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