[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So in other words, Shuster did not get any facts wrong, and thus his case is not remotely similar to Dan Rather's. Good, then we agree.

Yes, lots of politicians (in both parties) feel that they are treated poorly by the media, but this is the first case I can think of where somebody was suspended because a politician got her feelings hurt. If there was another with a Republican, it's not coming to me.

You're now adding qualifications after the fact in order to disqualify an example that clearly does fit what you originally said you couldn't remember happening: Republicans whining about bad behavior by a news person, and that person getting suspended. In both cases what the news person did was wrong, and in both cases the criticism was legitimate.

This was Clinton being tough with a network that has constantly given her biased coverage (see Chris Matthews), and if it had been anyone else, no one would have suggested otherwise. And they certainly wouldn't have used not-even-thinly-veiled analogies like "daddy being late to a ballet recital."

I'm claiming that he was obviously not talking about literal pimping. Take a short break from making snide remarks at me and watch the clip if you don't believe it.

You are mistaken. He said — and this is a direct quote — "Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" This was in the context of how her parents are attacking journalists who try to talk to Chelsea. Do you really believe he was suggesting Chelsea is having sex with people for money? Do you sincerely believe that?

I don't even know what you're getting at here. He used the term as an insult. It's a "slimy and sexual" term. That you would suggest that since he didn't really mean that Chelsea was an actual prostitute, therefore it's really OK, just shows how far gone you are down the Clinton-derangement rabbit hole. If you call someone a "mother-&!%*er," I'd say it's hardly a defense to claim that you didn't really mean to say they were literally engaging in that particular activity.

You claimed "he did not say Chelsea was being pimped out." Then you claim he said "Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" The former is merely a restatement of the latter in fewer words.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You are mistaken. He said — and this is a direct quote — "Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" This was in the context of how her parents are attacking journalists who try to talk to Chelsea. Do you really believe he was suggesting Chelsea is having sex with people for money? Do you sincerely believe that?

It was in the context of Chelsea calling super delegates:

DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she's apparently also calling these super delegates.

BILL PRESS: Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it's great, I think she's grown up in a political family, she's got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she'd make a great president --

SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?



The lack of access to Chelsea came up later, so if anything, that is in the context of the pimp comment, not vice-versa. Frankly I don't even get that Shuster is trying to claim this was about lack of access.

Further, it is clear the pimp question is a rehash of the previous question, to which Bill Press answered "no". So Shuster asks the question again, only more colorfully.

I would say, in most contexts, if you ask a question and don't get the answer you want, and then ask the question again, this is because you do not agree with the answer you have been given. IOW it was a leading question.

So your statement is factually correct, though I would say it is being literal to a fault.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This was Clinton being tough with a network that has constantly given her biased coverage (see Chris Matthews), and if it had been anyone else, no one would have suggested otherwise. And they certainly wouldn't have used not-even-thinly-veiled analogies like "daddy being late to a ballet recital."

I don't think politicians ought to be "tough" on their critics — I believe there was actually a Constitutional Amendment intended to prevent such behavior.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't even know what you're getting at here. He used the term as an insult. It's a "slimy and sexual" term. That you would suggest that since he didn't really mean that Chelsea was an actual prostitute, therefore it's really OK, just shows how far gone you are down the Clinton-derangement rabbit hole.

First of all, now I don't know what you're talking about. If you agree that it was not being used to refer to sex, I don't see how you can say he was making sexual insinuations. Is the use of any word relating to sex, even in an obviously nonsexual context, a sexual insinuation?

Secondly, can we have a conversation without you attacking me in every single paragraph? I don't think that's called for, and you seem to have come out guns blazing without stopping to consider whether you've misjudged me.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

If you call someone a "mother-&!%*er," I'd say it's hardly a defense to claim that you didn't really mean to say they were literally engaging in that particular activity.

No, and were that not considered an excessively vulgar word in general, I don't see why somebody should be suspended for saying that on TV. If somebody called Bush a miserable failure, would you call for that person to be suspended from his job? And if he were, do you think Bush would be within his rights to continue harping on the comment and say that the suspension is not going far enough? I don't see this as being much different.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You claimed "he did not say Chelsea was being pimped out." Then you claim he said "Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" The former is merely a restatement of the latter in fewer words.

No. The latter makes it clear that he was drawing an analogy between Chelsea's parents' behavior and that of a pimp, while the latter does not. Since your objection seemed to be that his insult was "slimy and sexual," I was trying to show that he was not actually accusing her of sexual misconduct.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No. The latter makes it clear that he was drawing an analogy between Chelsea's parents' behavior and that of a pimp, while the latter does not. Since your objection seemed to be that his insult was "slimy and sexual," I was trying to show that he was not actually accusing her of sexual misconduct.

Correct in the most literal sense. Hillary, or Bill, or both, are the subject. They are the ones doing the "pimping". What do pimps pimp out? Prostitutes. Whether intended or not, Shuster set up an analogy about Bill and Hillary which cast Chelsea as the prostitute.

I'm confused as to why anyone is thinking the issue that Shuster actually accused any of the Clintons anything sexual. That's not the point.

The relationship between a pimp and their prostitute (note the possession) is on the whole going to be one that is (using the choices that Clinton made in her letter) debasing, and degrading. That is how the term is used when it is not being applied sexually, or is not a compliment. Shuster was asking if the Clintons were debasing and degrading Chelsea, and by implication, that Chelsea is allowing herself to be debased and degraded. A ludicrous proposition IMO.

The particular issue (I would presume) that Hillary is taking with this is that "pimped out" describes a relationship where it is almost exclusively women who are the ones being debased and degraded. As a woman, I expect Hillary to be sensitive to this issue. Even though you're a dude, I'm a little surprised to find you seem not to be.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Correct in the most literal sense. Hillary, or Bill, or both, are the subject. They are the ones doing the "pimping". What do pimps pimp out? Prostitutes. Whether intended or not, Shuster set up an analogy about Bill and Hillary which cast Chelsea as the prostitute.

I'm confused as to why anyone is thinking the issue that Shuster actually accused any of the Clintons anything sexual. That's not the point.

I didn't think so either. That's why I was surprised when somebody claimed that Shuster had implied her campaign activities were "slimy and sexual." Hence why I wanted to correct that idea.

Originally Posted by subego 

The relationship between a pimp and their prostitute (note the possession) is on the whole going to be one that is (using the choices that Clinton made in her letter) debasing, and degrading. That is how the term is used when it is not being applied sexually, or is not a compliment. Shuster was asking if the Clintons were debasing and degrading Chelsea, and by implication, that Chelsea is allowing herself to be debased and degraded. A ludicrous proposition IMO.

I agree that he was obviously wrong and essentially just trolling for an argument, but I still don't think it was that bad in the grand scheme of things that have been said about political figures. On top of that, I don't think Hillary has any right to continue making threats against the media outlet. That kind of borderline disregard for the First Amendment is much more disturbing than some random jerk making an ignorant comment about Chelsea.

Originally Posted by subego 

The particular issue (I would presume) that Hillary is taking with this is that "pimped out" describes a relationship where it is almost exclusively women who are the ones being debased and degraded. As a woman, I expect Hillary to be sensitive to this issue. Even though you're a dude, I'm a little surprised to find you seem not to be.

Don't you think that's kind of sexist? "Oh, those awful men need to watch their mouths to avoid offending these sensitive little flowers called women." Honestly, Chelsea seems to be willingly putting herself in the public eye here. She knows what that entails. I hope people will be civil to her, I really do, but no more so than I hope people will be civil to everybody. No feminist should ever suggest that she requires some special sensitivity because she's a women.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't think politicians ought to be "tough" on their critics — I believe there was actually a Constitutional Amendment intended to prevent such behavior.

Then what you believe is wrong. Hillary has every right to complain to the press. Every campaign staff spends much time doing so, not just Clinton's. She just can't pass laws to make them stop.

First of all, now I don't know what you're talking about. If you agree that it was not being used to refer to sex, I don't see how you can say he was making sexual insinuations. Is the use of any word relating to sex, even in an obviously nonsexual context, a sexual insinuation?

Maybe because I didn't say "he was making sexual insinuations?" He used a "slimy and sexual" phrase - pimping her out - in order to insult her. That he didn't mean Chelsea was literally taking money for sex is brain-dead obvious.

Secondly, can we have a conversation without you attacking me in every single paragraph? I don't think that's called for, and you seem to have come out guns blazing without stopping to consider whether you've misjudged me.

Somebody needs to break out the world's tiniest violin for Chuckit. Honestly, whether you believe the language I used was appropriate or not (I'm personally OK with it, since it was quite clear that I didn't mean it literally), trying to silence your opponents by whining is a terribly unappealing tactic.

No, and were that not considered an excessively vulgar word in general, I don't see why somebody should be suspended for saying that on TV. If somebody called Bush a miserable failure, would you call for that person to be suspended from his job? And if he were, do you think Bush would be within his rights to continue harping on the comment and say that the suspension is not going far enough? I don't see this as being much different.

1) So your problem is with the network suspending him, and not the Clinton campaign "whining like daddy was late to ballet?" 2) I'd certainly assume the Bushies would complain about bad press, and they have done so repeatedly over the years. Leading Republican voices spend hours every day on the airwaves and elsewhere repeatedly and excessively harping on the press, but apparently it's different and terribly wrong when Clinton does it a few times.

You may not be aware of it, but there's a history here. As I linked before, Chris Matthews apologized for other comments about Clinton several weeks ago. And of course Don Imus was on MSNBC. They have some issues at MSNBC, and this is what the letter from Clinton was referring to.

No. The latter makes it clear that he was drawing an analogy between Chelsea's parents' behavior and that of a pimp, while the latter does not. Since your objection seemed to be that his insult was "slimy and sexual," I was trying to show that he was not actually accusing her of sexual misconduct.

I don't know what to say. Yes, you're right, he wasn't accusing Chelsea of actually taking money for sex and for her mom and dad to have been taking a percentage. Terrific, now we've cleared up that very contentious point.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Somebody needs to break out the world's tiniest violin for Chuckit. Honestly, whether you believe the language I used was appropriate or not (I'm personally OK with it, since it was quite clear that I didn't mean it literally), trying to silence your opponents by whining is a terribly unappealing tactic.

When I get you fired from your job for your rudeness to me and still don't stop calling for your head on a platter, then you can draw this comparison. Until then, you're just being rude. Please stop. I am being quite civil and not mistreating you or demanding that any action be taken against you. I'm trying to politely discuss this with you, which would also have been a valid response on Hillary's part (though not a very good use of her time IMO).

Originally Posted by BRussell 

1) So your problem is with the network suspending him, and not the Clinton campaign "whining like daddy was late to ballet?"

That is part of my issue. The first part is that it really was not that big a deal and Clinton should have shrugged it off. Occasionally complaining about the media is one thing, but making a federal case out of it (so to speak) is uncalled-for and un-Presidential. If Hillary can't handle this minute amount of criticism, how does she ever hope to sit in a Oval Office? Was she not paying attention during her husband's terms? The second part of my issue is that Clinton appears to be badgering a media outlet that opposes her. That is nothing any presidential candidate should ever do.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

2) I'd certainly assume the Bushies would complain about bad press, and they have done so repeatedly over the years. Leading Republican voices spend hours every day on the airwaves and elsewhere repeatedly and excessively harping on the press, but apparently it's different and terribly wrong when Clinton does it a few times.

Yes, Bush has complained that the press is unfair to him. So have lots of other politicians, both Republican and Democrat. That's fine. Like I said Hillary should have done, they basically shrugged it off. I'm going by the best of my recollection here — I don't believe a Presidential candidate getting critics sacked is routine. If you would like to provide hard facts that I'm not recalling, please do.

[BadKosh]

Smells like an old Clinton Era media trick to me. Get someone to disparage a Clinton, Cry about it all over the media. Makes good press to be the victim yet again.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

When I get you fired from your job for your rudeness to me and still don't stop calling for your head on a platter, then you can draw this comparison. Until then, you're just being rude. Please stop. I am being quite civil and not mistreating you or demanding that any action be taken against you. I'm trying to politely discuss this with you, which would also have been a valid response on Hillary's part (though not a very good use of her time IMO).


That is part of my issue. The first part is that it really was not that big a deal and Clinton should have shrugged it off. Occasionally complaining about the media is one thing, but making a federal case out of it (so to speak) is uncalled-for and un-Presidential. If Hillary can't handle this minute amount of criticism, how does she ever hope to sit in a Oval Office? Was she not paying attention during her husband's terms? The second part of my issue is that Clinton appears to be badgering a media outlet that opposes her. That is nothing any presidential candidate should ever do.


Yes, Bush has complained that the press is unfair to him. So have lots of other politicians, both Republican and Democrat. That's fine. Like I said Hillary should have done, they basically shrugged it off. I'm going by the best of my recollection here — I don't believe a Presidential candidate getting critics sacked is routine. If you would like to provide hard facts that I'm not recalling, please do.

Sorry, I guess I was in a bad mood yesterday.

But my bottom line is this: I don't see why you're singling out Hillary for doing something that every other politician is constantly doing, most especially politicians from your party. They don't shrug it off when they believe they get bad press, they constantly harp on it. Sometimes they're successful in drawing attention to bad behavior and getting consequences (e.g., Dan Rather), but most of the time they just whine and whine. It seems to me that Hillary did the right thing by sending a letter, signaling that she wasn't going to sit back and let the press go back to the way things used to be in the 1990s just because she's another Clinton. I remember how the press was during that time, when the Clintons' personal life became a national talk-show from the moment he came into prominence in 1991, and then how the tone dramatically changed to respectful deference as soon as Bush took office.

And I'm not a Clinton supporter - I've said that I really don't want them back in the White House, and I'll vote for Obama if I get a chance. But the double standards that apply to the Clintons are seem obvious to me. The Bush twins campaigned in 2004 - I can't imagine anyone talking about them being pimped by the Bush family, but somehow it's normal and OK if it's the Clintons, and it's especially bad on MSNBC; thus Clinton's letter was appropriate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I didn't think so either. That's why I was surprised when somebody claimed that Shuster had implied her campaign activities were "slimy and sexual." Hence why I wanted to correct that idea.

I think you have this reversed. I'm surprised at your insistence that the only way a phrase can be "slimy and sexual" is if the person uttering it is accusing someone of sexual impropriety.

The term pimp has a slimy and sexual connotation, that's what makes it derogatory. If the person the phrase is being attached to isn't somehow a genuine pimp, that doesn't erase the sexual connotation.

IOW the person does not need to be accused of having sex, or doing something sexual, for the accusation to be sexual.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree that he was obviously wrong and essentially just trolling for an argument, but I still don't think it was that bad in the grand scheme of things that have been said about political figures. On top of that, I don't think Hillary has any right to continue making threats against the media outlet. That kind of borderline disregard for the First Amendment is much more disturbing than some random jerk making an ignorant comment about Chelsea.

I'm a pretty hardcore First Amendment warrior, so I'm very open here to what you think I'm missing, but I'm really searching to see where there is any First Amendment issue here in the slightest. If anything, you seem to think that Hillary's FA rights aren't worth spit, since her decision to (potentially now, potentially) not talk to someone is inappropriate.

I'll admit, I find it very irritating, but every president controls their media access. The Bush administration was notorious for this. Again, I found (and find) it overwhelmingly irritating, but if I had for a second thought that there was some FA issue about that, I would have been all over it like white on rice.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Don't you think that's kind of sexist? "Oh, those awful men need to watch their mouths to avoid offending these sensitive little flowers called women." Honestly, Chelsea seems to be willingly putting herself in the public eye here. She knows what that entails. I hope people will be civil to her, I really do, but no more so than I hope people will be civil to everybody. No feminist should ever suggest that she requires some special sensitivity because she's a women.

You misconstrue if you think I'm talking about a "special" sensitivity. As you imply, the comment would likely have been inappropriate applied to anyone. The sad fact is, chances are that only a woman is going to care enough to do something about it.

This is a feature of the Clinton campaign, not a bug. One of the few features, I might add.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Too funny. One thing the Clintons have always been good at is drawing out the wanna-be puritanical left to feign outrage at the most benign bullcrap.

So the word 'pimped' is "sleazy and sexual" applied in an offhand way toward a 27 year old grown woman, and enough to deeply offend her mother to the point of sending out warning letters? Okay, sure, whatever.. But I wonder... does the same mother have anywhere near the same concern for the parents of the 20-something year old women HER HUSBAND had sex with FOR REAL? How about those he was accused of sexually harassing FOR REAL? Where was "a mother's outrage" then???

Maybe the Cheney's didn't appreciate their daughter's sex life being shamelessly used by Lurch, when she WASN'T a political operative in the campaign?

And come off it, trying to compare any of this to Dan Rather and his abuse of his position to float blatantly false news is weaker than weak.

[Chongo]

Coming pretty close
ABC News: Super Schmooze: Breakfast With Chelsea
College Junior Breakfasts With Chelsea Clinton
21-Year-Old Wisconsin Super Delegate Gets Face Time With Former First Daughter

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Too funny. One thing the Clintons have always been good at is drawing out the wanna-be puritanical left to feign outrage at the most benign bullcrap.

Hmm, not sure I'd say insinuating Chelsea is a "political" whore is all that benign.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So the word 'pimped' is "sleazy and sexual" applied in an offhand way toward a 27 year old grown woman, and enough to deeply offend her mother to the point of sending out warning letters? Okay, sure, whatever.. But I wonder... does the same mother have anywhere near the same concern for the parents of the 20-something year old women HER HUSBAND had sex with FOR REAL? How about those he was accused of sexually harassing FOR REAL? Where was "a mother's outrage" then???

Excellent point that I cannot refute. However, I don't think whether Hillary is a hypocrite has any bearing on whether the comment was appropriate or not.

[RAILhead]

[Eug]

As presented (from what I gather from the quotes in this thread):

That guy was totally inappropriate, and I'm glad he was suspended. WTF was he thinking?

[TheWOAT]

Chelsea, Oprah, Chuck Norris and many others are political campaign whores... but you just cant say that on television.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Chelsea, Oprah, Chuck Norris and many others are political campaign whores... but you just cant say that on television.

Chuck Norris whores the campaign, not the other way around.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

However, I don't think whether Hillary is a hypocrite has any bearing on whether the comment was appropriate or not.

True. Personally I think it was a dumb choice of words, mainly n the context of it being virtually guaranteed that Hillary would use it as just another way to play victim and try to stir up some fake outrage among those she can count on for such.

It reminds me of a thread here, where people feigned outrage over the use of the phrase 'huge arse' when someone said something about it having been handed to her. That was even more benign, but the same pretend puritanical types simply LOVE making the Clintons out to be victims, and the Clintons themselves love playing the role. Anyone in the media or any other public spotlight should simply know that by now.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

True. Personally I think it was a dumb choice of words, mainly n the context of it being virtually guaranteed that Hillary would use it as just another way to play victim and try to stir up some fake outrage among those she can count on for such.

It reminds me of a thread here, where people feigned outrage over the use of the phrase 'huge arse' when someone said something about it having been handed to her. That was even more benign, but the same pretend puritanical types simply LOVE making the Clintons out to be victims, and the Clintons themselves love playing the role. Anyone in the media or any other public spotlight should simply know that by now.

Project much?

If he had said the same thing about John McCain's kid, I would have had the same response. The bottom line is that it is inappropriate, and uncalled for. And it doesn't even make sense. It's bad to have a person's own family support that person? WTF?

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It reminds me of a thread here, where people feigned outrage over the use of the phrase 'huge arse' when someone said something about it having been handed to her.

Thanks for noticing!

Originally Posted by subego 

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that in real life you realize the idea of attacking anyone's body image, let alone a woman's, is utterly lacking in class, and is hence not something you are in the habit of doing.

The question remains then, why do it here?

[Chongo]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Superdelegate schmoozed by Chelsea backs Obama � - Blogs from CNN.com

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Superdelegate schmoozed by Chelsea backs Obama � - Blogs from CNN.com

Maybe this would explain why they wouldn't let Chelsea talk to Shuster. I remember another story on this guy talking about how Chelsea wanted to discuss "electability" with him. I'm thinking that was the wrong talking point for Clinton.

[Oversoul]

I bet if Chelsea looked like Meghan McCain that superdelegate would've backed her mom in a heartbeat.