THE PLANK FEBRUARY 11, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Well, not really; what he said was stupid and out of bounds and he deserved to be suspended. But let me make two further points. The first one has to do with language, and I'll outsource it to James Poulos (via Ross Douthat):
[T]here’s little or no escape from the problem that today’s parlance
defaults to the mildly, ironically offensive, and that judging by the
standards of our times Shuster’s ‘Pimped Out’ Comment is not
‘incredibly’ offensive but simply mildly and ironically offensive. The
appropriation of Ghetto Talk by the whitebread infotainment industry
mirrors a broader ease, especially among those under 45, with casually
framing the events of everyday social life in bitch-pimp terms. In a
world where pimping out your ride is a great honor, ‘sort of’ pimping
out your daughter would appear to be less of an honor primarily on
account of the ‘sort of’ qualifier. Of course, Shuster was trying to be less-than-honorable, obeying another cardinal rule of MSM Edginess: degrade obliquely. But he was under marching orders — probably not written in neat hand by an MSNBC
intern, but certainly uploaded into his hard drive over many years
spent in moving through a high-budget industry devoted largely to
making itself comfortable with the great American lowbrow. [Emphasis added.]
The second point has to do with Chelsea and the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters expect the media to cover her. As a lot of people have rightly noted, there's nothing unusual--and certainly nothing unseamly--about an adult child working to get one of her parents elected. Indeed, the current campaign has featured an unusually large number of politically-involved children (although, with Romney now out, that number is suddenly smaller by five).
That said, even though Chelsea is now a 27-year-old woman who's both a major public and behind-the-scenes player--stumping across the country for her mom and making private calls to lobby on her behalf to super-delegates--the Clinton campaign still wants the press to treat her like she's a 12-year-old with braces. When the NYT did a Chelsea profile last year, for instance, Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea all refused to be interviewed, and the Clinton campaign argued that she was out of bounds:
“Even though President and Senator Clinton are public figures, their
daughter is not,” Howard Wolfson, the campaign spokesman, said in a
statement. “While Chelsea Clinton has attended events for her mom and
will be supporting her parents in their political and philanthropic
endeavors, she will continue to focus on her own professional and
personal interests as a private person.”
Similarly, I remember that when I was mildly critical of Chelsea's work for a hedge fund in a blog post last year--now unavailable, but, rest assured, I'm told that our crack tech team is hard at working fixing our FUBAR archives--all hell broke loose in the TalkBack section, as Clinton supporters acted as if I'd attacked a puppy. I don't recall a similar amount of outrage over critical Plank posts on the Romney boys or John McCain's daughter.
I obviously have no idea what was going through Shuster's head when he made his "pimp" remarks. But I have to imagine that some combination of the Hustle & Flow phenomenon and frustration over the Clintons' overprotective attitude toward Chelsea played a role.
--Jason Zengerle
21 comments
Yeah. He made an offensive comment and got suspended. Yawn!
I don't think this is part of some larger conspiracy by MSNBC against Hillary, though Chris Matthews seems to hate her (and be obsessed with her). And he seems to be at least a bit sexist on some level, But he's also one of the most interesting political personalities out there. He seems to really love covering politics - and I kind of feed off of that energy. Maybe he doesn't deserve to anchor teh whole thing (seeing as he's totally biased), but I'd miss him if he weren't on television.
I much prefer him to Wolf Blitzer, who seems both clueless and apathetic.
- virginiacentrist
February 11, 2008 at 11:07am
I think a big part of the double standard is that we "met" Chelsea when she was a mere sprite, and growing up awkwardly. We watched her in the spotlight dealing with her parent's marriage, and watched her weather awful, hideous comments. A lot of us really despised what people said about her, as any decent person would, and became very defensive.
I don't like the Clintons and I know that she is an adult who is working for the campaign. But even with my anti-Clinton animus, I still reflexively gag whenever she is brought up negatively, remembering the abuse she went through. I know it doesn't make sense.
As for why it is ok to make fun of Tagg and Chipp and the gang, a couple of reasons.
1) They are men, and as such, there is no reflexive gallantry
2) I mean...come on.
- boneill
February 11, 2008 at 11:13am
It would be nice, though, if this incident might lead people of all colors to reconsider their appropriation of "ghetto" language.
Which makes me feel completely creepy to write, actually: I imagine I must sound like the elderly teachers who treated the adjective "suck" like the f-word in the classrooms of the early 1980s. Maybe it's a generational thing, but ever since my first high-school job as a movie-theater usher forced me to to tell people, in my relatively thick white-Minnesotan accent, "Mo' Money is in the theater to your right," I've had kind of a hang-up about white coopting of "urban" vernacular.
I mean, I take very good care of my car, an older convertible roadster, but if anyone ever uses the word "pimp" to describe me, my car, or my care of same, I would consider that fighting words. Might as well call someone a rapist as compare him or her to a pimp.
"Is the Clinton campaign exploiting Chelsea?" is a perfectly legitimate question. ("No," would be the answer, but there's nothing wrong with asking the question.) Why not use those words to ask that question? What is gained by throwing in slang words of dubious meaning?
- rhubarbs
February 11, 2008 at 11:23am
The generational aspect is interesting, I hadn't thought of that - pimp being a more acceptable descripter, etc.
I think intent has everything to do with semantics. "Pimping my ride" is infers fun, frisky - you're talking about a car (even then, anyone over 40 using that terminology deserves to be mocked), not a person. It's light-hearted and impossible to use in a mean way, unless you really work at it, and even then - why would you?
But this man's intent was disrespect. The use of the word was as an straight up allegory to prostitution. An adult male newscaster on a major network (rather than a drunk jackass in a frat house, about the maturity level) blithely insinuated - metaphorically or otherwise - that Hillary was prostituting her daughter. Come on already, how disgusting. I am proud of Hillary for baring her teeth, if it were me, that newscaster wouldn't have a head left, let alone a job. His testicles would have a 50/50 shot at life too.
Look - if you disrespect someone's kid, you'd better expect a Tony Soprano response or you are an entitled, precious wuss. Especially from Hillary, who has never hesitated to be as menacing as she likes regarding her daughter. It's when I like her the most (and I fervently support Obama, by the way, but am quickly tiring of the Hillary hate and am ashamed for having tasted that poisoned chalice a bit myself). Chelsea has always been notoriously shy too, ironically. Which makes it even more risable that some jerk called her a whore. And that is what happened.
I don't care about technically parsing whether something is fair or appropriate or what-have-you when it comes to a Mom protecting her kid, all bets are off.
Go Hillary - bare those fangs, most of us parents love you for it out here and catch your back for it.
- Wandreycer1
February 11, 2008 at 11:35am
My friends are a coarse bunch (natch), so the phrase didn't strike me as that bad, either. To "pimp" or to "whore" doesn't immediately put me in mind of a literal act of pimping or whoring. But on another thread, TalkBackers convinced me that it was far more offensive to them than it was to me. So I don't think the excuse that ghetto speech is becoming ever more acceptable should work.
Just worth noting: I, too, get a reflexive Protect Chelsea feeling. Even when someone in casual conversations says something about her looks (I automatically think, "You've got great hair and a great bod, and you work it, girl!"). I don't get that feeling about any other adult children of campaigners. SO I do think the Clintons want it both ways, but I'm sort of sympathetic to them for that.
- epicciuto
February 11, 2008 at 11:41am
I only have one question about Chelsea. Is she still being paid 6 figures by her hedge fund while she is out campaigning for her mother? If she is, why? If she is on unpaid leave, then I have nothing to say good or bad about Chelsea. Does anyone know if she is being paid?
- blackton
February 11, 2008 at 12:12pm
Oh, I forgot to add - I got just as riled up when the Bush twins were picked on, but it was rare! One look from Mama Bush did it, another Scorpio Mom, as is Hillary (sorry Talkbackers, don't lose all respect for me. I'm from Southern California in the 70's - its as acceptable to throw around someone's astrological sign with a straight face in my crew as it is to call someone a pimp in ep's crew).
I don't know about Chelsea's work scenario Black, but I do know that in those high end consulting firms, they can make whatever arrangements they like with preferred employees, which, even without that last name, I have a feeling Chelsea qualifies.
My friend works for a competitor of Chelsea's firm and they bought her husband out of his pricey work contract at another company AND rented them a house for THREE years in downtown Hong Kong.
It is rarified air up there.
- Wandreycer1
February 11, 2008 at 12:37pm
As a moderate conservative, it should surprise no one that i've always disliked the clintons. They've reminded me, over the years, of a couple of snakes in the grass, slithering along from one scandal to another. In fact, the recent shenanigans they've both pulled (him playing the race card, her trying to seat florida and michigan delegates now that she's behind the eight-ball, etc) was no surprise to me; there is no low they won't stoop to. Just a couple of disgraceful human beings, in my judgement. As a matter of fact, i wrote in these very pages some months ago of my absolute belief that had it not been for the fact that he was thrust into the national spotlight all those years ago, bill would probably be in prison serving time as a serial rapist. True, he may, at his present age, be a parolee instead, but there would still be a record of his crimes against women.
However, having said that, i take the clinton's side in this dispute. I think she has every right to want someone's head for these comments. Maybe its the fact that i have daughters myself, and i'll agree that chelsea should be willing to answer questions in an interview, but shusters comments were beyond the pale. If he'd said it about one of mine, i'd have a strong desire to put a hurt on him, in the literal sense.
- wldctfan142
February 11, 2008 at 12:49pm
Oooo, I'm a scorpio mom (of a scorpio baby!). I already get pissed when someone fails to acknowledge that my baby is a superbaby, cuter and sweeter than all other babies have ever been or ever will be. Does that mean I'm going to kick some bully toddler ass in a couple of years? Awesome!
Speaking of which, my three-month-old is apparently for Huckabee. At least, he grins like a maniac whenever I say to him in an excited mom-to-baby voice: "Huckabee!" Grins decrease in size for Obama, Clinton, McCain, respectively.
- epicciuto
February 11, 2008 at 1:01pm
Epicciuto: Yes, Chelsea is a perfectly attractive young woman. Maybe the men who denigrate her looks have been watching too much cyberporn. Maybe something in the water has made turned a huge chunk of our male population into perpetual adolescents. The pimp thing was in poor taste, and was sexist. Nonetheless, if Chelsea's campaigning, she's fair game. But regarding the snickers on Chelsea's appearance, if I'd been Hillary, I'd have gone haywire several times over--in fact, I'd be locked away by now. Guys in general--unless they're super-fat, like Huck's boys--just don't get that kind of take down.
- MOLLYSIMON
February 11, 2008 at 1:13pm
Huckabee is a perfect baby word!
Agree molly, no one comments on Tag's hair or clothes - why should they?
- Wandreycer1
February 11, 2008 at 1:24pm
PS - See ep, what can I say? Do not mess with Scorpio Moms (I had one, thank good ness), look it up.
- Wandreycer1
February 11, 2008 at 1:25pm
As a member of epic's crew, I can state with absolute, metaphysical authority that there is nobody on the face of the earth who can pull of ghetto slang with less legitimacy than me.
Her husband, on the other hand, sounds like an extra from "Shaft."
- drdannyu
February 11, 2008 at 1:29pm
Molly -- any woman with the barest memory of her own adolescence cannot but help to feel for Chelsea having her looks ridiculed on national television when she was 13. I cringe remembering it now.
- epicciuto
February 11, 2008 at 1:30pm
DrDan -- who are you kidding? My husband sounds not like an extra from Shaft, but Shaft!
Dr Dan, you are wrong. There is someone who cannot pull off ghetto slang as well as you. I nominate myself for that position. My argument is three-fold: 1) I'm a Jew raised on the North Shore of Long Island (also known as the Nawth Shaaa-awww of Lawn Guyland, in local parlance), 2) I'm a Subaru-driving mom, and 3) I have happily sealed myself into an ivory tower, insulated from all grit and "real life." I think that's an unghetto three-fer. It is because "pimp" had made such an insanely long leap from ghetto slang to me and my cohorts that I assumed it had been washed of literal meaning. I stand corrected!
- epicciuto
February 11, 2008 at 1:48pm
The 'ghetto language' thing got Howard Stern (legitimately) in trouble... and he was making a (botched) joke. So that alone should get Shuster into trouble.
Then you add onto it the context of political reporting from a television journalist. I'm not so old that I remember that journalists (of all ranks and media) were expected to reflect high-class sensibilities. People like Shuster (and Matthews) need to be curbed, even if it has to be done by the hyper-politicizing Clintons.
But the real story is probably that Hillary has a hair-trigger for any woman's issue. Not that she defends women per se (cf. Bill's victims) but that Hillary has taken on the mantle of the Woman Protector. Case in point: when she was on the Wall-Mart board and made her priority women's issues (while letting labor issues rot).
I assume that if a reporter made a nasty comment that didn't have sexist attributes then this would be less of a flap.
- cypess
February 11, 2008 at 1:52pm
crack tech team = tech team on crack? team dedicated to technical aspects of acquiring, provisioning, and loading your crack networks?
- teplukhin2you
February 11, 2008 at 4:16pm
Rhubarbs, I'm with ye. Maybe I'm an old fogey but to my mind "to pimp" is to engage in the lowest level of human behavior. A four-letter word for exploitation. I don't hold with the TipperGore/HolyJoe censoring crowd, but it would be nice if normal human conversation in this country could at least avoid sinking to the lowest common abominator.
- teplukhin2you
February 11, 2008 at 4:20pm
Oh lard, cypess, did you confuse Howard Stern with his nemesis, Don Imus? It was Don who said nappy ho.
Ok: As someone who has used the term "pimping out" figuratively and often, I will say that it has nothing to do with pimping your ride. Nothing at all. There is no pimping out your ride. Unless you're lending it to someone to curry favor with that someone. However, I do not think the guy whose name I've already forgotten meant to call Chelsea a ho. At all. I think he was saying she might be being exploited cynically. Pushed onto the trail now that she's of age, when before she was shielded. This may be off the mark, because she might have done it because she really wanted to, but it was not at all meant to denigrate her. That's if he used the term in the sense I use it, which I bet he did.
- psantillana
February 11, 2008 at 5:02pm
Again, not really . But I was gobsmacked by this bit from a Slate article by Guy Branum about Chelsea
- Anonymous
February 12, 2008 at 12:16pm
Re: psantillana - Woops. Imus. Not Stern. I know there's a difference... but both are in a small garbage can in the desktop of my subconscious.
- cypess
February 12, 2008 at 1:09pm