<p>I cannot believe how low these media reporters have sunk. First of all there is absolutely nothing wrong with Chelsea campaigning vigorously for her Mom. Second of all, even if the reporter thought otherwise and wanted to express his opinion he did not have to use such provocative language.</p>
<p>Anyone else horrified?</p>
<p>Got a link? I was running around yesterday and have been news-less.</p>
<p>Never mind, I found one: <a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23071790/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23071790/</a></p>
<p>I was watching MSNBC on Super Tuesday night. It was a parade of white-haired white guys. Brokaw, Brian Williams, Matthews, Buchanan, Russert, the Morning Joe guy, Olberman…the list goes on. I think they had 2 women on, Andrea Mitchell and someone forgettable, but they don’t get top billing and were talked over anyway. It’s fairly apparent they hate Hillary (Did anyone see the Matthews rant the night of New Hampshire before the polls closed? Utterly insane!) but I think it goes beyond her. It’s like the Lifetime channel for misogynists. They haven’t learned a thing from the Imus debacle…</p>
<p>Shuster’s comment was “deplorable.” Seems to me it’s all part of the “if-Hillary-did-it-it-must-be-bad” assumption. Didn’t Romney have his kids campaigning for him? And didn’t Kerry do it four years ago? And so on and so on?</p>
<p>I just don’t understand the hatred for Hillary. Disagree with her ideas and positions, if you must, but what is all this slimey put-down of her about??</p>
<p>Cross-posted with Woody: We agree.</p>
<p>I think there is a lot of irrational hatred for Hillary and Bill Clinton. Some of it is definitely a reaction to how popular they were and how they seemed to get away with all sorts of indiscretions. A kind of jealousy. They just hate that family for staying together through thick and thin, don’t they.</p>
<p>I prefer Obama over Hillary and probably McCain over Hillary too but still I do like the Clintons. I remember Chelsea the young teen when Bill Clinton first won his election and continued to follow her progress in life. To see her insulted like this on TV makes me mad. This is what I dislike about the rude, take-no-prisoners tone of politics today. This is why Obama’s message of not demonizing the other side resonates so much with me.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC’s David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had “pimped out” 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party “superdelegates” on her mother’s behalf."</p>
<p>Yes, a deplorable comment reflective of the small mind of THAT (not all) media reporters.</p>
<p>The comment was deplorable. However, it is the Clinton campaign that is making it an issue. I am sure that they are hoping it will garner some sympathy (emotional) votes for the poor Clintons. Based on the reaction I have seen, it probably will. </p>
<p>What I find deplorable is some of the comments that Bill Clinton made in reference to race and the Obama campaign. Obama pretty much ignored them. </p>
<p>Another Clinton double-standard?</p>
<p>Flames begin.</p>
<p>This also takes attention away from some unanswered questions by the Clinton campaign. Where did the $5M come from? Why didn’t Hillary release her tax returns, etc. ?</p>
<p>Also interesting that Clinton is threatening to not appear on a particular debate. She is the one that wanted more debates. Another flip-flop?</p>
<p>The comment was deplorable but apparently anything that people do to the Clintons is deplorable, anything they do to others is just part of the fun. </p>
<p>I don’t think that the hatred of the Clintons is irrational after reading and hearing about the way they treat their enemies. And whether it is irrational or not, it is SO real and it is what is going to defeat her if she is the nominee. She may win the Democratic nomination, but if she does the party is shooting itself in the foot because I just cannot imagine her winning the election.</p>
<p>The debate is an MSNBC sponsored debate. The rumours about her not debating are related to the comment about Chelsea. </p>
<p>Have they all released their tax returns? </p>
<p>I am hoping for their release of medical records and medications used over the past 5 years. It would help to determine who is physically up to the job, particularly with so many questions about McCain’s health and fitness for the work involved.</p>
<p>Yes, the Obamas have. <a href=“Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune”>Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune;
<p>By stock in msft & ge.</p>
<p>Bad comments should be retracted/apologized by the companies/person everytime that unfortunate comment is broadcasted as news or in other peoples commentary-equal time principle.</p>
<p>Son pointed out to me yesterday that “pimped out” is used in a more common way by his generation than in the past as in “pimp my ride”, a TV program. Its another unfortunate remark, like the Golf announcer’s “lynching in a back alley” remark about Tiger Woods.Bropadcasters have to be really really careful of their language.
I do think its interesting how the Clintons jumped right on it,becoming the offended party (as in …everyone is out to get us…) and saying they might not attend the debate after they called for more debatesd than scheduled.</p>
<p>Here we go again … it’s all about irrational hatred and visceral reactions. </p>
<p>It’s interresting to see how the Clinton campaign seems to run more like an underdog than a magnanimous frontrunner would. The “we versus the world” and staged emotional scenes will only work for so long as there are limits to the gullibility of the voters. </p>
<p>What happened to the invincible juggernaut who could order new curtains for the White House on February 6th!</p>
<p>I was trying to figure out a polite way to say the equivalent of “pimped out” and couldn’t. Frankly, I thought the description wasn’t bad, although injudicious.</p>
<p>The Clinton campaign is all about Opportunity. Remember the unfortunate “world crisis” in NH when some local mentally disturbed man strapped a flare to his belt and held Clinton campaign members hostage? Hillary flew to NH to save the world. It was a few days before the NH primary.</p>
<p>…Oh, and when Hillary flew to Rutgers to save the women basketball players whose lives were ruined because of the Imos comment???</p>
<p>…Oh, and the famous emotional cry.</p>
<p>What a great way for the Clinton campaign to get some publicity without having to pay for it!!! (particularly since they are not financially sound?)</p>
<p>I agree with xiggi. These tactics can only work for so long. :(</p>
<p>pimp is now a verb. I found this definition:</p>
<p>2.) to pimp is to advertise (generally, in an enthusiastic sense) or to call attention in order to bring acclaim to something; to promote.</p>
<p>Poor choice for any journalist, but it all depends how you define ‘pimp’.</p>
<p>Since ‘is’ needed clarification by Bill Clinton in the past, I can understand how many words can be misconstrued…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Unfortunately, the phenomenon of the blind, mindless hatred for Hillary Clinton is quite real. And it existed long before she became a contender for the presidency. Not that Republicans have a corner on the irrational hatred market. Many Democrats had similar hatred for Richard Nixon, even well before the disgrace of Watergate.</p>
<p>I was watching when Shuster said pimp out Chelsea and to be honest I did not find it so bad. I thought he was saying that for years they kept her under wraps and now to combat Obama she was going to be used in the campaign. I may vote for Hillary but this is much to do about nothing.</p>
<p>To apply the words “pimped out” to a young woman — as opposed to a car — is grossly inappropriate, an extremely poor choice of words for someone who’s supposed to be a professional. Back to covering mall openings for him. </p>
<p>Another thing: I’m willing to believe that Clinton’s emotional response, the show of tears, was genuine and I kind of resent the implication that to believe it was so makes one childlike or “gullible.” There’s no evidence that the question that elicited that response was planted and planned for. The woman who asked the question gave an interview denying that she was a plant and said that the question “How do you do it?” just came to her — she almost didn’t ask it — but decided to go ahead and Clinton’s response resonated with women voters and helped her. (The questioner went on to say that she herself voted for Obama.) </p>
<p>If you impute deviousness to someone’s every move, then I guess you can believe that in the split seconds between that unplanted question and Clinton’s answer her brain commanded “make tears” and so on, but I find that less believable than that she is a human being and spontaneously gave up a human emotion along with her answer.</p>
<p>jazzymom: I know several people (not including me) who think that in the New Hampshire incident Hillary was just waiting to get a suitable question to which she could bring out the tears. So it is not that the question was planted, it just provided HRC the opportunity to “find her voice”.</p>
<p>Personally I don’t really know what those tears were about, and frankly the tears did not sway me one way or the other. I know HRC is a human being with emotions. So is Obama. If Obama sheds some public tears, it won’t sway me either.</p>