I hope this means NBC/MSNBC are really taking this seriously. It's bad enough how they've been treating Hillary, but the crack about Chelsea was just unconscionable.

This is appropriate. Is there any way Matthews could be roped into suspension as well?

You know what would be good? If the Obama campaign came out with a statement that said "We're tired of the degrading personal remarks that prominent MSNBC employees have made about the Clintons, and Senator Obama isn't interested in appearing in any debates broadcast by NBC or MSNBC".

Too bad the candidates couldn't gang up on the media and rein in some of this disgusting behavior that does no one any good.

And boy am I pleased to be able to comment again...got bumped out in the changeover....

Okay! Now maybe I smell a bit of blood in the water... How about revisiting Chris Matthews and the morning anchors?

this is an over-reaction in my opinion, caused by the over-reaction of the clinton campaign.

Here's a question: Why is "pimping out" someone even part of Shuster's everyday language? There seems to have been an PC-backlash over the last few years that has gone way too far. Some language is simply not acceptable to use, whether you are talking to your spouse or talking on television to millions of viewers.

I'm not defending Shuster, but if you watched Scarborough, Hardball, and Tucker for a few days, you probably wouldn't put this comment in the top 100 most offensive moments. And if the Clintons didn't complain, no one would know about it, because no one actually watches Tucker. I spent years defending the Clintons against unfair attacks from petty-spirited Republicans, and will continue to do so. But I'm not looking forward to 4 years of this kind of pettiness either.

D'oh -- I was looking at an old copy of the article I linked. My bad.

Here's a question: Why is "pimping out" someone even part of Shuster's everyday language? There seems to have been an PC-backlash over the last few years that has gone way too far. Some language is simply not acceptable to use, whether you are talking to your spouse or talking on television to millions of viewers.

Shuster did not apologize. In a classic inside the beltway two-step, he gave a non-apology apology: "[T]o the extent that people feel I was being pejorative, I apologize for that. I should have seen that people might view it that way, and for that, then I'm sorry." NBC must think its viewers are idiots.

Pure Garbage. NBC caved and they should be ashamed of themselves. I guess his apology wasn't enough or more realistically, NBC doesn't want to jeopardize any future debates. NBC now stands for the "No Backbone Channel"

The use of the word "Pimped" was bad I'll admit. The suspension is probably justified. That said Shuster is a great reporter. His coverage of the Valery Plame affair from the Novack collum all the way to the end of the Libby trial was Immaculaet. Campaign coverage is becoming its own entity in this election. The only word that can describe it starts with cluster and ends with a word that sounds like Duck.

The "pimp" comment aside, I didn't agree with Shuster's original point -- that is, that somehow Chelsea Clinton shouldn't be doing the bidding of her mom's campaign by making phone calls to celebs.

Regarding the "pimp" thing -- it's SLANG, people. The apology should be enough. The Clinton campaign is going overboard.

I like Shuster. He's professional. He does great reporting. And the Tucker show is way better when Shuster hosts it. The suspension is plain silly.

to say they were 'pimping her out' is a colloquialism. come on people. far, far worse things are said on tv and NOTHING happens. just watch these clips of the press mocking clinton for clapping on stage. at one point she is described as a zoo animal. http://jezebel.com/354311/hillary-clinton-has-the-clap?autoplay=true

something else has to be going on here...

Suspending Shuster is a good thing. That kind of language should not be tolerated. The only disappointing thing is that it took a reaction (an appropriate one, I think) by the Clinton campaign before MSNBC took any action against Shuster. The more credible response from MSNBC would have been to suspend Shuster immediately after his comments.

Shuster was wrong. He offered the kind of apology any person in his position would have (spineless). He'll probably be a little sorrier after losing 2 weeks pay (which NBC should donate to the Clintons). Bill should go talk to Shuster in person to let him know exactly how wrong he was. And teh media stinks.

But I still think the Clintons jumped on this with all the grace and restraint of our ex-stray cat on a can of tuna.

I think this letter from Emily Malcolm says it all:

Phil Griffin
News Senior Vice President, NBC Television Network
& General Manager of MSNBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza
3rd Floor
New York, NY 10112

Mr. Phil Griffin,

For months, women and men from all over the country have been telling me about their anger at MSNBC’s treatment of women, especially Senator Hillary Clinton. Now, just yesterday, David Shuster talked about “pimping out Chelsea.” That is completely reprehensible.

I'm sending this letter today to let you know that the misogynistic pattern in the reporting by your network must come to an end. I know I speak for millions across this country when I demand that you take immediate steps and publicly tell us what you will do to eliminate this sexist and demeaning culture that has become so pervasive in your network.

Public figures are too often the target of vitriol and biased commentary. However, your journalists have repeatedly, and in now the most odious fashion, crossed the line with personal, sexist and demeaning attacks. The half hearted apology by Mr. Shuster this morning fails to even acknowledge the insulting nature of his comments.

Your tolerance for this behavior speaks volumes about the corporate culture of MSNBC. If you refuse to take action, women across the country, viewers, sponsors, and consumers can only assume your implicit endorsement of this type of sexist commentary on women and repugnant treatment of our children.

It's time for MSNBC to act.

Sincerely,

Ellen R. Malcolm

Nice work, joejoejoe. This is a whole lot of to-do about a whole lot of nothing.

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.

joejoejoe?

Phrases like "throwing a bomb" in football and referring to parents' as "pimping" out a daughter don't seem to be the same sort of metaphor use.

Maybe 20 years of "Pimp my ride" on TV will take away the slur that is associated with "pimp" as David Schuster used it. I don't know.

And truthout.org as a source? I'd be a bit wary of that site...ever since the "Karl Rove is definitely going to be indicted!!!@#!#! " kerfluffle.

Hey, Bush has been screwing the people of this country, that makes him a whore and Betrayus lied to the nation to sell us on Bush, that makes him a pimp. Olbermann was correct!

Clearthinker:

I also think the comment was over the line.

However, last time I checked, Chelsea Clinton is now an adult and as such, when being utilized by the campaign, is fair game for the media. Mr. Shuster's vocabulary choice was lousy, but the point he was trying to make was in no way over the line.

how about shuster refused to apologize until his bosses threatened him ....he was called in and stood his ground until they suspended him...hes supposed to go on tucker tonight and try it again as his first apology was filled with lies when he said this morning that he said 'america love chelsea and everybody here loves her too she is a fine women' he never said that last night

i cant believe what im reading here ....you obama people are sick and because of all this obama crap i have changed my mind and will vote for hillary....between the blogs hateful commments and msnbc,,,,i am ready to throw up....the pimp statement was outlandish and completely uncalled for ....and i dont care who your backing this crap should not be tolerated.....hillary said she would back whomever the canditate is ,,,,,obamas wife dosnt want to ,,,,,he says his followers wont back her .....talk about dividing a party...when HRC said she wanted the fla and mich delagates to be seated obama screamed she was trying to change the rules....now obama wants to stop the super delagates because he could lose them so he wants to change the rules ..........WHAT A HYPOCRITE

Don't the Clintons protest too much? Getting upset about having their daughter essentially being called a whore is clearly for political gain only.

Until the Clintons apologize for the poor shape the country was left in after Bill's unpopular presidency and start having the kind of rallies that are needed to solve our country's problems, then they should not be surprised to receive this type of treatment from the press.

Does anyone know what program Schuster will be on tonight to apologize?

For what it's worth: I'm not happy about the MSNBC comment for reasons that go well beyond the choice of a word (which wasn't smart to begin with!)

I'm not happy with MSNBC, because now we have another essentially "nonissue" gumming up the debate when we should be talking about Iraq and the impending energy crisis (peak oil) which are going to ruin our economy beyond recognition.

As HRC, herself, said recently: a president rarely ends up engaged with the issues he campaigned on.

No one is talking peak oil -- but this will be the primary issue, regardless of party affiliation.

Play that sexist card, Hillary. It's all you have left..

So he called Chelsea a "pimp", big f'ing whoop! He used the word choice of slang words. A "pimp" isn't degrading, it could have been far worse if he said she was being used like the word describes a garden tool.

THIS is what people are getting upset about these days? Inappropriate comment, yes. Apology necessary, yes (he did, on air). Can we move on now please? If Hillary can't handle David Schuster, how's she gonna handle Al Qaeda??? She would have been much better served to acknowledge the comment as being inappropriate but that she realizes David is a great reporter and likely meant nothing by it. SHE should take everyone past this, you know, by maybe LEADING for a minute. Instead, she has actively capitalized on it (unlike Obama's response to the last year's worth of Fox News' portrayals of him being a closet Muslim). How long will it take for this to appear in her fund raising pleas? Or has Emily's List already beat her to it?

For those who think the remark OK and HRC's response over the top, I'm going to assume that you might be young enough to have forgotten that Chelsea, as a quite young lady in the White House, was the subject of an endless stream of degrading and down right mean comments from the Right Wing. Everything from her looks to her schoolmates was considered fair game for pointlessly cruel attacks.
Further I'd like you to pause and consider what your reaction might be if a total stranger called your sister or daughter or mother a whore on television. That is what Shuster did.
Somehow I don't think you would be quite so forgiving. And I hope that you would have the courage to fight back at least as hard as HRC.
If you still believe that a candidate's children are fair game for partisan attack just ask McCain about that.
Or Obama when he and his family are in the in the crosshairs as they surely will be if he attains the nomination.

>>>I'm not happy with MSNBC, because now we have another essentially "nonissue" gumming up the debate when we should be talking about Iraq and the impending energy crisis (peak oil) which are going to ruin our economy beyond recognition.

Uhmmm, clearthinker .... Do you suppose there might possibly be a cause and effect thing going on here? Not that MSNBC was trying to cause a diversion, but that the Clintons were *looking* for a diversion and MSNBC clumsily handing them a nice juicy one?

It seems to me that every time the campaign might possibly be settling down for some focused concentration on the issues and real problems, Clinton/her campaign either has a major hissy-fit because someone did something nasty to her (racial insinuations being blamed on poor her, the mythical 'snub,' a photo that maybe looked like Harry and Louise)- OR - runs into a crisis she needs help with or sympathy for (exhaustion, lack of funds) - OR - does something so outrageous that *that* becomes the story (Nev lawsuit, attack about Reagan comments, radio ads in SC, Bill's over the top behavior, Mich and Fla delegates, etc.). --- Talk about patterns!!

You know, G. Bush used the same pattern campaigning against Kerry, always some emotional side show going to keep attention off the real issues and he was always wound up being the victim, the innocent party, and/or totally uninvolved in the sideshow. (Compare his denials of any involvement with Swiftboaters and her denial of any involvement about the Nev. lawsuit - same damn tone ... and smirk!)

Obama has actually gotten quite good about shutting these things off (stopping the racial turmoil with his press conf and praise of the Clintons; a see-you-and-raise-you-one radio ad in SC; just not falling for the Harry and Louise or the snub or some other things; saying 'okay - 2 debates' and stopping that storyline. So.... if he won't play along and there has to be high emotional drama going on, attention has turned to struggle against the fates ($), the press (there's always going to be something one could object to) and - cynical soul that I am - I have to wonder if they suddenly had Chelsea out and about and talking ... counting on the fact that someone would say *something* so that we could get the "mother rushing to defense of her child" tableau. (And having her call the women on The View is a real good way to get something inappropriate said.)

Somehow I think if Hillary Clinton really wanted to talk about the issues or problems, like Iraq or oil crisis, she'd have found time to do so. I mean, Tucker's sorta cute, but how many people watch his show and heard Schuster's comment? Another quite possible (and much kinder to Chelsea) response could have been a stiff talk to NBC, an apology from Schuster, and then simply 'no comment' if asked about it by anyone else. Sure would have saved a lot of time and allowed for focus on things like the country's problems, wouldn't it? These have been her choices, and there's no reason to think she would make different choices if she's elected president.

Dear heavens -- I'd forgotten how utterly emotionally exhausting the Clinton years were. But it's starting to come back to me ....

BTW, in 2004, John Kerry's daughters, John Edward's daughters Cate, Mary Cheney, and - to a lesser extent - Jenna and Barbara Bush stumped or worked for their parents during the campaign. All except maybe Mary in the same age group. I don't believe any of them were asked or allowed to do anything like what was asked of Chelsea.

He didn't call Chelsea a pimp he called her a whore and Hillary a pimp. I don't understand how people feel that that is OK. What did Chelsea or Hillary ever do to him? Just report the facts and the news and leave your personal feelings at the door.

CT Voter - I linked to Truthout because they had a transcript.

Here's the comment in full from Olbermann: "And in pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it."

I'm not saying "pimping" isn't coarse language but it's used interchangeable with "shill" in modern conversational English. There was a website called Media Whores Online not long ago and they weren't implying that for $20 you could get Wolf Blitzer to give you "massage".

Here's a few examples of 'shill' and 'pimp' being used in the same context...

Katrina vanden Heuvel, post on HuffPost.com, 'It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp', "take John Goodman, president and founder of a Dallas-based think tank. He thought he had bought himself another reliable intellectual to shill for George W...."

Wired.com, story on RedState.com: "Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion," wrote Leon Wolf, one of RedState's bloggers. "Not in comments, not in diaries, nada."

"If your account is less than six months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul," he added. "Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal."

Language is in a constant state of flux and what some people find outrageous is commonplace to others. It's not about the degredation of culture -- it's about culture being constantly in flux.

If 74 year old Sen. Dianne Feinstein can sit and laugh while Arnold talks about appearing on 'Pimp My Ride' and post the transcript on her Senate.gov website the use of the language 'pimp' has reached common usage.

Shuster is a damn good reporter. He knows more about the Libby prosecution and Plame scandal than any reporter on the air.

No, he shouldn't have said it. But it is true that "pimped" doesn't mean what it did ten years ago.

I find it crass, but it's no longer a sexist term, at least by American youth. Men, women, cars, boats, can all be "pimped".

I think a few apologies should have been enough. But I guess the Clinton’s wanted blood and MSNBC didn't want to become the story. So my guess is that Shuster gets to a take a two- vacation.

I had been getting the feeling that MSNBC was thinking of giving him Tucker's job... He’s probably now a few pegs down the replacement list.

"Gee, I wonder if Obama supporters would have a different opinion if the comment had been in reference to Michelle Obama's campaign efforts?"

I would have a different response if it was anyone other than the Clintons.

Sorry, I have seen too many cynical ploys and games (red-faced Bill's "shame on you" for example) to think that this is anything other than the classical Clintonesque "weapon of mass distraction".

Frankly, I'm tired of the Clinton dramas and battles. They are always involved in personal battles with people. Not over issues, but over nonsense.

Look, I'm glad the guy was suspended and it was wrong. But that's the end of the story. Trying to exploit this for political gain is sick -- that's exactly why I am tired of Clinton.

Shuster is a great reporter, but I didn't understand the larger point behind the "pimp" comment. Why is it "unseemly" to have your daughter campaign for you, if that's what she wants to do? That said, I think the comment itself is being blown out of proportion. He apologized (well, not really), but let's move on. The Clintons are just looking for reasons to play the victim, as usual.

David Shuster is a hollow character, who went with the irreverent flow at MSNBC and got carried away. What he said about Chelsea Clinton was tasteless, but, in the context of pigheaded American punditry, forgiveable. Unfortunately, artificial controversy is easy to whip up and hard to control in America. Something is said, someone gets offended, and before you know it everyone is dismayed, alleging, suggesting, decrying, until another empty face disappears from the screen.

At the same time, I am not shedding a tear for Mr. Shuster. He should have lost his job a long time ago, more specifically, after the release of the documentary "Control Room". In the brilliant film about media coverage of the Iraq War, Shuster is shown being just another patriotic hyena, conditioned by the governments drumbeat to war, cheeringleading for our boys. Back then, he was just another Junior reporter at MSNBC; despite his failure to do anything but toe the government line back then, he somehow rose through the ranks of the channel in the years that followed.

In Control Room, Shuster is shown jublilantly celebrating as "our boys" entered Bagdhad. The talking head gets to open his mouth as well. Joking about Iraqis looting in the streets after the regime fell, he quips happily "looks kind of like wheel of fortune." His other big moment in the film, is when he speaks with great condescension about his Al Jazeera colleagues and their "rebelliousness". Shuster attributes the superiority of American coverage of the war to "200 years of free speech." How unfortunate, that he was on the wrong side of history.

Whoever still has any pleasent feelings for this man, shouldn't be too worried. His face is sure to reappear sometime soon on a screen near you, once the public has forgotten his infractions. It shouldn't take more than a news cycle or two. Until then, his body will be frozen to preserve it's natural nothingness, and he will await ideological injection in some secret lab in Burbank, California.

I won't defend David Shuster's comment, which was crude, even though I like him and his ability to hold his ground in interviews. I think he's a future star. I have heard much worse things said about and by the Clintons.

I don't think the Clintons can hold off scrutiny of their tactics, values, record and highly quesionable financial and personal dealings by playing the victims and attacking the media.

The Bush-style intemidation of the media is something this nation cannot afford again.

Frankly, I'm surprised Shuster said it at all. While I haven't met him personally, he always seemed a good reporter. Certainly not a Tweety-level motormouth.

Hopefully, this was just a temporary lapse of judgment, and he will return in good (and more appropriate) form when he does come back.

David Schuster's remark was certainly contemptible, and his suspension would dobtless be appropriate if MSNBC didn't hold a clear double standard regarding similar attitudes conveyed by Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, et al.

Just now, on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", Jonathan Alter is offering allegations about Mrs. Clinton's loaning her campaign $5 million, without offering what exactly that malfeasance might be, and is demanding that the Clintons release their tax returns.

She was calling the superdelegates!!! Isn't anyone outraged about that??? If she embarassed a few of them into saying "yes, I'll support your mother" she might be determining who our next president is. Sorry, but I find that quite as outrageous as what Schuster did.

And since I doubt very much that Chelsea came up with that bright idea on her own (or is profiting from all this distraction and sympathy among people who will be voting for her mother *tomorrow*), I have to suspect that it was HRC who came up with the bright idea. --- Scratch 'pimping' (which I agree is horrid) and substitute 'using' Do you not think that Hillary was "using" her daughter in a rather unseemly way -- either to get unfair advantage on the delegates and/or to stir up a hornet's nest right on schedule, right before a primary. How many levers are going to be pressed tomorrow by someone muttering "That poor girl! Her poor mother! We women have to stick together" ?

I am tired, tired, TIRED of the Clinton hystrionics! Honest to goodness, I find myself thinking that well, at least we didn't have to deal with all these squirmy feelings with GWB and Laura, even if the country was going to hell in a handbasket.

"Gee, I wonder if Obama supporters would have a different opinion if the comment had been in reference to Michelle Obama's campaign efforts?"

Gee, Michelle Obama hasn't been telling 9-year-old reporters that sorry, she doesn't speak to the press.

There's a valid journalistic interest in what role Chelsea is playing in the campaign outside of her public appearances with her mother. If she acts like a campaign surrogate -- and making calls to superdelegates and celebrities at least partly constitutes surrogate activity -- then she should be subject to the same journalistic treatment as, say, Tagg Romney or Cate Edwards.

This doesn't mean she's 'fair game'. Examining her contribution to the campaign doesn't mean her personal life or career is open to scrutiny. It absolutely doesn't mean Shuster's choice of language was anything other than crass, sexist and offensive.

But there's a hint in Wolfson's response of the pile-on approach that happened to Dick Durbin over his Guantanamo comments. Only a hint, but enough to ensure that the media doesn't go near Chelsea Clinton's activities as part of her mother's campaign. It's hardball politics, and I can understand a desire to see campaigns treating the media like this, but I don't like the way it's played out, particularly as Chris Matthews retains his prime spot.

After all, the Clinton camp made it clear that attendance at the NBC debate was on the line, even as she opens the door to Fox News, an outlet with a long history of far worse smears against her and her family.

I don't think Shuster was making any kind of a lewd reference. What he was saying was almost as bad. I believe "pimp out" means to flamboyantly decorate in a way intended to attract attention, as one would do with a car--mag wheels, pipes, details, leopard skin seats, all that jazz. He was saying Sen. Clinton was exaggerating her daughter's appearance so she would be a focal point; in other words, she was being treated as an inanimate object. That's plenty bad, and the suspension was justified. Someone earlier said MSNBC's hosts talk that way because they're trying to appeal to a young, hip audience. If they're not young and hip THEMSELVES, it's phony crap; they should talk they way they do to their friends and family and not pretend they're 17 years old.

Shuster and the Clinton Campaign exchanged e-mails prior to his apology, in which he was pretty unrepentant. the full text of these can be found here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408_Page2.html

Hi Greg,

I'll be honest in that the whole story seems to be a sham, and you play the role of perpetuator of it.

First, MSNBC, Oberman, Matthews, Shuster, and the rest of the network is heavily in favor of the Clinton campaign. But it's all in the subtext. That's part of the reality, right?

Remember the frantic cover up after the Nevada election, when Alexrod got on and told Matthews he was an old hand?

At which point Olbermann, the red head, and Matthews began a very vague and astract conversation about death, guns, bad cops, and assasinations. Remember the red head, couldn't hear, put her head down. Olbermann said, "she got us."

Maybe you weren't watching.

The conversation went from, "oh the results mean this, hilary won this, it shows this" to Finemann saying, "this will tear the Democratic party apart" and a chart showing Hilary was largely victorious in the Hispanic vote. Matthews just sat there with his black suit and arms crossed, with his foot in his mouth.

Fast forward to last week, where Hilary asks for 5 more debates. Obama accepts, the next day supposedly MSNBC reveals it's anti Clinton bias, and the debate may be cancelled.

It's all a bizarre narrative, don't you think?

You serve the Clinton campaign by just taking this nonsense seriously and corroborating the credibility of this garbage. It all seems set up to me, but you don't allow for this type of thinking in your articles.

You're part of the reality, but the reality isn't perception, it's delagates.

This inst news. It is a ploy for sympathy. Pimped is a common expression used among younger people to mean the selling of oneself (ideas, credentials) or someone else. It refers completely to salesmanship What a bunch of attention seeking whiny babies. Sometimes I grow tired of being liberal.

Schuster is the best reporter NBC has....period. Honest, forthright, and he knows how to demand an answer. He provided the best coverage of the Plamegate matter.

His mistake was getting sucked into the behind the scenes coorporate culture at MSNBC. The Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Nora O'Donnell, group think that allows you to say anything about the Clintons.

One guy in an earlier post says nobody would bat an eye if somebody said something similar about Michelle Obama. I do not believe that for a second. If it was said that Barrack was pimping Michelle or their daughters for any reason, their would be an outcry that would shake up the entire election year. And rightfully so.

Schuster should quit MSNBC, he should not be their whipping boy. He should find a serious news venue that respects his ability and escape the clowns at MSNBC.

Archer77 said:

I think the protesters are taking this comment out of context.

Nah, the clintons would never do that to gain sympathy and play the victim card. They have never done that, ever.