As you might've already heard, there's a bit of a kafuffle going on about the term "pimp." See TPM for full story, but in short... MSNBC commentator David Shuster made a comment about how the Clinton campaign was "pimping" Chelsea Clinton by having her make calls to super-delegates.
Here's the video:
Now, granted, it wasn't the most appropriate term to use. But anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the last 20 years knows that the term isn't to be taken literally, but rather is a slang phrase for "shamelessly exploit." And anybody with half a brain can see that that's how Shuster meant it.
Here's the conversation that should have ensued:
- Clinton Campaign: "Hey David, that was kind of a jerky thing to say"
- David Shuster: "What? I just meant it as in shamelessly exploit. It's slang."
- CC: "Yeah, but she's a 20-something woman, and clearly this could be taken as sexist or demeaning in this case."
- DS: "Oh crap, yeah. Good point. I didn't mean it that way. Sorry."
- CC: "No prob. It's a one-time aberration, mistakes happen, apology accepted."
Seems reasonable, right? But here's how the Clinton campaign advisor Howard Wolfson reacted on a call with reporters tonight (via TPM):
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."Okay, can we have a reality check here? "Beneath contempt?" Weird speculating about a "pattern?" Ruling out debates forever? Folks, this is MSNBC, for God's sake, home of liberal icon Keith Olberman. It's not Fox News.
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." Then, unbidden, he concluded: "I'll say this. We've done a number of debates on that network...I at this point can't envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made."
Should he have called out Shuster? Sure. Should he have condemned him this vociferously and pronounced MSNBC "dead in my eyes?" Good grief, no.
Here's the part that bothers me... The Clintons are a frighteningly intelligent couple, and there's no way they misinterpreted this. This was clearly a calculated move, one done for political & PR purposes.
Think about that -- the Clinton campaign is (sorry, but there's no other word) "pimping" this whole controversy.
"Sale on irony! Aisle 5!"
2 comments:
It's fun to see the media squirm when the tables are turned on them.
For 16 years they have been reporting every hiccup of the Clintons as if everything they did or said was suspect and had sinister meaning beyond anything mere normal humans could think. There was always a "yeah, but isn't there a bit of a smell there folks?" about everything Clinton.
EVERYTHING was investigated 60 million of taxpayers dollars plus God knows how many more millions on reporters "looking into" Clinton goings on. They are the most investigated, researched, probed couple in the history of the world bar none. The only thing that stuck was an extra-marital affair. Wow, that was unique for a president or husband wasn't it! Impeach!
Well, a reporter misspeaks and the poor guy is rebuked and castigated by the Clintons. Poor guy. He didn't do anything much. A little reporter excess of speech. An innocent misstep.
My response is good, how does it feel? You and the rest of the world have been jumping on the Clintons basically just because you can for 16 years.
I would advise the Clintons to keep hitting back each and every time there is any smear, gaff or innuendo of the kind the world engages in as a kind of sport. If they are aggressive enough it may after a time cause reporters to pause before repeating the latest Clinton garbage, usually invented by the Republican smear machine.
If Obama makes it as the Democratic candidate the smear will really turn on him. You will be reminded I hope of how vicious and hurtful it is and that you never get used to it or immune from its bite.
Hey, I'll agree 100% that the Clintons have been waaaaaaay over attacked by the media over the last few decades. Hell, I worked with MoveOn.org when it was starting, when the focus was on the ridiculous impeachment of Bill for... well, we all know that story.
Anyway, I'll defend the heck out of them when they're attacked. But my problems with this one are two fold:
1) Shuster might've made a dumb comment here, but this guy is far from a Clinton hater. If anything, quite the opposite. So to go ballistic on him while still happily debating on Fox, well... that strikes me as disingenuous.
2) It strikes me that the Clinton campaign clearly knows that the context of this phrase was not meant in the way they're implying, but... are still protesting it in that way anyway. And it seems to fit into a pattern of tweaking the truth for political purposes. Are they the only ones doing it? No. But does it still bother me and make me feel a bit queasy? Yep.
Post a Comment