SubscribeHillary Camp Feigns Outrage At Pimp Crack
From the Boston Globe (and MSNBC via YouTube):
Clinton camp angry over disparaging of Chelsea
by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
February 8
The Clinton campaign and its allies are up in arms about a comment made by a cable TV political show host that Chelsea Clinton is being “pimped out in some weird sort of way” by making appearances for her mother on the campaign trail.
David Shuster has been temporarily suspended from NBC news broadcast and will reportedly apologize this evening on air for the remark he made Thursday evening on MSNBC.
His guest, radio talk show host Bill Press, immediately defended the former first daughter, saying she wouldn’t be campaigning if she didn’t want to. “Give Chelsea a break.”
Today, the Clinton camp threatened to boycott the cable network. And this afternoon, EMILY’s List, which raises money for female candidates, weighed in.
“I’m sending this letter today to let you know that the misogynistic pattern in the reporting by your network must come to an end,” Ellen Malcolm, the group’s president, wrote to MSNBC News Senior Vice President Phil Griffin. “I know I speak for millions across this country when I demand that you take immediate steps and publicly tell us what you will do to eliminate this sexist and demeaning culture that has become so pervasive in your network.
Malcolm mentioned that Chris Matthews, host of “Hardball” on MSNBC, recently apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible by her husband’s philandering.
“Your tolerance for this behavior speaks volumes about the corporate culture of MSNBC,” Malcolm continued. “If you refuse to take action, women across the country, viewers, sponsors, and consumers can only assume your implicit endorsement of this type of sexist commentary on women and repugnant treatment of our children.”
Well, aren’t the Clintons using Chelsea for their political gain?
Indeed, haven’t we been told by Clinton insiders that Chelsea was only conceived in order to help with the Clintons’ image and his re-election as Governor in Arkansas?
And remember how she was called back to DC for family photo-ops after the Lewinsky revelations?
And of course we all know how highly Bill Clinton upholds the sanctity of womanhood.
So why the pretend outrage?
By the way, is MNSBC the same network that carries Keith Olbermann? Has he ever been suspended for, say, ripping apart an Ann Coulter doll?
Just kidding. Of course he hasn’t and would never be.
By the way, as a cultural indicator note that:
A search for the word “pimp” on Google video returns 55,603 hits.
37 Responses to “Hillary Camp Feigns Outrage At Pimp Crack”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I understand what you are saying, SG. I feel the same as you about the Clintons, but Chelsea has developed into a dignified young woman who is campaigning with class in behalf of her mother.
The comment by the MSNBC reporter was out of line and completely uncalled for. It’s about time the media started getting called on some of the crap it pulls. Let’s hope this is only the beginning.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
but Chelsea has developed into a dignified young woman who is campaigning with class in behalf of her mother.
WTF world do you do drugs in?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Its just that MSNBC is such a right-wing organization………
February 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Chelsea is past the age of consent so she’s fair game if she wants to wade into the swamp. I probably wouldn’t have used the word “pimp” to describe her but If she wants to lay down in mud with her Parents then she’s gonna get dirty. The story about her being conceived for image sakes is SO like the Clintons. I wouldn’t put it past them. Their whole life is about achieving and holding on to political power.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I mean, I guess she could have stayed home and baked cookies or something…….
February 8th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
1st, I normally agree with everything you post, and in fact cheer you in the background. But I am a bit confused about your inquiry about my doing drugs.
Do you not think Chelsea has conducted herself with dignity? If she hasn’t, I haven’t seen it.
I have a SERIOUS beef with her parents, but not with her. The girl is trying to help her mom. I happen to think her mom is pure evil, but I will not let that cloud my judgment about a young woman who has, as far as I have seen, conducted herself with dignity.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“The girl is trying to help her mom. I happen to think her mom is pure evil”
You answered your own question I would think.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Do you expect Chelsea to think her mom is pure evil, DEZ?
I’m not defending Chelsea’s politics (same as her parents’). I am saying that MSNBC had no business saying that about a young woman who is conducting herself with dignity while representing her mom. It’s just wrong.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Do you expect Chelsea to think her mom is pure evil, DEZ? ”
Nope, Not really, Not a bit more than I expected Saddam’s sons to see the evil in their father, Let alone themselves.
I am not picking on you so please dont take it that way, And you obviously understand the evil in her parents.
I will be the last to defend the Clintoons or MSNBC in any way, What was said was certainly crude.
He stated the parents were pimping the kid, And he was most likely correct.
So it was not an attack on Chelsea per say as much as it was a shot at the parents.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
It is payback time for chelsa.
Her mom got her a high paying job and now she is paying up.
If that aint whoring , I dont know what is.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Do you not think Chelsea has conducted herself with dignity? Her so called dignity is based on the fact that she is seen , but rarely is allowed to speak.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
1st, You never mince words, I have no choice but to respect that.;-)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I, honestly, do not see the Clintons as pimping their kid, I guess because I see Chelsea as her own woman. I don’t think she would be out there if she didn’t want to be. Most presidential candidates’ kids stand by his/her side. Chelsea is going beyond that and campaigning for her mom on her own - that is her decision, and it takes guts, knowing that makes her a target.
I don’t agree with her politics AT ALL, but I do admire her willingness to place herself on the chopping block in order to help her mom. Chelsea is being honest in what she is trying to promote (misguided as it its), and she is doing so with class. I can’t hold that against the kid. That takes guts.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Thank you DEZ. Truth is I am lazy and dont like to spend a lot of time typing. ;)
February 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
1st, I think this may be the first time in the couple of years I have been reading S&L that I disagree with anything you’ve written.
Perhaps I’m being overprotective of a politician’s kid - even if it’s Hillary’s?
The bottom line is, Chelsea is putting herself out there to take hits. That takes guts. We don’t have to agree with her, and she didn’t deserve the comment by the MSNBC anchor.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Were you as upset when the MSNBC people were taking pot shots at the Bush girls for just living their lives?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Chelsea is anything but her own woman, if it were not for her parents standing she would most likely be asking if you would like fries with that order.
Respect the girl if you will, I for one will loathe her loyalty to evil.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Yes, I was, 1st, because I think political candidates’ kids are off limits.
However, Chelsea is not off limits, because she is campaigning for her mother. That places her in the spotlight. I’m just saying that accusing the Clintons of pimping their daughter is the same as accusing Chelsea of being a whore or prostitute. She’s young and naive. Give the girl a break. She has conducted herself with dignity. It’s okay that I don’t agree with her political stance.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
DEZ, give Chelsea some time to come into her own. Maybe she won’t. We don’t know. Many people become more conservative as they mature. Chelsea is young.
We all are a product of our environment. For now, Chelsea believes in what she promotes. I remain convinced that she didn’t deserve the attack by the MSNBC anchor.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Young and naive?
Okay, she is almost 30 years old, she will be old enough to run for president in less than 16 years.
Regardless, I do not think she was called a whore, her parents were called pimps.
And make no mistake, her mom and dad would be happy to use her in any way to regain power, and that’s the sad part, I may not like her but the kid is as much a victim of her mom and dad as anyone to ever meet a Clintoon.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Absolutely, DEZ. The kid is a victim of her parents. After all, she grew up in a Communist household.
When she loses her cushy job that she did not earn (and I believe she will), and she marries, has children, and possibly tries to start her own business, she will see the falacy of her parents’ policies. Until then, she is naive.
Of course, if she chooses government service, she will become just like her mother. If that happens, I’ll be the first to blast her with every opportunity I get.
PS: If her parents are called pimps, that by default says Chelsea is a whore.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I think the specific charge is that Chelsea Clinton has been calling up “super delegates” and telling them to commit to her mother.
That, I’m fairly sure, is unusual — to say the least.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Tea, I still really do not see Chelsea being attacked by the comment as much as I saw it as a truth about her parents, I really do believe they are using the kid for selfish gains.
As far as giving the girl time to come into her own, its never gonna happen, Her parents are the epitome of socialism, And her mother far more than the father.
She is a lost cause, A product of her enviroment, A MOONBAT.
“PS: If her parents are called pimps, that by default says Chelsea is a whore.”
Really? is someone taken advantage of a whore?
February 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I agree with teabag that what he said was wrong, but I don’t think he should have been suspended. Commentators say stupid things all the time and I don’t think he deliberately meant it in a sexual way. An apology was enough. Chelsea shouldn’t be attacked until she stoops to that level. I don’t follow her every word, but I don’t think she has gone that far. I disagree with her politics as well, but let’s wait until she gets nasty before we do(not that Shuster should be included as “we”).
February 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
“loyalty to evil”, says it all.
Ann Coulter is to faggot as David Schuster is to pimp, perhaps tacky or inappropriate but true.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
As I said, tacky or inappropriate but true:
“pimped 1. To utterly destroy your competition”
Reference: http://www.urbandictionary.com.....erm=pimped
QED
February 9th, 2008 at 9:07 am
1. The Clintons are not communists.
2. MSNBC never came close to calling the Bush twins a couple of whores being pimped out by their parents. In fact, the mainstream press, left and right, pretty much let Bush off the hook for lying about his drug use when he explained that he didn’t want to give bad guidance to his kids.
3. It is truly difficult for me to imagine where you are coming from when you think a couple has _one_ kid in order to stay in politics. How many couples stay married for a decade or more without a kid? It’s very, very rare. A couple across the street are about to have their first, after more than a decade, I’m kinda excited for them. But in your world, even though 99%(making that number up) of married couples who can have kids do have kids, the Clintons did it to get ahead in politics.
4. U NO HOO, perhaps that’s the “urban” definition, but that’s not the OED definition, and it isn’t the Merriam-Webster definition. Doesn’t even fit with the “urban” MTV show “Pimp My Ride,” now does it?
My guess? Shuster comes from a crass place where saying other people are pimp’ing each other out doesn’t mean very much. He probably calls lots of people “whore”, off camera. And, maybe in another decade, that will be normal for on camera, too. But it isn’t now.
1stToFight, I don’t know what we could bet, I don’t know how to get through to you, but if you come up with any evidence that any mainstream media organization called the Bush twins, by implication, whores, or their parents “pimps” I will be happy to pay off in some way. If not, well, I’d want you to add a comment saying you were wrong about that.
Well, look, I should be glad, right? You are all taking an interest in politics!
February 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Josh - It has been my experience, working as I do in a profession that is in lock-step with the left, among people who refer to themselves as “progressives,” that “progressives” believe as they do NOT because they are educated on the issues or on the history of an issue, or on the suitability of one candidate or another for a job, but because their social circle requires that they believe/vote the way they all do. They all grew up among people, or at least a peer group, that believed as they do, or were led to, and they want to stay in that peer group so they never question their beliefs. It is much easier not to do so. And besides, being conservative is sooooo unhip.
They talk excitedly about organizing voting by “progressives” in the republican primaries in order to “f**k up” the republicans. This, it seems to me, is contrary to their professed belief in a free and open national debate. When I talk with them about politics I try to keep it very specific and avoid words that classify a particular stance as left or right. I have found that most of them are actually more conservative on specific issues than they think they are, when you don’t use the identifying labels. But it’s easier for them to join their friends in Bush- and republican-bashing than it is to think for themselves. The “hip” people on TV - Jon Stewart, et al, all do it - their college professors all do it - and they want to be hip, too.
My suggestion to you is that you read 5 or 6 books about Hillary. They’re easy reads and they’re at the library. There are probably 25 or 30 on the market by now. Read a couple “pro” and a couple “con.” The facts are not substantially different, just the interpretation, but even the interpretation becomes irrelevant by the time you’ve read several. Read also the comments by the authors at the end where they talk about how many people declined to be interviewed about the Clintons (particularly Hillary) because of fears of “retribution” - and I’m not talking about women who accused Bill. My guess is that you will begin to think of her and Bill rather differently than you do now.
Read her idiotic, incoherent speech at Wellesley, that her roommate strong-armed the college into letting her make. And don’t tell me “she’s really smart, but she was only 22″ - Alexander Hamilton managed to write very eloquently at 16. Read about travelgate, pardongate, the way Hillary treated military personnel stationed at the Whitehouse, the moving van outside the Whitehouse when they left.
But most importantly, read about the Chinese connection - the reclassification under Ron Brown of national defense secrets from “military” to “commerce” so that they could be sold to the Chinese, who would then make generous contributions to the DNC and the Clinton machine. Perhaps the Clintons are not Communists, but they’re sure the next best thing.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Josh, I’m afraid you’re frightfully incorrect on all points.
First, the Clintons have ~always~ been aimed at more government power, more government control, just plain more government. They’ve always believed that individuals are too dumb to make our own decisions–that ‘it takes a village’. And they’ve always believed that capitalism is an evil institution.
Second… The media went easy on Bush’s daughters? Dude, I’m gonna find your drug dealer and turn him in. Trust me, it’s for your own good.
Third, it’s entirely possible to have one kid to stay in politics–when the public knows full well you’re a hard-core feminist, probably lesbian, and you want to fool them into thinking you’re normal.
Fourth… yeah, he probably didn’t meant he same as in ‘pimp my ride’. So you got one out of four.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“1. The Clintons are not communists.” Reading further is a waste of time.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Well, look, I should be glad, right? You are all taking an interest in politics!
What a condescending statement you’ve made there, Josh. In fact, your whole post reeks of exactly the same paternalistic head-patting that Hillary’s giving the whole country. How fortunate we are that you decided to drop in and give us praise for our meager efforts at political understanding.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“4. U NO HOO, perhaps that’s the “urban” definition, but that’s not the OED definition, and it isn’t the Merriam-Webster definition.”
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
I’d say it’s safe to say they are taking advantage of Chelsea.
Again, I suspect most of us have nothing personal against Chelsea. (Who for my money is cute as a bug. I’m just not sure what kind of bug.)
It was a rap against the Clintons, who are supposed to be able to take it.
At least that is what Hillary is always telling us, when she is whining or crying about how she is being attacked.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Golly Sgt Carter, I didn’t know the Clintons didn’t want to utterly destroy their competition. Is Billy Dale online?
As Bill said about Monica, to paraphrase my recollection, “We will just fight hard enough to win. I thought Monica was a stalker but I was wrong.” Did Bill “take advantage of” Monica?
My bad. (Urban slang?)
February 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“It was a rap against the Clintons, who are supposed to be able to take it.”
Exactly!
Words have just lost all of their splendor, since the “speech police” has taken them over. I sure hope the “free speech committee” issues a manual soon so we can all be sure not to violate their sacred translations.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Actually, got to say she ain’t too bad-lookin’ now. She was an ugly kid, is all.
Wait’ll celebrated allies of McCain/Obama/whoever Olbermann is supposed to be supporting as if he weren’t a flaming liberal are photoshopping Chelsea’s head onto nude models for their website or something….
February 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
What I want to know is how does a 27 year old getting paid a six figure wage for a job she has no expertise get to take off to go run around the country campaigning for her mother???
In three years Chelsea will be old enough to run fot the Senate, eight years for President….Be very afraid of these sleezy trash from Arkansas.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I came across this today.
“[She is the] most fiscally conservative candidate running [and] the only candidate who tells you how she’ll pay for everything.” —Chelsea Clinton stumping for her mom
This may lead you to ask who is pimping for whom.