(pardon me while I parachute in)
There have been more nasty remarks about Senator Clinton, during her extended stay at the front of the now two-candidate Democratic field, than I’ll ever count. Most of these remarks are made in private, of course, but some are made in the most public of places: on the air, in high-profile political coverage. There may be something different about a woman running at the front of the pack in politics, but there’s nothing new in nasty, sexist remarks.
Today, something new happened: accountability.
Yesterday, David Shuster at MSNBC asked if Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped out” because she’s making calls on behalf of her mother’s campaign, something that adult children of politicians do to support their fathers’ campaigns with regularity. The Clinton campaign told him how inappropriate his remark was in a private email, but Shuster stood his ground. So Clinton’s communication director, Howard Wolfson, called Shuster out for it publicly and said that Senator Clinton would pull out of the MSNBC debate scheduled for February 26.
Schuster’s remark is sadly not an isolated incident. Sexist remarks about Clinton are a major dynamic of the campaign. But what is new is that Senator Clinton is in the position so many women wish they were in, to call out sexist remarks and to get results. Readers of this blog probably know that Chris Matthews has a history of making nasty remarks about women: recall this exchange with Elizabeth Edwards. But his coverage of Clinton was so eye-popping and so roundly criticized that he finally had to apologize (sort of) on national TV. That’s two apologies from two political reporters (one of them very high profile, though Shuster is something of an also-ran) in under a month. At this rate, political reporters might get the impression that there’s something wrong with saying sexist things (or maybe just with saying sexist things about front-running Presidential candidates on the air).
Feminists take different positions on which Democratic nominee will make the best candidate, or the best President. Let’s leave that aside for a moment. Women have run for President (notably Chisholm in ’72) and for Vice President before; but I’m old enough to remember when the 1984 Mondale/Ferraro ticket was derided as “Fritz and Tits.” And that wasn’t just what the Republicans said. A lot of those remarks were made by men who should have been allies.
This time, something is different, and that difference is that the disrespect has not gone unchallenged. Senator Hillary Clinton, win or lose, has successfully stood up to this stuff and made the cool kids of the political press apologize. That’s not a footnote in the history of political media. That’s an accomplishment.
Update: TPM reports Shuster Suspended!
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 39 comments }
w00t! Go Hillary! Man… sometimes I just LOVE this woman.
Once again… I have officially decided for a Hillary/Barack ticket.
Regardless of who wins, even in the worst-case scenario… this is still a good sign that progress is being made. Slowly, maybe, but she keeps pushing forward.
oh the comments on the article…Repeat after me people. What Bill Clinton did in the oval office has absolutely jack squat to do with what HRC will/would do in the oval office. They. are. separate. people.
Why is it when a good Republican wife forgives her husband for his cheating, etc, it’s all okay, but when a Democratic woman forgives her husband for the same offences, she’s forever branded as having done something wrong?
On the good side of things though, it’s absolutely correct to make Schuster apologize. While I’m sure it will be a “sorry you’re offended” type of non-apology, the fact that MSNBC recognizes that the comment was way out of line and is taking action is positive.
Bets on how long it takes for the backlash to show up? “Oh, those oversensitive feminazis can’t take a joke,” etc. etc.?
Good for HRC and for MSNBC for suspending her. It’s good that she isn’t pulling out of the debate because if she did I imagine we’d see a whole round of sexist “what’s the big deal? she’s too sensitive” commentary.
This isn’t true. She has been running on her “35 years of experience”, clearly suggesting that her time as first lady as something that will help her govern effectively. Thus questions about her positions vis a vis BC’s record are completely fair.
Josh, asking her about her positions vis a vis Bill’s record and assuming that she will run the Oval Office either exactly as he did or allow him to have a third term through him are two different things.
More sleazy personal attacks on the Clintons by the media ! What else is new? So Chelsea is being “pimped” now, real nice slander towards women, wow, you “reporters” should be ashamed! this is very common with these tabloid quality reporters on MSNBC and CNN too. They should ALL be suspended like Mr. Shuster, what a sexist hack.
GO HILLARY!!!
WE LOVE YOU CHELSEA!!!
Zuzu – hear hear!
How could Schuster have possibly “stood his ground” on this one????? What a j*ck*ss.
Blah at the assholes on Kos and TPM calling Clinton’s campaign’s reaction “reverse sexism” and/or “playing the victim”.
I am honestly tired of that kind of talk. Honestly, truly exhausted at the prospect of educating people to recognize, and condemn, sexism. It’s an uphill battle with EVERYONE.
zuzu: Josh, asking her about her positions vis a vis Bill’s record and assuming that she will run the Oval Office either exactly as he did or allow him to have a third term through him are two different things.
Well, I don’t think she will run the Oval Office exactly as W. Clinton did. But her “now you see it, now you don’t” nostalgia for W. Clinton’s terms in office does provide some clues as to where she stands politically. While W. Clinton was certainly to the left of Reagan and the Bushes, his terms set a low bar in terms of social and ecological reform and the mainstream democratic party’s relationship with the American left. Just as Bush’s election into office saw the return of Iran-Contra wonks Poindexter, Negroponte, and Abrams, it’s reasonable to consider that Clinton’s election might see the return of staff that helped make W. Clinton’s tenure so problematic for the American Left.
The same can be said for the Republicans. I don’t think McCain will be another Reagan, but his praise for the Reagan administration speaks volumes about what kind of policies and governance he sees as ideal.
But I agree that the attacks on H. Clinton put me in a tough spot because many of the criticisms are ugly and unfair.
I’m thrilled that Clinton is calling out Shuster on his uncalled for, unnecessary, blatantly sexist ad hominem insult. I’m incredibly thrilled that her campaign can stand up and say, “No, this isn’t right,” and hold Shuster and MSNBC accountable. GO CLINTON! STOMP ON THAT SEXIST SHIT!
Yay, Hillary. And yay MSNBC for suspending Shuster. It’s time to stop being amused by this shit.
Seriously, bad enough it’s sexist, but attacking people’s children is out of line.
The fact that the last pretty young woman Dave Shuster saw work a crowd was behind plexiglass is more a reflection on HIM than Chelsea Clinton OR her parents.
Pleased to see the other guy chalk her involvement up to just being a political kid in a political family, though.
The people who think it’s fair to ask if Chelsea was “pimped out” are probably the same ones who sputter with indignation when someone asks why the children of politicians who support the war aren’t in the Army.
It was a strong word, but an accurate one. The Clintons are having it both ways, let’s not forget what the Clintons have said about other women. The Clintons have been sexist themselves.
The Clinton campaign angled for debates, and then threatened a boycott. Who’s fooling who?
Thomas, good to see you posting!
I can’t be the only one who remembers the “LEAVE CHELSEA ALONE” t-shirts, made necessary because grown men, like Rush Limbaugh, decided to pick on her and call her the “White House dog.” When she was all of, what, 12?
The Clintons did a terrific job with her (despite shit like that), and she’s grown into a wonderful woman.
Good for Hillary! And I’m not even backing her in the primaries. As with AutoAdmit, this reveals the rank misogyny lying just below the surface of many men.
Not that women are immune. The mention of Ferraro reminded me of this:
During the 1984 vice presidential campaign, America’s Grandmother Barbara Bush famously described her husband’s opponent Geraldine Ferraro, “I can’t say it, but it rhymes with rich.”
This is a big deal about nothing. David Schuster’s comment was marginally offensive at worst. I used to think it was only the Republican Party that was full of thought police. If you haven’t noticed MSNBC is not Fox. They put forward a lot more liberal point of view than not.
Hillary is making herself look like a facist.
“When she was all of, what, 12?”
Yup.
And I wasn’t much older. And not any prettier. And certainly not as poised.
And it wasn’t just Rush outright insulting her, but also the MSM nitpicking every choice her teen self made – and constantly slipping in that they thought she was ugly. At least with the Bush daughters you could argue that the goal was to highlight the hypocrisy of bad behavior coming from such a family values family. (Which is largely bullshit, as a decent amount of that was slut shaming.) But the shit everyone said about Chelsea…..
There’s a lot of reasons why I’ve never watched TV news and am fairly skeptical of newspapers. Spending my formative years watching reporters act like cruel high schoolers – and toward an actual high schooler, no less – is very much one of them..
I clicked on the Edwards interview with Chris Matthews. It was provided as an example of Matthew’s sexism, and it was a good one. These guys love saying naughty things. They just grin from ear to ear, so proud of themselves. They are like three year olds smearing their poop on the bathroom wall.
I want to note, also, and I think this is important, the audience booed Chris Matthews, loudly! Though there is a narrow population that supports his kind of language and narrative, the wider public finds it wrong and ridiculous.
I think that with sexism being out in the open so blatantly actually helps Clinton’s cause, rallies people to her side. Were it still under the radar, insidiously wrecking a woman’s chances by being hidden and lethal, she would be the worse, because she could not call it what it is to its face.
I worry though that Hillary hasn’t the history to rise so far above this stuff that she becomes by fiat, immune. Think of Ghandi being called “that little man” by the British. It was so absurd, given Ghandi’s exquisite moral courage. He needed no defense and wouldn’t bother launching one. He was, in fact, so humanely superior to such slurs.
And finally, every candidate is being mocked and slurred with some form of “ism.” It is the terrible legacy of Rove and his amorality. No candidate is immune to these kinds of distortions and mockery. The need in our time is to move through them and away from them, to change the language by continually speaking about clear, meaningful ideas that rise above the “ism” battles. That is how we can defeat the claustrophobic simplicity of mockery and isms, to be much more than they offer. To be smart, humane, skillful in what we do. It speaks for itself.
Some news media report that David Sushter’s comments angered the Clintons. Get real – it has angered the whole world!! It’s disgusting and makes him look like a sore loser. If Imus lost his job, why is this guy TEMPORARILY suspended? NBC’s whole staff has some BIG problems. The Public should shun them.
yes, some accountability should be celebrated. I hope that this will frighten Chris Matthews into stopping his over the top BS. his every day dismissal of treating women like human beings is could be considered worse than Shuster’s one hideous and unnacceptable remark, because it’s all show long, every single show.
keep the pressure on!
and let’s not forget McCain’s part in this Chelsea-bashing zuzu remembers (as do). when she was 18 he said she was “so ugly” (yes, attacking someone who just left childhood on her appearance) because Janet Reno was her father.
{i have to have a moment of silence here for the one of the worst remarks i’ve ever heard from a public figure.}
Homophobia, kid-bashing, judging girls and women, even the Attorney General, on their appearance, i guess that’s what he means by “straight talk.”
but I am confused by the apparent friendship between the Clintons and McCain. this was obviously purposely insulting their child. does anyone know if McCain ever apologized? he must have at least apologized in private, right?
he certainly hasn’t been held accountable like Shuster rightly was. but we can take care of that in November…
Although I think there are many good reasons to support Obama and I myself am seriously considering voting for him, I hope the people comparing him so favorably to Clinton will look at them in context.
Sen Clinton has been in the public eye for 16 years, and has been bashed by the media for almost the entire time. This incident is yet another example of how when Sen Clinton does something that would go unremarked upon in another politician or public figure, the spotlight is shown on her actions and it’s treated as Suspect and Bad. This constant scrutiny and bias has succeeded in pursuading many people, liberals as well as conservatives, that she’s Evil. In comparison, Obama- the new guy whose drawbacks (no he’s not perfect) we haven’t seen much of yet- is the golden boy.
I am sick and tired of hearing from Obama-supporters saying that if Clinton is the nominee, they’re staying home next November.* Their platforms are almost identical. They’re both way better than McCain. Yes she supported the war and I am very unhappy about that. But at least she wants to get us out, compared to lets-stay-100 years-McCain.
*Luckily, I hear that most Obama supporters will happily support Clinton in November, but I yesterday my brother gave me more of this crap and I’m sick of it.
Fabulous!! Go Hillary!! It has been utterly disgusting watching MSNBC’s bias in this campaign. Ever since South Carolina they have simply become the Obama channel. While watching them, and I’ve watched this train wreck alot just to keep tabs, it has not gone unnoticed to me that while they might be showing her picture, or a video clip of her, their overwritten remarks have been overwhelmingly negative and biased. To hear these liberal minded media people demonize and criticize and ostracize, as they did with Chelsea, while being the VERY SAME people who lambast the right-wing radio people for demonizing and criticizing an ostracizing…well, it’d be laughable, if it wasn’t at a high expense to another group and frankly, disgusting. I’m so glad she’s calling them on it.
i will say now i will not vote for Clinton if she runs a racist campaign against Obama.
and i will not vote for Obama if he runs a sexist campaign against Clinton.
we can’t control the MSM (altho this case proves we can influence it).
but we can demand our candidates do better, by threatening to withhold our votes.
So Chelsea doing some campaigning for her mother is “pimping her out” but Romney’s five sons driving cross-country in an RV to campaign for their father is patriotic and gets them out of having to go to Iraq.
Nooo, no double standard there.
Well, if you drag $100 bills through MSNBC, there’s no telling what you’ll find.
http://nataliedee.com/020408/im-gonna-vote-for-mccain-cause-hes-a-white-dude.jpg
The same can be said for the Republicans. I don’t think McCain will be another Reagan, but his praise for the Reagan administration speaks volumes about what kind of policies and governance he sees as ideal.
Well, McCain isn’t popular with the folks sitting on my side of the fence. We call shapeshifters like him RINOs (Republican In Name Only).
In 2008-2012, Clinton or Obama is in there. It’s a done deal. You might not get the ultra-liberal President you’ve always wanted, but a Democrat is going into the White House real soon. Wait and see.
Upthread, the point was made concerning the backlash of disapproval when some idiot bashes Hillary on the basis of gender. High damned time. Let ‘em go on and on and dig their own graves with their teeth.
I remember the “White House dog” incident–I actually saw it, having had something I wanted to finish and not having turned off the news so Moby Rush’s short-lived program came on, I will never forget the naughty-boy smirk on that repulsive fat face as he did his passive-aggressive “Oops!” number.
I remember the McCain remark about Chelsea Clinton’s “real” father, and wonder how long it’s going to take before it finally bites him in the ass as well. Yes, he apologized–again in a PA manner–it was just us boys having fun, ha ha–but he was never called to account for it.
Some third party–Swiftboating for Truth?–should dig this out of the archives and feature it in some television spots, along with that picture of McCain hugging Gee-Wee with an orgasmic smile on his face and the question “Do you really want four more years of this, with a hundred years’ involvement in Iraq?” under the picture.
You can fight hard without fighting dirty. Using these jerkwads’ own statements and actions against them is perfectly legitimate.
How is it that Shuster gets a suspension, but McCain can make jokes about Chelsea being fathered by Janet Reno and have it slide under the radar?
And there are reasons why he didn’t get the nod in 2000- what, a decade has mellowed his ass? please.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml
I think “pimping” was an inappropriate word for Shuster to use. But I do think Hillary Clinton is exploiting this unfortunate matter to benefit her campaign. Why is she willing to debate on Fox News when their top commentators are racebaiting homophobes? Have we forgotten what Gibson said about Heath Ledger? Yet, she’s willing to increase their ratings by participating in a debate on that network.
David Shuster isn’t the one Clinton should be going after. It should be Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson. Shuster did an excellent job of covering the Scooter Libby trial. And when people were accusing the Clintons of racebaiting in NH, NV, and SC Shuster defended them. He said he had covered the Clintons since they were in Arkansas, and they were not racist.
So I ask people this: why has Hillary Clinton forgiven John McCain for telling a cruel, sexist, homophobic joke about about a teenaged Chelsea Clinton and AG Janet Reno, but she want’s Shusters job?
well that mekes sense, sounds like shuster’s blind to a lot of isms.
Yay Thomas! Glad to see you here!
Got here from ms-jd.
While I recognize the basic premise here – that being able to call-out sexist coverage is an empowering step forward – I think the progress is more limited that this analysis suggests. For instance I think the calling out is limited to the Shusters and the Mathews, i.e. the angry white men. When it’s less usual a suspect (like another woman, or a person of color) the response from the Clinton campaign has been more muted.
I also think there’s a total lack of recognition that generally the media and its consumers condone sexist commentary to a greater extent than they do racist commentary. I hear a lot of people talking about this election as a test of our racism and sexism and only looking to voting patterns for answers. But I think, despite the ridiculousness of the question, that there are more answers to be found in the coverage of these events than in the electoral outcome. If nothing else ,I find it incredibly problematic that Obama is portrayed as a uniter due in part to his multi-racial background, while Clinton is characterized as devisive and manipulative when she references her gender.
I just have a question – why do we keep calling Hillary Clinton “Hillary?” I detect a tinge of something there . . . Famous women are much more likely to be called by their first names. Take “Britney” or “Madonna” or “Angelina” as some examples. Margaret Thatcher was also “Maggie.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign signs also say “Hillary,” so clearly she’s embracing this probably because it makes her seem less aloof. However, I do wonder why she’s “Hillary” more often than “Senator Clinton.”
In some ways it’s perfectly innocent, because it distinguishes between her and Bill Clinton. (Remember how Bush2 was “W” or “GW” to distinguish him from his father…)
BUT I’ve noticed the same thing, and it worries me, because it’s almost belittling in a way. That’s not to say everyone who calls her Hillary is sexist or misogynist or belittling women. But I make a point of referring to her as Clinton or Senator Clinton or HRC because I think calling her just by her first name is a bad trend, and it’s a bad idea to encourage it.
“I remember the “White House dog” incident–I actually saw it”
You saw NOTHING Sasha. You’re a liar.
Comments on this entry are closed.