Skirting the Chelsea Issue
Yesterday, an interesting story started percolating through the media.
The second issue appears to be why Shuster failed in his basic task: the Clinton campaign has shown great reluctance to talk about Chelsea, despite the fact that she is front and center on the campaign stage. She is calling superdelegates and sounding them out, and she therefore is a valid target of journalists' inquiries. The media's frustration with this disconnect is natural. But of course, as is always the case in these matters, Shuster and Reines are talking about completely different things. But in the end, this will blow over as the public realizes there is no meat here.
The third issue: another "uncharitable" bit from me, but I have to say it--I don't find Chelsea attractive. The picture I posted above is her at her best, and she's certainly not ugly (the straightened but somewhat wavy hair suits her), but she is certainly not attractive in the classical sense. I suspect the fact that I keep hearing the media spout about how hot she is is a reaction to seeing the change from a gawky teenager to a put-together 27-year-old. Just don't make her out to be something she's not.
On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"There are two, well maybe three, issues here. First, it was clearly in bad taste for Shuster to suggest that the candidate's daughter is being "pimped out," especially since it was clearly in the sense of "being prostituted." He could have dismissed this in two minutes if only he had said that it was a slip of the tongue and that he certainly didn't mean that Hillary was offering superdelegates sexual favors from her daughter.
Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines [a Clinton campaign aide], who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."
Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.
The second issue appears to be why Shuster failed in his basic task: the Clinton campaign has shown great reluctance to talk about Chelsea, despite the fact that she is front and center on the campaign stage. She is calling superdelegates and sounding them out, and she therefore is a valid target of journalists' inquiries. The media's frustration with this disconnect is natural. But of course, as is always the case in these matters, Shuster and Reines are talking about completely different things. But in the end, this will blow over as the public realizes there is no meat here.
The third issue: another "uncharitable" bit from me, but I have to say it--I don't find Chelsea attractive. The picture I posted above is her at her best, and she's certainly not ugly (the straightened but somewhat wavy hair suits her), but she is certainly not attractive in the classical sense. I suspect the fact that I keep hearing the media spout about how hot she is is a reaction to seeing the change from a gawky teenager to a put-together 27-year-old. Just don't make her out to be something she's not.
Labels: Chelsea, Clinton, David Shuster, Hillary, MSNBC
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home