Why Is David Shuster E-Mailing With Anti-Hillary Group C.U.N.T.?

New York Observer:

It was a little before midnight on Tuesday, Jan. 27 that MSNBC correspondent David Shuster hit the "Send" button on a curt e-mail to Republican rabble-rouser Roger Stone.

Days earlier, Mr. Stone and others had filed papers with the I.R.S. to form a "527" organization dedicated to educating "the American Public about what Hillary Clinton really is." The organization was called "Citizens United Not Timid," i.e., C.U.N.T.

"Hey Roger Stone," wrote Mr. Shuster in an e-mail to Mr. Stone's personal Web site, the Stone Zone. "Why not put your own name on this?"

Mr. Stone was in no mood to take flack from an uptight reporter unable to take a joke. Mr. Stone felt the suggestion that he was hiding behind the site was ludicrous. After all, he had invited reporter Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard to sit in on the organization's planning meeting.

The next afternoon, he responded. "Hey David Shuster," Mr. Stone wrote back. "I in essence did when I let the entire planning meeting be on the record for a reporter."

Read the whole story: New York Observer

Comments

[stefanie]

Why is it acceptable to use sexist language -- to create a 527 of all things named C.U.N.T.? I don't think anyone, ANYONE would champion a group that used a racial slur as an acronym. You people that defend this -- especially the Obama supporters that use that kind of language should be ashamed. ASHAMED. If you don’t want Hillary elected and you don't like her credentials or her proposed ideas, that's understandable. To use sexist language to demean her demeans ALL WOMEN. I know this sounds cliché -- but what if this was the way someone spoke about your mother, your sister, your wife, your daughter? Unacceptable. Grow up people.

[msmaggie]

Citizens Outside Obama's Network?

Needs work I think. The big difference between sexists and racists? Racists at least know they should be ashamed--that's why they're so defensive. Sexists who use this kind of language are particularly dense. Cause you know, they all love their mothers and sisters and wives. How can people question our descent from the apes with people who use this kind of horrid language walking around?

[WilliamWallace]

The very existence of "C.U.N.T." only reinforces the fact that some true morons are at work against Hillary Clinton.

What a bunch of tools.

[pandarzan]

Better yet, "Why is Huffpo posting non stories like this, simply so they can have the words Hillary and cunt in the same headline"?

[HippieChick]

Better yet, "Why is Huffpo posting non stories like this, simply so they can have the words Hillary and cunt in the same headline"?

This question has merit, and deserves to be repeated.

[youthrewaspark]

I disagree. It's a total non-story. The email never went anywhere, and the HuffPo already published another story about this ridiculous 527. This was an excuse for Huffpo to call Hillary a "C.U.N.T." Free speech and all that: it's their prerogative to print the word, but it just makes them look cheap, juvenile and misogynistic for doing so.

[WilliamWallace]

Better yet, "Why is Huffpo posting non stories like this, simply so they can have the words Hillary and cunt in the same headline"?

This question has merit, and deserves to be repeated.

Slime "journalism"

[ClaudiaJean]

Yes.

[snruB]

Wow, talk about a misleading headline

[DRaymond]

"a reporter unable to take a joke" But is this a joke? As best I can tell from the article the papers really were filed with the IRS so ti seems a bit of an expensive and complicated 'joke'.

But I also have trouble taking it seriously either. How would any organization with a name like that have any credibility? who would throw money into group whith zero credibility?

[ClaudiaJean]

Well, the headline is misleading­... it implies something negative about Shuster when if you read the article, the opposite comes to light.

As for the content of the story... it's vile and a spotlight on the roaches infesting the right wing's 527 sponsors who are rallying their stormtroopers, cashing in their souls and readying their hatchets en route to the editing bay...

[NicoleAnonymous]

Does anyone at this place realize some people are here at work? Did you really need to use that word in the title in big, bold letters?

This place is really getting lame with the censuring, the blatent we-hate-Cl­inton-ever­ything-abo­ut-her-is-­bad-we-adu­late-Obama­-he-is-tre­ndy-and-so­-are-we tone and the constant attempts for attention that confuse using bad words with decent journalism.

[BarryChamplain]

And again, you're seeing here in the Schuster matter a wide-screen HD version of the classic Clinton m.o.

Many people think the Clintons attack their enemies ruthlessly. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What the Clintons do is:

When they are in hot water or need to distract, they look around the sidewalk for a bystander. Not an "innocent" bystander, you understand; someone who is no angel. An obscure Black rapper who says naughty things to a completely different audience; a reporter who uses salty language.

And then making World War Six out of that person. Who doesn't know what the hell hit him. And they always manage to end up better positioned, from destroying the bystander in the dunk tank. Positively Rovian.

You know, Clinton has a worse problem in MSNBC with the likes of the unhinged and sexually challenged Chris Matthews. But he's POWERFUL; Schuster is a grunt.

AND... if anyone at this point can even remember this (they DON'T, and that's the point!), the whole, original "pimped-out" conversation was about whether the Clinton campaign should be able to get away with using Diddle Baby Chelsea as a mannequin to make the voters swoon... WITHOUT PERMITTING HER TO SPEAK.

Well. Can't have THAT, can we? Off-message as the day is long. So we take out Schuster, and kill two birds with this one.

Karl would be so proud.

[jodini]

Totally. I have been supportive of either Clinton or Obama as nominees and have waffled with my decision. This Shuster issue has been way blown out of proportion. He's one of the relatively "good ones" in my opinion. I think this sucks and it is driving me even further away from Clinton.

[fantagor]

Non-story. Next distraction from real issue!

Randy

[esgabel]

Again I am dismayed by Huff Po's headline--for someone who does not read the full article--it is misleading at best.
I find it amusing that Tucker who never finds anything good to say about Hillary was accosted by a woman when he went to vote...he needed to hear it.
I find it sad that David Shuster--who is shown in this article not to be as biased against Hillary as he was portayed by the Clinton Campaign--is sitting out this primary election cycle because there have been veiled threats that MSNBC,NBC and CNBC will not have access to the Clinton campaign and White House. Didn't Hillary say she was an agent of change--and isn't this how George Bush and Co. controlled the press?
The reason that Hillary's Primary Campaign is not going as smoothly as she hoped boils down to her votes on Iraq and Iran--it is as simple as that.
While "pimped out" was an unfortunate phrase, Chelsea Clinton is a 28 year old hedge fund trader who is stumping for her mother, yet is protected from giving any statements and answering any questions about her role in the campaign--
David Schuster made one mistake so did Hillary Clinton --if David is jettisoned then the same should happen to Hillary.

[MikeP33477]

I am waiting for the 527's against Obama. That will be the real story folks.

[Sketchartist]

As is so often the case, the headline that Huffington Post wrote for this story is deliberately misleading. It purposely makes it seem as if David Shuster was in accord "WITH" the anti-Hillary group.

Shuster wasn't "e-mailing WITH". He was e-mailing TO the group. He was DISAGREEING with them.

The Huffington Post knows that a lot of people will not read past the headline and is DELIBERATELY manufacturing controversy, like we don't have enough of THAT already.

[etc]

True.

[mikonyc]

The REAL OUTRAGE is that Huff Post has the audacity to put a photo of Sentaor Clinton next to the words CUNT, talk about unbelievealbe, sick, and completely inappropriate. SHAME on HuffPost.

[abbiehoffmansghost]

Here's a question to the Republican conservative neo-con supporters that come onto this site: Do you approve of the name of Stone's organization and site? It would appear that the good moral and ethical conservatives are nothing more than spoiled little bratty children with infantile ideas of how to demean and disparage those whose ideologies they oppose. Not only not good Americans or people but punk kids with money and an agenda. You should be very proud. This will bite you on the ass. I will show this to all my Republican friends who don't like this kind of crap and I think a letter to the paper is in order. Live this one down.

[NotGuilty]

The republicans will have American women wearing berkahs any day now.

[Freddy334]

I think you are thinking of Barack Hussein Obama. I was for Edwards and now I am for Hillary. If Obama gets the nomination then I am voting for McCain. The Clintons are not perfect but Obama belongs to a racist "church" and is an Islamic trojan horse.

[JulieSA]

What are you smoking? It's leftists who cave to "multicultural" customs like honor killings and full hijab. In Britain, they're looking the other way when doctors perform clitorectomies in the state-run hospitals.

[wndrwrthg]

I believe they desire them to be wearing only a blue and white checked 50's style apron, while tending to domestic duties.

[JulieSA]

"Do you approve of the name of Stone's organization and site?"

No. It's disgusting and sexist, and obscene. Plus, as others have observed, HuffPo should not be showing a picture of Hillary below that word.

Oddly, I heard rumors of this group's existence a few weeks ago, which turned out to be an internet hoax. It looks like some assholes may be trying to make it a reality.

[Anastasia]

Re: HuffPo should not be showing a picture of Hillary below that word.

Agreed.

[Simone]

Roger Stone - what a classy guy. Too bad they won't kick him out of his country clubs for this.

[fedup07]

HuffPo and Stephen Haus would not post any of my comments yesterday asking the question how would they feel if someone had said that about their kids -HuffPo REFUSED to post my statments.

It's REALLY obvious that Stephen Haus has EXTREME hatred for Hillary Clinton but it is OUTRAGEOUS that his post was about freedom of speech and that Hillary was trying to control it
AND THEN THEY DID THE SAME FUCKING THING!!

This isn't about Hillary, or if you are a Hillary supporter; what Shuster said was egregious and unprofessional -PERIOD!

And I do believe all the people who have this outright hatred for people they don't personally know is REALLY strange. They should probably seek some professional help AND GET OVER IT!