The Political Chase

Clinton: Dump Shuster

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.

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being “pimped out” ? It’s absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?

I just don’t get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What’s the problem.

Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

—–Original Message—–
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.

Nice to hear from you, philippe.

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.

————————–
Sent using BlackBerry

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.

Since you guys asked for the transcript - here specifically is what David said on air:

SHUSTER: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”

I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC’s air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.

David - I want to make sure I’m crystal clear here - you’re saying that because she doesn’t grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?

I don’t need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out of line. Nobody’s jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or talking about calls she made. And you know it.

There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.

By actually rationalizing your behavior rather than accepting responsibility and apologizing, you become the poster child for everything wrong with tv journalism, and it’s a shame your NBC colleagues have to be associated with this (expletive).

—–Original Message—–
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.

No. That’s not what I’m saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was raised, you would know that.

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.

————————–
Sent using BlackBerry

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.

I think we’ve each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this email exchange, we’re assuming two things:

1) You are not disputing that you said on air: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”

2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above.