My friends who are also Hillary's friends, many of them classmates and fellow Wellesley women, keep e-mailing me about their concerns, not so much with the campaign, but with the outright meanness and hostility the media seem to be heaping on our friend. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.
No one likes a loser, that's for sure. But the exacting scrutiny is usually visited on the winner, especially when he is as new to the public super-stage as Barack Obama, not the underdog.
Yet no one is cutting Hillary any slack. It's stunning.
Now, I'm not saying they should. I've been in the public eye long enough to know this is what it's like. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't want to pay the price of fame, don't go for the goodies.
But there should be limits. And one of them should be the kids.
The way I see it, looking back, David Shuster's comment about the "pimping" of Chelsea Clinton was one of those turning points in this campaign, and in the public spiral downward.
I don't think Shuster should have been suspended. I think he should have apologized, which he did. But he was wrong. And press outrage at the fact that Hillary got mad on her daughter's behalf and behaved like a mother rather than a hardened candidate has only made a bad situation worse.
First, Shuster. He's a newsman. And a pretty good one, as far as I know. The problem is that on the night he made his comment about Chelsea, he wasn't doing what he usually does — report the news — but was instead playing pundit/host/entertainer.
The only thing worse than some of the people who do those jobs is what happens when people who don't try to imitate them: Lines that barely exist the rest of the time disappear completely.
The hardest part about being a talking head these days, and I say this as one, is keeping track of your own internal compass, because the world we live in doesn't really provide an external one.
It "feels" like anything goes, even if it doesn't, or shouldn't. You don't know there's a line until you step over it, which Shuster did, not because he used the word "pimping" — that's been done many times, for better or worse, and I would vote worse — but because he used it in reference to a young woman who has tried as hard as any first daughter in recent history to stay away from the press in the hopes that they would stay away from her.
Second, Chelsea. She is trying to help her mother. But she's trying to do it quietly. That should be her choice. Beat up Hillary. Beat up Bill. They put themselves out there. Chelsea is just being a loving daughter.
I was in a Target parking lot once, on a Sunday morning, when a woman started verbally abusing me for being a "baby killer." She went so far as to run after me in the parking lot. I wasn't surprised at the viciousness of her language; I'd heard it before. What made me as angry as I've ever been in such a situation was that I was with my son, a then-small child who didn't even know what abortion was and shouldn't have had to hear his mother attacked for her views on the subject. I was ready to call the police when an off-duty policewoman intervened and scared the woman off. The officer had no idea who I was. All she saw was a mother being harassed in a parking lot in front of her child, and as a mother herself, it made her angry.
Third, Hillary. Hillary didn't behave like a candidate in responding to Shuster. She behaved like a mother. She got mad at an attack on her daughter. Maybe she should have turned the other cheek, but I still remember when Michael Dukakis did that, in answer to a hypothetical about what he would do if his wife were raped and murdered, and people turned on him in a tidal wave, asking how he could be so inhuman.
The rub on Hillary Clinton is that she'd do anything to be president. I don't think that's true. She is a mother first. But instead of getting any credit for that, she gets another heap of criticism. Life isn't fair, as Jimmy Carter used to say, and for Hillary Clinton and the press, that's an understatement.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
I have to disagree with you strongly on this one........The comment made by schuster was over the top...Imagine if Schusster or anyone else had said, "Barack OBama is Pimping out Michelle Obama to make that blatently racist appeal speech she has been making for months." They would have suspended this guy from a noose, a real lynching.......The Rev. Al would have chained the guy to the back of his black Mercedes limo and dragged him all around New York.......The Black community is well aware of the evil connotation behind such a comment.
Now to the reason behind the comment.....MSNBC has fostered an air of hostility towards the Clintons the like of which I have never seen in my lifetime... This race-baiter Joe Scarborough has pushed the so-called Race Card issue in almost daily rants.....What Bill Clinton said in South Carolina was not racist, but Scarborough was the first to jump on the comment and twist it into a racial slur. Has anybody run more that a snippet taken out of context? I certainly have not seen it. But this climate of hatred for the Clintons fostered on MSNBC by Scarborough, Mattews, Tucker, and other pundits led to the atmosphere that engendered this comment. Schuster just happened to go beyond the pale. the real person who should be fired PERMANENTLY is Scarborough. Not just for his daily race-baiting rants. but because He is a terrible host,,,,,His PREMISE questions are decidedly slanted against the Clintons and when any guest tries to offer an opinion that favors the Clintons, he rudely cuts them off. And don't let me get started on the terribly slanted coverage against the clintons on CNN ARRRRRGH!
Comment: #1
Posted by: robert lipka
Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:28 AM
Once Chelsea speaks at a public a forum for her mother and since she is over 18 she becomes fair game, pure and simple, any dirty, anything good, anything bad can be reported once she speaks in public and politics, that's an old school fact when journalists were journalists.
Concerning Shuster, "pimped" c'mon, that's bad? Give me a break, everyone knows it wasn't shuster it was Wolfson and et all, finding any reason to get at MSNBC and Mathews, another fact.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Roberto
Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:21 AM
I hope this is viewed by Susan Estrich.
We Hillary-ites are being accused of being racist. That there is "secret speak" going on. This is patently not true. What is racist about comparing Mr Obama to Rev Jackson, one of the most revered black leaders in this great land of ours? And the annointing of Sen Obama goes on.
Hasn't anyone noticed the "secret speak" from the revered Mr Obama?
Isn't "periodically feeling down" a gender-based attack bias? C'mon ladies!
Isn't that "secret speak" ? Only more subliminal and more unspeak-able?
Why can't we call him on this? That was SNEAK SPEAK. Michelle should give him a spanking over that.
We get called "racist" when it's the farthest thing from true.
And nobody has the guts to dispute it...lets get the WOMEN to rise up! How DARE he? Gender bias! Who's afraid of a woman in the White House?
Those male talking heads would be too red faced to even discuss this..."women's issues" are always spoken of behind our hands, and derided by "the guys". Let's bring THAT bias issue out in the open, along with the issue of the hidden racism & guilt all Americans feel about it.
Let's stop annointing people and start discussing the issues, and if we must call one candidate out on something, let's call all of them out. C'mon ladies...get up on our collective high horses and hit back.
The Clintons did a great job of protecting Chesea for years and she even stayed out of this campaign until very very recently. She even told a kid report who does puff pieces that she doesn't talk to the media. I thought it was cute and fair and didn't have any of the false outrage that was plied upon this event. So why now? Why does Chelsea get involved? It clearly is a desparate time so isn't that indicative of them caving on a very solid principled ground simply because of political expedience? Sure the choice of words was unseemly on some levels but to say this is indicative of a broader and unjustly harsh campaign against Hillary is a bit of a reach methinks.
Regards,
Mike
Comment: #4
Posted by: mhaverty
Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:50 AM
Your article of the 16th: Your views on this are in stark contrast to your words and other liberal news reporters on Pres. George W. Bush. He has been called everything negative that ever existed:; liar; stupid:incorrect language use; family background demeaned; useless to review all the hateful and demenaing comments that have been made by the President of the United States.
To oppose his policies is one thing, but using such hateful and violent language against him; even members of Congress have attacked him viciously. He has done nothing to these critics except his being a Conservative and a Republican. What's wrong with this??
The Clinton years in the White House is a record in itself that cannot be denied and has been on the best seller's list many times.
Pres. Bush nor his father, has ever commented negatively on the Clintons or liberal reporters or their critics.
They are men of dignity and respect. Cant say that for other former presidents.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Frances Parsons
Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:04 AM
If mothers would wish for their daughters to model their careeers in congressional records, such as supporting genocide / holocaust (of, to say the least, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis); whitewashing laundered money schemes; and blackmailing for sex scandals in the guise of fund-raising for the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01, then it is little wonder that pseudo-intellectuals, and otherwise white supremacists (or mysogenists), and ET accolytes--who may rub shoulders with fellow fraud-makers-- love this country. Never mind the new kid (Obama) on the street--what do you stand for?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Cynthia Bennekaa
Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:04 AM
My daughter is a rape victim. Her attacker was never convicted because in our small town, the jury felt that may daughter "ran around a little too much".
Susan Estrich claims to be a victim. She claims to care about women.
I am not goung to rehash all the Clinton scandals, but even Susan Estrtich knows deep down in her heart (although she will never admit it) that Hillary was a part of the "nuts or sluts" campaign against some women.
How Susan can support a woman like Hillary, knowing this, makes me very sad and I have to say that Susan and any woman that supports Hillary is truly a traitor to the cause of women, ancd especially to victims of harrassment or worse.
Comment: #7
Posted by: typos
Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:07 AM
If you honestly think she HASN'T gotten a pass - just wait and see. All the lies and scandals of her white house years, let along her time in arkansas have yet to be addressed in the current forum of her bid to be president. She only believes and supports anything that will ultimately benefit only her. As for her daughter - pimping was just a phrase - but a very correct one. The rules were - no one talks to her daugher and her daughter talks to no one. UNTIL she starts loosing and feels she could benefit from it. Same situation regarding michigan and florida. Their votes don't count until she needs them. Friends, Ladies, former Classmates - watch your back. You are no better to her than any of bill's bimbos - unless she can pimp you off somehow too.
Comment: #9
Posted by: VinnieB
Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:10 PM
If you honestly think she HASN'T gotten a pass - just wait and see. All the lies and scandals of her white house years, let along her time in arkansas have yet to be addressed in the current forum of her bid to be president. She only believes and supports anything that will ultimately benefit only her. As for her daughter - pimping was just a phrase - but a very correct one. The rules were - no one talks to her daugher and her daughter talks to no one. UNTIL she starts loosing and feels she could benefit from it. Same situation regarding michigan and florida. Their votes don't count until she needs them. Friends, Ladies, former Classmates - watch your back. You are no better to her than any of bill's bimbos - unless she can pimp you off somehow too.
Comment: #10
Posted by: VinnieB
Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Susan, susan, susan...you totally missed the point about chelsea clinton and why the pimp comment was made. Wasn't it not long ago that her father, the former impeached president threatened to sue a restaurant owner for putting a pic of chelsea (a customer) in the window? Now, when it's to their advantage, the clintons are pimping her out? Yes, pimping!! This is why we are snickering about her campaigning....
Furthermore, where was hillary's "outrage" when the media ripped and ruined the life of Monica Lewinsky? Why hasn't hillary ever apologized to Monica and her family for what her husband did to her.? Why did she help to destroy that girls life? The pimp remark pales by comparison. Any corporate executive would have been fired for doing what bill did to monica, but no, hillary turned it into sympathy for herself and guess what...THAT makes her qualified to run for president. NOT in this lifetime! Barack needs to beware because people who get in the clintons way usually end up dead, ala, vince foster. For all you smart talk about the candidates, you fail us by supporting that woman. But then, if it wasn't for hillary, you wouldn't be writing books, speaking and being on TV.....she's not worth it....
In addition, let's talk about your heroine and her husband....at the funeral of President Ford, he requested that bill clinton NOT be allowed to speak, because, as Ford said, "there are standards." This is why we should never let those two immoral people back in the WH. You want back in as her 'friend'....you're not kidding us....snap out of it. Spend your time on someone who deserve it....
Comment: #11
Posted by: jan anderson
Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:56 PM
You know, for years the liberal press supported the Clintons. Now that the Democratic party is split over whom to nominate, the liberal press is savaging the Clintons. I find it very amusing the reaction that liberals have when they are now victims of their own internal fire. Liberals are now saying things about the Clintons that conservatives used to. And now is the time to get upset? Turn about IS fair play.
Comment: #12
Posted by: curt burnette
Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:28 AM
Puhleaze!
Boo Hoo!
Chelsea is not a child.
She's about the age of Monica Lewinsky when Chelsea's daddy was using the intern
for his top secret sexcapades.
Chelsea chose to campaign. She's out trying to get her sociopathic parents -- yes parents --
back in the White House.
Hill and Bill are a symbiotic duo -- remember Bill refered to them as a "Two-fer" -- obsessed
with power, fame and money.
Is this another crying gambit by Hillary, another variation in her pity party to capture votes.
Pity Hillary, pity her daughter, but whatever you do VOTE for Hillbill.
As for any sympathy for women in general, what about Hillary's pimping for Bill?
What about all the scrapes with women, the rapes, the molestations, where she was pimped out
to defend him?
What about the lives of those women Hillary and Bill methodically destroyed.
Seems pimping runs in the family, doesn't it!
Comment: #13
Posted by: Joan
Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:13 PM
Cheksea is 27 years old. When Shuster made his pimp remark, she could have defended herself. Why did she need her mother? In fact, if Hillary had told her it was time she stepped out of the shadows, Chelsea couild have said something very forceful and gotten huge and favorable press coverage---and that could have made a difference in Hillary's downward slide. But Hillary reacted as if Chelsea were 13. Parental reflex. The same kind of reflex Hillary applies to her view of the role of government.
Comment: #14
Posted by: jon rappoport
Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:23 AM