Excellent idea Liam. She clearly thought this was a way of getting out of the Ohio and Texas debates with Obama. Now that MSNBC has reacted swiftly, she's stuck with looking sulky or accepting the debates. She'll try terms; but what she really wanted was Georgie Steph to moderate, so he could attack Barack for her. Timmie Russert and Brian Williams are more likely to ask questions she doesn't like.

Mission accomplished.
Outrage (and fundraising) has been achieved.

She will appear at the debate.

These comments are pathetic.

If you want to know what kind of "hope" and "optimism" Obama inspires, it's an enlightening experience to read the comments above by a number of his supporters.

Michael's Mom,

She doesn't want to avoid debates. She wants a debate every day for the next three months if possible...

Her campaign has decided that debating is where she has an advantage and they want to do it as often as possible.

She's playing the ref though, This is why I have no respect for her or her campaign. "Whatever it takes, baby. Whatever it takes..."

Liam. Good idea. If Obama agrees not to do the MSNBC debate (even though the whole thing has been taken ridiculously out of context) and then Fox (of course!) then the fewer debates there are and he can do what he does best - inspire people with ideas and ideals!

"It's been a long time comin'... but change is gonna come..." The next two weeks will be the beginning of the end for the old way of doing things.

Fired up...!

Ready to go...

What neither Josh Marshall nor Atrios get -- because they are no more capable of stepping away from media narratives than the most Heatherish of MSM reporters -- is that Shuster "blurted out" the "pimp" statement only because he had already worked himself up into a false outrage about the Clintons over absolutely nothing.

Atrios and Marshall somehow don't see the obvious connection between the two facts, Shuster's bizarre criticism of Chelsea for being involved in her mother's campaign, on the one hand, and his use of the word "pimp", on the other. But when you work yourself up into a frenzy over an imaginary problem, what is more natural than to reach for words that mirror the quality of that irrational anger?

The point is, if Shuster hadn't been in the midst of a fit of ugly Clinton-hating pique, the word "pimp" simply would not have occurred to him.

And, I think, since Josh Marshall and Atrios can't themselves see how much they have themselves accepted internally the "normality" of Clinton hatred, they can't being to grasp that this is what was really going on.

Shuster was wrong.

I do find it odd that you guys would consider it related to the Obama campaign.

These guys on MSNBC and elsewhere have no idea what to do with Hillary Clinton. Would he ever have chosen the words "pimp out" with respect to the Romney boys or Meghan McCain, who has been a very visible part of her father's campaign -- his attempted bridge at young and young female voters?

Did you catch Chris Matthews' weird Hillary clapping thing?

www.politicalnanny.com

Agreed, Blujig. Shuster was wrong. The suspension is valid. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

Shuster's remarks were stupid, but may she who is without sin pelt the first stone.

In an interview with Cynthia McFadden for ABC NEWS' "Nightline," tonight, Clinton apologized for her husband's recent controversial remarks.

"I think whatever he said, which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone. ... If it did give offenses, then I take responsibility, and I'm sorry about that."

http://abcnews.go.com/Story?id=4217682&page=1

Show a little style Hillary. Forgive as you've been forgiven.

Shuster's remarks were stupid, but may she who is without sin pelt the first stone.

In an interview with Cynthia McFadden for ABC NEWS' "Nightline," tonight, Clinton apologized for her husband's recent controversial remarks.

"I think whatever he said, which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone. ... If it did give offenses, then I take responsibility, and I'm sorry about that."

http://abcnews.go.com/Story?id=4217682&page=1

Show a little style Hillary. Forgive as you've been forgiven.

This crusade against MSNBC would be justifiable if it were accompanied by any concern over the FoxNews treatment of Obama--Did they ever apologize for being the first outlet to publish the false claim that he attended a madrassa?

Shuster was wrong. He's receiving a punishment that's deserved, but that won't be meted out to Chris Matthews, who is obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

The Clinton camp has certainly capitalised on it, and ensured that no-one will look too hard into what Chelsea's doing for the campaign.

That Sen. Clinton is now trying to set up a debate on Fox News, though, should be taken as an indication of a certain selectivity in supporting media outlets that have said bad things against her and her family,

Would he ever have chosen the words "pimp out" with respect to the Romney boys or Meghan McCain, who has been a very visible part of her father's campaign -- his attempted bridge at young and young female voters?

Probably not. That said, the Romney boys and Meghan McCain have accepted a degree of press inquiry that Chelsea Clinton notably has not. I had no problem with Chelsea's 'no comment' policy during the early primaries, but as clearthinker notes, she is now acting as a member of the campaign team.

I'm a big MSNBC fan, but Shuster's comment is disgusting. As it happened, I watched Chelsea during one of her appearances with Hillary pre-New Hampshire. After Hillary's talk, the C-SPAN camera followed Chelsea. And Chelsea didn't try to "campaign" for Hillary. The women she spoke with mostly asked her what she was doing now, that sort of thing. But one time, during the conversation, Chelsea asked, "So are you going to vote for my mom?" The woman said she hadn't decided yet, and they continued to talk about other things.

Anyone, in or out of the media, who can characterize that as "pimping" needs to get a life.

At the time, I thought how very fortunate Hillary is to have an accomplished daughter who so visibly cares about her. My daughter is about ten years older than Chelsea, but I could easily imagine her doing the same thing, were I in Hillary's shoes. It was a nice moment.

There are things to criticize about the Clintons, but their relationship with and treatment of Chelsea are definitely not among them.

for frankly() and others -- I disagree that Schuster was engaging in "false outrage" over "absolutely nothing". --- Chelsea was calling the superdelegates!!!

Did Cate Edwards call the superdelegates and say "please support my dad"? Is Michelle Obama calling any of them (other than some that she might already know personally) to say "please support my husband"?

If this is standard practice, then I'll take back my outrage and apologize ... but I suspect that it's WAY out of the norm, especially when it comes from someone who has never been active in politics before and kept (understandably) something like an ice princess.

Look how astonished the women on The View were to get out-of-the-blue the calls from her. (Which was another really odd thing to do - but obviously they would talk about it and thereby remind all their viewers, the prime demographic, that Hillary is a mother who has a daughter who loves her. Awwww.)

I'm sure the superdelegates were pretty astonished as well. Think about it --if Chelsea startled or embarassed a few of them into saying "Yes, of course, I'll support your mother, dear" then, as close as things are, she might be affecting who our next president is! I find that not just "unseemly" (another word Schuster used) but pretty darn outrageous.

If you scratch 'pimping' (which is horrid, I agree) and substitute "using," doesn't it look like HRC is "using" her daughter, either to get unfair advantage on the delegates and/or to stir up a hornet's nest right on schedule, right before a primary. In fact, I wonder how many levers are going to be pressed tomorrow by someone muttering "Oh, that poor girl! Her poor mother! We women just have to stick together"? That's not "nothing."

And by having this hissy-fit about it, keeping it alive in the news while we all wait to find out if she will agree to the debate after all - Hillary is, once again, "using" her daughter, in my view. Perhaps quite purposely. If what Chelsea did is as odd as I think it is for a previously uninvolved and incommunicado young woman to be doing, it was pretty certain that someone (yes, likely someone from MSNBC) was going to say something that HRC, in full mother-protector mode, could find offensive. Schuster obliged all too well, unfortunately but I'm willing to bet we were going to have a sympathy-inducing dust-up today even if he'd chosen his words more clearly.

Is anyone keeping track of how many times and ways Hillary has played the gender card? I'm running out of fingers and toes... And, as a woman, I can say that it makes me ashamed.

it is quite distressing to see the bloggers on here who use this event to, once again, trash Hillary Clinton. Obama is a great candidate, and may well win. But the idiotic attacks on Clinton show (once again, as usual) the political immaturiy of much of the blogosphere. God help us in November if some of the anti-Clinton comments here reflect any real blocs of votes.

lets be honest folks. The real person that is being "pimped out" is ole Bill. And keep in mind, having a pimp does not mean you are forced to do what you do.

We can agree on some simple things here: men can be mysoginists, and politicians can be calculating. And women can be man haters. Hillary is calculating with MSNBC AND Fox.

Lots of people adore Bill despite the way in which he disrespected both women in his family. And as a Father, that is much worse than calling Hillary a pimp. Very little righteous indignation there.

Most men do not get why Hillary Clinton is upset. It has nothing to do with politics or debates. It has to do with a mother protecting her daughter. Think lioness and cub.

The media has trashed and mis-characterized HRC this political season, and she has appeared on most shows and did what she had to do. But this is different. Apart from the fact that it is poor journalism, it is classless. A spokesman from the Obama camp deplored the action saying that "it had no place in the political process".

As I said before this is definitely not for political reasons, because any of the other networks would be happy to get the debates as they are now a hot item.

Huh, cambridge? Begala was one of CNN's analysts on Super Tuesday and Carville has been on since then, neither identified as Hillary partisans. Who are the Obama supporters you're talking about?

Emma Zahn and Lady Eagle,

Shuster really screwed up, big time.

But that is not Obama's fault, nor any of his supporters' who have by my count pretty much unanimously called Shuster out on it too.

I can count three people who have actually in any way glossed over or ignored the fact that Shuster's statement was grossly inappropriate in all the seven-eight threads here on TPME.

Some have pointed out--after denouncing Shuster--that making a huge deal out of this is definitely a political strategy for the Clinton campaign as well as a legitimate grievance. No-one is insinuating that they somehow orchestrated this or are just cynically exploiting it, but it does simply factually turn people's attention away from other issues in the campaign and it may even net the Clintons some voters or donations. Such are the politics of the past and of today.

I do hope, however, that the Clinton campaign shows similar concern when the next surrogate, blogger, commenter, journalist or news network calls Obama a crack dealer, a muslim Manchurian candidate or just plain old angry negro thug.

I'm so tired of this, so tired. This is a mirror of what eight more years of a Clinton presidency would be.

Let's elect Barack already. Let's finish it.

an integral part of creating a new dynamic in politics is recognizing where and how the old sort of politics is acting and speaking out against it. the typical Obama supporter's rejection of Hillary Clinton and her style of politics reflects this. some of us are more vociferous than the man himself, but our goals are the same and hey, we're only human.

so, i have HOPE for a day when these sorts of politics aren't considered the norm and we can move on together to tackling difficult issues.

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

After Hillary's talk, the C-SPAN camera followed Chelsea. And Chelsea didn't try to "campaign" for Hillary.

But the issue here isn't her public campaigning, as shown on C-SPAN. It's that she's calling superdelegates and media figures like the presenters of The View. If all she were doing was appearing at campaign events with her mother, there'd have been nothing to discuss, and Chelsea's "no comment" policy would be fine and dandy.

According to Shuster's emails, the campaign has "come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions", even as it acknowledges she's placing calls. I have no reason to doubt that, given the well-publicised encounter between Ms Clinton and the Scholastic "kid reporter" in Iowa. That hasn't happened with other candidates' adult children: Cate Edwards, Meghan McCain and Tagg Romney didn't hide behind their respective campaigns when the press came knocking about their activities on the campaign trail.

Characterising it as "pimping" is obviously over the line. But the reaction now means that Chelsea Clinton will continue to have it both ways,

She will boycott MSNBC & NBC but demand a debate on FOX OPINION MEDIA...

Shuster has been "temporarily" suspended from the network and he should be.

Lady Eaglem "Most men do not get why Hillary Clinton is upset. It has nothing to do with politics or debates. It has to do with a mother protecting her daughter."

What an outrageously sexist comment. Men don't understand protecting children? Get real.

Like everything else she does, Hillary's response was calculated for her advantage. The problem with Hillary is she does not understand proportion. You can't make everyone who says something you don't like or who disagrees with you the enemy who must be destroyed.

I can't imagine Hillary as Commander in Chief. She is mean, vendictive, quick at the trigger, and intolerant of dissenting opinions. Oops sounds just like Bush.

HRC is perfectly entitled to use Chelsea in her campaign.Why not? All politicians do.

Chelsea seems to be a fine young woman. Maybe the most admirable member of that family I have an indelible memory of the three of them walking to the helicopter after Bill was finally forced to admit his affair with Monica. Chelsea in the middle holding the hand of each of them. Keeping them in a relationship -at least while the cameras were clicking- that they couldn't have managed for themselves. From the standpoint most importantly of her family but also of politics she rose to the occasion. Pity she had to

Shuster's comment was stupid. Yeah I've read Jane's comment at Firedoglake that "pimp" has an additional non sexual meaning. And that's probably what Shuster had in mind. But he would have thought better about using it if Chelsea weren't an attractive young woman.

HRC was right to object. If she tried to get some extra mileage out of it for her campaign , why not?

I'm saddened by some of the above comments using this situation to attack HRC. They're just plain wrong. We shouldn't let partisanship cause us to lower our standards this way.

I voted for Obama.

I voted for Obama.
When the media

the reason why I think the whole thing is a fake outrage. MRS. CLINTON doesn't want her precious little girl on the spot light.
that's also a part of the reasons her little girl is not allowed to talk to the press. do you know what kind of company Chelsea works for?

He called their daughter a whore. Any parent would be outraged with that comment. If they had called Michelle Obama a whore, black people would be rioting. If seems like the Clintons are suppose to take every and all hate that is thrown their way, and just let it go. They love each other and Chelsea is far from being a whore. MSNBC has attacked Hillary everyday for months on nearly every program. I wouldn't go on their network either. It is obvious that they hate her. Fox has been the most fair to both Hillary and Obama as well as the republicans. I used to hate Fox, but find myself watching their election coverage more and more. CNN has Roland, and John King, and Donna B. they all support Obama. Then they have Will Bennet, who hates Hillary. That is not a balaced analysis of things. The media does not like the Clintons, but that does not give the media to right to say whatever they want about them.

"Black people would be rioting if it were Michelle Obama." Why do you assume that African Americans might not be outraged by this? Don't they have children constantly denigrated in popular culture? Stop this foolish application of a racial lens to everything.

The Clintons should except the apology, call for that fool's reinstatement and move on. They now own MSNBC who properly will parse every word now.

Check your facts. Chelsea Clinton began appearing with her mother in Iowa on December 8, 2007. That was not quite a month before the Iowa caucuses.

Chelsea has worked with her mother's campaign for a long time, and if anybody is 'shoving' it's you with that load of BS you're trying to pass off.

I fault ben Smith. I fault MSNBC. I fault tpm. I fault every reporter with access to any reasonably high level of the Clinton campaign:

You HAVE TO DEMAND A RESPONSE TO THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THEIR REACTION TO THIS COMMENT ABOUT A 28 YEAR OLD CHELSEA BY THE FREE PRESS AND THEIR REACTION TO THE SEXIST AND HOMOPHOBIC JOKE TOLD ABOUT AN "UGLY" TEENAGED CHELSEA BY THEIR "FRIEND" JOHN MCCAIN!

Either get something from them or sttfu about this subject.

Keith Olbermann's apology and comments were much more heartfelt and healing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23076398#23076398

I get the feeling Shuster's comments were the result of MISPLACED ANGER. Apparently, he's angry because the Clinton campaign hasn't given media much access to Chelsea. So he expresses this anger by saying Chelsea's being "pimped out." What's so uncool about this is the insult to Chelsea, a GROWN WOMAN, who understandably supports her mother's campaign. So whether he's justified or not in his anger at the Clinton CAMPAIGN becomes irrelevant. He should never have made disrespectful comments about Chelsea.

Shuster's not the only person who has difficulty distinguishing where to appropriately direct anger. I see it over and over again between supporters of Clinton and Obama. I wish everyone would take a moment to think about what and whom is the real target of their anger, and try to avoid throwing out comments that end up hitting the wrong target.

This whole thing is very troubling. Not Schuster's part: that was inappropriate, he apologized, he's been suspended (warning to other journalists to watch their language), end of the issue. -------- Except, of course, it's not ended.

It has become the featured soap opera this week, keeps attention off the issues and the candidate's abilities, garners Hillary some sympathy and probably a good number of votes, and now has her in a position of power over MSNBC and (by implication) anyone else in the media that happens to say something she doesn't like. Who knows where the outrage will erupt next? (And I wonder if it's distracted us from other things going on right now like, maybe, once again using her lying mailers on the people who will be voting and caucusing today?)

This 'legitimately outraged' mother bear scenario just doesn't play out right. I'm a woman about Hillary's age and have a daughter about Chelsea's age. I can fully understand how she felt. In her place, I'd rip the throat out of the hunter that harmed my child and then immediately get the cub back to the safe confines of the den. ---- What THIS mother bear did, however, was to sweep in, gather up her cub protectively ... and then throw the cub right back in front of an even larger gathering of hunters, point to her and make sure everyone sees her 'shame', and then use of the occasion to jump up and down and show how badly and unfairly she - the mother!! - has been treated. Sorry. It just dosn't play out.

So, can we agree that the incident was inexcusable and certainly warranted a strong, protective response ... and just look for a moment at the nature of that response?

Some of you - maybe most - seem to genuinely applaud what Clinton did beyond protecting her child:

>>>>>>I think it was clever of the Clintons to make the most of this opportunity.

>>>>>>this is definitely a political strategy for the Clinton campaign as well as a legitimate grievance.

>>>>>>They are politicians, that is their job. This is how the game of diplomacy is practiced, it is a skill that I want my Commander and Chief to have a firm handle on.

>>>>>>I'd say the Clintons won. A swift and genius power play. Good on them.

>>>Bush got a free pass from the networks for both of his terms because they knew the consequences of treating him as they treated Bill C. Let's make sure they quickly learn [to treat a Dem. president that way].

>>>>>>HRC was right to object. If she tried to get some extra mileage out of it for her campaign , why not?

Why is this ability, this way of handling a situation a good thing? What was accomplished by it? All I can see is that she 1) shut the press up a bit and maybe got her a less challenging venue for a debate, 2) distracted people from looking at the real issues, important questions of the day, or the actual qualities of the candidates, and 3) garnered lots of instinctive sympathy and as a result probably a number of emotion-based votes.

Is this way of acting really a good thing in a leader? is this how we want someone working with Congress and other countries to address the very real and difficult issues we face? No. I believe it's admirable, and admired, for one reason only: it wins elections.

I guess you could call it the Bush-Rove/Clinton/PT Barnum/Fox News theory of politics: People are seen as gullible sheep, so keep their emotions engaged, distract them with nonsense, show them how 'clever' you are, and thus win the election. Who cares what happens after that: you won!! And everyone admires a winner, right?

We've seen, so clearly, over the last 7+ years, how well someone with that mind-set does when it comes to real governing. In truth, they simply don't know how to do anything but fight - and some battles, the most important one, can't be won by fighting. This type of leader can't be trusted to share information that the nation needs to know or to tell the truth about what they do share; they manage to 'stifle' the press so much that they don't even get asked hard questions; they have no overall plan or vision and earn no credibility or stature with other nations; they keep everything in 'fight' mode with Congress and are as intolerant of deviation from party members as they are of thoughtful quesions from the press. Of course ... lots of people die, our economy tanks, we lose our reputation in the world, and enemies start amassing and outthinking us at every turn. But that doesn't matter, really, does it? Because they know how to win an election.

Heck, they can even win an election, by whatever means, long after it's quite clear to most what a dismal failure they are in governing. Bill Clinton got his second term (prize that it was) even after his party lost dismally beginning his second year in office. And the fact that Bush 43 could win in 2004 does, I suppose, show the sheer brilliance of this "talent" for winning elections. He was a laughing stock before the campaign begin, and afterwards, but in actually campaigning he was brilliant. --- In fact, there are a lot of similarities between the Bush 43 and the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary: no matter what else they do or don't do, they surely know how to win elections. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

And as long as our citizens decide to be suckers and get mesmerized by these sideshows, forgetting about the qualities we want in a leader, then they are absolutely right. All that matters IS winning the election!

It'a always easy to win unfairly, and the people who don't play those skuzzy games are always handicapped, because they won't descend to the level they have to to get on equal footing. There is only one way this successive line of "election winners" can be changed ... and that's by having an informed, thinking populace, one that imposes higher standards for its candidates and puts in the hard work necessary to really think about the character of the people they are voting on rather than reacting in programmeed, knee-jerk ways, to a skillfully orchestrated campaign.

I'm not very optimistic that that kind of responsible intervention by the voters is going to happen. Hell, it's SO much easier, and even a little fun, to treat this like a sporting event, cheering or recoiling when there's blood on the field, yelling bad names at your side's opponent ... and letting the 'dynasty' team always win because it just requires too much effort to peel away the masks we've been told all of those politicians wear.

The only weapon any of us have is our single, paltry vote. And, while I fear increasingly that it's going to be futile, mine will be going to either McCain or Obama in this election. I think I've spent enough time looking at the candidates to realize which one is wearing the solid, plastic mask, which one only sees winning as the goal and has paid (and will pay) little or no attention to the responsibility of governing.

Anyone running for president is power-hungry - that's a given. Would you subject yourself and your family to what they have to go through? But if we looked for the power-hungry person who also understands, and accepts, that with power comes equally heavy responsibility, we might end this string of irresponsible winners. It's truly up to us.

I'm so tired of this, so tired. This is a mirror of what eight more years of a Clinton presidency would be.

Let's elect Barack already. Let's finish it.

That statement represents the fulfillment of the goal of all the Shuster's, Rove's, and Matthews of the world. Let's just trash the Clintons until people are sick of them.

And when they finish with the Clintons, they will start on Obama or whatever Democrat is still standing.

Well, the Clintons fight back. Good for them.

IF "Billary" is such the victim, how can she be expected to run the most powerful nation in the world?

I hope she doesn't expect to rule on her emotional whims alone, like a child who never learned how to grow up. We've already endured one of those for the last 8 years and see where that has gotten us.

Stella