Feb 9, 2008 at 9:25 PM by Political Chase
Politico has an email exchange (see below) between David Shuster and Phillip Reines, a long-time Clinton aide, that gives further insight into why MSNBC suspended Shuster for his recent comments about Chelsea Clinton. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton escalated her war against NBC/MSNBC and Shuster, by blasting NBC President Steve Capus in in a terse and demanding letter.
It’s quite clear from Clinton’s letter to Capus, she wants Shuster’s head and much more.
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.
While I can’t defend Shuster’s choice of words, he presents a valid argument, at least in this specific case, about the Clinton’s double-standard “hands-off” Chelsea policy the Clintons’ demand. Shuster argues the Clinton’s dispatch Chelsea to make “calls to superdelegates” and then reacts “quite harshly to any media” seeking to interview her. However, Shuster’s big mistake was clearly not apologizing for his characterization of Chelsea.
It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that’s the reference.
Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying “I don’t want to talk.”. But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea…that’s an issue.
The issue is not her making calls. As said on the air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You can’t have it both ways. Reporters have long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And you know that.
As I stated previously, there is a larger issue — prior derogatory comments made by Chris Matthews and others at MSNBC about the Clinton’s, which Media Matters aptly describes as “The mess at MSNBC.”
But according to Politico, NBC may not be quite so willing to acquiesce to the marching orders issued by the Commander-in-Chief hopeful.
In a statement before Shuster’s second apology, on Friday evening’s “Tucker,” the network said that Shuster had “extended an apology to the Clinton family.”
“NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks,” the statement continued.
Behind the scenes, Phil Griffin, senior vice president at MSNBC, took the criticism over Shuster’s remarks from the Clinton camp especially seriously, and Tim Russert helped mediate the situation, according to sources.
But one high-level NBC source told Politico that apologizing was an act of cowardice on behalf of the network.
“This is at least the second time they’ve caved to the Hillary Clinton campaign,” a source told Politico, referring to Chris Matthews’ recent apology over remarks he recently made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist. “What does this do to journalism?”
Taylor Marsh puts the Shuster situation in the proper perspective, especially when considering considering the overall issue at MSNBC (Matthews, Scarborough, etc.). One caveat on Marsh’s remarks — I distinctly remember reporters asking Romney about his sons serving in the military, unfortunately I cannot cite a specific reference.
[It's] clear he doesn’t understand the double standard towards Chelsea Clinton, especially when compared to the kids of the other candidates. Romney’s sons all campaigned for their dad, but in the middle of a war he supports, has one reporter asked them why they haven’t served their country? Are they being “pimped out?” If Shuster had made this comment about Obama’s kids, the furor we’re witnessing right now would pale in comparison to the shouts for Shuster’s head.
While Hillary Clinton may rightfully take offense at Shuster and others at MSNBC, I have little doubt that Hillary is not purposefully exacerbating the situation for political gain. It’s the 1990’s all over again. She says ad nauseam that she has fought the battles for 35 years and is therefore has the right stuff for the White House. Personally, after seven years of George Bush and 13 years of Republicans in Congress, I’m sick of the ad hominem attacks.
Emails between David Shuster and Clinton aide Phillip Reines after the jump.
Continue reading ‘Clinton: Dump Shuster’
Feb 9, 2008 at 4:38 PM by Political Chase
David Shuster, an excellent reporter on MSNBC, made a comment Thursday night (see video) to the effect that Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped out” by the campaign, which resulted in an all out assault on MSNBC by the Clinton campaign.
This is really something. The Hillary campaign has just gone to war with MSNBC, dispatching a top Hillary adviser to
launch a lacerating attack on the network on a conference call with reporters moments ago.
On the call, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson suggested that there’s a “pattern” of reprehensible comments by MSNBC personalities, and said outright that the Hillary campaign could no longer “envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made.”
Asked about Shuster’s “pimp” comment, Wolfson denounced the comment as “disgusting” and “beneath contempt,” adding: “It’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network.”
Then Wolsfon added: “You have to question whether or not there is a pattern here on the part of the network.” He added: “Is this part of a pattern? I don’t know, but [it's] beneath contempt.”
After being suspended by MSNBC, Shuster issued his second (or third?) apology last night. Watch it.
Reaction to Shuster’s “pimping” comments have been all over the place. TalkLeft expressed outrage and, as to be expected, conveniently seized an opportunity to indirectly slam Barack Obama. Others such as Jane Hamsher, who knows Shuster, and Atrios put it in a perspective that I would be more inclined to agree with.
Jane’s take:
It may surprise everyone but I actually wasn’t bothered by them. The phrase is ubiquitous, I use it all the time and although it is a loaded term my initial impression was that in the wake of all the truly awful sexist stuff that’s come down the pipeline from MSNBC over the course of this campaign, much of which I have personally railed about, this just didn’t fall into that category.
Josh Marshall puts a fine point on it, which I think gets considerably closer to reality.
What Shuster said was tasteless and crude… And he should apologize for saying it, which he did — though perhaps he might have done so more fulsomely. I do not think the comment played to specific stereotypes about women in general or about Hillary in particular as it would if you refer to a black man as “lazy” or “shiftless” or a woman as “shrill” or a “shrew.” Nor am I aware that Shuster has any history of such comments — unlike some other MSNBC TV personalities.
Unlike pretty much everyone else on the chat shows he’s a reporter who consistently does pretty solid investigative pieces. But regardless of that, who can name me the last political chat show host or reporter who was suspended over anything? To say that he’s being held to a different standard than TV chatters normally are is probably a farcical statement in itself since I’m not clear that there are any standards.
Does anyone watch Fox News?
On the other hand, many have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton. The most logical way for me to understand this development is that MSNBC is under a lot of fire for Matthews — but Matthews is untouchable — and Shuster’s easier to can or suspend.
I have no doubt that Shuster is at some level taking the fall for many negative remarks Chris Matthews has made about Hillary Clinton.
Then there is the Clinton’s long-stand policy that Chelsea is “hands-off” when it comes to the media, which I believe is a significant factor in Clinton’s reaction. But when they put Chelsea, who is approximately 30 years old, into an active campaign role, they cannot expect the media to adhere to the same rules as mandated during the Clinton administration when Chelsea was a teenager. While Shuster could have and should have chosen his words more appropriately, Chelsea becomes fair game just as any other staffer or politician would be.
Furthermore, I have to question Hillary’s motivations. Are they simply contained to defending Chelsea or have the Clintons also capitalized on an opportunity to gain a huge amount of sympathy publicity?
Feb 9, 2008 at 2:42 PM by Political Chase
From an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer yesterday.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican who served under President Bush, said Friday he may not back the GOP presidential nominee in November, telling CNN that “I am keeping my options open at the moment.”
“I have voted for members of both parties in the course of my adult life,” Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “And as I said earlier, I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job for America, whether that candidate is a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent.”
Powell also offered praise for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, calling him an “exciting person on the political stage.
“He has energized a lot of people in America,” said Powell, who briefly weighed his own run for the White House in the mid-1990s. “He has energized a lot of people around the world. And so I think he is worth listening to and seeing what he stands for.”
CNN Political Ticker: Colin Powell may support Democrat or Independent in ‘08
CNN’s video is available here.
Feb 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM by Political Chase
Promises, promises…
Via WaPo:
President Bush drew great applause during his State of the Union address last month when he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. “Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them,” he said.
A week later, however, when Bush submitted his $3.1 trillion federal budget to Congress, he included no funding for such an initiative, which government analysts calculate could cost $1 billion to $2 billion annually.
Should we have expected anything different?
