David Shuster and MSNBC

Last Thursday, while serving as a guest host for Tucker Carlson, MSNBC Political Correspondent David Shuster made a very regrettable statement. While discussing with a guest on the show the solicitation of superdelegates by Chelsea Clinton, he asked the question, doesn’t it seem she’s being “pimped out” in some weird sort of way by her parents. As a result, he has been temporarily canned by the entire network, and NBC has come under considerable criticism in the aftermath. To me, some of the criticism is fair, but much of it is inconsistent. As for Shuster, I have watched him for years and regard him as a very tough, but fact-based correspondent. He is one of my favorites because he always asks the hard questions of our political leaders. His choice of words was poor, but I don’t think his choice of words should cloud the point he was trying to make.

Let me address the criticisms first.

Shuster often appears as a correspondent on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews as well as on “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson and “Countdown” with Keith Olberman. One of the criticisms I’ve heard in the aftermath is that MSNBC is a very sexist station and that Matthews leads a “frat-boy” mentality on the station that includes Shuster, Carlson and Olberman. Although I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that Matthews has some inherent sexist positions, to paint Shuster, Carlson, Olberman, and the entire station in the same way is totally unfair. I did not find, and have not noticed a consistent pattern of sexist behavior with the other show-hosts that one could easily find with Matthews.

Furthermore, many of the faces you see on MSNBC during the day (including the primetime hours) are those of women. Among them are NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and senior political correspondent Nora O’Donnell (who often fills in for Matthews and Carlson as well). Furthermore, there is a plethora of female panelists who are regulars on the station, especially on Hardball, including salon.com editor Joan Walsh, journalists Karen Tumulty and Anne Kornblut, and political analyst Kate O’Beirne. Although I must say, it would be nice to see a full-time female, as well as a full-time minority Host to one of MSNBC’s primetime shows.

Right-wing pundits, like Bill O’Reilly, claim that Matthews and Shuster are on the far Left side of the political spectrum. I find this claim interesting because to me Matthews is pretty centrist on many issues. Despite my centrist view of Matthews, mediamatters.com has found him to be Right leaning for several years now. As for Shuster, he worked for the same Right leaning station that O’Reilly works for, Fox News (1996-2002), so I don’t know what his stake in saying such a thing is, but he’s obviously got an agenda. In any case, I think this criticism is unfounded as well.

But as it pertains to Shuster, “pimped out,” and Chelsea Clinton, I think Shuster made a terrible error in using the phrase. However, the fact is that he may have been making a very valid point. Moreover, by Bill and Hillary Clinton crying foul over the whole incident, criticisms about the tactics that they’re using to solicit superdelegates will likely be squelched; at least for a while.

Hillary Clinton has threatened to not participate in any more debates sponsored by MSNBC as a result of Shuster’s comments (there was a debate scheduled for February 26th). By raising such a fuss, I believe the news media will be less likely to scrutinize her campaign’s efforts to sway superdelegates to her side. One might ask if Hillary would use this opportunity to get such scrutiny off her back. My response is a resounding yes. The Clinton’s are the savviest of savvy politicians. They are smart enough to know that they can keep reporters at bay on the issue of superdelegate solicitation by making the issue Shuster’s “pimped out” statement, diverting attention to the point he was making.

You see, from my vantage point, I don’t think Shuster was using the phrase in the “back-alley” sense. I think he was using it in the vernacular, pop-culture sense; you know, the “pimp-my-ride” sense. The phrase is a colloquial, common slang phrase that has nothing to do with selling your body (or goods) and giving what you earned to a pimp who vows to protect you.

But let’s say that he meant it in the most sinister of ways. Let’s say he meant that the Clinton’s were using their young, attractive, 27-year-old daughter to do the work of political solicitation in order to court the endorsement of high-ranking democratic superdelegates; the majority of whom are probably men. Why isn’t that a fair question to ask?

To me it would seem that a political advisor, like Marc Penn, or a former President, like Bill Clinton, should be the one doing such a job. Not that Chelsea shouldn’t, but lets be real (seriously, lose the women’s lib, politically correct mindset and see reality), the reason that Men’s Clothing Stores often have young women out front mingling with the male customers is because the men are more likely to make a purchase with the young lady there than if a young man was the solicitor. It’s no surprise that, although you can’t touch ‘em, Clubs employ female dancers to dance solo all night. Even in the news media, young, attractive women are often the anchors during prime news hours, and rarely ever do you see a female newscaster that is overweight (even though the men can be old and overweight).

It is in that same “Men’s Clothing Store” sense that I think the question David Shuster raised is a fair and valid question. I do not think the Clinton’s consciously said, “let’s pimp Chelsea out for votes,” but perhaps in the recesses of their minds, or in the sub-consciousness of their psyche they thought that these superdelegates would be more amenable to the plea of Chelsea’s voice over the voice of a rigid male politician.

Now I know I’ve overlooked a few factors. People have noted that Chelsea has probably known most of these people all her life, so it’s not a shock that she would call them. But I’d argue that if this is true, then why would the Clinton’s need to contact these people at all? I also recognize that Chelsea is an independent adult who doesn’t need her parents to think for her. But to that I’d say, then why the vociferous defense by her parents, especially since they’ve brought her into the political sphere. And as an addendum to that last point, I think it’s a little hypocritical of the Clinton’s to cry foul because they’re protecting their daughter; as far as I’m concerned, once the Clinton’s brought her into the political forefront, she became fair game (she’s not just the daughter of the President now, she’s actually “stumping” with her mom). The Clinton’s can’t have it both ways.

In closing, I’d just say that I absolutely think the Clinton’s are defending their daughter against unwarranted attacks, as any parent would. However, I also think they are taking advantage of the situation and using it as an opportunity to stifle questions about their solicitation of superdelegate votes. On the other side of the coin, I wouldn’t doubt that David Shuster has some inherent sexist views, as many people do. I’d also say that I believe NBC made the right move by temporarily suspending him. But, I think that it is important to consider not just what he said, but also the issue he was trying to address.

And that seems to be what’s been lost in the controversy.

-Maelstrom

Everything Else...in Sports

Since the sports world and sports media has been grossly preoccupied with the Super Bowl (and will likely continue to be inordinately concerned with football and the NFL until late July…just in time for the start of training camp) I’ll report on a couple sports occurrences that I found entertaining.

To start, I have to applaud the performances of numerous tennis players in the year’s first Slam event, the Australian Open. It was incredibly entertaining to watch. I found myself waking up at 3:00am, 4am, and 5 o’clock in the morning to catch a glimpse of the action throughout the fortnight. And boy was it competitive. With the exception of #5 seed Maria Sharapova on the Women’s side, the finalists on both the Men and Women’s sides were virtually unknowns.

One name everyone better get used to is Novak Djokovic. He dominated and beat the seemingly unstoppable Roger Federer—in straight sets too! Not to be outdone as far as upsets are concerned, the gentleman that Djokovic beat in the finals, Tsonga, made light work of world #2 Rafael Nadal. On the Women’s side, both Williams’ sisters were put out in the quarterfinals along with the very powerful world #1 Justine Henin. And what’s in the water in Serbia? Jelena Jankovic made the Women’s semifinals while Men’s finalist Djokovic and Women’s finalist Ana Ivanovic all hail from Serbia. In fact, virtual unknown Serb Tipsarevic pushed Federer to 5 sets in the 3^rd round. It looks like this year in pro tennis will be hotly contested…and who knows, there may be a changing of the guard on both the men’s and women’s sides by year’s end.

What a surprise the New Orleans Hornets have been in the NBA! In a year that was supposed to be all about the Boston Celtics super trifecta of Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, the Hornets are the real story in the league. Coming from out of nowhere, the team that was moved from Charlotte, North Carolina to New Orleans (and then displaced from New Orleans to Oklahoma City following Hurricane Katrina to only resurface in New Orleans again this season) has dazzled and dominated for the first half of this NBA campaign. And straight up, Chris Paul is a beast! If he continues to play this way, he deserves to be the league MVP, hands down, bar-none!

Yo, since I’m on the topic of the National Basketball Association, I’m amazed at all these trades that have gone down this past week. Shaq to Phoenix, Gasol to the Lakers, and Webber to Golden State. I think that the Gasol trade might be the best of the bunch, but I’m not sleepin on Shaq.

Video has surfaced of New York Mets star pitcher Pedro Martinez attending a cockfight in his native Dominican Republic. On the heels of the Michael Vick story, I want to know where all the people are that were incensed that Vick was attending and bankrolling dogfights. True, there are a few factors that differ: 1. we don’t know if Martinez actually bet on or funded the cockfight, 2. we don’t know if this is a pattern of behavior, and 3. this happened in a nation where cockfighting is legal. However, if the sentiments of those outraged Vick protesters were complete and thorough, they would be calling for Martinez to be on the chopping block in NY. If something is wrong, like fighting animals happens to be, then it’s wrong no matter where it occurs (e.g. murder is murder, and animal cruelty is animal cruelty, whether in the USA or in the Dominican Republic). So I’m just asking for a little consistency from the supposed outraged public. I guess I was just disturbed by the fact that people seemed only SO upset about Vick because he was fighting dogs. I thoroughly doubt that if Vick had been cockfighting, or fighting snakes or cats, that we would’ve seen the nationwide outrage that we did. At least PETA is consistent…they want Pedro’s head on a platter.

And this just in, Tiger Woods is unreal! This guy seems poised to dominate for another year on the PGA tour. He is still on a roll, which extends back to last year. He’s started this year off with 2 convincing wins, with the second being a show of just sheer resilience. Tiger trailed Ernie Els by 4 strokes heading into the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic last week, but surged ahead to take home the trophy on Sunday. Is there any competition out there for this guy?

Ok I’ll stop…I think I watch sports too much!

-Maelstrom

Everything Else

Since the media world seems to be inordinately preoccupied with the race for the presidential nomination, I’ve decided to illuminate several recent occurrences, both here and abroad, that I found interesting.

The obvious immediate news focuses on several storms that ripped through the south of the country on “Fat Tuesday.” Some 50 plus people from several states perished as a result of the storms. Hopefully federal aid and support will be swift in getting to the victims.

This January Genarlow Wilson started college. You might recall that this is the young man from Georgia who was sent to prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old classmate when he was 17. You might also recall that the law that put Wilson behind bars was an old one that actually forbade oral sex, even between married adults at one time. Even though the law was overturned as a result of his case, Wilson was kept behind bars at the behest of some very cruel state prosecutors. I’m glad that the young man can actually move on with his life now, and I wish him all the best in the years ahead. For a full account of Wilson’s dilemma, see the July 2007 post “A Grave Miscarriage of Justice” here at the Vortex.

On the economic front, the stock market continues to be on a super roller coaster ride. Unfortunately the ride headed down a steep hill this week. The Dow Jones Industrial average lost some 370 points on Super Tuesday and the trend continued downward the next day with the Dow losing over 60 points. The Nasdaq isn’t doing well either; it has lost some 13% of its volume since the start of the year. The unstable market, along with housing market troubles, credit woes, and a very weak US dollar are fueling fears that our economy is headed for an economic recession. Indeed, some critics think we’re already there…sadly.

Briefly, on the foreign front there continues to be unrest in Kenya following a disputed and unpopular election late last year. And although the violence briefly assuaged, tensions remain high and hostility persists. Where is the international community on this one?

On a positive note, I was pleased to see that when the newly elected parliament of Australia opens their first session next week, they will do something quite admirable: The government will offer a formal apology to the Aborigine population of Australia. The Aborigine’s are the indigenous people to Australia; they also happen to be the poorest member’s of Australian society. Strain between the Aborigine population and the general population has persisted for centuries. The apology is not only a kind gesture, but is seen as a huge step in mending tensions and righting injustices exacted on Aborigine’s. A formal government apology…now there’s a novel idea!

Till next time!

-Maelstrom