MSNBC's Chelsea Comment Angers Clinton

Why on earth is every comment condemning Clinton in this? It's her prerogative to take offense at her daughter being compared to a whore.

And it looks to me like they are dealing with and moving on. That's what a frigging boycott is.

When you put Chelsea into the campaign she becomes fair game.....as Hillary says....this is big boy politics, and if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen......if this is the case; get Chelsea out of the kitchen.

replytoj001

So, let me see if I get this right replytoj001

Since Chelsea is taking part in the campaign,
Therefore her family should tacitly approve of derogatory statements made about her by sitting the @!$%# down and shutting the @!$%# up?

That seems to be your position.

They haven't taken her out, they responded with condemnation and are considering a boycott. This is pretty standard procedure, it's called not being pushed around and not going to find a corner to hide in. It's called sanding up and taking the heat.

I understand the TTT of Hillary but.....GWB and Laura took it with the twins. Even a Dem Manager of a Mexican restaurant called the police.

However, Hillary isn't that sensitive and lately she has been very touchy.

Hillary better goes to her kitchen and starting learn how to cook or bake cookies.

bat

How in the world can you call this a free speech issue? Does Clinton have the right to decide where she speaks? What she says? Is there a gestapo running around twisting MSNBC's arm? I decided long ago that I was boycotting O'Reilly, I will not go on his show, I will not watch it, and I won't watch the rest of the network, and I do all I can never to mention him in a thread that could ever give him publicity or revenue. So, am I imposing on Fox News' freedom of Speech because I won't talk to or listen to O'Reilly?

If anything you are claiming that Clinton does not deserve the freedom that everyone else gets.

batmanchester

Why can't you be fair? Can anyone get away with saying Obama is out pimping his wife or Oprah?.......No.....and they wouldn't dare try either.
So get real.....And .... .although it's an obvious problem for you...."make believe" you're fair.

I'll say it. Michelle Obama is pimpin' Barack. Oprah is pimpin' Barack. I'm pimpin' Barack, and I'll keep pimpin' him until he's in office. Shuster isn't exactly "hip, cool, daddy-o" himself. He got the terminology slightly wrong, so what?

The fact remains, there are multiple definitions for pimpin these days, and nobody was calling Chelsea a whore.

Pimp Your Newsvine

There you go. Something that has been kicking around the Vines for eons and helps many make the best of Newsvine. To use it to its potential. Get the most out of it.

So those who are objecting to the use of the word pimp in this debate, and who have used Corey's excellent article above, just one question:

Do you feel dirty like a prostitute?

I agree that she was pimped out. But them I'm not a baby boomer, for whom that word has an entirely different meaning, as Clinton is. So don't look at it from the MTV angle. Look at it from the mother angle. It looks a little different, I bet, from that vantage point, and she has every right to be displeased by just about anything under the sun as any of the rest of us.

demands the ouster of a reporter

If a reporter is ousted, it won't be the Clinton's fault, it'll be MSNBC's fault, for not sticking by their guns, in which case they get what they deserve.

GWB and Laura took it with the twins

Comparing Chelsea to the twins is like comparing Gidget to one of the Munsters.

When you put your daughter out front in a campaign, you should expect this kind of treatment.

They absolutely needed an attention-grabbing story heading into the weekend with its 5 primaries. They couldn't get video of Obama getting a bj from a campaign volunteer so they had to run with plan B.

Yep, and we can expect similar headlines over the next few weeks.

Yeah, its another "feel sorry for me" from the Clinton gang.

"It's not FAIR that you say I'm riding on Bill's coat tails!"
"It's not FAIR that you don't give me delgates from Florida or Michigan!"
"It's not FAIR I can't raise enough money!"
"It's not FAIR that you pick on my daughter!"

Then there's the ACTUAL crying........

Hetep and Respect, I did not think of it until you guys mentioned it but the "Its Not FAIR" tag is bad news for November.

I would not use it, but the Republicans have read your comments and are already making It's not FAIR Hats.

This is not a good thing for the party folks

But it's not an absolute.

Sexist racist anti-Semitic, etc. "Hate Speech" should not be tolerated, especially on the People's Airwaves.

I know all the Paulites, Randies and Austrian Schoolers disagree, but...Tough!

====

Hate speech is not a hate crime. People are allowed to be prejudiced if they want to be. You cannot control people's thoughts. Let them speak, let people see how ignorant they are. They will bury themselves more and more as society awakens. Free speech is free speech. Period. Telling people what they can and what they can't say is dangerous, and it is a slope that becomes very slippery very quickly.

Anyway…It doesn't even come down to that. What it comes down to is MSNBC's own "Code of Honor".

What would be interesting to investigate is whether Tucker Carlson--for whom Shuster was sitting in--had anything to do with encouraging him to make such a dunderheaded comment, in the inimitable Tucker "Swanson Frozen Foods Heir" Carlson mold (coarsening the texture of public debate--something the Right are always complaining about while they themselves do their worst contributing to it e.g. O'Reilly).

====

Free speech is free speech. Period.

Tried inciting a riot, lately?

Riots aren't speech. Riots include violence. Having a riot is not practicing free speech, it is having a riot. If you incite a riot, you are participating in a riot, and you are bringing physical violence upon yourself.

It's a slippery slope when you start telling people what they can and can't say.

Riots aren't speech.

No, but the inciting of them certainly can be.

A few tears over the name-calling maybe???

Not just the choking up . . .

I agree that they want the win too badly to forego the debate.

Especially since they've been aggressively pushing for more debates thinking they can expose Obama as a policy lightweight.

I heard from one of the many arm chairs analysts that we have on TV that WJC wants to make it right, i.e. a better legacy than the blue dress. After all George H. W.Bush is Bill's father image and the former President #41 "adopted" him.

...he would be relegated to a portable satellite network based out of the Aleutian Islands.

We can only hope, TJ.

;-)

Shuster is an unctuous turd but I'm not sure MSNBC's not piling on him here in an effort to curry favor with the Clintons.

And is it just me or does Chelsea Clinton these days not look a lot like Debbie Gibson (from the neck up at least)?

SuperUnspecial,

You are very civilized and I applaud your remarks. I hope Senator Clinton refuses to debate Obama or any of his ilk.

Apple Annie

Thank you, but I have to ask.

What does Obama have to do with this article? Did I mis something?

Dear SuperUnspecial,

What does Obama have to do with the article? He is the one who would be in the Presidential debate that the article mentions.

The article is about how Senator Clinton may not be participating in any future presidential debates with Senator Obama.

I quote the article in reference to debating Obama:

"A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said."

Future debates on the NETWORK. Meaning, she'd rather have the debates on CNN or another network, depriving MSNBC of the revenue.

Clinton is the one who wants more debates. She wants eight more with Obama. Obama said, Nah, we don't need any more debates, but I'll give you two more if you really want them.

It would be just fine with Obama if she didn't want to participate in any more debates. But she does want to debate him because she's running out of funds and he has plenty. He has his ground game on, and she wants to stifle it by tying him up in debates. It's common politics. Happens every election. She's going to accuse him of being afraid to debate her, when actually, he just knows that his strongest campaigning is done when actually facing the people, not in some controlled, stuffy debate.

Clinton is the one who wants more debates

I would like to object to calling them debates. They are extended commercials where the stump speeches are chopped into segments to respond to the same questions. Will you keep us safe? On day one or day two?

But she does want to debate him because she's running out of funds and he has plenty.

Well that's not entirely true, now is it. She's got plenty. And she wants debates because she feels she can wipe the floor with Obama. Why? Because early on, she sure as hell did. Her problem is this: he's gotten a lot better, since.

She wants the free exposure. The fact is he has more money, and is continually pulling in more than her. She wants more air time.

She wants the free exposure. The fact is he has more money, and is continually pulling in more than her. She wants more air time.

Look, pardon me for being geeky, but while Blu-Ray may hold more than HD-DVD, each holds more than I'll ever conceivably need, by next November. She's got plenty of money. She's continuing to get plenty of money. I doubt it's about the money - unless maybe they slipped MSNBC a hundred under the table to have them say an unsavory comment?

And in any case, since when is free exposure bad? Obama gets plenty of it on Newsvine, every day.

Senator Obama is sweeping the floor with Hillary.

Hill allowed the President to go to war and now she is trying to sugar coat her decision.
Senator Obama read it right: Military Force = War.

And is it just me or does Chelsea Clinton these days not look a lot like Debbie Gibson (from the neck up at least)?

ETB:

When one considers the progression of Chelsea Clinton's facial structure that can only be explained by invasive plastic surgery, David Shuster's "pimped out" comment comes more into clear focus as the work done to Chelsea's facial bone structure is more akin to MTV's "Pimp My Ride."

Bill, Chelsea and Hillary 1997 Inaugural Parade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hillary_Clinton_Bill_Chelsea_on_parade.jpg

Bill, Chelsea and Hillary White House Christmas Picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clinton_family.jpg

Chelsea and Hillary 1/28/2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/01/28/whills28.jpg

Chelsea Clinton 1/28/07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chelsea_feb08_calpoly.jpg

Chelsea Clinton 1/28/2007

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/28/chelsea29107_wideweb__470x390,0.jpg

Chelsea Clinton 5/14/2007

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_day_after_tomorrow/chelsea_clinton/daypres.jpg

Good Plastic Surgery: Chelsea Clinton

http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/archives/004880.html

-------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1mV_5-bRPo

Edgar Winter Group - Frankenstein

Talk about a young woman blossoming before our eyes!

I heard about this on the "Schnitt Show" as I was driving to get a haircut on Friday. Based on the photos there is no way that she hasn't had extensive plastic surgery.

as I was driving to get a haircut on Friday. Based on the photos there is no way that she hasn't had extensive plastic surgery .

Some very astute observations by Zero. For our further entertainment he will probably attempt to connect the importance of his conclusions to the subject at hand.

That is.... if he doesn't require extensive plastic surgery himself following his "drive by" haircut.

mayhap. who knows.

mayhap

Dark Tower Fan?

Is it just me or have we played a small part (indirectly) as a result of our acquisition by our new parents?

I was kinda thinking about when reading the article -- thought, "If she got all offended about 'pimping', then its good she's never been to NewsVine, huh?"

"If she got all offended about 'pimping', then its good she's never been to NewsVine, huh?"

Oh gawd, if she started cruising Newsvine she might have a coronary. Hold on a minute, does anybody have her email address?

her email address

you could try chelsea.clinton@gmail.com

some missiles do go stray. they call it collateral damage.

kevin: It has been many years, but I did like the Tower books.

When I say this though, I think of Mother Abigail from The Stand. "Mayhap it is, mayhap it ain't."

Does this suggest that the Clinton campaign is beginning to get really worried about the power of social media, especially the scale and sheer volume of stuff coming through Newsvine lately that debates the grip on power between the Bush and Clinton dynasties?

I believe that all politicians and certain public figures are worried about social media and the power it represents.

Hillary, Bill, the clinton machine(s)and others are worried about this power.....

Why??? THEY CANNOT CONTROL IT OR THE OUTCOME!!!!

Their spin does not work.

Remember Dan Rather (who....who...) the social media discredited the story almost immediately.

Remember the question to Hillary (Ref; the military and the don't ask, don't tell policy) from the retired General at the debate, within minutes it was pointed out by the social media that the General was a staffer on Hillary's campaign.

The social media is a dishonest persons worst enemy.......it cannot be controlled (yet) and does not answer to anyone.

Of Note; social media doeshave the throw firebombs with no standards groups, but overall I believe that responsible social media is a positive force within the campains.

replytoj001

overall I believe that responsible social media is a positive force within the campains

Which is what is Newsvine, and thus my point!

Does this suggest that the Clinton campaign is beginning to get really worried about the power of social media, especially the scale and sheer volume of stuff coming through Newsvine lately that debates the grip on power between the Bush and Clinton dynasties?

Newsvine is still relatively small fry - and in any case the netroots, by their very nature, are an echo-chamber for (generally, but not exclusively) rich, liberal elites - exactly the sort that favor people like Obama, or Ron Paul. It is to the Democrats what talk radio is to the Republicans - except (so far) less so. So no, I doubt it even crossed their minds - as the proportion of support for any candidate on Newsvine (or any site on the web) is not indicative of support amongst the general population - especially for people like Clinton, who rely on such groups as the elderly, and blue collars.

- as the proportion of support for any candidate on Newsvine (or any site on the web) is not indicative of support amongst the general population -

That's not the point. It is how Newsvine may be playing a part in influencing how the candidates position themselves to the masses. Newsvine has a much larger audience of readers than just registered Viners. Of which only a very small number, relatively speaking, actually engage on the issues. Look at the bigger picture. It's much bigger than one may realise.

It's much bigger than one may realise.

I'm plenty aware, but I still say it's small fry.

Raat

you could try chelsea.clinton@gmail.com

Work might be a better "hedge" option if you get my drift.

Maybe cclinton@avenuecapital.com would be a better choice.

better "hedge" option

HA HA. wickedly funny, Bill. Oh you are awful but...

Victim? How so? She said "hey, dumbasses, I don't appreciate you associating my daughter with whores". That's not playing the part of the victim, that's playing the part of the mother.

Exactly.

Chasing @ 10.1:

Victim? How so? She said "hey, dumbasses, I don't appreciate you associating my daughter with whores". That's not playing the part of the victim, that's playing the part of the mother.

Any mother worthy of the label (and it's a major stretch to see the Hillary as a mother figure, even though she is ostensibly a woman and apparently has spawned) would not have her child out there in that arena. But once Chelsea is out there she is fair game, and anybody who has even an inkling of how politics is done these days knows it. Certainly the Clintons, of all people, know it. Hell, they practically invented "the politics of personal destruction". So for them to complain about anything, at any time, is an invitation, a demand even, for skepticism unto the level of outright public derision. The Clintons have no cred left, so they deserve whatever they get, under all circumstances. If Chelsea has actually managed to become a decent human being, which would be pretty surprising given the furnace within which she was glazed, she'll soon know enough to run like hell away from her parents, no doubt agreeing with MSNBC's Shuster all the way.

But this is a "right wing conspiracy." They impregnated her with Hubble's DNA. Then she was taken to a Scientology lab and gave birth. Then she was given instructions to act like a child.

When someone calls you names, make sure to tell on them. Freedom of Speech means nothing to you and so, you have the right to say, "stop it, you're hurting my feelings."

**The truth is, all people in the public eye are scrutinized and they should get over it and the fact she's making threats against networks and asking for apologies and the fact that others say the Clintons should get apologies is unbelievable. It comes with the territory and these people (Clintons) should not be taken seriously. It verges on censorship when you have to retract everything you say.

Read the constitution...

Hillary Milhous Clinton

AHH Name-calling inaccuracies! Sue Newsvine, Hillary!

Hehehehe Oh please do sue, first she'd have to find a lawyer that would touch the case in light of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. ;)

AHH Name-calling inaccuracies! Sue Newsvine, Hillary!

You may say what you want on NewsVine....within the Code. This is not a paid position and you represent no one .....but yourself.

um, ew?

LOL!

I dunno...dim lights, a little wine, some Barry White...I could hit that a few times, especially if Chelsea's down with giving a full Lewinsky. <hides in corner awaiting consequences from Hillary>

um, ew?

Come on Leah, Chelsea is hot, in an odd sort of way...

I think she's attractive... Cliff Potter thought I was lying but I wasn't. LOL I would definitely go with her but I don't know if I could stand the in-laws. ;-)

Heck at my age, Chelsea looks fine un-pimped.....

OK, I'm revealing myself to be thoroughly conceited, but a lot of you knew that anyway, so here goes:

If you think Chelsea's attractive then my husband really is as lucky as I want him to think he is.

Yeah, because talking about Chelsea's relative hotness, in a thread about "pimping", doesn't play into the Clinton's objections. Right.

I'm already on the retainer, Brad. ;>0

Do you know Hillary's real secret?

Do you know Hillary's real secret?

There's something about those headbands...

Senator Kerry also brought the subject of the daughter of V.P. Cheney and I found it so out of place and bad taste.

Having less tact than the weight of an elephant's leg did not help both Senators and who wants a President that put their feet in their mouth?

Senator Kerry also brought the subject of the daughter of V.P. Cheney and I found it so out of place and bad taste.

Yes, and the indignation the stealth VP and his little lady was disgusting. Straight out of Darth Vader's play book.

I can't really see what the big deal is in this case, as "pimped out" (in common usage) isn't a particularly offensive term.

Ask my sister and she'd agree. Ask my mother (much closer to Clinton's age), and she most certainly would not.

Whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for President is going to be on the receiving end of much worse than this from some of the swiftboaters and other slimy types that Senator McCain has got helping him out. If they can't roll with the punches being thrown by lightweights like MSNBC commentators, what are they going to do when the rightwing smear machine fires up in earnest?

Brad .....When Chelsea becomes the candidate.... then you comment will make sense.
It's a great comment.
So save it for then.... in your memo book.

Hi, gpnavonod - thanks for the interesting reply. I probably didn't make myself clear. It seems that it was Senator Clinton who took offense here - at least I haven't read anything about Chelsea being angered. I understand very well that the remark was aimed at Chelsea, hell, I even agree that Chelsea had a pretty good reason to be offended. In general, in fact, I agree with Brenda's assessment that all women might reasonably be offended. All I'm saying is that any Democratic candidate can count on the hateful, smear-oriented campaign machine employed by the RNC to fling much stinkier and stickier poo than this once they know who to fling it at, and that Senator Clinton would probably be better off trying to let some of the small sh*t go. Sometimes it's best to choose ones battles carefully, and there are some big ones coming down the line.

Sorry that didn't make sense, gpnavonod, and I really appreciate you pointing it out to me so that I have a chance to try and explain myself better, rather than just going on the attack like so many around here. BTW, I don't think we've met. It's a pleasure. I'm looking forward to using you as a resource in my "get smarter here" project.

BTW, I don't think we've met. It's a pleasure

Hi Brad
......It's good that you took the time to clarify your point. It's true that there will be plenty of nastiness before this is over.
As for "picking battles" and I speak for myself here. I have one child...and if she decides to help me with some project and is morally impugned for doing so by a Rep of a Public information service...... then I feel that is a "battle well picked" .....and I think any parent thinking to "save their powder"....has questionable credentials.

That aside, the pleasure of your acquaintance is mine.

As it turns out, there were (and are) plenty of people making similar calls on behalf of the Clinton campaign, as there are on behalf of the Obama campaign. People who work for the campaign, as Chelsea does, do various jobs, including making these calls. The Clinton campaign is far from the only campaign in this election which has relatives, including children, as campaign employees. Indeed, there is a tradition in American politics of having family members work for campaigns, sometimes as paid employees, sometimes as volunteers.

If (and it's a big if) you accept the base premise that asking your relative to help you with your campaign by making some phone calls is an analog, or even a metaphorical equivalent, to forcing a woman to provide sexual favors in return for an abusively unfair percentage of the fee that is paid for the favors (I told you it was a big if), it still seems to me that, if you single out one campaign to malign for the practice, you have to (at the very least) explain why you chose that particular campaign without even making reference to any of the other campaigns doing the exact same thing.

Or, to put it another way, I have a job. When my employer directs me to perform a certain function, am I being "pimped?" Why would it be that when Chelsea Clinton's employer directs her to perform a normal campaign duty, anyone would think that she was being "pimped?" Why would that even cross a reasonable person's mind?

So, yeah, I think it was offensive. I think it was calculated. I think the guy deserved to be suspended. I don't blame the Clinton's for @!$%#ing about it. I'd have @!$%#ed, too, and my daughter's even older than Chelsea, and has been out on her own for longer than Chelsea. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I don't sympathize with these people, or that I think they did the wrong thing, really. I just think that we need to keep our eyes on the prize, and not get so busy ripping each other a new one that we get caught not looking when the heavy duty political sh*tfest starts. Senator Clinton has a history of being able to deal with the rightwing smear machine, and I probably don't have anything to worry about. I just don't want the Democrats to let this one get away (not that we've done that in the past or anything).

LOL.......Well put, Brad.

Your daughter should be proud of her father.

There have been pictures of one of Bush daughters changing her underwear in a swimming pool circulating on the NET for years now.

Without a link it didn't happen... ;)

this one I think

I'd definitely tap that. LOL

How in the world could that girl actually be related to Bush ? Whoa....

Scott, this may actually be one of those rare cases where we agree on something...

I'd definitely tap that.

But, I don't know if I would take that chance. The guy who printed this one, had anthrax mailed to him...

There are better photos out there of her changing. Including one where she lives up to the "family name" ... if you know what I mean..

LOL Let's hope I can avoid the anthrax mailing. BTW, I wonder if anyone is still working that cold case.

Scott,

Ross Getman's website remains the best repository of evidence related to the anthrax mailings.

Imagine that the President calls to all the Media about their bad taste comments about the twins. I still remember very well.

Hell, when one of them (I forget which) got caught drinking underage not five miles from where I now sit, the very liberal and hugely Democratic city of Austin was outraged - not at the daughter for drinking underage, but at the dumbass at the restaurant who ruined the poor girls fun night out.

The Manager knew perfectly what she was doing calling the police. Why the Margarita was served?

Chelsea was spared when living in London. The hypocresy of the Media.

The Manager knew perfectly what she was doing calling the police. Why the Margarita was served?

I don't know that it was a manager (though it may have been), but you're exactly correct - they served her knowing full well she was underage. It was a trap, and it backfired.

I'm really used to trying to sound impartial (ie. not say anything about Hillary Clinton that may be bad even if it's true) because I live with two major Hillary-fans. It makes for a lot of pent up rage.

Chelsea was found in a polling place in very early hours and maybe Hillary is trying to divert the situation.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7827524

Chelsea was found in a polling place in very early hours and maybe Hillary is trying to divert the situation.

That story got no national traction by the MSM. I should think violating the 75-foot rule on election day would merit some additional coverage. As far as whether the day starts at 12:01AM or when the polls open I would think that in most applications of law the day starts at 12:01AM unless otherwise specified.

I'm so up to my frickin' ears with half the feminist community simultaneously trying to argue that all women don't think alike and that women must vote for Hillary because she's a woman

Amen Sister!!

I mean what on earth is Chelsea Clinton doing calling super delegates?

Supporting her mother? Politics? Both? Seriously, what's she supposed to do, be a fainting lily?

Attacking Chelsea Clinton is not attacking all women!

Correct. However, attacking Chelsea Clinton by using language that makes her sound like a whore, does. Don't sit here and pretend history doesn't exist, we all know that attacking a woman's sexuality is the quickest way to discredit her.

I'm so up to my frickin' ears with half the feminist community simultaneously trying to argue that all women don't think alike and that women must vote for Hillary because she's a woman.

NY NOW is not nearly "half of the feminist community" and I'm so up to my @!$%#ing ears with it being framed as such.

Commenting on the level of misogyny in the media is not shilling for Clinton. If I state that Chris Matthews is a sexist douchbag for his attacks on Hillary Clinton, that is all I am saying. Clinton is not my candidate, but I'm not going to sit back and let misogynistic attacks be launched at her without saying anything because somehow addressing it means that I'm a Clinton supporter, or that I'm shaming women for not voting for her. It means that I want her to fail on her merits, not because the media won't let her play on a level field.

If you see that as otherwise, you are really no better then the "feminists" you are decrying. The bottom line is that I can address the sexism in this campaign without being a Clinton supporter. It's really that simple.

I dare another network to say he got punked for his pimping comments, but Hillary power puffs might really go postal and the pundits might say its all just a performance.

MSNBC says it has temporarily suspended anchor David Shuster from all NBC news broadcasts

MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton

The MSNBC web site was updated at 2:00 pm PST, at that time, they still are saying its a temporary suspension.

Oh, My Lord.

Are we in a free country or not?

Mrs. Pantsuit has to understand that her followers or the Dems did worst to the twins.

shows exactly what they'll do after the election, mainly stifle news that the administration doesn't want you to hear.

err... umm... actually may show anyone who still believes MSM what has been going on all along... you don't have to wait for an election to find decades of media/political manipulation.

Bat keep bashing. I only adjusted your fine comments to reflect the fact that we don't have to wait until after an election to see exactly what you said is missing in the media.

Yeah, Keith Oralmann's buttboy Shuster has just tons of integrity. Gimme a f'in break.

This sure wasn't a Chelsea Morning.

The power of the Clinton machine!!

That's not the power of the Clinton machine, that's the weakness of a network.

There should be no suspension at all. Where is MSNBC's integrity after this? Non existent, that's where. Caving in to a political campaign before the election shows exactly what they'll do after the election, mainly stifle "news" that the administration doesn't want you to hear.

LoL ...Nothing like injecting a little humour, Bat!
You did mean that allusion to "news"... as humour .....didn't you?

I'd be the first to be with you on that wmolaw but a 27-year-old woman is not a kid. If the same comment had been said about a minor, I'd be the first to cry foul. I've heard worse on the conservative talk radio shows that I listen to on my commute though.

All have to understand that Chelsea wasn't a baby Venus or teenager. Therefore, Hillary and Chelsea had coming a long way and I feel her sensitivity but.....if Mrs. Clinton did not start making noises it could be better. She could be doing the call private.

This kind of crap really upsets me. What the hell was so wrong with what Shuster said? Pimp? That doesn't always mean managing a prostitute these days. "Pimp my ride" anyone? Jesus Christ, are they ever out of touch. And anyway, even if they'd called her a filthy whore, which they didn't, I'm sick and tired of all the censorship and "mind your manners" crap in this country.

To All Americans, I say: Grow Some Skin! Stop being so whiney and sensitive about everything. Man-Up. Woman-Up. Whatever. Have a spine, why doncha, hey?

"Pimp my ride" anyone?

The usage of "pimp" in "pimp my ride" would in no way correlate with what Chelsea was doing, so that's a bit of a false comparison. What was she doing, pimping Clinton's campaign? Do you seriously think that's what was meant? What'd she do, lower its body and add neon to it? Show off their expansive "pad" on MTV? No, we all know what was meant, and while "pimp" may not necessarily, today, mean the same thing it used to, its usage in relation to Chelsea was much closer to the classic definition than the "modern" one. Besides which, I doubt Hillary watches MTV.

Like I've said about three times in the comments to this article ... I pimp my webpages, I pimp out Barack every chance I can get.

Oh, and, perhaps if Hillary didn't understand what was meant, maybe Chelsea should have explained it to her before Hillary made an ass of herself by making a big deal out of this.

Like I've said about three times in the comments to this article ... I pimp my webpages, I pimp out Barack every chance I can get.

Yeah, and I groznok the hell out of my zorbnib. What's that got to do with anything, though?

wmolaw

You know, MSNBC should be called down for this one.

Like Determined, I remember the crap the Bush twins got, and it wasn't pretty.

Even if kids are involved, they shouldn't be equated, even if unintentionally, to a whore, period.

Words do matter

wmolaw....You are a prudent jurist.
I applaud your decision.

That's not free speech. That's not America. That's the old Soviet system. The one we fought against during most of our lives. So we defeat the Soviets only to integrate their way of dealing with dissent and truth into our own

If it were the Old Soviet Union...David Shuster would be carving his comments on the walls of a salt mine by now. That not being the case here..... he or MSNBC should be sued for Slander in the "Good Ole Capitalistic Way" ....... . Law: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. ........Which, you, being a "self proclaimed model" of , should have no problem with. Btw While your history book is at hand, see Andrew Jackson's method of dealing with personal insults to his wife,Rachal. He had a way of making all their "thoughts" brought into public view

gpn:

"Slander?" I think you need to read up a bit on the law of slander before evoking its use.

There was no slander here.

wmolawgpn: "Slander?" I think you need to read up a bit on the law of slander before evoking its use. There was no slander here

Nor Libel.....but defamation does come to mind.
Is there a hiphop version of that word?

Ha!.......Dis!

gpn:

"Defamation" is just a catch all phrase. "Defamation" is made up of libel (in writing) and slander (oral)

gpn:

"Defamation" is just a catch all phrase.

And it has "caught"..... quite a few......

Yes well it misses the point perhaps that Shuster and his supporters (and Clinton haters-- yea even unto this very message board) are engaging at best in sexist language to get their political jollies.

And where sexism is, can racism and other stupidities be far behind?

====

PLEASE REMOVE

I accidentally double-posted.

Thx

-- GP

====

Seriously, it never gets old.

Seriously.
;-)

Then, the President and the First Lady have grounds to get the posters in many blogs.

I agree with you, Stacy, mostly. I agree that the Clinton's have the right to object to the term. I agree that it is up to the network to decide what is financially best for them, which is obviously what happened here. I know that MSNBC really wants to host at least one of the two debates, and Keith Olbermann himself really wants to host one of them. While I don't agree with MSNBCs response, I understand it perfectly.

My main objection to all of this, and why it is a "big deal" to me, is because I find it fascinating that the Clintons, "The first Black President" and his wife, don't understand what "pimping" means these days. Are they so out of touch with America? I find it a retarded thing in which to object. And I find the act of complaining to a network because one of their anchors was a big meanie pants an extremely undesirable trait in a person who wants to be President of the United States of America. I thought the Clintons were supposed to be strong? That is not strong. It is weak, and pathetic. They are in the public eye, if they can't take the heat, get outta the damn kitchen.

What about if they get in the White House? Ever think about that? The media won't be able to say what they like about them for fear of the anchors getting fired because the Network is concerned with whether or not they will be allowed to carry the next press conference or SOTU? Damn, we'll all start watching Fox News if nobody else is able to talk trash about the White House.

My main objection to all of this, and why it is a "big deal" to me, is because I find it fascinating that the Clintons, "The first Black President" and his wife, don't understand what "pimping" means these days.

You sure about that?

Main Entry: pimp Function: verb Date: 1636

intransitive verb
: to work as a pimp transitive verb : to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit

I guess you better get on the horn to Merriam-Webster, right quick.

Yes, I'm sure about that. This isn't 1636.

We could go back even further if you want:

1607, perhaps from M.Fr. pimper "to dress elegantly" (16c.), prp. of pimpant "alluring in dress, seductive." Weekley suggests M.Fr. pimpreneau, defined in Cotgrave (1611) as "a knave, rascall, varlet, scoundrell." The word also means "informer, stool pigeon" in Australia and New Zealand and in S.Africa, where by early 1960s it existed in Swahili form impimpsi. The verb is attested from 1636. Pimpmobile first recorded 1973.

Yeah, a lot of people need to get on the horn to Merriam-Webster. It's called popular culture.

to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit

I think the use of "pimp" was very apt.

Anyway, he said it on an opinion show, not during a news broadcast. If he HAD said it during a news broadcast, that would be different.

Yes, I'm sure about that. This isn't 1636.

You're plenty smart enough to know that the 1636 is when the term appeared, and not the last time it was relevant. Check Merriam-Webster, yourself. I guarantee you you'll fine the term "pimp" defined as Clinton has done. You may also, somewhere, maybe even there, find a more modern variant. But so what? You get to decide which she should apply, but she doesn't? About her own daughter? Not likely.

We've had this discussion. It's about context. There was no sexual activity implied, therefore, the more modern meaning of the word would certainly apply.

Dictionaries are never up on the popular slang from the last ten years or so. How long did it take them to put "ain't" in the dictionary?

It's called popular culture.

Dictionaries record usage, whether you (or anyone) like(s) it or not. At some point, if it hasn't already, it will most certainly include the usage you're prone to. But it won't replace the other usage, and it isn't as though a bulletin gets broadcast "THIS IS A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM: "PIMP" NOW HAS CHANGED MEANING, PLEASE DO LOOK IT UP PROMPTLY."

No chance. Eventually, maybe (but not likely any time soon), the older usage will disappear. But for the majority of Americans who aren't net-savvy twenty-somethings who sucked at the teat of MTV (and a few others), "pimp" still means what it's always meant. You may not like it, but them's the facts, and you've got your one vote to AARP's....how many?

The Dumbing of America since RoseAnn or whoever had the most popular TV program in the USA.

Since then...."clap" and other words are allowed as part of our language.

Dictionaries are never up on the popular slang from the last ten years or so. How long did it take them to put "ain't" in the dictionary?

There is no such thing as "proper" English, or "official" English, or "real" English, just, at some point in your life, the English your teacher lets you get away with. And then you're own your own.

The written language always lags behind the spoken, but once a word is commonly used (or a definition commonly applied) it gets in there. I don't know about "ain't", but I suspect it's been in as long as either of us have been alive, even if it's notated as being frowned upon in polite society.

But that's neither here nor there. Chelsea may have gotten the term, and groked it in its modern usage, but why the hell should Hillary, who is a baby-boomer, conform to your standards, when she's got a perfectly serviceable one of her own, that's equally valid?

In context, if you read above (somewhere, as I've commented a lot), you'll note that I agree that Chelsea was "pimped out". But that doesn't mean jack crap to Hillary, who is older, used to a different definition, and is a mother.

The thing being, Hillary didn't make a big deal out of it. She said, hey, that's beyond the parameters of what I deem to be acceptable (and we all have that right). It's MSNBC who caved. So point your angry finger at them.

They could have easily released a statement saying "We regret that we inadvertently insulted Mrs. Clinton, but hope she understands we were using a more modern variant of the word, and in no way meant to imply that Chelsea's parents were proffering her, sexually, for profit....and now, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast."

It isn't they who are making the big deal. It's us.

I'm not the one who claimed that the original meaning no longer exists.

I said it's the context. There was no sex implied, therefore, the original def is not the one meant, if you look at the context.

I'm not the one who claimed that the original meaning no longer exists.

"Us" meaning the netroots, though NV plays its part, not necessarily any individual. And you'll note that I actually agree that the "modern" or "fashionable" or "youth-oriented" version is probably the more appropriate one to apply. But try telling that to an angry mother, who, it must be said, isn't precisely wrong about what "pimp" might mean, either.

Although the "new" version of "pimp" doesn't quite apply either (they didn't add chrome to Hillary). Rather something else - but, sure, most of us of a certain age knew what was meant. But Hillary isn't "of a certain age". Or, at least, the certain age in question.

In any case, we're just feeding the free publicity. How many comments have we left, while Chelsea soundly slept?

If she wants to run this country, she needs to be able to connect to all of its citizens. Not just the ones over 50.

they didn't add chrome to Hillary

Pimping doesn't mean adding chrome, etc, that is merely one definition. Pimping means promoting. "Oh, look at that commercial pimping that stupid phone." "Man, they sure are pimping this movie, it probably sucks."

that is merely one definition.

Bingo.

And I've been arguing context. The context of what he said yields only one meaning, and it ain't whoring.

Look, say with a subgroup of kids, oh, I don't know, "gay" becomes an OK term to use, and means, roughly "lame".

I don't care. It's still insulting. Context can screw itself. I say this as a gay man.

So if a group of people, I don't know, significantly younger than HRC (and a few others, granted) start using "pimp" in a new way, fine.

But she doesn't have to care. She's still insulted. Context can screw itself. She says this as a mother.

This isn't my argument, and I'm not going to get too involved in it. I'll just point out, though, that the commentator didn't say that Chelsea was "pimping" the Clinton campaign, he said that the Clinton campaign was "pimping" Chelsea. Chelsea was certainly "promoting" the Clinton campaign, and a comment that claimed that she was "pimping" the campaign would definitely fall into Kevin's line of argument. The Clinton campaign, however, wasn't "promoting" Chelsea. Indeed, the campaign wasn't "doing" anything - Chelsea was making phone calls to pimp the campaign, and the campaign was reaping the benefit (if there was any - seriously, does anyone believe that Chelsea Clinton actually has any real influence among the political elite that make up the list of superdelegates?), but they weren't "promoting" Chelsea.

No, the commentator was clearly using a different definition of the term "pimping," one which carries a more negative connotation. The Clintons were, in my opinion, a little thin-skinned about it, but that's their prerogative, and they certainly weren't acting outside of the realm of common courtesy or decency. If they don't like the way a network portrays them, they are certainly within their rights to boycott the network, just as all of us are within our own prerogative to judge them for their actions, and to use that judgment to inform our voting decisions.

When it comes to the issue of meaning and context, Schuster was implying that the campaign was "using" Chelsea Clinton, and that they were doing so in a way that would go beyond the type of "use" that any other member of the campaign would get. When a pimp "uses" (pimps) a call girl, he derives financial benefit from her based on her (forced, unwilling) labor. When someone is said to be "pimping" someone else, not in the context of "promoting" them, but in the context of "using" them, the implication is that the person being "pimped" is not fully willing, and that she is not being properly compensated for her work. Chelsea Clinton is a member of the campaign, and she's doing campaign work. She's not being "used" when she does campaign work for which she's being compensated, and she certainly isn't being "promoted" by being asked to do such work. Don't kid yourself about modern usage and all that - Schuster knew what he was implying, and so did the Clintons. It's no big deal - he said it, they reacted, and now the issue is being resolved.

This really isn't about old fogeys keeping up with the times - it's about some guy stepping over a line and getting called on it. We may disagree about whether or not we would have drawn the line where the Clintons did, and we can disagree about all sorts of other things, but there's really no need to get all "f*ck you old men" or all "kids today aren't all that" over it.

Can't we all just get along?

:-)

A kid of one is a different universe for all of us.

Rants-opine

Chelsea is on the campaign trial, she's fair game as is Daddy Bill. As a public figure they open themselves up to all sorts of derogatory remarks. I'm sure she won't be traumatic over it. After all, look at Momma and Papa

Chelsea is not now..... nor was she ever....a public official.
Therein, lies the difference.

But you are free to rant your opinion here .....as you and NewsVine see fit.

Gpn:

Rants didn't say "public official." He/she said "public figure." Which she is.

That designation has meaning under the defamation laws. See Sullivan v. NYT.

Sullivan was a law officer and the case involved the people he oversaw.....Am I correct?
Let's get closer to the case at hand.

Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with malice (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth). The burden of proof is higher in the case of a public figure.

Let him [Shuster or MSNBC] show any hint of proof of sexual favors performed by Chelsea and coerced by her parents.

If you try hard enough, anything can offend you. ;)

If you try hard enough, anything can offend you. ;)

Tim, I'm offended.

Hehehehe mission accomplished then! ;)

Chelsea had been campaigning w/her parents always and this is an inroduction to Chelsea for the future like the Kennedys/

I think that Chelsea should not be treated like the mother and father, she is poised and well mannered..

But HRC Jr is a grown woman.

Well her name is Chelsea, and I'm pretty sure she's her own woman, but beyond that I agree. If Chelsea wants to take offense, she's perfectly capable of telling MSNBC they're a bunch of hacks, all she wants, all on her own. It wouldn't carry the same weight, no, but she is an adult, and able to speak for herself.

That doesn't deprive a mother the right to speak out either, however.