Does anyone actually believe that Shuster called Chelsea a whore, I mean seriously?

I want an answer to two questions, just a simple yes or no. There is no need for a lengthy response.

Question 1: Do you believe that David Shuster, on live television, said that Bill and Hillary were sexually prostituting out their 27 Year Old Daughter Chelsea to super delegates and the women on the View in exchange for votes? Yes or no.

Question 2: Did you see the entire segment in question (snippets do not count)? Yes or No.

They hurt Kerry and Dean and Hillary is taking them
to task. Good for her!

Now it's a different story.

Babbling out your butt again!

I don't expect much more from people like you. What's the problem, you can't read? You can insult but you can't understand. That's ashame but not unexpected. It's a miracle if we ever elect another Democratic President.

Why should some moran's defense of the media attacking any Democratic candidate make it ok for the media to attack another Democratic candidate?

This is about electing a Democrat to the White House and getting more Democrats in Congress. It's destructive to cheer on the media's attack on any Democrat, ever.

CNN is no better than MSNBC is no better than Fox.

Question 1: Do you believe that David Shuster, on live television, said that Bill and Hillary were sexually prostituting out their 27 Year Old Daughter Chelsea to super delegates and the women on the View in exchange for votes? Yes or no.

Question 2: Did you see the entire segment in question (snippets do not count)? Yes or No.

Just a simple yes or no.

Hey, I like shuster alright, at least grading on a curve.
His work on Abramoff was more insightful and detailed than anyone on the corporate news channels.

However, I have noticed the "boys club" mentality on MSNBC and elsewhere.
It was a bad choice of words, but the outrage is being pumped up for political reasons - capture of news cycle.


Pundits and hosts need to be more substantive and less gossipy in general.

If we were able to discuss things in more civil tone and at greer length, we might be in better shape as a nation.

What if someone said "McCain is pimping out Joe and Lindsay to gather more support" would there be the same outrage?
Both males and females can be "whores" and "pimps", as any thinking person should be able to see.
So while it could be construed in both sexist ways, or even racial ways due to long held stereotypes, it does not get us far by a flash of outrage or punishment. Far worse things go on everyday - witness O'Reilly's "homeless vets - bridge - they're just druggies, and now sex offenders" line of thought.
that is more drawn out over time, and not just one slipped comment but more deliberate, far different than a single use of a term that is more nuanced in the last decade than it was prior to that. Words often have several colloquial meanings and implications - the outrage focuses on the literal.

They use outrage and anger the same way a train uses coal.

"a fairy tale" is racist? Such nonsense.

i didn't find the fairy tale thing racist.

So Bill Clinton making those comments about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina and that's why Obama won wasn't racist? He wasn't trying to say that it's only because most of the voters were black?

The Clinton campaign has tried to be coy about it, but they have gone out of their way to keep people reminded that Obama is black.

outrage/tears will be :think:

to use a blatant insult of Chelsea to score political points. That says a lot about his character, and I don't think I could vote for a candidate who has such low standards.

He hasn't said anything. The Clintons are the ones who are outraged, and Schuster is the one who said it. Obama doesn't have anything to do with it.

Geez, no wonder Edwards dropped out with dipstick supporters like you behind him.

I did read what I believe to be the entire context of what he said.

He was saying that Chelsea's activities were comparable to being a whore and ergo Hillary is a pimp.

It was a repulsive sexist comment even if you allow it as a metaphor.

Or what the Clinton camp read into his comments. He said that wasn't his intent nor were the comments to be perceived as pejorative (in fact he and his two Morning Joe co-hosts were amazed that anyone considered the comments to be considered that way).

But the Clinton campaign and their followers found poor victim Hillary's outrage and tear-jerker of the week. And you bought into it. Did they ask you to contribute to help 'fight for Chelsea's honor' too?

By "pimping out"?

Is there another way to interpret it?

mean to provide women for sex? People who have 'pimped out' their myspace profiles are providing women for sex? WordPress, TimeWarner, Sportswrap, all use the term solely to mean providing women for sex? We are all victims, all of us. And because of that we must vote for Hillary Clinton so she can remind us for the next four years that we all all victims. Oh God.

So what Schuster meant was that Hillary was overly decorating Chelsea with rimless tires and a sound system.

okay.

what Schuster meant when he said it.

But we're all victims, all victims and we need to vote for Hillary Clinton so we can be reminded that we're all victims for the next four years. Every time a man invades our personal space, every time somebody asks us a hard question, every time our motives are questioned we can be reminded that WE are the victims. *cue crying and moral outrage here*

you've already admitted the term has more that one meaning. You've chosen to believe the false outrage of the Clinton camp. So be it. You want to walk around constantly wounded by each and every comment that someone can tell you should be offending you, find and dandy. But not everyone has to be like Hillary Clinton and her followers. Some of us can think for ourselves and NOT be offended or victimized by every and all things said on political talk shows.

"Pimp" refers to gaudy, flashy stuff such as normally owned, worn, or driven by pimps.

If you think pimp has a positive connotation in the real world, you should stop watching rap videos.

There are now several meanings of the word. All you have to do is go look them up. Or you could just blindly follow the Clinton campaign lead and claim continued victimhood. That is definitely easier and takes no further effort on your part.

A guy with a lot of girlfriends...

As a verb "pimp" means to sell very hard...

They both have negative connotations...

David Shuster's white bread ass should stop trying to be down...He never will be...

In that same vein the Rutgers University basketball team should just stop playing the victims because Don Imus was just calling them a bunch of garden tools.

Crying about being victimized.

:nopity:

~

About this, among many other things.

When you make a living using words you do not accidentally say anything. And if you do it is your true feelings betraying you. In that case you need to remove yourself from your position as you have lost objectivity, which is what people want. hell I can come here of free republic and get all the Hillary bashing I can stomach, well they do tend to be more civil and polite there.

But that's what happens when a white bread dude tries to be hip...

And even if you interpet it figuratively it was beyond the pale... I don't ever remember that term being apllied to the child of a political figure who was working for his or her parent...

you hit the nail on the head, IMO.

That even "news" is editorialized and biased in attacking Clinton. In this case for having her daughter call voters--something done by every candidate.

And in making that attack, he did it in a sexist and demeaning way. Why? To get the most affect. To reduce Clinton and her daughter--like women have been reduced for generations.

The culture of MSNBC created Schuster. Gave him the idea that it was no-holds-barred. Anything was ok no matter how ugly or distorted.

That is the point.

News should be the facts presented in an unbiased non-editorialized manner. And frankly, even if it is an editorial, the language is sexist and not ok. It just isn't ok.

Yes or No on Question 1 and Question 2? Have you seen the entire segment so that you can hear what he said in context, and if not then how can you accurately judge?

It does not matter if he actually meant that she was trading sex for votes. It matters that she was demeaned and reduced.

It does not matter if Clinton is actually a "bitch" or if she actually dresses badly and is fat. The point is that using sexism demeans women.

1) whoring someone out to turn tricks for them (whether literal or figurative)

2) decorating with many hip and cool attachments. (like pimping out one's ride)


So unless Schuster was indicating that Hillary was hanging fuzzy dice from Chelsea's earlobes it's the FIRST definition.

If I saw a TV commercial for a program on the Discovery Channel about six times in one hour (has happened before) and said: 'Damn, they are really pimping out that show.' What I'd really be saying, according to your first choice, is that they are figuratively whoring out their show to turn tricks for them?

as I'm sure you are aware, is not a person.

He used it in exactly that context. He said it right after playing a clip where the View women were MOCKING Chelsea for calling them one after another, and asking them to vote and support her mother. They were mocking her, and David was basically saying, 'Isn't this going overboard?'

Sure, it wasn't exactly the best phrase to use, but in the context he used it was neither intended to be offensive or derogatory. It was factually correct and had nothing to do with turning tricks. It was not even an attack on Chelsea herself, it was an attack on the Clinton Campaign for using her so much and then refusing to allow the media to even conduct an interview with her, which is a fair assessment.

This whole situation is the equivalent of the distorting of Bill Clinton's fairy tale remarks into something racist. It is taking a small thing of something someone said, taking it out of context, twisting it, then making a whole big situation out of it. The difference here being a person who was on our side now has a black mark on his record for choosing his words poorly.

The comparison of Chelsea to a whore is offensive. It does not matter that it's an expression. It does not matter that it's a metaphor.

It's a sexist, demeaning label applied to her for no other reason than to paint her as "whore-like" in her contributions to her Mother's campaign.

It's similarly disgusting to imply that Hillary is 'exploiting" her daughter --who is a GROWN WOMAN.

It was not simply a poor choice of phrases. It was an intentional slime by a man who works with words for a living.

If a journalist was to claim that Obama is pimping out his wife, you would be foaming at the mouth.

And a few other things. He wasn't acting as a journalist. He was a commentator filling in for Tucker, and I believe had you seen the full segment in its entirety it is very clear that he is not calling her a whore, directly or indirectly, as an expression or as a metaphor. He isn't even using the word pimp in that fashion at all.

It's as different as the word gay. One person can use it and mean happy and the other can use it while referring to sexual orientation. There is no direct correlation between the two. A person can be gay without being happy, and a person can be gay without being homosexual. A person can also be gay while being gay.

David meant it exactly in this context: 'Is Chelsea being pushed onto people by the Clinton Campaign, are they going overboard?'

To read further into the statement, or to imply that it meant something else is factually and intellectually incorrect. You might not like the word. You might think it is sexist. However, that does not change the context of what he said, and in the end all anyone can really say is that it rubs them the wrong way. That's fine. That doesn't make him sexist, it doesn't make him bad, and it doesn't make him wrong.

David is a writer.

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

I saw exactly what you saw, and I saw someone whose mouth was moving faster than their brain. He was speaking conversationally and he spoke as he would in common off air conversation.

Of course, being a mind reader, I guess you've proved me wrong. It was all an elaborate illusion.

Come on, let's be serious. This is manufactured outrage. It is over the top and it makes everyone who is seething with anger look like clowns. It also denigrates REAL sexism. Ever heard of the story about the little boy who cried wolf? Some people forget that little tale.

It's all there in his words.

He was showing his age. Pimping out someone is a term that is used quite often.

Where the fuck am I, the Free Republic?

attack from a right wing mediawhore.

As DemocratSinceBirthsaid, it's "what happens when a white bread dude tries to be hip"

I am amazed, it is as if the boundaries have been removed when it comes to Clinton bashing. He was only lost in the cool aid. Rove must be very happy. I never ever, in million fucking years, thought they could do it three times in a row. I have lost all faith in the American People.

:-(

:shrug:

to Imus on MSNBC.

I think it's an expression that a lot of people use.

But it's also a vulgar expression and it's sexist.

And it's not one that belongs on network television coming out of the mouth of a high profile journalist.

His company has the right to set the ground rules.

and cries of 'we won't attend the debate unless you take him off the air' are thrown at the network?

The term 'pimp out' is no long sexist used in it's current context (unless you consider every car getting 'pimped out' on MTV or every truck being 'pimped out' on CMT are now going to be used to sell sex by women). Unless complaining about the term puts one campaign in the position of being once again victimized by the media - and by a man in the media.

suggesting that Hillary was decorating Chelsea with racing stripes and rimless hubcaps?

Talk about a stretch.

Even bigger stretch.

it's offensive EVEN as a metaphor.

During Oscar time it's an award winning term.

and women clap and cheer it :eyes:

You are now the second person I am putting on ignore in my history at DU.

Are there TeeVee cameras around to record your victimization by someone who doesn't buy their bull?

Otherwise you're wasting it all. And tomorrow is anothe election day. We'll need more outrage and tears then.

:cry:

and yet the song was sung on national television and I don't recall Hillary Clinton complainig about it's use.

Do you think Schuster doesn't know what the word pimp means or the image it implies? I don't necessarily think he called her a whore in the literal sense. He used the word to denigrate the way she is working too get her mother elected. As a professional, he has the vocabulary to express his ideas. The use of the word "pimp" was clearly menat to demean in a vendictive way.

It's important to answer the questions so that we can all be on the same page.

I'll post what I please, thank you very much. I'll not let you set the parameters of my responses. We are not on the same page, and most likely never will be. The important question is, should a professional journalist use the term "pimp" in describing anything a candidates daughter may or not be doing?

Is this what we want? A constant hyper-vigilance with regard to offending the candidate/nominee/president? Don't ask questions, don't question motivations and DON'T have opinions that aren't in line with the Clintons. If you do it'll be demanded of you to apologize and then you will be suspended until they inform us you are forgiven. Imagine four years of the White House Press Pool attempting to report under those crazy-assed rules.

What happened to just using acceptable language? Why use the word pimp? We know what it implies, and we can draw from that what Schuster was trying to convey........a vendictive slander, nothing less. Is he not responsible for the choices he makes? Well, I guess the network thought he was, and did the correct thing. As a journalist, he should be more professional. He's not posting on an internet political forum.

by the Clinton campaign.

Who is the determiner of acceptable language? Last night on the Jay Leno show he both used the term 'bitch' to describe a woman AND had a joke about brining a bullet proof briefcase to a meeting. Has he issued an apology to all women yet? Has he issued an apology to the families of those killed in the recent shootings at that city council meeting? Has the Clinton campaign issued a complaint against Jay Leno? Nope. But then he wasn't criticizing the campaign's use of Chelsea Clinton in the contacting Superdelegates while asking for privacy for an adult from the media.

you're comparing a talk show to a political pundit???? get a fucking clue

My contest was January 3rd and I ended up uncommitted.

I am not a fan of 'women as victims' and sick of the Clinton campaign's tear-jerking bull.

Shuster gave a real apology in the evening. In the morning he simply said if anyone misinterpreted the meaning of the words I chose, which I can understand some might, than I apologize that you were offended by them. The standard non apology apology.

So I thought his comments on Morning Joe were just fine.

Fake outrage and false threats are just fodder for free press.

I'm sick of Hillary Clinton and her campaign being constant victims.

I'm pimping for common sense, logic and reason. Things that seem to have been abandoned here a long time ago in favor of victimization. It is starting to remind me of how the Christian Right constantly martyr's themselves as being victims with faux outrage over the "War on Christmas".

It just wasn't appropriate in the setting of a TV news operation.

People who say, "it's okay, it's our generational's language," are either being naive, disingenuous, or may have been "born in a barn," as the elders accused us when we used indelicate language in inappropriate settings.

"Pimping Out" is used in all sorts of contexts, where whores and real pimps
have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

It was a poor choice of words and he shouldn't have said it.

But of course, as usual--in the game of politics--people will scream, shout, salivate, and insist
that this has some deeper, pivotal meeting. Editorials will be written, hysteria will ensue and
people will vociferously argue that this means SO, SO much!! And aren't we all so angry!!!?? And
what does this mean for women, pimps, prostitutes and children everywhere!!!!!

It's just like "the snub".

It really makes people look stupid.

People who agree that Schuster's comments were off base and inappropriate just have to shake their heads...because
most of those who disagree, are expressing high-pitched, manic reactions that are disproportionate to
reality. It's like there's no place for a fair-minded, reasonable person to go in this frenzy discussion.

It's really bizarre.

It's like watching a 6-year old misbehave in Walmart--and disapproving with the child's behavior. Then, watching
the parent beat the child seven ways to Sunday then get on the Walmart PA system and announce that their
child is a worthless loser who will never amount to anything, and due to their child's temper tantrum, hs is now
for sale near the rice cakes for $5--and any takers should proceed to that aisle immediately.

Schuster was wrong. But so are those who are completely losing their minds over this.

There is this crazy need for people to feel victimized. Someone has to be out to get them or they aren't happy and they can't function properly. It's almost as if they would break down if they really found out no one gave two craps about them one way or another. It's their way of making themselves important, I guess.

Using the idea of prostitution to illustrate a point about politics. It's been done before and he didn't mean anything personal. Not that I enjoy references to prostitution or other things which demean women.

I usually don't mind Shuster. I believe he is in our camp. But that was a really crappy thing to say and could easily be seen as partisan and Sexist.

A jounalist should know the power of words.

Regardless, a 27 year old woman can decide to do whatever the hell she wants. Same goes for a 13 year old. I find the hypocrisy overwhelmingly vile that Dems where calling out the Rethugs on abusing the young kid who stood up or health care, yet now they attack a young woman, just because she is a Clinton.

you Obama people piss all over the answer? ...and the person who answered truthfully!

no thanks, i will no longer answer your stupid assed questions..no game..i won't play!

fly

But I think his comment was inappropriate.

Yes I believe Shuster used whoring and pimping as an intentional political metaphor. No I do not believe Shuster used "pimping out" as a slang term divorced from the primary definition, that being the physical exploitation of women.

And of course I do not believe that Shuster claimed Chelsea was physically trading sex with her for votes. The latter was would have been a much crazier thing to say than ANYTHING Rush might mumble on a bad drug day. Is that the line that has to get crossed before something is too outrageous for DU members to accept being said?

this is an example of how far we have moved away from objective news. That someone would even think of using such a slang term in a newscast. I think there is something to be said for a more formal use of language in newscasts. I also think that too many "newscasters and reporters" feel that it is just fine to make sexist derogatory remarks about Hillary Clinton. I have seen this for years. It started with the right wing hate talkers and now has migrated to corporate media.

Granted it is not just Hillary who gets this treatment but she certainly get more than anyone else that I can think of.

Grave overreaction and a sign that the Clinton campaign is using "victim" as a theme.

Well, er, they might have been "victimized" while in the White House but when do these people learn to stop crossing the line? They attract controversy which is what I am sick of.

and claimed she wasn't calling him gay we should accept that.

as well he should.

It was, in every way, inappropriate. There is no justification for it whatsoever. MSNBC should not tolerate journalists on their staff that do not understand the implications of inflammatory language.

How about:
Bush pimps out Condi to defend invasion.
Bush pimps out his father to cry on cue.
Bush pimps out Jeff Gannon....oh, wait.

how well would that go over?

Yes,he said it. Yes, he meant it. Yes, it was an insult and inappropriate.

and yes, Obama supporters are stooping pretty low when they try to get some political mileage out of it. Speaks pretty poorly of Obama that he has to resort to this kind of thing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6673017490108856488

Question 1: Do you believe that David Shuster, on live television, said that Bill and Hillary were sexually prostituting out their 27 Year Old Daughter Chelsea to super delegates and the women on the View in exchange for votes? Yes or no.


First off, I was watching the program because I grew to respect David in his coverage of the Libby Lied trial.

Then, boom, the Chelsea rant.

That the rant could be strongly interpreted as a sexually and derogatory comment is quite clear. Pimps sell the services of prostitutes. That there could have been other interpretations of the rant as well, is secondary. Anyone that has been involved in Sexual Harassment policies and procedures knows full well that if a sexual and derogatory comment can be interpreted as such, and those listening do interpret it that way, and it is not solicited, it is sexual harassment. Dirty jokes, flirtations, and physical gestures need to be guarded when they are not solicited in the work place. You can tell a dirty joke to one person and it is fine; you can turn around an tell the exact same joke to another and it can be considered sexual harassment. Sorry, but those are the facts.

But beyond this, Shuster was not coming across as joking - - he had a scowl on his face, and he injected an additional comment about the microphone in Chelsea's face. And what was also clear is that other members on his panel recoiled over his comments.

Shuster's comments can then be classified as Verbal Sexual Abuse. The only outstanding issue at the point was: would MSNBC manifest zero tolerance?

Question 2: Did you see the entire segment in question (snippets do not count)? Yes or No.


I saw the entire segment, and then disgustedly changed the channel. Not only was I terribly disappointed in Shuster, I knew then, Shuster had made a career altering blunder of epic proportions. I've seen extremely talented people fired for less.

I also knew then, MSNBC would have to fire him and then apologize to the Clintons and to their viewers.

The whole thing is beyond stupid. This week's faux outrage.

slaughtered on a daily basis because of their makeup and dress don't garner the attention of this incident.

it is a shame that Hillary isn't as troubled about them, and all those that have died as she is about her campaign.


peace~

it's manufactured drama among the celebrity aristocracy

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080011?f=h_top

Finally, Shuster got to the real issue: "ast night, I used a phrase -- some slang about her efforts. I didn't think that people would take it literally, but some people have."

That's just ridiculous. Nobody took Shuster's statement that Chelsea Clinton is "being pimped out" literally. Nobody. People were bothered that he analogized her to a prostitute, not that they thought he was actually saying she has sex in exchange for money. Shuster's "I didn't think that people would take it literally" excuse is like calling someone a b*tch, then saying, "Hey, I didn't think people would think I was saying she is literally a dog." It completely misses the point.

I found this ad on DailyKOS.

"BareNaked Pundits!" The new blog from Kossack John Hlinko. BareNaked Pundits -- because I really am shameless enough to take out a DK text ad to pimp my blog. BareNaked Pundits -- see my picture with Barack Obama, where he looks great and I look really dorky. BareNaked Pundits -- because if you don't visit, you hate our freedom. You don't hate our freedom, do you? BareNaked Pundits -- please, please come and leave some comments."

Is he calling his blog a prostitute or a whore? No. That is exactly the same context David used when he referred to Chelsea. DSC, you know this. You're a teacher - you know what it means and how it was meant. It was neither meant to be offensive or derogatory.

I quoted Media Matters, this is DU, and the reporter in questions works at MSNBC. And you apparently didn't even bother to read the text I quoted. No one, not Hillary, not Chelsea, not the author I quoted, and not I is saying that Shuster meant to literally call Chelsea a whore what all of us are saying is that he used sexist language, language he wouldn't dare use against the family member of any other candidate, to demean the daughter of a candidate. And, as a teacher, let me assure you, I don't let my students use the word pimp in my class.

I read your post, but you didn't read mine.

In order for David's comment to be sexist it would have to have a derogatory sexual or sexually degrading context to it. It didn't. Do you think the ad I copied and pasted was sexual in nature or sexually degrading? Are you going to demand that Media Whores be shut down because it has whore in its name? Media Whores actually has a sexual cogitation, and calling a woman a whore is sexist not to mention crude. Does that mean those who run the site are sexist?

Let's be honest. His comment was literally this: "The Clinton Campaign is constantly putting Chelsea out there, in the middle of the campaign, is that an appropriate place for her to be?" He used the term "pimp" to mean "putting her out there, in the middle of the campaign, constantly".

If Obama had Oprah on the campaign trail everyday, following him around, or if she talked about Obama on her TV Show everyday, I'd say Oprah was pimping for Obama. Is that sexist? No. That'd be the truth.

It's like arguing with someone over the meaning of the word gay. Someone can say they're gay and mean happy and another person can say they're gay and be talking about their sexual orientation. This situation is no different. You are CHOOSING to hear the former, even though the context of the comment - and the entire segment - was the latter. You are outraged over something that never even happened.

This is the equivalent of someone saying they were gay, meaning that they were happy, and then you go around telling everyone that said person was gay, referring to their sexual orientation, even though it wasn't true and that isn't what the person said.

I did before and do now (incidently I thought it was closed but that is irrelevent). But saying Chelsea was pimped out, when you say that about exactly 0 other members of the families of other campaigns is clearly anti Clinton and yes, likely sexist. But since you seem to think even raped isn't sexist I can see why you would be OK with whore and pimp.

That is the only way it even makes sense to me at all. As I said, I was watching the show when he said it and it was such a non-issue that I didn't even notice. It wasn't until the following day, when he was apologizing, that I went back to take a second look.

I guess if you're older, and you're only used to hearing the term pimp in relation to - well... literal pimping... and the term raped in in relation to... literally raping someone... then yeah, you could potentially find it offensive. To me, though, the words have virtually no value what-so-ever. Pimp is used as both a verb and a noun. It can be used to describe everything from your car, to clothing, to actions, to its literal meaning. Raped can be used similarly, you can rape the land, or be used to describe an overwhelming victory against a seemingly unbeatable opponent. If you don't like hearing the word rape used in that way, I suggest you never play a video game online - ever - because that won't be the only term used that would go under your skin.

Our music has virtually made such terms irrelevant. It's hard for me to imagine Chelsea being offended when I can simultaneously imagine Chelsea at a club dancing to a song about pimp's, ho's, and bitches - used literally. I somehow doubt that she's some white laced girl, who is the embodiment of the classical lady, who never utters a vulgar word, or listens to any age appropriate music. She is only a year and a half older than myself, so it is not hard for me to imagine that she's just like some of the women that I know. They aren't so fragile, and if a man called them a whore, they aren't likely to get weepy eyed and cry about it, they're likely to put him in his place and make him regret opening his mouth.

Most of the women I know are more concerned about women in Iraq being killed for wearing make-up than words used by a commentator on MSNBC. And, frankly, if you ask me - the world is better that way. It is a lot more sane and rational.

"Whore" has come to be used to refer to anyone (male or female) who gives up their dignity and/or is willing to be used in exchange for something they want (e.g., "fame whore").

He was saying that Clinton was selling out her daughter's privacy for votes, after having tried to protect it for years. The term he used was inappropriate. But it would be ridiculous for anyone to try to argue that he was implying Clinton was literally pimping her daughter.

... a 27 year old hedge fund employee, so the jury is still out on her.

Whore: It usually doesn't mean taking money for sex. Deal with it, tight asses.

Pimping: It usually doesn't mean putting someone out for sex. Deal with it, tight asses.

I don't see the difference. The suggestion was there. You can't deny that.
Hundreds of thousands people thought the same thing and emailed them a ton of nasty letters. It doesn't really matter what we on DU think...so why bring up the subject...again!?

They are taking it out of context to score political points, at the expense of David who has been on outside for a long time. What he said was neither meant to be offensive or derogatory. Read the text ad below that I copied and pasted from the DailyKOS.

"BareNaked Pundits!" The new blog from Kossack John Hlinko. BareNaked Pundits -- because I really am shameless enough to take out a DK text ad to pimp my blog. BareNaked Pundits -- see my picture with Barack Obama, where he looks great and I look really dorky. BareNaked Pundits -- because if you don't visit, you hate our freedom. You don't hate our freedom, do you? BareNaked Pundits -- please, please come and leave some comments."

Is he calling his blog a prostitute or a whore? No. That is exactly the same context David used when he referred to Chelsea. The outrage over his remark is over the top and out of proportion of what actually happened.

Manufactured bullshit - pure and simple.

This post is so stupid, I don't know where to start.

Talk about deliberately and wantonly missing the point in order to start trouble.

Are you a male or female?

Read the text ad below that I copied and pasted from the DailyKOS.

"BareNaked Pundits!" The new blog from Kossack John Hlinko. BareNaked Pundits -- because I really am shameless enough to take out a DK text ad to pimp my blog. BareNaked Pundits -- see my picture with Barack Obama, where he looks great and I look really dorky. BareNaked Pundits -- because if you don't visit, you hate our freedom. You don't hate our freedom, do you? BareNaked Pundits -- please, please come and leave some comments."

Is he calling his blog a prostitute or a whore? No. That is exactly the same context David used when he referred to Chelsea.

This metaphor was inappropriate and after his mediocre apology, I'm glad he got suspended.

One of the reasons his apology was mediocre is that he implied that his critics took his statement literally, which we hadn't

I watched the segment at YouTube.