Olbermann on Shuster’s Chelsea Clinton Comment

Keith Olbermann spoke up last night on David Shuster’s shameful and appalling comment about Chelsea Clinton. Olbermann not only condemned his fellow MSNBC journalist’s disgusting remark, but also apologized on behalf of the network, with far more class and dignity than Shuster himself. Watch it here:

H/T to Taylor. Howard Kurtz noted today, “In case there was any doubt, using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is not a good career move.”

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Olbermann on Shuster’s Chelsea Clinton Comment

  1. Pingback: The Democratic Daily

  2. Olbermann should be apologizing for his own bias and trite anti-Clinton comments over the past several weeks as well. While he doesn’t quite use the language Shuster did, his own verbiage and coverage, particularly live during election results, drips with ant-Clinton resentment (see also: his dismissal of the Florida results as they came in that evening).

    And I say all this as an Obama supporter. More at AoF.

  3. Jane Dough says:

    MSNBC loses any remaining shred of credibility with its pandering apologies and suspensions. Clintons have had the desired “chilling” effect on all MSNBC coverage…it’s boring to listen to the slobbering fawning over the Clintons that has followed.

    The fact is, the Clintons have “used” their daughter in this campaign. She appears as a photo prop at every event since the crying jag in NH pointed out the need to emphasis femininity – although Chelsea refuses (or is not allowed) to speak — even to the little kid reporter for the kids news segment. Then suddenly she IS allowed to speak – getting on the phone to woo superdelegates.

    She’s in the campaign? Then she’s subject to the same political “hardball” as the next campaigner — although Matthews has been shooting nothing but softballs for a long time….

    Perhaps Shuster reflects a younger generation’s lexicon to some extent. Afterall, remember the winning Oscar song for 2006: “It’s Hard out there for a Pimp.” Maybe the Clintons, who have treated other people’s daughters so callously, are particularly sensitive about words that remind the public of Bill’s true legacy… (remember when the Akansas state police were described as “pimping” for Bill Clinton?–I’m sure that’s not what Shuster meant)

  4. r stsbler says:

    There is a book by George Crupper, “Americans the Stupid”…theme …”the Stupid are being screwed by our government, businessmen, the media and religious leaders. The Stupid have been given a pacifier of beer, entertainment and a credit card and fed 24 hours of misinformation by all institutions .( especially the media…my comment). Over 90 % of Americans the Stupid believe they will be rewarded in heaven while the leaders follow Omar the tent maker’s philosophy of ‘take the cash and let the credit go'”. The media is supposed to pass out news, but they deal in opinions and seek “terds in the kitty litter box”. The typical scenerio is the President ‘s Press Conference…a real joke of the media afraid to test the President. Name one problem the media prevented. For this the news guys get millons.

  5. Olbermann at least laid it on the line and said he was ‘dreadfully sorry’.

    If, as was said above he has comments of his own to address we should get someone to collect those clips and assemble them into a video that we can widely circulate.

    I think if he see’s his own supposed pattern, I say supposed because I haven’t noticed it myself, then I think he will learn and issue another apology.

    I’d be happy to attempt such an edit if someone can make a list of the YouTube’s etc.

  6. Marie Vasbinder says:

    The American Public at large condemns and berates FOX News for its biased, slanted and generally outrageous commentary yet MSNBC allows its staff to continue with this same type of reporting. Did you not learn from IMUS?

    His remarks met with outrage and his subsequent dismissal but that was clearly based on his racial remarks not the sexist remark of “ho”.

    It is unconscionable to me that women continue to be the victims of these types of biased remarks.

    Distinguished journalists such as Tom Brokaw would never have made such a disparaging remark despite his political preferences.

  7. Phyllis Hilton says:

    If anyone deserves suspension by MSNBC Joe Scarborough should be the first! His tirade against the Clintons the morning of the SC primary was beyond belief! While the polls were barely open in SC he lambasted the Clintons up one side and down another while Mika and Schuster pulled at his arm, tried to change the subject, and did everything but clamp their hands over his mouth! I was so astounded I called MSNBC 6 times to protest!

  8. Sophie says:

    Not surprising! MSNBC has a long history of selectively broadcast perverisve and debasive language to express their grunt. I call it, a journalism of pigs.

  9. Sophie says:

    Not surprising! MSNBC has a long history of selectively broadcast perverisve and debasive language to express their grunt. I call it, a journalism of pigs.

    I just got the feed back, stating that “you already said that.”
    This is the first comment I made about chelsea. Maybe someone else already said it and as usual MSNBC or NY Times picked a deceptive signal from someone else(?)

  10. Tracedog says:

    A conservative Republican speaking here. No big fan of Hillary or Kieth obviously. But thank you Kieth for stating it correctly. This potty mouth stuff that tries to pass a journalism has got to somehow stop. Not that “pimping” is a dirty word in and of itself. It’s the appearance of impropriety and bad manners that is being passed as acceptable professional conduct. It’s just a continuation/progression/perpetuation of usless, stupid, popcultured/ghettominded/hiphopped/sexualinnuendo obsessed/foulmouthed comedian speech that has now found its way into our everyday lexicon and network TV/radio news. And It’s disgusting.

    Just because you can say something does not mean that you should want to. Who exactly was Mr Shuster trying to impress anyway? Kathy Griffin fans? Amy Fisher sex tape collectors? Who? We need to stop turning every issue into some kind of Brittney Spears crotch-shot opportunity. The dumbing-down of our news anchors and reporters is both scary and sad. Mrs Clinton is right in defending her daughters name against this kind of crap, which might have been acceptable if it came from say, Hustler Magazine. But NBC? GE should fire the whole rotten management.

  11. Randall says:

    This is a copy of a letter I wrote to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

    Dear Mr. Olbermann,

    On your February 8, 2008 program you apologized to Senator Clinton and her family for remarks made by your fellow journalist David Schuster. I find your apology on behalf of your employer to be a double standard at best, and a question of your integrity as a journalist at worst.

    During a Special Comment, titled appropriately enough, Your Hypocrisy is so Vast on your program on September 20, 2007, you stated; “And in **pimping** General David Petraeus, Sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming **radioactive** demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray **your** party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.”

    Mr. Olbermann, it is now your hypocrisy that is so vast.

    Mr. Schuster’s comments, when placed in context, are no less insulting than yours. I supported you when you used such language. I understood that your comment was not an insult to General Petraeus, but a question of Mr. Bush’s motives to send him [General Petraeus] before Congress. When Mr. Schuster’s comments are placed in context they are not an insult to Chelsea Clinton, but a question to Senator Clinton’s motive as to why Chelsea was the person selected to make the calls in question.

    If you truly feel that Mr. Schuster’s remarks deserved him a suspension, and the need for a public apology on behalf of your network, then you sir also deserve a suspension and a public apology to General Petraeus on behalf of your network. If you stand by your statement of General Petraeus; then Mr. Schuster deserves a public apology, from you, on behalf of your network.

    I could have swallowed this apology from any other on air personality at your network, but I held you to a higher standard. You asked to be held to that higher standard. You spoke of integrity and equality when no other journalist would. Integrity and equality only work when they are applied universally and without prejudice to party or politician.

    Where is that integrity and equality now when you, in your own language, used the same word, in the same context, on the same network? Please do not become a man who will sacrifice that integrity in exchange of your network to save face with Senator Clinton.

    I still believe you to be man of integrity, and the voice of reason in unreasonable times. Please do not make me regret that belief. I hope you will do the right thing before it is to late.

    Sincerely, Randall

  12. Keith Olberman,
    I have listened to you so many times, even calling my son in Atlanta to be sure and listen to your tv program. Your journalistic gift is so beyond mediocre; however, since the campaigning season has been in full swing, I’ve become so disappointed in some of your comments re; the clintons. It’s so obvious that you and Chris Mathews, another one I listened to most days, are anti-Clintons. To support any candidate on either your or Chris’s programs is not a right you should enjoy. That’s for a different type of journalism. As a retired 80 year old former history and political science teacher, your programs were something to look forward to each day. Now, that’s gone and I am sad. Shuster’s comment about Chelsea is so dirty, As a mother, I know exactly how Mrs. Clinton felt about his remark.. I so hate to see young and bright reporters fall into this dismal trap of poor journalism. Sincerely, Betty Phillips

  13. Jim Wellington says:

    Spare me Olbermann’s smug diatribe.

    Shuster went too far, yes – but Olbermann is no different. The Clintons’ self-reighteous hysterics are completely out of proportion. They are ferociously tough people. It is about time they woke up and realized that if they are going to dish it out, they have to take it too.,

    Shuster has already apologized and been suspended. What more do they want? They won’t be satisfied until they have stripped him of his pinstripes, his Hermes tie and his Ferragamos and have him begging forgiveness, barefoot in a sack cloth. It is ridiculous.

  14. Randall: You don’t see a difference between saying a President is trying to pimp a male General, and a mother is pimping her daughter? Nice try, but I don’t believe you

  15. Dawn Marie says:

    Not that it will ever happen because he’s a self-righteous jerk, but Olbermann needs to think about apologizing for his own, far more horrible and offensive comments before he picks up the role of MSNBC mouthpiece and apologize for a comment made by a real journalist! MSNBC needs to stop patting Olbermann on the back and start kicking him in the butt!

  16. Randall says:


    Randall: You don’t see a difference between saying a President is trying to pimp a male General, and a mother is pimping her daughter? Nice try, but I don’t believe you


    No, I don’t see a difference. People are taking the word ‘pimp’ way to literal in the context of prostitution. Another definition of ‘pimp’ is: to use or exploit; and that is exactly what Hillary is doing.

    When Chelsea was a child it was fine for her parents to protect her. She is now 27 years old and made a conscience decision to take an active role in her mother’s campaign. She is no longer her mother’s daughter in this context, she is now just another campaign employee doing the dirty work of calling super delegates in order to shore up support for her mom’s floundering campaign.

    The part that angers me is that people of my own party are supporting Hillary in her bid to win this nomination through the use of super delegates, yet these are the same people who yelled foul and said that Gore had the election stolen from him.

    These are the same people who stood up and cheered when Keith Olbermann used the exact same term when describing Bush’s use of General Petraeus before Congress, yet cry foul when a journalist on another opinion show uses the same words when describing Hillary’s use of Chelsea to make these calls.

    These are the same people who yell that Republicans have a double standard when it benefits their candidate, yet they apply a double standard when it benefits their candidate.

    I’m sorry, but the Democratic party is just as much mine as it is their’s. We say that we hold our elected officials to a higher standard. We say we do not tolerate those with a double standard. We say we will not tolerate those that possess a hubris personality. I refuse to just pay lip service to those words, and I will not tolerate it in my party.

    A true test of character is setting a standard and holding it.

    P.S. I am not trying to defend what Schuster did, I am annoyed with Keith for holding a double standard. If he really finds the word that offensive, then he deserves the same punishment. Keith used it in the exact same context, but with different names.