To my surprise MSNBC responded appropriately and swiftly, to what I suspect was reporter David Shuster’s attempt to offer perhaps droll wit and pithy observation on Chelsea Clinton’s support of her mom’s bid for President. 

Most reasonable people feel his comment was uncalled for if not simply vulgar incivility. Evidently the executives agreed and suspended him till further notice and its rumored Hillary is all but resolved to with draw from participation in any MSNBC hosted debates.

 If you called my daughter a Whore on National T.V under the guise of political commentary, I wouldn’t care to come on  your network either, so I wouldn’t blame the Senator one bit if she skipped the scheduled appearances.

Senator Obama who could have made some legitimate political capitol on the controversy, Acted the gentleman and joined in the condemnation of Mr Shuster, Who by this posting was all but begging the Clinton’s to take his call so he could apologize personally. 

I think Chelsea should decide if David keeps his gig, she was after all the focus of what may be the few minutes that marked the end of a high profile job.

While MSNBC does offer some balance in its otherwise unabashed wantonness to see Barack win the nomination, I would were I the one making the call, review in depth all of Mr Shuster’s comments on the Clinton’s,

Could be he just said something really stupid in the moment, I catch at most a few seconds of Tucker’s show on a rare occasion. He expresses his hatred of all things Clinton in the proper appropriate fashion of all intellectual bigots, and on occasion makes a fair point, but then even a  broken clock is right twice a day. 

I am pleased the campaign took a position without delay, when the general election is in full swing and the Captains of the swift boat armada weigh anchor I hope she is ready to open up industrial strength super sized cans of rhetorical whup ass.

[The e-mail between the Clinton campaign and Mr Shuster on the topic is posted below]

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.

David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being “pimped out” ? It’s absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?

I just don’t get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What’s the problem.

Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

—–Original Message—–
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.

Nice to hear from you, philippe.

It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that’s the reference.

Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying “I don’t want to talk.”. But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea…that’s an issue.

————————–
Sent using BlackBerry

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.

Since you guys asked for the transcript - here specifically is what David said on air:

SHUSTER: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”

I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC’s air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.

David - I want to make sure I’m crystal clear here - you’re saying that because she doesn’t grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?

I don’t need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out of line. Nobody’s jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or talking about calls she made. And you know it.

There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.

By actually rationalizing your behavior rather than accepting responsibility and apologizing, you become the poster child for everything wrong with tv journalism, and it’s a shame your NBC colleagues have to be associated with this (expletive).

—–Original Message—–
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.

No. That’s not what I’m saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was raised, you would know that.

The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You can’t have it both ways. Reporters have long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And you know that.

————————–
Sent using BlackBerry

—–Original Message—–
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.

I think we’ve each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this email exchange, we’re assuming two things:

1) You are not disputing that you said on air: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”

2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above.]

“that’s my view of the issue yours may be different”

P.S. Burton Blogger Nations