that Matthews is on any given day so much more biased than Shuster, and nothing has been done about that.

Also, Obama benefits from any canceled debate more than Clinton does.

All around, this is a bad situation.

Thank goodness!  

After several years, I finally canceled my Tivo season pass to "Countdown".  I can't take the sexism on that network anymore.  It's like a freaking frat house during election coverage.

One would think that the network would take a long look at who they've got on the air, now that two of them have been forced to apologize for their rampant misogyny.  

The fact that a decent reporter like Shuster would let himself make a comment like just shows you how rancid MSNBC has become.  Solidarity with Tweety is killing them.  They need to get slapped around some more, for their own good.

Shuster's comments are downright benign compared to what John McCain once said about her:

   "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

-- Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.
http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/the_wors t_thing_thats_ever_bee_1.html

BTW, I totally agree with Attytood's perspective on this. Shuster's comment was stupid but the reaction has been a bit over the top as well. Still, given the history of Chelsea-bashing behind it, it brings up some bad memories. Unfortunately assholes like John McCain made bashing Chelsea Clinton while a teenager a parlor sport in right wing circles. Whoever ends up being the nominee, never forget John McCain's "character."

ahead of delegates.  This David Schuster thing really hit a nerve with me.  Shame on him.  He does not deserve his job!!!!!!!!!!  

That whole channel is becoming anti-clinton central and It moves towards complete propaganda. But this has gotten too far. Why doesn't schuster talk about Romney sending his 5 gorgeous young sons out campaigning as "pimping" them as gay hustlers. There really is a terrible sexist and tasteless line that has been crossed.

I've been calling GE's Directors and reached three of their secretaries so far. I'll call the rest next week. They should be responsible to stop them.

http://www.ge.com/company/leadership/dir ectors.html

-Andrea Jung, Chairman, Avon 212-282-5000
-Shelly  Lazurus, Cahirman, Ogilvy & Mather 212-237-4000
-Susan Hockfield, President, MIT 617-253-1000

I sent NBC a message as soon as Schuster made the comment.

It's funny how everyone is rightfully outraged by racism, but sexism and misogyny is somthing to snicker about.  It's time for it to stop too.

I would much rather have Matthews suspended, but I guess we have to take what we can get.  Hopefully all the anchors, analysts and pundits will dwell on this for a while and realize when they cross the line.

Several days ago, long before Pimpgate erupted,  I read that Chelsea Clinton was calling Super delegates to ask for their support. I was immediately struck that it was odd that they chose her, as a non obvious political figure, to twist those arms. As a layman, it seemed to me that a call from Chelsea asking for their support is something entirely different than Mark Penn making that same call. There is a certain transparency in a call from Mark Penn (or similar), but with Chelsea, the calculus is very different.

As someone who has been paying way too much attention to this election, I have been aware that the super delegates will be THE important story of this election and will very likely decide who is the nominee.  So when I saw that Chelsea was calling them, it sent up a red flag.

When I saw Shuster last night, that is EXACTLY (in my brain) what he was getting at when he poorly worded his now infamous phrase. Watch the video you posted. He really hits the super delegate point.

I won't get into a long defense of Shuster's comments other than to say that I think his skepticism is correct: Why is Chelsea twisting those arms?  That is the fair question that he was inelegantly trying to ask last night.

Fortunately for the Clinton campaign, they took that ball and ran with it.  Shuster was the blocking back who opened up the hole to run through.

The comment was not merely "tasteless," it was sexist, sleazy and insulting. And, even if Chelsea is "part of the campaign, after all," that is no excuse for the comment. And I think it is a croc to suggest that this affair provided Hillary with an "opportunity." A reporter for a dirtbag network made a nasty, indifensible, disgusting comment about her daugter, and she went ballistic on him, just as any mother would.

Save the outrage. I am a husband and the father of a daughter I love fiercely. And I understand sexism as much as a man can.  

I also understand when a political team wants to stir things up and the Clintons did just that today. Be happy your team won this. Don't overplay your hand here.  

I think it is a big shame that one of MSNBC's best reporters (Do you all remember Plamegate?) was suspended for a silly comment--or poor wording--as offensive as it might be, but the likes of Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and those whose names I can't name on the other channels, make much more offensive comments on a daily basis, and still continue to plague the airwaves. Good way to take down the little fish.

I also agree with cswartout's points. Why do they have Chelsea making these calls?

Whether or not this is a political ploy by the Clinton camp, it does not matter.  They have earned it.  These clowns in the media and the right have been illegitimately attacking this family for its personal life and acting like they have a right to say this kind of thing about somebody for 15 years.  If this provides a political opening for Clinton good.  She has earned it after the media echoing unfounded right wing rumors about her personal life.

Hopefully this will begin to curtail Tweety's foolishness, but I doubt it.

I crumble when I see young, brilliant, gorgeous women...Of course I am a 29 year old bachelor though.

I was watching MSNBC when Shuster made his original comment.  I was watching because Shuster was on the air, substituting for that formerly-bowtied pimple on the face of MSNBC, Tucker Carlson.  When I heard the word "pimping" I cringed.  And wondered ...

I always thought of Shuster as one of the good guys.  From the early days of Plamegate and the Scooter Libby trial, he struck me as a good reporter, actually conveying facts and never striving for the spurious "balance" that most TV reporters substitute for truth.  When he started subbing for Carlson, I positively rejoiced that maybe MSNBC was inching toward sanity.  So what happened a couple of days ago?

I don't know if shows like "Tucker" have writers, but I figure they have some sort of staff aside from the on-air "talent" and the camera crew.  I suspect those people have some influence over the show's content even when (or perhaps especially if) there's a substitute host.  Gotta protect the "Tucker" brand, don't you know.  

Now, even if one of Carlson's "producers" was feeding lines to Shuster through the little ear-piece -- lines meant to make him sound like the titular host of the show -- the offensive words still came out of Shuster's mouth.  Just on anatomical grounds, you'd think they'd get filtered through his brain first.  But I have never tried to speak into a live camera while listening to directions in my ear and possibly having to watch three monitors at the same time, so I'm not sure how well my brain would work under those conditions.

Overall, I am more sorry for than angry at David Shuster.  He's a big boy, and he stepped in it himself, but I think he's catching more flack than he would have, had he said the same thing on a network that did not feature Chris "Tweety" Matthews and Tim "Pumpkinhead" Russert.  But which network would that be?  FOX??

-- TP

I don't condone what Shuster said, and I think he should have been suspended, and have to apologize, which is apparently his punishment.

BUT. I will say this, I think the term 'pimping' is a slang term that younger viewers probably didn't take as personally as perhaps older viewers did. Shuster honestly doesn't seem like a misogynist pig to me; I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He's taking his lumps. The problem is MSNBC management, not Shuster.

They really need to rein in the MACHO BOYS on their prime-time lineup. This begins with Chris Matthews, the most insulting mouth on MSNBC. It's an attitude that seems to pervade the network lineup for news now, and it STARTS WITH MATTHEWS.

They'd better get a handle on that big mouth Matthews. He's the source of most of it.

to sue Shuster for $10M and contribute all $110 to Hillary's campaign

scary obamabot comments on this thread.  have you people been asleep for the last fifteen years?  the media is the enemy.  they may act like your messiah's fanboys now but just you wait.  wait till mclame gets their little hearts going pitty-pat and your guy will be the slum lord coddling, weak on security, muslim, terrorist with the ball busting wife.  Hillary has every right to slam bsnbc.  Chelsea has every right to call the super delegates and to refuse to answer any question the slime ball reporters throw at her.  I suggest all obamabots go read the Daily Howler and study up on their media bias.  so sad they would act like spoiled brats and join in the attacks on Hillary and Chelsea rather than behave like Democratic ladies and gentlemen and stand up united (you know, that unity schtick your guy preaches) against the loathsome right wing media.  kill your television and vote Hillary!

Please read the whole thing before you get wiggy on me:

Political campaigns make decisions every single day (news cycle). The reaction today of the Clinton campaign was a political reaction. That is not to say that Shuster's remarks were not wrong. Just because I describe a reaction as political does not mean that it is pejorative. The campaigns make political decisions all the time. Sometimes they dovetail. Their outrage today has to be taken in context with a host of competing interests. The debate challenge had begun to lose steam and MSNBC was signed up for one in Ohio, added to Shuster's idiotic remark, were all figured into the decision to publicize the incident. I did not and will not defend the pimp remark.

This is what political campaigns do. They try to dominate the news cycle as one of the tools of winning our hearts and minds. The Clinton campaign knows exactly what it is doing here. That is not being mean. That is a fact and if I was a Clinton supporter I would take today's news cycle as a good one. Again that does not mean that the Shuster remark is some happy byproduct of the news cycle. But they took that awful remark and made it an issue to benefit their campaign.

Obama's campaign has done exactly the same thing as well. Because I chose to highlight the Clinton team's decision today does not qualify me as some sort of a misogynist.

In closing I will extend this olive branch to everyone here: It is clear that this race is getting rather intense for the supporters who are paying way too much attention like the readers here and at other blogs.  If we keep demonizing the other side with every single tic in the news day, we will all be in the loony bin by the convention.  In the end, we need to save some of our passion for the fall.  
Goodnight.

I disagree.  Shuster sucks.  His 'commentary' is generally inane and conventional.

Nothing insightful, and certainly nothing that rocks the boat in any kind of powerful, truth-to-power way.

This was the most controversial thing he's said, and it was just him being a dick, nothing more.

I'm willing to believe that Shuster meant some more modern definition of pimp, but I did wince when I first heard the comments.

Having said that, I do notice that a lot of people were not willing to give Andrew Cuomo and others even the tiniest benefit of the doubt when they said things that were completely innocuous. Rather, they were quite happy to drag those people's reputation in the mud and tar them as racists.

Dear MSNBC:

I've been a loyal viewer of your network for several years now. Keith Olberman is one of my favorite newscasters and I've long been devoted to Hardball. As a progressive voter and someone who believes that our country has gone terribly off the wrong track, I have looked to MSNBC for news and information that reflects some of my perspectives while it entertains.

However, in the past couple of months, I've noted a real change in how the network personalities are covering the news. Clearly, there is a terrible bias among your employees that is being directed negatively towards Senator Hillary Clinton, her family and her supporters.

The recent incident regarding Chelsea Clinton was simply the last straw. I will no longer be watching your television network and will ask my friends to join me in boycotting MSNBC.

During the past few months, I've noted the anti-Clinton bias and thought that I was simply being too sensitive. But, upon reflection, I actually think that your coverage of Democratic politics has become so slanted that the network could be trying to injure the Clinton candidacy in favor of other Democratic presidential candidates. It's almost as if the on-air commentators look to find bad news in every Clinton success and good news in every Obama defeat.

Until the network owns up to their growing bias against Senator Clinton, I will refrain from viewing your network. There are numerous sources of news and information available to me and, as a consumer, I will make a more appropriate choice that reflects my deeper values.

I turned my TV to MSNBC today - for about one minute - swear to God, ONE minute in the hour prior to Shuster's on-air apology. I saw Tweety sitting with 'BamaBot Eugene Robinson and all I heard Tweety say was "The Clinton machine is just like Tammany Hall." Robinson's head bobbled. And this was in the hour just prior to Shuster's on-air apology.

Of course, I hit the remote and got rid of the *sshole immediately. But it was obvious, even in the face of what happened, that the Clinton-bashing goes on - the Clinton-hate is unrepentent. And while Tweety MAY (certainly not guaranteed) step back for a short time from the blatant misogyny, he (and the rest of MSNBC) ARE NOT going to step back from their ridiculously biased characterizations of the Clintons. They're not going to stop trying to make everything the Clintons do and say look somehow nefarious and darkly "suspicious." Eyebrows will be raised, insinuations made. Snide remarks will fly around the studio. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

And they're not about to start voicing any - ANY - criticism of Barack Obama about anything he says or does. I mean, honestly - have you ever heard even the tiniest critique of Obama from MSNBC? I've never, ever heard one negative syllable - certainly no accusation - and absolutely no suspicion.

So sure, they may cut back on the blatant sexist crap for a while, but they're just changing tactics, buying time - their long-term agenda is still in place - the poisonous coverage of Hillary and all the Clintons will go on until they've accomplished their mission of destroying Hillary's candidacy.

Today was a good day for women, though - a good day for Hillary - and a good day for holding them accountable. But it ain't over - not by a long shot...

I want someone to ask Oprah is she is being pimped by the Obama campaign.

Shuster is a good reporter when sticking to telling a story, but his effort at hosting and commentary have been lame at best, and juvenile at worst.

I've not seen anyone mention the fact that what he was really complaining about was that Chelsea won't talk to the press.  That is the ultimate sin to these guys.

Here's a little gasoline for the fire: NBC has handled this better than this blog has.  I mean this whole post by Todd is pretty outrageous.  The present state of the liberal blogosphere is intolerable, mainly due to the pounding it continues to provide HRC, and really, I would have expected better than this from Todd!  And I'm not a great HRC enthusiast.  But I am turning off all blogs, effective a few days ago.  No more posting.

I have to say, I think the reaction to all this is completely over the top.  Big deal, he said he thought she was being "pimped out".  No one in their right mind believes he was insinuating she was being used sexually to secure superdelegate commitments.  This issue is being completely demagogued by the Clinton campaign and the political correctness police who dislike MSNBC.  These same people were praising David Shuster a number of months back when he bashed, (which I very much enjoyed watching)Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn R-TN for not knowing the name of the last soldier killed in Iraq from her district.  When Chelsea Clinton was growing up in the White House, yes, she deserved her privacy, but she is no longer a child, and is an active part of her mother's campaign.  There is no reason why she should be off limits to the press.  Was Shuster's comment a little over the top or poorly worded, yes, but to be suspended over this is ridiculous.

How come Bill can say untrue, inappropriate and racial things and then ease it over by apologizing and David gets suspended?

You don't see Obama pimping out his children for the sake of health care coverage for all children.

The Clintons ARE pimping their daughter but all is fair in love and politics, as only the Clintons know so well...

Or, you know, instead of evidence of another cunning Clinton strategy, she could just be acting like, well, a mother.

If my memory serves me now I seem to recall that the black community (this past summer) marched on various recording companies about the popular use of the words "pimping" "ho's" "nigger" used by the rap community in their slang. I agreed with them at the time and I agree these words are hurtful for their community and especially hurtful when used on public airways to single out one individual for public ridicule, in this case Chelsea Clinton. It is not whether he meant it is not the point, he did use the word. I cannot read his mind nor can anyone else here so I will not go there. He used the word "pimping" and you can choose to parse it anyway you wish. But before you do remember "nigger" was a popular word only a short time ago. I don't use that word anymore, I learned of the hurt it caused.  

Media Matters and Clinton Supporters have been after MSNBC Network for weeks, even posting their email addresses on their site; trying to censor Hardball and Morning Joe for saying anything at all that was not complementary about the Clintons, trying to make them impotent and Clintoness puppets by just reporting favorable things about the Clintons.  They finally got lucky with Shuster making this remark which has been taken out of the context that he meant to deliver it in.  Do not let Media Matters and the Clinton supporter get away with trying to censor the Media, which will throw us back to the Bush years after 911.  America we want Change!

And finally, if Media Matters and the Clinton supporters had put this much energy into contacting TV/Radio programs which are allowed to broacast smut, violence and sex to our children, may be we would have cleaner and more decent broadcast programming to watch and hear.