WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has always been protective of her daughter Chelsea from the media since their days in the White House and today 
her campaign is bitterly angry at MSNBC after an anchor questioned her role in the campaign.
“But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” asked MSNBC’s David Shuster during a discussion on the cable news network on Thursday about her increased participation in her mother’s campaign.
On Friday, Hillary Clinton’s communications director Howard Wolfson tore into the network during a conference call on another subject and said Clinton would not likely show up to a presidential debate MSNBC is hosting on Feb. 26 in Ohio.
“We’ve done a number of debates on that network. We had agreed yesterday to do a debate on that network and I at, this point, can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates at that network, given the comments that were made and have been made,” he said.
While MSNBC said Shuster had apologized to the Clintons and on-air for the remark and was suspended from broadcasts except to make the apology, Wolfson said he was unaware of any personal apology to the Clintons.
“I think that the comment is disgusting, it’s beneath contempt,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network.”
An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, offered the network’s own apology, calling the remarks “irresponsible and inappropriate.”
He also said that MSNBC had conversations with the Clinton campaign about participating in the upcoming debate “and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned.”
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
- Additional reporting by Deborah Charles
- Photo credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder
Trackback
14 comments so far
That comment was not in the best taste. However, the Clintons’ “outrage” is laughable. Have they forgotten the excruciating details from Bill’s extracurricular activities the entire country suffered through during the Monica Lewinsky scandal? I think the history of cigars and stains on blue dresses pretty much eliminates any credibility they have in attempting to speak from the high moral ground here.
- Posted by Leslie in DallasTo “Leslie in Dallas”,
Do you really think Chelsea or Hilary had anything to do with Bill’s cigars and stains on blue dresses?
If not, then shut your pie hole.
- Posted by chimeraWow, such anger. No need for personal attacks here. I never said either of the female Clinton’s had anything to do with Bill’s activities. (In fact, I was quite specific in naming BILL.) My point, which you did not seem to understand, is that the Bill/Monica scandal, perpetrated by Bill, forced all of us to hear a bunch of unseemly details. So it doesn’t make sense for the Clintons to claim to be outraged by the MSNBC comment. I’m sure they don’t like it, but look what the perpetrated upon the country. (And if Hillary wants to claim 35 years of experience, she’s including herself as part of Bill’s presidency and has to accept the bad with the good.)
- Posted by Leslie in DallasThis is getting REDICULOUS. There is no freedom of speech in this society and I’m tired of it. I’m 70 years old, and when the word PIMP becomes an issue, we have a problem. If you look it up in the dictionary it means “for hire” so what is wrong for a mother & father “to hire: their daughter to campaign for them? GIVE ME A BREAK, GET A LIFE, HILLARY!
- Posted by Noella MaehlI agree with chimera!
Why is this country (especially women) so comfortable with an anti-women’s rights stance?
The last 5-8 years have spawned a myriad of porno-culture terms that are a daily part of the American living room discussion.
What the hell is going on?
My mother and sisters and wife are not “whores, sluts, bitches, milfs, pimped out” or any of this crap!
Women make up 52% of the population and pay a crap-load of tax revenue, so I don’t understand why any woman (young or mature) would think its “ok” or “funny” or in someway a compliment?
As a 50-year old man, I am really disgusted and puzzled…is everyone’s self esteem that low????
- Posted by Frank J.…and btw….Shuster is a wimpy idiot, like all neocon anchors who try to act like they are cool or have genitals…
- Posted by Frank J.Noella:
My hat is off to you for supporting the Fisrt Amendment.
…HOWEVER…Television, during a campaign, is the “only” source of news for over 70% of this country.
Sound bites become reality when 25% of us are functionally illiterate.
“Pimp” has a more recognizable connotation that is synonymous with prostitution…and it is how it was MEANT from Shuster.
So, in exercising my freedom of speech rights, I believe the word you were meaning to write is “r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s”…but don’t believe me…go check out the TV.
- Posted by Frank J.Are we saying, then, that Chelsea isn’t being prostituted by and for her mother? Her mother is pleading for more money in front of the whole world, on stage, surrounded by media, with her daughter beside her. Leave the daughter out of it, or expect the truth to come out.
- Posted by Colleen DuffyThis whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Considering how overly-protective the Clintons have been of their daughter (until recently that is), Shuster asked a perfectly reasonable question. If he had simply used the word “exploited” instead of “pimped out”, the Clintons would have had nothing to complain about. They still have nothing to complain about, in my opinion, because they want it both ways, don’t they? The Clintons should decide if they truly care about their daughter’s privacy (as they used to claim) or if they want her out in public, campaigning for her mom. The outrage is completely phony.
- Posted by Mark FThe Clintons have leaped on the stupid Shuster comment for free publicity since donors have wised up and are sending money to Obama now. Chelsea has decided to become an adult public figure. In our legal system, that makes her fully open to public comment. Expect more criticism of Chelsea in the coming days.
- Posted by harriet tubmanWhether you like the Clintons or not, the word is just inappropriate. The fact that those who say the word is justified goes to show your prejudice or anti Clinton or perhaps too enamoured with the Obama euphoria. Imagine if Shuster said that Michelle Obama is pimping votes for her husband, the outcry would be 100 times worse. Shuster would be termed a racist because the word is heavily used by the rapping crowd. Most probably Shuster would be fired like Imus. The bias against the Clintons are just too much in the mass media.
- Posted by StevenI cannot believe that she wants to be President of the United States, but she can’t stand a personal attack. Don’t get me wrong it was tasteless, but doesn’t warrant her backing out of a debate in a two candidate race. Well at least she didn’t cry! The guy apologized, the network apologized what else does she want? If you don’t parade your daughter in front of the public, she won’t get caught up. Look what happen to the Bush family - they brought the twins out and the media pounded them. Goes with the territory.
- Posted by Mike RI agree with Frank J about the porno-culture terms and am ever shocked at how they have been incorporated into our everyday conversations, however, by a news anchor man??? The stakes of using such improper references can and will cost your job.
But then I think of how many faux-pas with speech we do make and it seems to me the best solution to the entire scenario would have been for Hillary, right then and there, to set the record straight and put Shuster in his place but good. All this backlash after the fact gives this comment more weight than it is worth. I do agree with many of the comments being made both pro and con, however I don’t think this comment was pre-meditated, and unlike many candidates and politicians, this anchor will have consequences to his bad choice of woprds and pay the price. So Hillary does not need to get on her high horse. She was probably worried about how she would have looked if she tore Shuster apart on air, which makes me wonder where her heart really was. I did not see the interview but from what is written, It sounds like she is coming back after the fact and too late in my opinion.
- Posted by Julie MMI strongly stand by Hillary for wanting to boycott MSNBC, because these news anchors are employed and represent this cable news organization, which is brought and paid for by the Republican party, this is represented of Corporate America.
If this was said about Obama’s wife or if his children campiagning for him the outcome would be very different, Schuster would mostly likly would be fired, but since this cable news organization with others his been so gender-biased towards Hillary to many viewer who support Obama thinks this behavior is ok, well it’s not. what Chirs Matthews and David Schuster about Hillary or her family memebers ar very inapporitate and unexpectable.
Now all of these insentitve bloggers towards Hillary, claim that she only wants a sympathy vote, I would like to ask them a question, if you where in Hillary’s shoes and also a mother, would you tolerate such words being directed untentionally or intentionally towards your family member on national TV? if you accept thiskind of behavior , there is definitely something illrational about your thinking processes, but I truly believe you would be upset too and address this issues quickly and firmly. Just because she wants to help her mother succeed in this campaign does not mean she deserves to be targeted for news anchor’s sexist and gender biased attacks.
Someone stated in an earlier post, Chelsea is a grown woman and close to 30 yrs old now, she can defend herself, this true, but on the same token, I don’t care if Chelsea, gets to be a 100 years old, she is still Hillary’s child, and she would be less than a mother not to defend her. I really don’t know what’s wrong with people’s thinking on this subject, I take it that these insentive don’t have children of their own, I’m glad I’m not their child, they would let people say anything about me, tiwould seem to be ok with them. I myself don’t have any children and have more sensitivity, compassion, empathy towards the Clintons, Let’s put all politics aside here, the statements that where made on MSNC about the Clintons are over the top, and cross the line.
MSNBC and other News Organizations are liable for what their employees say over the airways, I’m glad Hillary is taking a stand and no longer tolerating this gender bias towards her personally,family members, and campaign, some people on this blog believe Hillary should accept these news anchor’s apologies and move on, how can she, when everytime she turn-around another news anchor has to apologize to her over the air for some sexist or gender biased statement made towards her or family members, these news anchors are not truly apologetic if they continue exhibiting this type of behavior and attitude towads Hillary.
In my opinion,Hillary should boycott MSNBC, if they fail to truly make it right with her, she wants more then just an apology, she want’s some heads to roll out the door for this, and I’m totally in agreement with her, they can also make it right with her by, discontinuing to be sexist and gender biased towards her personally and her Presidential Campaign, and gave her fair and balanced, nonbiased, objective news coverage of her and her campiagn like Obama is getting, because she also has a right to campaign and possibly become President just like Obama.
Lastly MSNBC and other news organization’s should stop trying to influence the campaign towards one candidate over the other, let them when the nomination on their own merits not by media influence one way or the other, be unbaised and objective evenly towards both candidates, that no more than fair to all involved parties and their supporters.
- Posted by Darrell