When someone uses the word PIMP and your daughter's name in the same sentence

most people expect a candidate to fight back.

Any Democrat who puts up with this kind of crap - or enables the media to get away with it - is playing the same losing game that Democrats have been playing for 30 years.

If you don't get it, you don't get politics. If you don't understand why 99% of America would cheer anyone who defended their daughter in this circumstance, you don't understand 99% of American voters.

at this point, you know Hillary is milking this.

The fact she's fine with Rupert Murdoch and Fox says it all.

It's about his enablers and sponsors-- the propaganda mill known as MSNBC and the kewl kid press in general. I feel like I'm in Jr High all over again.

As Democrats, we can fight among ourselves to choose our nominee. But when the media attacks one of our own, we need to present a united front.

If anyone in the media says something remotely offensive about Obama or his family, we ALL need to fight back. Ditto for Hillary.

That's the kind of loyalty that American voters like.

It's about Democrats not defending our own. It's about Democrats letting the media get away with this over and over again and people thinking that means that Democrats are wimps.

can be created with repeated sexually charged comments. The result of such an environment keeps women "in their place." I've seen it attempted. The MSNBC news environment seems similarly designed to take care of Hillary. It's not limited to MSNBC of course. The more overt Republican swiftboaters have their plans too. http://gawker.com/348726/roger-stone-finds-his-voice

Of COURSE Hillary is milking it! That's what politicians do!

She's not "fine" with Rupert Murdoch and Fox. You are blinded by your tiny narrow view. This has nothing to do with Obama v Hillary. This is about winning an election. This is about fighting back against the media crap.

NT

So does Obama. Obama's campaign makes a big deal out of the fact that lifelong Republicans support him. Obama's campaign is savvy enough to understand that Democrats don't win elections by being "too pure" to go on Fox News.

in the general also should take every legitimate media opportunity that's offered to her or him.

And I know that Obama has the sense to fight back each and every time, just like Hillary.

Democrats keep putting up with this crap and we keep getting destroyed by the media. This is an opportunity for Democrats to stand up and said a message.

I'm appalled that people within our own party are trying to put the brakes on this golden opportunity to fight back against the media that has trashed us for decades.

Seriously people. Wake up!

:applause:

I don't give a rat's butt who it was said about...I give a rat's butt that it was said about a rather nice and successful young lady. I don't give a damn who her parents are...that is totally irrelevant.

Someone says something like that about one of my sons - they gonna pay. Period.

play that vague gender insult game. It's noticeable.

Shuster got his marching orders from the bosses, perhaps...it wouldn't be the first time that's happened (see JACK WELCH, Tim RUSSERT and ELECTION 2000).

And MURDOCH'S FLAGSHIP PAPER ENDORSED OBAMA, so what's up with that bullshitty last throw-away line of yours, eh? Murdoch is "fine" with OBAMA, too.

against media smears, no matter WHO issues the smear.

Most people here felt that way until it was Clinton fighting back. The fake outrage is so hypocritical.

Forget your feelings about Hillary and Obama. This is about the Democrats fighting back against media crap.

Not its not.

Its about media intimidation.

Didnt we hate the way Bush intimdated the media the last 8 years?

why be like them?

beginning with the election campaign of 2000.

I strongly, strongly disagree. The media is not intimidated. The media propped up Bush because the media is owned by the corporations that love Bush and what he's done for them.

The media has trashed the Democrats right left and center for the past 30 years and we have to fight back.

Bush has been doing.

Is some 'group' paying you to type here?

I've heard that line plenty since the election of 2000.

I'm tired of watching the Democratic Party keep its powder dry, get over it, move on, rise above it, ignore it, and generally let the media wipe the floors with us.

Smart candidates use whatever free media attention they can get.

This isn't hurting Obama, it's about the media. Sooner or later, the MSM was bound to attack Chelsea -- they always have -- and it's better to strike back hard ASAP.

after each incident, and says, "get over it" the abuse dems in general have taken from the msm goes far beyond anything a simple, and half-hearted, apology will fix.

there is a pattern here, and if you cannot see it, I feel sorry for you.

If a talking head said, "Isn't McCain pimping his wife in a weird sort of way" the entire Republican Party would go ballistic and most of America would understand. The people whose votes we need in November would understand. They'd be up in arms.

The Clintons response to this was 100% politically savvy and a welcome reaction.

their daughter but hey, it's given Hillary yet another shot at making herself into the perpetual victim so she's milking it for everything it's worth an dthen some.

and they will come back to haunt her in the GE. And we'll lose. Again.

It's not about facts. There are a million horrible things in George W. Bush's past and Dan Rather lost his job for talking about just one of them.

If we allow it the media will destroy ALL our candidates. You can't imagine what they'll do to Obama. Neither can I, because I don't think that way. But they'll do it.

If we let the media continue to get away with attacking OUR candidates, they'll do it to your candidate too.

evangelicals with Rove's help is going to do with the name, Barack Hussein Obama?

Both of the Dem's candidates are in the pockets of The Corporation. Obama appears Manchurian with this 'Yes We Can' crap. I feel like I am living in a book by George Orwell.

I have a born again in my family....she is convinced he is Muslim. The Bible says they will infiltrate.

We've already lost. America is done. The neocons have us is so much debt from spending on death and destruction...we'll never recover.

with some possters. Just tell them Obama should stop pimping his wife and kids and tell them "get over it".

First they attacked Bill, now Chelsea. What other micromanaging of her campaign do YOU feel entitled to make? Huh?

Where was the pimping comments then?

Yep, Mitt is putting his boys out on the street to give old Republican Senators blow jobs. That Mitt will do anything for a delegate.

That's why the Republicans win elections.

Democrats need to stand up for our own. Keep the fights within the family. Present a united front to the rest of the world.

Just like Hillary is justified right now.

However, with the internet, how are we supposed to appear unified in front of the world. Look how divided DU has become.

The understandable fighting over which candidate to choose has worsened into something that is very destructive to the Democratic Party.

It's one thing to squabble over which candidate. It's quite another to *tear down* Democratic candidates.

Worst of all, in my opinion, is taking sides with the hated mainstream media against a Democrat. That crossed the line.

get a fucking clue

Teddy Kennedy is also being pimped out, and so is Bill Clinton.

What shuster said was unprofessional slang. He apologized, that should have been enough. The only reason this is being made into an issue creating the same amount of outrage as if he had just murdered someone is because it happened to a Clinton and its an election year. That's it.

I'm glad he apologized. But the rest of this drama abouts to 50,000 dollars worth of indignation for a 50 buck crime.

to show that when they're attacked in the media they will strike back hard.

And milk it for all it's worth, and then some.

The next time the media says something hateful and stupid about Obama, we need to fight back just as hard.

Never look a media-gift in the mouth.

I'd expect Obama to fight back just as hard.

I will never, ever take sides with the media against a Democrat.

That's just....wrong.

short-sighted. We need a nominee who knows how to deal with the media, to fight back when attacked and to take advantage of every opportunity. And we would want Obama to react in exactly the same way.

Obama has made a big deal of his appeal to former W voters. Obama knows that the Democrats can't win by acting like we're above this kind of thing.

Politics is down in the dirt. Politics is guts and heart. People vote for the candidate they see as a fighter.

Or someone who says, "I don't want to look like a victim so I'll sit back and pretend this isn't happening."

Hillary has taken this moment to show that media attacks will be dealt with immediately and strongly. Exactly what she should do.

what will BO do, reach across the aisle and sing campfire songs with them,

the dems need to get tough and stop losing elections

For decades I've heard people say, "I don't trust the Democrats to be strong on defense." Why?

Because people notice that Democrats tend to put up with crap that Republicans would tear down the house over. America is still a frontier nation. Americans believe in defending their families against slurs. When Democrats let crap like this go by we look weak.

Fight! Fight for Obama! Fight for Hillary! Tell the media that we won't take this crap.

This is one of the best things that has happened to Democrats in a long time. I am so PROUD that the Clintons fought back about this.

Chelsea is an adult who makes her own decisions. Is it so unusual that a candidate's daughter is helping out in the campaign.

The term "pimping out" may be acceptable for a certain generation, but a reporter/commnentator needs to use appropriate language on air. He could have just said the Clinton's are using Chelsea if that what he believes. Why the coarse language?

Gore's daughters campaigned for him. So did Wes Clark's son. Romney's sons campaigned for him. What are you talking about? Candidates that have adult children have them involved in their campaigns more often than not.

Look -- here are the Obamas, PIMPING OUT their daughters to get votes....



That doesn't STRIKE A NERVE with you?

But I still would have jumped on it from a campaign perspective, get a little sympathy, and then move on.

I don't like that he used slang. He invalidated a reasonable point of view by using lazy language.

You and I know that Shuster is not the worst of the media people and he didn't mean nearly as much harm as Rush and Tweety and all the others. Nonetheless, the Democrats' enabling behavior has allowed even folks like Shuster to get lazy and insulting when they talk about Democrats.

In the heartlands, in the south, in the rural townships, in the inner cities, where people we Democrats need to vote Democratic live, using the word "pimp" and one's daughter's name in the same sentence is a fighting occasion. And when we Democrats ignore this kind of thing, people distrust us.

it may be in vogue for some of the younger generation, but most people see it in its context related to prostitution.

I'm surprised Obama supporters are defending it.

in certain contexts the term itself isn't offensive at all ... I just don't know what it was that he said.

A talking head suggested that the Clintons were "pimping Hillary in a weird sort of way."

It seems like a little thing, but it's not. It's the kind of thing Americans have gotten used to hearing from the media about Democrats but never about Republicans. It's an example of the pervasive bias in the media against all Democratic candidates.

If a talk head said something similar about McCain's wife, viewers would expect the entire Republican Party to go ballistic.

The Clintons went ballistic. They got the talking head suspended. Most Democrats cheer - finally a Democrat fighting back!

For some reason, some Obama supporters are actually TAKING SIDES AGAINST THE DEM0CRAT and defending the talking head. That's the kind of attitude that loses elections.

There really are different usages now, though. Different if directed toward and inanimate object, instead of an individual, perhaps.

Like, if I were to say they were pimping her campaign, or pimping her stump speech, or something like that, it would mean they were doing stuff to try and make it more appealing to people.

But the comment will be interpreted differently by a lot of American viewers - especially older and more conservative viewers that Democrats need to vote for us in November.

I'm not defending "it." I'm defending the fact that a line like "99% of people agree with me" is ridiculous.

Believe me, I would expect Obama to fight back just as vigorously.

The danger of slang is that it means different things to different people.

To the MTV crowd, pimp is an adjective for flashy or cool.

I work in media, I use pimp as a verb. To many people in marketing, pubic relations, and political circles, pimp is generally synonymous with promoting a concept, product, or idea. Given the orgin, it's a little self-deprecating, but not offensive.


The word isn't suitable for general consumption, so to say. And as a member of the press, he should know that. It wasn't acceptable to the audience, and Democrats in general should say that.

Why are the talking heads bringing up Hillary's campaigning for her mom? Why didn't the media talk about the fact that Mitt Romney's eight kids aren't serving in Iraq but instead drove all over Iowa "pimping" their dad?

There's a pervasive bias against Democrats - all Democrats - in the mainstream media and we have to fight it. I don't care what Shuster meant. What he said *sounded* offensive and therefore it's important for Democrats to fight back.

First, the most obvious, is use of the slang. I agree, it's not what he meant that is important. He is a professional communicator, he should know slang doesn't translate.

And second, the suggestion that using a family member in the campaign is somehow wrong. Shuster questioned suggests it's weird for Chelsea to be advocating her mother's candidacy, and that's just asinine. Chelsea may be a more involved advocate than other political sons or daughters this cycle, but its hardly without precedent. Chrissy Gephardt was heavily involved her her father's campaign. Kerry's son was active on the trail. I worked for a Senate candidate once that had two of his adult children working as surrogate speakers in the race.

But Schuster needs to be sensitive to his audience. Like you can't say "bitch slap" and expect most people watching to think it's just "slang."

Despite becoming more widely used, Ho has not evolved. It is always a derogatory term toward women.

As I stated in other posts in this thread, pimp is used frequently by people in public relations, marketing, advertising, politics, and any other industry related to selling people on bullshit. We use it in our own circles, and the negativity of it is the subtle reminder that what we do, we do for money. Shuster was stupid to use it to a broader audience.

I am not offended by the word. My problem with his statement is that it suggests a less than sincere campaign strategy. Axelrod and Penn are the ones doing the pimping.

From a campaign perspective, they should milk it for all it's worth. Don't move on until people are bored with it.

Just change the candidate, and wait for indignant howls.

to think that criminals who make money off women having to sell their bodies is now a mainstream slang word just shows how far BACKWARD we've gone.

And it's always a term that berates women.

There's a new slang used for males. 'Castrated' It means he lost or quit or just stupid. Since women are called hos, males can be referred to as castrated...eunuchs. Hey younick!!! lol.

How does it feel? I think Bob Dylan asked that question.

is what I wanna know...

WHY ARE THE MEDIA ATTACKING BARACK OBAMA FOR HIS NAME?

As Democrats, we need to fight for our team first! We can fight among ourselves about which candidate to nominate, but against the rest of the world - especially the miserable mainstream media - we stand up and defend our own.

That's what America understands. That's what resonates with people. Defending your family. That's what wins Democrats elections.

It also reminds me of the GOP subliminal ad campaign using RATS along with the word Democrats. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it.

:sarcasm:

DUers do it all the time.

Usually put the word "corporate" first though . . .

He apologized.

He got suspended.

That's far more punishment than the offense warranted.

Let's move on.

I'm 48 years old. I've watched Democrat after Democrat get trashed by the media and we roll over and take it and it contributes to the feelings among a lot of Americans that the Democrats are wimps.

That's right. A lot of Americans think that Democrats are wimps. Because Dukakis didn't get angry when someone asked how he would react if someone raped and murdered his wife. Because Gore didn't get angry when the media said that he claimed to invent the internet. Because Kerry didn't get angry when the media said over and over again that he cheated to get his Purple Hearts.

Worst of all - the Democratic Party didn't get angry when the media told those lies about our candidate, because the Democrats were too busy "getting over it."

That's the attitude that loses us elections.

Teddy Kennedy is also being pimped out, and so is Bill Clinton.

What shuster said was unprofessional slang. He apologized, that should have been enough. The only reason this is being made into an issue creating the same amount of outrage as if he had just murdered someone is because it happened to a Clinton and its an election year. That's it.

I'm glad he apologized. But the rest of this drama abouts to 50,000 dollars worth of indignation for a 50 buck crime.

what will happen when our candidates are attacked.

We can protest it on hers and all our behalf, while she fights on.

She is running for president.

She isn't 'enabling' the media. They are responsible for their sexism. Some of them would love nothing more I'm sure than for her to react so they could engage her in it.

Too bad for them.

I think it is very, very poor of you and others to EXCUSE such repugnant, disgusting remarks as David Schusters and all the others that have been made about her. THAT IS ENABLING. If you are a woman, you side with those who insult you and every woman with such garbage.

...that remark about Chelsea made me see red! I am a mom and if anyone said anything like that about my child, they would be on the floor and in pain.

JMHO

If Hillary had not fought back against this - if she had "moved on" and "risen above it" like Kerry and Dukakis and Gore and so many other Democrats have done - then lots of Americans would have shaken their heads and thought, "There go those Democrats again letting people say anything about their families and not fighting back. Democrats must be wimps. I don't want a Democrat as president. They might not defend me from terrorists."

That's the mindset we're dealing with in America. The majority of the voting public are not up in the enlightened stratosphere with cerebral liberals. The majority of the voting public vote with their guts and their hearts and the word "pimp" and their daughter's name in the same sentence makes them see red.

If we don't fight it, we look like wimps. If we look like wimps, we lose the election. Period.

nt

Hillary's votes to fund the war are not a strength right now. Neither are Obama's.

The politically savvy thing to do is distract the voters away from those war votes and toward something that voters will like about OUR candidates. Like defending her daughter. It's brilliant. I would hope that Obama would do exactly the same thing.

I don't give a rat's ass about the primaries. It's going to be Obama or Hillary. I want one of them to win the White House.

I think it's a distraction. A good one for their campaign at the moment. Sounds like you're in a good position no matter what happens.

Unless Democrats come together and stop tearing down our own, McCain will get the White House.

Some of those guys/gals aren't getting any younger, and we cannot afford to have McCain making those decisions.

I think many DUers are too old - but "pimped out" has taken on a whole new meaning in the past decade.

See Pimp-My-Ride
and pimp-your-profile

and

"that's pimped out"

or "that's pimpin"

It does not mean "prostituted" in nearly as direct a way as many are takint it. It was a rather lame attempt to try to use the
hip vernacular of the MySpace Generation by a dude who can't carry it off. Not remarkably tasteful - but hardly the scandal it's being played into by the desperate-for-free-media-as-donors-run-dry Clintonistas.

that would cause millions of American parents to identify with a candidate.

And I applaud her for it. This is how to win the White House.

You always resort to cheap media stunts if you are the CLinton Machine.

like Bills attempt to Tarnish "the black candidate" as "another jesse jackson"

or when he flew a mentally retarded kid back to the country to execute him in Arkansaas in 1992 just in time for the General Election - to get press to show he was "tough on crime"

Yep yep - gotta love that "Clinton Media Savvy"... it is just oh so impressive. This is JUST the right way to win the presidency. YOU ARE OH SO RIGHT. God they are so nifty these two!

It's a shame that this time it seems to keep failing for them.

Becuase they have finally gone up against someone who is so vastly above them in every measure.

It's fun to watch the Clinton's flail.

Pimping-out a car may mean adding fancy tires. He wasn't asking if the Clintons were adding fancy tires to Chelsea.

Can you use the phrase "pimped-out" refering to a woman in a way which isn't offensive? If so, please share an example.

...again not a scandal - just a dope.

but give credit where credit is due to the Clinton Machine for getting some press from it. I can't fault them at all for the attempt - I just hope the guys life does not get ruined because he was a dope.

Look what the media did to John Kerry. Look what they did to every other Democrat.

Believe me, we don't need to pity the media. They're in charge.

you can't blame one guy for the whole media aparatus in this country.

I'm guessing alot of the people on this thread must have never made a mistake in their lifetimes.

That must be cool - wish i could say the same - but I can't. I've made plenty of mistakes.

But the Clinton's are pretty ruthless - and will stop at nothing - so I don't plan to shed tears for each person they run over on their way back to power.

I'll shed tears if my Cousin who is in Iraq is killed or badly wounded - in a War Hillary Authorized for pure political expediency. I just hope i don't have to.

and then for him to continue doing his job at MSNBC.

aren't you being a bit dramatic? Oh, that's right the Oscars are coming up this month.

Ruined like the woman who finds herself homeless and has to get a pimp so she can sell her body to get some food for her and her kids....that kind of ruined?

Clintonism (two different things). The problem goes well beyond Schuster, as documented here:

http://mediamatters.org

There should be a zero tolerance policy on sexist and racist, etc. remarks. And, MSNBC should include as many pro-Clinton people on the air as they include pro-Obama or pro-McCain/Huckabee, etc. I'm sick of their doing the Republicans' dirty work for them.

We need older and more conservative voters to vote Democratic in November. We need to win the White House.

Obama understands this. Isn't he reaching out to former Republican voters?

Believe me, if some talking head used Obama's daughter and the word "pimp" in the same sentence Obama would react the same way as Hillary. And I'd be cheering him on.

it would be dead.

I wish we had a third party...I have never felt like this until this election season. How about The Community's Party?

I am sick of putting up with these supposed 'lefties' who are nothing more than Reagan Dems and probably 1st term W voters who would never vote for a woman for the simple reason she is a woman.

Now, based on past experience, males will take this personally and say they just hate HRC because of her policies...fine. What I'm saying is there are males who will NOT vote for a woman. Period. These males wouldn't vote for Joan of Arc, Mother Teresa, or Mary the mother of Jesus. They wouldn't vote for the Mother of God.

I would love to in fact.

But when people overlook Hillary's many policy and ethics miss judgements just because they want a woman for president it does a HUGE disservice to women leaders and activists everywhere.

What is needed is a balanced judgement of her as a candidate and a person.

Also - to say that people who point out her shortcommings are somehow "sexist" or "would never vote for a woman" is in and of itself revoltingly sexist. Give people credit for thinking. To paint people with a "brush of sexism" because they criticize her legitimately is obscenely sexist itself.

My mother who is 73 would also love a woman president - but she cannot support Hillary.

My Aunt who is 63 the same.

My mother's best friend - a FEMALE doctor and transport union organizer in San Francisco is also 1000% oposed to Hillary for what she has done, the votes she has cast, in other words - THE ISSUES.

There is a VERY HEALTHY dose of sexism on the part of many Hillary supporters. I went to her rally her in ALb, NM and literally dozens upon dozens of her supporters said "Well I'm voting for her because I want a woman" - That is not the right reason to vote for a person, just as it is not the right reason to vote agains them. Don't accuse people who criticize her of sexism. Perhaps some are, but failing to hear legitimate debate, because you think anyone who wont vote for her is "sexist" is ludicrous in the extreme.

not sure what that had to do with the original msg of thread either, so....

on the issues. He never had the opportunity to vote on the Iraq War...but once he was in the Senate he voted to fund it.

On Choice, he votes 'present.' He takes Millions of $$$$ from Corporations.

How is he different???

HRC has always worked for women and children and I believe she will continue to.

I think BO is a Manchurian candidate...I simply do not trust him. I have seen his calculating ways...such as with the Reagan speech and then during the debate said, 'Well, I didn't say his policies were good.' Very slick. And he's always right...never apologizes. Gee who does that remind me of???

I didn't even understand why everyone was gaga over his '04 speech...I think he'd make a good preacher. I had an instant distrust of him. He never mentions his mother and she raised him...all the talk is about his father who abandoned him. I think he loves patriarchy. And his wife will have to keep having babies until there is a son.

He actually mentions his mother quite a bit - but this was a good example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

It's sort of long speech, but it's in the middle.

I don't think his voting to fund the troops (after fighting for withdrawal timelines in the senate) is even close to Hillary's initial vote to Authorize the war - when she now admits she did not even read the intelligence. He spoke out vehemently against the war - at a time when it was at 70% popularity. No he was not in the senate - but he was still a nationally recognized politician at the time - and it was very un-popular to be against the war. Hillary never spoke out, and to this day says she "cast her vote with conviction" at the time.

There is s huge gap in judgment and Obama outpaces her at every turn in judgment (in my view).

Yes he gets some money from corporations - but it pales compared to what she gets, and he has more small donors than any candidate in American History. That in and of itself is a huge accomplishment. The simple fact that he is here today competing - even giving her a run for her money - is astounding. Nobody but nobody gave him a chance a year ago. She had and continues to have incredible advantages. Perhaps - just perhaps - he deserves some credit for what he has accomplished already. Even if he does not get the nomination - to have come this far - with the odds so far against him (and so strongly in her favor) - is pretty incredible.

It's fine to say you "don't trust him" - i can totally accept that you see him with different eyes. You have every right to support her if you think she would do a better job.

Just please don't brush those of us who support him as "sexist" -- I would truly love a woman president - if she is in my view the best candidate and the best to lead the nation.


Comments from www.ObamaTags.com

think says it all.

I pray I don't have to vote for him....I just don't know if I can hold my nose that tightly.

He was a State Senator at the time....not nationally recognized at all. He's just too Manchurian for me. He is owned by some very powerful and wealthy people...I wonder who?

edited for spelling

this is the same thing as when the right DEMANDED (i think it was kerry) an apology for comment they decided to interpret as an 'insult to the troops'. and of course the left fell all over itself to apologize.

- calculated feigned indignation is a joke no matter who does it.

put under a microscope.

NO presidential candidate should have his/her DAUGHTER calling superdelegates doing the arm-twisting. It's disgusting. Chelsea should not be placed in that position, even if she wanted to. It speaks ill of Hillary or Bill or whoever gave Chelsea that phone number list.

Why should Chelsea even be using her place in the Clinton family in this way? Why should some 25 year old have more influence than me? It stinks to high heaven, I tell you. She gets to influence the race in how many ways? - she gets to vote, she gets to campaign, and she gets to strong-arm or guilt trip the superdelegates too!

They all have more power and influence than the citizen voters and so our votes mean less and less.

Good god, can you imagine how this board would erupt if Edwards were having Cate Edwards call the superdelegates to tell them to vote for her daddy, or heaven forbid, if Obama were having Malia call for him.

Ugh.

And no, I have no horse in this race, and am beginning to dislike them both.

I'd support Obama raising a fit if someone accused him of "pimping" his daughter out. It's disgusting.

...would want to kick his ass three ways this side of Sunday.

He may as well have called Chelsea a "skanky ho."