The Political Chase

Shuster’s ‘Pimping’ Comment and Clinton’s Reaction

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?