Now, I’m all about the street-slang. Ya know? Word. And I guess I take Shuster’s question to ask whether the former first-daughter was promoted or featured too prominently by her mother and the Clinton campaign. Featured in a way that maybe you, as a parent, would not otherwise be inclined to to do, unless your name was, say, Lynn Spears or Joe Simpson.
To his credit, Bill Press advised that the world give Chelsea a break. He’s right, of course. Who else remembers the Wayne’s World Saturday Night Live skit back in ’92? The past 20 years can’t have been easy for the girl.
The Clinton campaign has, somewhat predictably given the trouble they’ve had with MSNBC, lashed out. Clinton is threatening to boycott the network, and cancel a scheduled debate with Obama (who should also issue a press release condemning the comment, btw).
But that brings us back to the term, “pimped out.” Just how offended should the Clinton Campaign be? Are they being serious about this, or is this all a way of sticking it to a network that has had no problem sticking it to Clinton?
After all, “pimped out” is more or less common vernacular now, isn’t it? Not according to EMILY’S List President, Ellen Malcom, who said the following:
I’m sending this letter today to let you know that the misogynistic pattern in the reporting by your network must come to an end. I know I speak for millions across this country when I demand that you take immediate steps and publicly tell us what you will do to eliminate this sexist and demeaning culture that has become so pervasive in your network.
Is “pimped out” sexist? I’m not so sure. MTV invites viewers to “pimp their ride.” According to the Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com), to be pimped out is “cool, awesome. Worthy of being a pimp or a pimpette.” Actually, if your scroll further down the page on that particular phrase, you get an even better definition:
“Funked up. Done up to be absolutely fan-f*cking-tastic”
Now, I don’t think that’s what Shuster meant. But that’s what he said. And so there it is, Clinton camp, and Emily’s List President, Ellen Malcom. We’re taking back “pimped out.” No longer shall it be sexist or mysoginistic.
From now on we shall take it to mean that she’s Chelsea Clinton, and she’s absolutely fan-f*cking-tastic.
Like mother, like daughter — Chelsea has turned into an articulate, attractive young lady despite constant media attacks.
<
p>This mundane rap song uses “pimped out” to basically mean outfitted with expensive bells and whistles. Mitt Romney’s authority on how to speak to that other type of person, urbandictionary.com, states that it means “having excessive embellishments or ornaments.”
<
p>So we’re left with two alternatives:
<
p>If using the word in the original sense, Shuster meant that the Clinton campaign was loaning out Chelsea Clinton to offer sexual favors in return for money. Perhaps he was “joking” about Hillary’s $5 million loan to her campaign?
<
p>If using the “modern” definition, Shuster meant that Chelsea is an “excessive embellishment” for the campaign.
<
p>So either Hillary is trading her daughter’s sexuality for money, or regards her daughter as an insubstantial attention-getter.
<
p>Using the Obama scale where the Clintons’ audacity to speak well of Jesse Jackson or LBJ merits a 2-week tantrum, this comment is grounds for a mortal duel on the National Mall.
<
p>Oh, and nice try calling MSNBC a Clinton network.
I said MSNBC was a “clinton-bashing” network.
Though it feels they’re all Clinton-bashing networks, these days. Many the misunderstanding in this thread…whaddya say about copy, delete, and re-post so me and JohnfromLowell can start over?
I think they are being serious. I know if some suggested that my daughter was being “pimped out” for what ever reason, I would be pissed. I don’t have a problem with how they are reacting and yes I voted for Hillary.
<
p>
… I reacted with disgust at the comment. Schuster should be fired (like Imus!!) The double standard still goes for women for a reporter to even think that was okay to say.
<
p>
And people wonder why it’s so difficult for women to run for office and win? Of course, this is a mysogynistic comment. Of course it was heinously inappropriate.
And it just so damned disheartening that we still have to educate people about this kind of crap in 2008. This isn’t some obnoxious, undereducated drunk in a bar somewhere…this is a well-educated member of the national media with two tin ears.
<
p>We can have a long and protracted discussion on why these demeaning and hostile incidences keep happening. We know why. The real question is when is it going to end?
<
p>And Ed – there’s a difference between “pimp my ride” and “pimp out.” Pimp my ride means “dress it up,” in street slang. Pimp out suggests something else all together – that Hillary and Bill are putting their daughter out there to perform in exchange for votes. It creates a disgusting and vile imagery about them and their daughter. But somehow, when Mitt’s out there campaigning with his five sons, and McCain is out there with his lovely wife….and Barack is out there with the beautiful Michelle – no one suggests any one of them is pimped up or pimped out.
<
p>There’s nothing fan-f*cking-tastic about it.
<
p>
I agree with you for the most part. I would just like to see it play out – as your name justice4all implies – equally for everyone.
<
p>When James Carville (not an uneducated bum in a bar by any stratch) said of Paula Jones “it’s amazing what you get when you drag a dollar bill through a trailor park”, did it upset you? It should have.
<
p>Bush’s daughters have been consistently insulted by the media and cast aside. Jenna graduated from college and nows works as a teacher in inner-city D.C. and you never hear about it. Chelsea gets an immediate 6 figure salary from a consulting firm (nothing wrong with that) and you never hear the end of it. If the roles were reversed, the Bush kid would be castigated as an elitist and Chelsea as a dedicated educator. Honestly, if anyone says anyting about Chelsea using any words other than “beautiful, articulate, a respectable youg lady” they get blasted (this is not meant to excuse the “pimped out” comment).
<
p>This is why more and more people register un-enrolled. We simply don’t want to be associated with the hypocrisy of either side. Here’s another one – Rush Limbaugh (whom I personally cannot stand on too many levels to mention) was made fun of incessantly when he went to rehab. Patches Kennedy was either commended as “brave” or made out to be a victim of addiction. Come on, guys!
<
p>Why do so many either not see this or refuse to acknowledge it? The morons…sorry….members over on Red Mass Group are droning on endlessly about the recent arrest of Deval’s aide…just like the Decocrats had a field day with Larry Craig. Meanwhile serious, real-world issues remain. You are both turning people off.
…James Carville should have been criticized for that remark. If he wasn’t that is a shame.
<
p>The Bush children were criticized as was Chelsea. I don’t believe anyone has ever intimated that either Jenna or Barbara were being prostituted (figuratively or otherwise).
<
p>Jenna Bush has gotten an enormous amount of respect in the media for her work in the inner city and in Africa.
<
p>Mr. McGee deserves some criticism. He works for the administration and is charged with a serious crime. RMG is hardly droning on endlessly. There is really only one poster beating a harsh and criticaly drum.
<
p>Limbaugh and Craig are criticized not for their adiction or cruising, but for their hypocrisy. That is, as they say, a horse of a different color.
<
p>I don’t really see a lot of inequality of treatment in the manner that you suggest. Even if that were true, what of it? Sen. Clinton has every right to insist that the media not refer to her daughter using street walker buzz words. If anyone on the other side of the aisle has been improperly criticized they have every right to protest as well.
Yes, I agree that she has the right to be mad about it. I never said that she didn’t. My comments were not a defense of the pimp comment, but more of a sidebar (and maybe a bit off topic too).
<
p>You excuse the criticism of guys like Limbaugh and Craig because they are hypocrits. I couldn’t agree more. But we send mixed messages to people whenever we excuse the gay/addict jokes. We can’t tell people that it’s not cool to ridicule gays/addicts only to accept it when they do it to people we don’t necessarily like.
<
p>Just my two cents. I appreciated your reply.
….cannot accept this concept:
<
p>
….cannot accept this concept:
<
p>
<
p>As stated above, Craig and Limbaugh are not ridicules for their sexuality or addiction, but for their hypocrisy. The comparison you are making is, in my estimation, critically flawed.
<
p>As far as I know, hypocrisy from either side of the political divide is routinely criticized from both sides of the aisle.
One more thing, Anthony. You are right, my characterization of the conversation on RMG was very poorly worded and not very accurate. I should have put more thought into that. Thanks for keeping me honest.
RHM, you get points for a very good try, but it’s simplistic and just way too convenient.
<
p>1. The Carville remark. The remark, made not a national level journalist, but a spokesman, was stupid and classist, but it’s incorrect to imply that was no support for Ms. Jones. Ann Coulter was one of her attorneys, and Camille Paglia certainly wrote that Paula should be supported. NOW issued a number of public statements, and denounced the potential introduction of Ms. Jones’ sexual history in the trial.
<
p>http://www.now.org/issues/hara…
<
p>2. The Bush twins were criticized for underage drinking, and possession of a fake ID, which is against the law? Even so, the Bush parents rightfully told the media to butt out, that it was a family issue.
<
p>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…
<
p>3. The Bush girls were “insulted and cast aside? Not so much.
<
p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
<
p>4. “Jenna graduated from college and nows works as a teacher in inner-city D.C. and you never hear about it.”
Again – not quite. She’s a author and has been making the rounds of the media since her book came out.
<
p>Time Magazine:
<
p>http://www.time.com/time/natio…
<
p>MSNBC:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21079160/
<
p>CNN on her engagement:
<
p>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI…
<
p>WP on her teaching job:
<
p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
<
p>5. The Limbaugh thing was a result of his own hypocrisy. For years, that guy excoriated drug users. He was hoisted by his own petard, as they say:
<
p>
<
p>6. That’s not to say that Patrick didn’t get his share of abuse for his “troubles.” Here’s what so many talk show hosts and comedians had to say about Patrick’s stint in rehab after the car crash:
<
p>http://politicalhumor.about.co…
<
p>I guess it’s all about perspective. I guess you “see” what you want to see.
<
p>7. I also think more and more people are going unenrolled because they don’t see party politics as benefitting them personally. That’s the vibe I get from my own family. While both sides may have hypocrites, but I don’t think that’s the only reason.
<
p>None of this excuses the lamebrained, misogynistic remark made by a seemingly educated member of the national media. MSNBC is now 2 for 2, and is just one in a long list of just incredibly insensitive or hateful remarks by people who should know better.
Justice4all,
<
p>Thank you for that thoughtful reply. You make some excellent points in it, but I remain skeptical.
<
p>I did not argue that a good word had never been said about the Bush kids, just that in the aggregate their press is more negative while Chelsea’s tends to be much more positive (or maybe she just does a better job of staying out of trouble). It’s easy to find a few nice articles about them, but it comes off a bit like a Fox News fan mentioning the 3 times that Bush has actually been criticized by the network as proof that they are ‘fair and balanced’. Again, there’s probably a bit of bias in all of us. We perk up when we hear some things and sleep through others. You’re right, it’s all perspective.
<
p>I also have to respectfully disagree that feminisists rallied behind Paula Jones etc. Yes, you can find a few sound bites, but they were much more rabid when it came to supporting Anita Hill. Again, I could have missed it…wouldn’t be the first time.
<
p>Thanks again for the thoughtful and non-condescending reply. Good luck.-_RHM
When Paula Jones’s case was hijacked by Ann Coulter, and then financed by John Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute (their very first sexual harrassment case for the very conservative, evangelical Christian org)…the case moved beyond its specifics and into agenda land. Yeah, NOW and the other groups which may have rushed to her aid didn’t rally around; they issued press releases to make the very aggressive Clinton lawyers play a little nicer in the sandbox, but that was it. I do think that if Paula’s case had remained Paula’s case with out the theatrics, she may have been supported more fully. I don’t think the outcome would have changed, given that AR state law requires a show of damages. As it was, she did get a decent settlement that was pretty much eaten up by her legal expenses.
<
p>There are always shades of grey, my friend RHM, as long as human beings are involved.
I agree with this:
<
p>That being said, Chelsea is a big girl now and if any one thinks that she will not be targeted by scumbags like Coulter is in la-la land.
<
p>The only thing that would stoop to the level of dissing Chelsea, would be Mr. and Mrs. C using her as a shield.
<
p>MSNBC must keep their “pimp hand strong” with Shuster.
Shuster isn’t Ann Coulter. He’s supposedly a journalist.
<
p>Chelsea Clinton is a 28-year old Oxford graduate. You call her a “big girl”, and seem to have an infatuation with the term “pimp hand”. Says a lot right there.
<
p>The idea that someone calling out a person who labeled their daughter a streetwalker, and them as her pimp, isn’t “using her as a shield”. If you can’t see that, you need to take a break from Campaign 2008.
Shuster was suspended I hear.
<
p>
The sheild thought was based on a hypothetical future event. Not this event.
<
p>On re-read, I see I sounded like I meant this time around.
<
p>I deserved the 3 for that. My bad.
I long for the option to edit comments….
Personally, this shows a bit of a generational gap. The news isn’t an appropriate place for these kinds of phrases, but I don’t think it was that big of a deal (just my opinion) and I fully understand why the Clintons have always protected their daughter so much. We all would.
<
p>But John is right, she’s a big girl now (Stanford degree and lucrative six figure consulting job aside). Shuster is a moron for saying it but the story is a waste of ink.
<
p>I’m not a Bush fan AT ALL and never even considered voting for him. But I always resented the way his daughters were portrayed in the media. BTW: where were all the feminists and do-gooders then? Oh yeah, that protective instinct only applies to women “on their side”.
When the Bush twins were busted (more than once) for underage drinking, the First Family made it real clear that it was a family thing and to butt out. In what other way were Barbara and Jenna criticized? The last time I checked, underage drinking was against the law, and thus, drove the stories – and the Bushes circled the wagons.
<
p>Since that time, Jenna has made quite a name for herself for her work in Africa, and as an author – so pardon me if I don’t quite get the connection you’re attempting to make. I also don’t get why you don’t see the difference between the news coverage of underage drinking…and a well aimed derogatory remark laden with prostitution imagery toward Ms. Clinton, who holds two degrees and worked for one of the world’s top management companies.
<
p>Now let’s ask the question: if someone portrayed your kid like that – how would you feel? No Dukakis moment there for me, let me tell you.
<
p>The story is not a waste of ink. The media has a LONG list of insensitive and inappropriate remarks regarding gender and race in the last year; Shuster’s remark was not a solitary lapse.
…he should be fired or he should resign. It’s despicable to drag Chelsea Clinton through the mud because he doesn’t like her mother…or her father.
<
p>The anit-Clinton forces, as usual, are going way too far.
<
p>Reported by Salon.com in 1998. Shuster, a reporter who I think is top-notch deserves to be called out for his remarks. But McCain’s remarks are beyond tasteless and well beyond those of Shuster.
Keep in mind that Chelsea Clinton was maybe 18 years old then, and here was a sitting U.S. Senator insulting her and the first woman A.G.
<
p>Imagine if John Kerry had said something like that about one of the Bush daughters.
<
p>If you read what Schuster actually said, it’s pretty clear what he was pushing. There’s no ambiguity there IMHO.
<
p>I’ll give the GOP credit for this. After sending Ken Starr on a $70 million dollar, taxpayer funded, leak filled, panty sniffing jihad against the Clintons, it’s now the default position in the media to casually insult the sexuality or morality of Democrats. And their children.
<
p>Coulter calls Edwards a “faggot”, Dowd refers to Obama as “Obambi”, Matthews can’t help himself inventing new ways to insult Hillary. People like Digby & Glenn Greenwald have written extensively on it, and there’s an awareness of it, but it still makes me crazy.
this was mentioned upthread a bit.
<
p>If Chelsea Clinton were being pimped in some sort of weird way, that’d be what I believe was the commentators intention — that somehow the campaign is trading CC for something of value, that the campaign were using her. Really, that’s the word he should have used, not pimped. Not only is the word loaded, but it’s sexual reference just has no place in the discussion.
<
p>I think he used the word not to be sexist, but because he’s heard it in common vernacular, being used by people much cooler than he is. If something is pimped out, it’s overly ornate. The phrase comes from how people imagine pimps look, or the decorated cars people imagine pimps would drive. Like these guys:
<
p>Certainly, David Shuster is not meaning to suggest that the Clinton campaign is dressing up Chelsea like those guys — but that is, in fact, what he said.
<
p>And, naturally, it makes no sense. Here’s the thing: when you try to be cool and use lingo incorrectly, and that lingo dances with ideas that are incredibly vulgar, crude, racist, etc, then you deserve to be smacked upside the head. It’s not much difference than if Bryant Gumbel had said “Barack Obama is my negro”.