Pimp My Riot: In Defense of David Shuster

Go ahead and pick up those rocks and get into pitching stance, because I'm about to suggest something unthinkable.

As you must know by now, MSNBC's David Shuster has revealed himself to be the Anti-Christ by suggesting on-air that Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign smacks of opportunism on the part of Camp Clinton; his exact words were that the once-and-possibly-future First Daughter was being "pimped out" by Mom and Dad. Since most folks assumed Shuster wasn't alluding to the MTV brand of pimping out, which I imagine would've involved jacking Chelsea up on 24" rims, the wave of thoroughly bullshit outrage in response to his admittedly ill-advised comment began pushing across the land almost immediately. Over the past few days, Shuster's been excoriated in the press and the blogging media, suspended by NBC, and targeted for as public a shaming as possible by Hillary Clinton herself.

Most of those now engaging in the obligatory and all-too-gratifying pile-on claim Shuster's offense to be two-fold: He insulted the child of a particular presidential contender for behavior most politicians' kids engage in -- the cynical would say that all candidates pimp their children in one manner or another -- while cavalierly flaunting the depth of anti-Clinton group-think that supposedly permeates MSNBC.

Hillary, though, has taken the argument one step further.

Her campaign is insinuating that Shuster's comment is a slight against all women, more proof that MSNBC -- the special-needs child of the NBC News family -- is essentially one big frat house. They cite a 12-month period that's seen the dismissal of Don Imus for making a crude but, let's face it, somewhat innocuous joke about the Rutgers womens' basketball team, an on-air mea culpa from Chris Matthews -- not to mention his inability to talk to Erin Burnett without little hearts dancing over his head -- and now Shuster's indiscretion.

In other words, the Clinton camp seems to be recasting this in exactly the kind of terms that are likely to motivate women voters; the fact that the Clintons are so adept at this sort of misdirection is precisely the reason their critics consider them little more than political profiteers who will say or do anything to make points at the polls.

This is why it's become second nature to question their motives, no matter how genuine or innocent those motives might seem at first glance. While there's no doubt that Chelsea Clinton simply wants to see her mother elected president, the campaign's own "handling" of her makes Chelsea look like just another weapon in the Clinton arsenal, and Hillary's indignation reek of calculated insincerity.

Understand something, I'm certainly not claiming that what David Shuster said wasn't incredibly stupid and somewhat unfair, nor am I saying that Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a decent president. However, it's not as if a journalist's decision to question the motivations of the Clintons is happening in a vacuum; the press has seen the Hillary and Bill PR machine in action for quite some time now, and maybe for that reason is apt to regard the Clintons' actions with slightly more suspicion than it otherwise might. I'll be the first one to say that this is unfortunate.

Did David Shuster deserve to be disciplined?

Yes, but not for the reason his detractors might think and not by the one charged with doling out the punishment.

Shuster raised a relevant point in an unquestionably crass and injudicious manner, and there's no doubt that he wouldn't challenge, say, Michelle Obama, in the same way -- lest he risk having Al Sharpton amass a torch-wielding mob at NBC's front door before the opening credits of the 5 O'clock news even hit the air. Now though, a different group is demanding satisfaction for what it feels is a personal slight, and, for starters, it wants that one ineffectual gesture aggrieved parties invariably want in times like this: a public apology. I'll never understand why an obviously insincere show of genuflection acts as some kind of panacea to the perpetually pissed-off, but a good rule of thumb is this: If someone's apology has to be demanded, he or she probably doesn't really mean it. When you look at it like this, suspending Shuster is probably justified since he knows exactly what he said and meant every word of it -- making any apology an act of ass-kissing theater. Still, factor in the comical twist that Shuster's official reprimand is being self-righteously administered by NBC News President Steve Capus -- the same man who turned ethical somersaults on national television last year to justify his network's shameful decision to air the manifesto of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho -- and you have to wonder what's really wrong over there at 30 Rock.

Maybe Shuster got off easy.

He gets to spend some time away from the Clintons and the peacock for awhile.

Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza

Comments

[TMIDGE66]

why is Hillary's complaint less important than the deluge laid upon don imus? easy, Chelsea is white. you dont see al sharpton around anywhere, do you?

[sarnold49]

Amen! Don Imus called the Rutgers team "nappy headed ho's" and Shuster basically called Chelsea a prostitute/whore so the only real difference was a racial reference. Had he said that about Michelle Obama all hell would break loose. In America it is obviously okay to degrade women but not African Americans. It is all sickening and we need to clean up our own country instead of trying to tell other countries what they should do.

[Dee321]

Mr. Pazienza,
I am glad you brought up the "Mrs Obama" example. Shuster, Matthews and Tucker have displayed utter degrading and sexist disrespect towards the Clintons. This is not being done to the other candidates being supported by family members, only the Clintons. What if Shuster had said:

1. McCains Mother: "doesn't it seem like Roberta McCains sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way"

2. Baracks Children: "doesn't it seem like Malia and Sasha Obama are sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way"

3. Mitt Romneys Children: "doesn't it seem like Ben Craig Josh Matt & Tagg Romney are sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way"

4. Mrs. Edwards: "doesn't it seem like Elizabeth Edwards is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way"

If he had said this about any of them, he would have been Fired Immediately!

Matthews and Tucker should also be fired for their heinous comments (Matthews: "Clinton was elected Senator because her husband cheated on her.) They are ALL DISGUSTING!

The media needs to just REPORT and STOP trying to influence the people. WE THE PEOPLE will elect the next President, not the media.

[cobraxus]

don't worry Clinton-Ba­shers.Chri­s Matthews is gonna bring on Ann Coulter to use the term "Whoring Out" to describe Hillary's use of her own daughter(Obama supporters should enjoy that).
By the way...now that Mitt ain't running for prez does that mean his 5 boys(and I do mean boys not men)having completed their patriotic(or patriarchal)duty can now join the army and go fight in Iraq?

[SethBLiNK]

Shuster asked the question to Bill Press, who emphatically denied the allegation, but seemed not to be offended by the language at the time. Interestingly, by focusing only on the language and not on the idea behind it, the Clinton's have deflected attention away from the question's intent.

Though I have no doubt that Chelsea loves her mom, wants her to be President and enjoys playing a role in the process, she does seem not to have her parents' love of being in the spotlight. That and the campaigns treatment of her like a hot house flower leads to the conclusion that she is being used for the enormous affection Americans have for her. Since she is part of the campaign, it is fodder for discussion.

Shuster's choice of words was innapropriate and unfortunate, but as for the demand for a public apology, didn't he offer one up (or two to be exact) within 24 hours? And while it was forced, it did appear to me to be sincere. He seemed like a guy who knew he had stepped way over a line and regretted it not only for the consequences.

The Clintons seem to want more than just an apology and a punishment. They want to spin the issue. They are now, and no other word fits, pimping the issue.

[nads2985]

What exactly is this based on? How do you know that Chelsea "seems not to have her parents' love" or how the campaign treats her?

Unless you happen to be a clinton family member, close friend, or member of their campaign staff, somehow I doubt you really are remotely qualified to discuss their internal family politics (for lack of a better word, unfortunat­ely...)

This is a great example of the problem the Clintons keep running up against, an entirely irrational and unsubstantiated take on their personal lives. Have you ever even met them? I'm going to guess not, and if so, you have aboslutely no business pretending to understand what goes on within their family.

[jazzman]

I'm sorry I can't buy the arguments on this blog. Romney had his 5 sons running around serving the country by serving him. Did Shuster say that Romney was 'pimping' his sons?

I'm not supporting Hillary in the primaries but I am pretty gd disgusted with the way the media treats the Clintons. Dragging down their family while going 8 years of hands off on the corrupt and degenerate Bush clan does seem very unfair. I pulled the plug on my extended cable 5 months ago and I don't miss the irresponsibility that passes as News Channels on cable. Yet, when I read the stuff that comes out of Matthew's, Carlson's, and Shuster's mouth about Hillary, I'm offended for them. They don't deserve it.

[Dangoodbar]

Bill Press on this blog says

"What's most disturbing about Shuster's pimp remark is that it reinforces the impression of media bias in this campaign."

I disagree. You see the Clinton's have in many ways been the face of the Democratic party for over 15 years. So the comment does not the reinforce the impression of bias in this campaign, it goes well beyond this campaign.

It reinforces the impression, and really the FACT of bias by the media going back at least 15 years against Democrats.

And that is what is so damning about Shuster's comment. It exposes the mainstream media, not just FOX, for being having two sets of standards for the two political parties since at least 1992.

[Warmenuf]

Right on! I only voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because there was no Democrat running for President.

[trailrunner9]

You are a class act, jazzman. Right on the money.

[xtrabiggg]

Interestin­g... You get suspended for an offhand remark about a Candidate's daughter, but denigrate and insult a Candidate to his face and nothing happens! I saw Mr. Shuster subbing for 'Morning Joe' a few weeks back. He and his sidekick (I can't remember the name) along with Mikka Brzezinski were interviewing Ron Paul. They were laughing at him and calling him a 'crackpot' for his economic theories! I don't think either of them even WANTED to try to understand Monetary Policy, let alone have an adult discussion on it with Dr. Paul! They both acted like this repeatedly, and treated Dr. Paul like he was some bum on the street, rather than a Presidential Candidate from a major party.

THERE is the double standard- slight a PREFERRED media candidate (even tangentially) and you get disciplined. But you can act as unprofessional and insulting directly to someone the Media dislikes, and that's O.K.

MSNBC and CNN are just as biased toward Corporate Candidates as FOX News is, they just put on an air of superiority because they support a different wing of the MONEY PARTY.

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++

[Barrack69]

Correct xtrabigg. Paultards, crackpots, loony-tunes. All the media portrays Dr. Paul and his supporters this way. Talk about a double standard.

[Beatitudes]

He challenged Mrs. Obama? When? When did anyone challenge Mrs. Obama? Everyone getting afraid to even questions an Obama policy stance for fear of being called a racist or called down. You cant questions a leader? Sound familiar folks? Acting the the Bushies is not going to help our demoracy.
Lyn

[boomermom]

I find the suspension of Shuster to be an over-reaction. It seems quite unfair to treat him so differently from Tucker Carlson, who is always offensive and tasteless, or Chris Matthews who drools over all attractive women on the show. (Remember how he could not stop talking about judging the beauty contest in Las Vegas?).

Shuster was indelicate. He apologized. However, I was watching that exchange between Shuster and Press, and while I thought his phrasing was harsh, I thought his point was important. Why is it that Chelsea is protected from talking to the press, but she is calling celebrities and Super Delegates for the benefit of her mother? Does that not change her status in the campaign? Do the Clintons want it both ways?

Was Shuster suspended because of pressure from Senator Clinton? She threatened to boycott the debates. Did the revenue from advertising during the debates trump the status of one of MSNBCs best reporters? Something seems off here.

[mezzanotte]

The point, really, isn't whether Shuster should be suspended or fired, or whether the whole MSNBC club of middle-aged white men should clean up its act, but that a candidate for the presidency was--on the public airwaves--labeled a pimp--which, by definition makes her daughter a whore. Shuster did not say Senator Clinton was 'using' Chelsea, or 'exploiting' Chelsea, but she was pimping Chelsea.

Try to imagine if Shuster had said Senator Obama was pimping his wife (and daughters) in his campaign.

And try to imagine that Clinton's supporters had defended Shuster (as Obama's supporters are defending Shuster).

Try to imagine if a thread were stuffed with comments arguing that Shuster didn't really mean 'pimping,' it was merely an affectionate colloquialism (or high-school slang, or harmless rap talk). And try to imagine that when Obama's campaign complained, scores of people would vilify the Obama camp for their vindictiveness and thin skins. Yes, please, try to imagine.

I'm not a psychologist, so I can't begin to explain the motives of people who defend Shuster--and imply that Chelsea Clinton and her mother deserved this abuse. But I don't have any difficulty concluding that those motives are about as pure as those of a rapist who wears a condom.

[tgood]

David Shuster has been getting a tremendous amount of exposure with all the political news and while I was a fan of his previously, I have watched him become more of an ass each day. He's getting the dreaded "ego" that has been the downfall of many others before him. He needs to report the news, not become the news.

If Obama supporters believe anything goes as long as it isn't their candidate reflects the nasty and devisive attitude the Karl Rove machine has manufactured these last 8 years. I sincerely hope there is a "change" and not just campaign slogans ,then back to the nastiness.

Obama doesn't need this and neither does Hillary. It was a cheap shot by Shuster, and he knew exactly what he was doing. His "braying" just went into overload, and he was called on it.

[juangault]

I think Obama is hurt by this, he has tried to be a gentleman in this campaign. Maybe it was a "trial ballon" to see how everyone would react to gutter language being brought in. God knows it's going to happen. Part of the high negativity of Hillary is the prospect of Rovians refloating the boatload of skeletons from her husband's time. The waft of shallow graves, knowing they're ahead on that road, makes many choose a different path. Bring dignity back to the office, support the spirit of the 22nd amendment. Sweep the Bushs and Clintons into the ranchlands of Paraguay.

Here is the Wikpedia explanation for the amendment.

After Roosevelt's death, the newly Republican 80th United States Congress desired to establish a firm constitutional provision barring presidents from being elected more than twice. The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers, and that he could become so powerful that elections would become dispensable. Hence, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted.

[femdem262]

Funny - the writer is male. And obviously misogynist if he can't see that the comments by MSNBC's Schuster, Matthews and Imus (all male, what do you know?) aren't offensive and out of line to the extreme. If he's so tough, I invite everyone to make crude but innocuous jokes about Old Chez, who clearly is making up for his lack of manhood by deriding womanhood.

[Jjc2006]

All one needs to know about why MSNBC gets away with personal vendetta (like the one launced against Al Gore and gave us W), and sexism, which is just, for them, a piling on top of their personal vendetta against the Clintons, can be discerned by reading the comments here.
At one time I believed only rethugs would stoop so low. However, reading many liberal blogs, it is clear. Obamaniacs are simply the right wing, kool aid drinkers who happen to be supporting a left wing candidate.

I find it sad and frightening. MSNBC's prime target and young white males. Sadly, it is that demo that continues to defend them.

[sarnold49]

Well said! I am just sick over seeing the way some people are acting. Chelsea Clinton has been being attacked publicly since she was a child and has still managed to stay above all the pitfalls a lot of young people fall into. It was horrible when it was just the right-wing nutcases doing it, which also made no sense because these are supposed to be the morality police and should hold a youth like Chelsea Clinton up as a role model if they actually believed what they claim to, but it is even worse to be seeing this done by the people that are doing this now. These are for the most part supposed to be the future of our country and if that is the case I see a dismal outcome for our country. And if Obama draws these kinds of supporters then the question is WHY?

[auntiecairo]

When has Chelsea been attacked? Maybe on the rightwing blogs, columns but not in the MSM. Nobody even knew what she was doing until she joined her mom's campaign - and even then the coverage has been fair- even though are issues that could be raised (notably her job at a hedge fund vs. her mom's assertion she's not in the pocket of banks, big money); and what does any of this have to do with Obama? Are you saying Shuster is an Obama supporter? Chelsea is an adult - not a child; and I think capable of defending herself anyway, except she's not allowed to talk to reporters, but she can call the hosts of the View, but she won't talk to 9 year olds - it's all ridiculous - and not helping Hillary one way or another -- except to bolster the idea that the Clintons are always surrounded by drama - created by others and themselves.

[vsign]

I think Edwards should sue MSNBC for not giving the VOTERS a level playing field. Obama has received so much affirmative action, it has undercut the voters say. I want a new Voters Rights Act where the internet users cannot control the outcome of our democratic party primary.

[jimb51]

this is not just an off the cuff statement. shuster reads whats in front of him! he had plenty of time to correct what he wanted said. over the line go back to fox where you obviously belong david.

[Crowhaul]

For those who don't quite get it yet, how often did Schuster, and those of his ilk, suggest that Romney's sons were being 'pimped out' when they were working hard on the campaign trail for him? Answer: never once.

[jingodoz]

I'm not going to defend the language, but the case of Chelsea is somewhat different. Romney's sons were involved in the campaign from Day One, as Hillary would say. Other spouses and kids have been consistently involved. The Clinton's seem to summon Chelsea (or muzzle Bill) only when there's trouble. It's a tactic and practice worth noting while discussing the campaign.

Didn't Hillary's mother go to Iowa before the caucuses? What word would Shuster use to describe that?

[AnRoistac]

Calling on Chelsea only when the going gets tough while other candidates' kids do daily duty for their parents may be "a tactic...w­orth noting while discussing the campaign," although I don't see why. In no way, however, does the use of the word "pimping" contribute to a reasoned discussion. Unless, of course, you consider part-time participation "whoring," and full time work honorable.

[mellene]

Language can be divisive but what the heck we give out grammys to those who say far worse and influence kids that aren't Chelsea's age even. What a hipocritic society we live in. I agree that Shuster has now become the scapegoat.

[PracticalIdealism]

What a hypocritical society. All aspects of one's life should be held up to stringent scrutiny when running for public office, granted no area of anyone's life is truly beyond reproach, but I don't understand the phoniness involved in denying the sordid reality of campaigning and politicking. Hillary is laughing all the way to nomination because we all know she'll use this as another opportunity to cast herself as the victim thereby garnering the sympathy vote from women. More proof of the political pimping of Chelsea...