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

nn

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.

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.

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

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.

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(?)