MSNBC’s Chelsea comment angers Clinton

MSNBC is obviously slanted toward Barack Obama and biased against Hillary Clinton. This latest incident with David Shuster is one of many incidents of bias by MSNBC. These include numerous sexist comments about Hillary Clinton by “Hardball” host Chris Matthews and reporter Lee Cowan who follows the Obama campaign for NBC News publicly admitting that he could not be objective when covering Obama because he was enthralled by him.  Thus, I have stopped watching MSNBC’s coverage of the election. 

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

SEATTLE – A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC’s David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had “pimped out” 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party “superdelegates” on her mother’s behalf.

Wolfson called Shuster’s comment “beneath contempt” and disgusting.

“I, at this point, can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network,” he added.

MSNBC said Shuster, who apologized on the air for his comment, has been temporarily suspended from appearing on all NBC news broadcasts except to offer his apology.

“NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks,” MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said, adding the network was hopeful the debate would take place as planned.

Clinton and Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. The Clinton campaign has pushed hard for as many debates as possible with Obama, but Wolfson said the Feb. 26 debate could be jeopardized.

Wolfson pointed to what he called a pattern of tasteless comments by MSNBC anchors about the Clinton campaign. Weeks ago, “Hardball” host Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible by her husband’s philandering.

Shuster told The Associated Press he has tried to reach Clinton to apologize.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, called Shuster’s comments “deplorable” and said they had no place in the political process.

Superdelegates are elected officials and other members of the Democratic National Committee who serve as upledged delegates to the party’s convention. They’re expected to play an important role in selecting the party’s nominee if the delegate contest between Clinton and Barack Obama remains close.



  1. According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I’m voting for Obama. I’ve waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
    She rode into power with her husband, and together they’ve acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, “Oh, but that’s how you get things done in Washington,” I literally cringe.
    I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
    Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.

    Diane Wald

  2. I too am a 60 year old woman from Illinois voting for HILLARY CLINTON. She’s better qualified. She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail,she has the ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on going!!! She has her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised money and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place. I’d rather look forward to what a good president Obama might make in eight years. But we don’t need another person on training wheels running the Whitehouse. Change? What change? Hope? What are you hoping to do? Obama gives a great oratory, but says nothing we didn’t hear from Bush ,,He said he would unite and not divide also. Obama’s experience? He has been in Senate since 2002. I live in Illinois and can personally say I have not heard of anything he has done here in Illinois that has reached any big media.
    And Regarding her vote for the resolution, with all due respect to Obama supporters, your candidate wasn’t in the Senate seat, looking at all the false intelligence being fed from not just the administration, but the CIA and those in the media who cover all the foreign policy wonks. We can’t know for certain how he’d have voted because he wasn’t there, reading the same “intelligence” that she and everyone else in Congress was fed. It’s not like she was the only one in the room who thought the mere formality — the ACT — of giving the president that authority to threaten military force would coerce Hussein into cooperating with weapons inspectors. Congress voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of using that threat as leverage to let the inspectors finish their work. Hillary looked to the precedent of past presidents. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely on Bush’s incompetent shoulders.

    Simply put, there was more going on in the case made for the threat of force than we, the public, knew at the time. Few at the time could have known to doubt its credibility. There was no historic precedent for such overwhelming incompetence and cherry-picked intelligence. Had Obama seen any of that “overwhelming” intelligence from so many sources, credible or not, and with time of the essence, I wonder if he’d have voted in line with his 2002 speech? Clinton has explained her reasoning. I accept her at her word, just as I accept Obama at his word. Ultimately, I hold GEORGE W. BUSH accountable. Obama, don’t forget voted to fund it more than once. And yet, he didn’t vote on the tough issues 130 times so that he would not have to be held accountable in his presidential race for a unpopular vote.

    After this Bush-Cheney presidency of corruption, lies, corporate pandering and trampling the Constitution, I don’t know who to trust anymore. My vote will be Democratic because the Republican party did nothing to stop all the illegal actions in the White House. None of them stood up for honesty.

    SHE KNOWS OUR ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD,,SHE HAS BEEN IN 82 COUNTRIES. She knows the leaders and players. They know her. It would be tragic if we selected a nominee who falls short in the general election. And Obama is still largely untested and inexperienced.

    I believe that Hillary Clinton is more electable. Obama is attractive, but he would be the object of an unbelievably negative advertising campaign. Hillary has already been vetted beyond imagination. I believe that Bill Clinton would provide excellent counsel but, I believe that hers would be the strongest and most effective voice on education, the economy, energy policy, health care and foreign policy. She would be best at preserving Social Security. And she would hit the ground running.

    Hillary Clinton’s experience and depth of knowledge best prepare her for being “Madame President” A vote for Hillary Clinton with our country in the dire straits it’s in is a vote for our children and grandchildren’s future.

  3. The Clinton campaign didn’t have a healthcare plan befor it felled and they don’t have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don’t pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn’t stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words “UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE” This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s