About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
Remember Me

So now it's the sexism? or is it, really?
Author: Raine    Date: 02/11/2008 13:03:44

The Clinton Campaign is starting to really worry me. In case you all were not aware, David Schuster was suspended from MSNBC. Here is the comment in context, and the morning after... :

The Clintons, however took it to nth degree, IMO.
From the WSJ, on Friday:
The controversial comment also could imperil Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's, D-N.Y., participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.

It seems it was all a misunderstanding tho. Oh silly media. The Clinton's just want MSNBC to clean up their act... From ABC NEWS...
After some conversations with folks at the Clinton campaign, I can offer some clarity -- maybe -- on what they're asking NBC/MSNBC to do.

And despite Clinton's letter, saying David Martin Shuster's apology and suspension was not sufficient, Clinton's goal is not for NBC to fire Shuster, he and his fans will be happy to hear. Until Thursday, the Clinton campaign had no issues with Shuster, I'm told.

The campaign says it has more to do with what it sees as a sexist, locker room, on-air atmosphere at MSNBC.

Clinton supporters ask: what other network has had, within the space of one year, because of comments widely seen as boorish and inappropriate, a firing (Imus), an on-air apology (Chris Matthews) and a suspension (Shuster)?

Clinton, who has been on the receiving end in two of those incidents, is taking a stand for MSNBC to clean up its act. Or, so Camp Clinton says.
Is this true? A presidential campaign is asking a news network to DO something, NOW that it affects them?... Or: Is this another version of race-gate that we had last month? (which in my minds eye was one great big publicity stunt.)

I have to question why ALL of a sudden the Clinton campaign is concerned about sexism on the airwaves. Why now suddenly, when it affects her 27 year old daughter who they STILL have off limits to reporters?

Where was Hillary when Ann Coulter attacked Elizabeth Edwards? OR John Edwards? OR Al Gore? OR HER??? The Hillary Bashing on a certain *nooz* network is legendary and well documented.

MSNBC has it's own problems as well. Tweety and Morning Joe and Tucker... those are well documented as well. I won't deny that. I am not excusing David Schuster for his words, and I am glad that MSNBC took action, but for the Clinton Campaign to interject themselves like this into the situation is unacceptable to me.

It's intimidation. I for one am tired of it. We have had 7 years of media intimidation. In this day and age we Americans NEED something different...

We already have an administration that threatened and pressured the media into telling a story the way they wanted it told. Remember the pressure Scooter Libby and the VP's office placed on MSNBC to get Chris Matthews to shut up about Plame-gate? Slate Magazine mentioned just a touch of this back in November 2005.

What the Clinton campaign is doing by threatening to not debate on this channel is a little too similar to me. This concerns me. It's not the race, it's not the sexism, it's hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign. Never before has a comment made this campaign threaten to pull out of a debate. Actually she agreed to go on a Fox News Channel debate!

In all the hubbub this is the key to all of this. It was sexist. Schuster got suspended. Matthews didn't. Scarborough hasn't and both have said far worse directly aimed at AND about Senator Clinton. David didn't say anything about Chelsea, his comment was about how the campaign was using Chelsea. Was it in bad form? IMO, YES. I am not excusing it. But Chelsea is 27 years old. Either she is in the Clinton machine or she is out. She still won't grant interviews and the Clinton's are still treating her like she is a child. She is no longer a child. She still hasn't given a comment to this issue. She should be able to fight her own battles at this age. Either she is in the political game, or she isn't, but her Mom and Dad cannot keep protecting her.

As to the debate issue, this is ridiculous. lf ever there were a clear cut case of serious oversensitivity with the Clinton camp this is it. This actually makes them look weak, the way bullies look weak.

I mean, come on, the Clinton's both are touting the fact that they are very good friends with John McCain, when it was McCain who said that Chelsea was so 'ugly becuase she was actually the daughter of Janet Reno'... or did everyone forget that little bit if nastiness? Is Senator Clinton going to refuse a debate with Senator McCain if she gets the nomination?

It just seems like the Clintons are using this whole thing to exercise some kind of power they want to have over the media. If a Democratic Candidate agrees to go on Faux news for a debate... with all of the crap they pull... and instead threatens another network with a no-show over something that was stupid, but not part of a pattern of maliciousness, by one reporter, then I have to question motives, and the only thing I see is that this is a power play for the media.

Or... like race-gate in January, perhaps it's just another case of it's not the Clintons' fault. Both scenarios make me very uneasy. Then last night I stumbled across this video of a Clinton rally
A dissenter wearing a "Not Another Clinton" Shirt was threatened with arrest. The cumulative affect of all this *stuff*, from dissenters, to the media, to Bill yelling at reporters, all of it coming from the Clinton campaign gives me a rather Bushian feeling. I don't want anymore of this Media-crisy from the government. Maybe I am just shell shocked from the last 7 years, but I am tired of this behavour and this attitude from those that want our votes.

Anyway, it is monday... I hope to see you inside, we we have nationalized continental breakfast!

:peace: and :heart:

181 comments (Latest Comment: 02/12/2008 03:54:27 by Mondobubba)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!