.

At least according to Bill Clinton.

Campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Friday, the former president brushed aside suggestions his wife would prove to be a divisive nominee for the Democratic Party, pointing out how she has successfully worked with Republicans in the Senate — including one of the current GOP presidential candidates.

"She and John McCain are very close," Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

The comments may not be welcome by the McCain camp — which yesterday faced fire from several of its rivals for winning the backing of the New York Times — a longtime archenemy of conservatives.

Sens. McCain and Clinton last met publicly at an ABC debate earlier January, when presidential candidates of both parties shared the same stage. The two were seen exchanging pleasantries, and a Clinton side said she told the Arizona senator he’d done a “good job” staging a comeback in New Hampshire. He asked that she say hello to Bill Clinton for him.

Amazing. Someone may one day be able to explain how some of my fellow Obama supporters could be angered and worked up for weeks over the terms "fairytale" and "rolling the dice", but just can't fathom why there is any outrage over the suggestion that Hillary Clinton "pimped out" her daughter for political gain. I am an Obama supporter and to those Hillary supporters who have to read some of the nasty and dismissive comments on this board -- well I want you to know that this Obama supporter is with you on this one. As Klugman said, it is time to call the press on its application of the "Clinton Rules".

If she is in fact vindictive, this is not necessarily a bad thing. If the Bush critics are right, what we've seen in the past couple of years was the complete corruption of the federal civil service by party apparatchiks, many of whom have now burrowed into civil service jobs. Those kinds of stories make the headlines when California's EPA waiver request is rejected over the recommendations of staff, but I suspect that conduct like Mr. Jackson's (no republican, no HUD contract) are far more pervasive, and much less fun to carp about than what Shuster said or didn't say. It's going to take a certain determination to try to set things right (without committing the same sin). If vindictiveness gets the country to that place, that's not in my mind a reason to vote against her.

This bullshit being peddled about Hllary not being allowed to defend her family is beyond the pale and makes me ashamed to be in the same party with those spewing it.

The dominant meme here, as it sadly has been on tpmelectioncentral for over 6 months is that anything one says about Hillary is OK. Not only that, Hillary is responsible for all of Bill's pecadillos, Bill Clinton ruined the country, and the Clintons are racists and war mongers.

Grow the fuck up. Perhaps you'd rather not have Ginsburg or Breyer on the court. Was Bill flawed as a president? Damn straight he was-- Gore would have rose above him in every way. Yet, he was our guy. He tried to do what he could and his heart was in the right place-- as is Hillary's.

Hillary isn't the enemy, and those of you who push that crap are doing your best to destroy the party. Argue over issues and stances and you will have a lot more credibility. As it is all you guys have proven is you can gather the most people online to fling poo. Quite an accomplishment. It is a pointed endorsement of your candidate.

I guess you should lead by example. If you want tv networks to be held accountable for their actions, how about some accountability for your vote authorizing an illegal war?

I guess Mathews and Shuster are happy tonight. Their past efforts no doubt helped Obama pull off another win after the free pass they've been giving him - no scrutiny, promoting him for months...