Pimping Chelsea
Come on, does anyone really think Chelsea Clinton's pulling up to The Four Seasons in a big purple Cadillac with zebra fur seats and gold-plated wheel covers because of what David Schuster said about her?
Schuster, of MSNBC, said it was "a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she's apparently also calling these super delegates," in a conversation with Bill Press. He then added, "Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
It was as if he'd called for the girl's beheading. Or accused her of actually being out on the street corner spreading for bread. Schuster was suspended by MSNBC in short order.
Pathetic.
For a country that pounds its collective chest about the glories of our freedom of speech, we're far too prissy about thought and language in our media -- which is why British newspapers are far more interesting than ours. Of course, there may be new hope for the LA Times -- just several years in the wake of Mr. Prissy Pulitzer Whore John Carroll's "no funny headlines edict," and other such moves to keep from waking the readers while pretending to be The New York Times.
Mr. Prissy Pulitzer Whore? Uh, yeah. He was, and all else at the paper suffered because of it, and we love language here at advicegoddess.com. Salty and otherwise. So go ahead and speak your mind. Or speak your fucking mind. As you please. Just try to say something witty or interesting.
Back to the more conventional media, it seems if you're a man decidedly on the left talking about a man who's rather popular with the right, and you pepper your convo with the pretentious use of "sir," it's no biggie to use similar language:
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. --Keith Olbermann
Oh, and by the way, "pimped out" is used the way Schuster used it, but the usual meaning of "pimped out" is actually "tricked out."
The single biggest thing that McCain and Obama have going against them is the fact that the media are in the Clinton's pockets. They are so afraid of the Clintons that they spike any negative story before it gets out. In the odd circumstance that one gets into the wild, like this, they publicly fire the guy.
Unlike Franklin Foer at TNR - who was never fired, never chastened, never held responsible for the lies that he published for the sole purpose of defaming the military.
Nuance.
brian at February 10, 2008 7:36 AM
Brad Rourke is way off the mark in claiming pimped out here meant "made very fancy" with overtones of "exploitation." He's so far off the mark as to make me think he's being disingenuous. As "proof", the discussion on FARK pretty much concluded pimped out here meant "exploited" with no overtones at all of being made very fancy.
I think the remarks were thoughtless, and completely inaccurate. Nothing Chelsea is doing is any different from the Romneys or the Bush twins or Mary Cheney, which makes the pimping charge against Clinton different than the much more accurate pimping (exploitation) charge against Bush.
I do agree with (Free Speech "Zealot"'s) Wendy Kaminer's take on the issue (similar but slightly different than yours, but it's too early for me to make that distinction in writing and I've tried several times now. :( ) The Free For All - Pimped Out for Hillary we allow political pundits to say whatever stupid little things come into their handsome little heads; at least we don’t try to get them fired for offending us.
jerry at February 10, 2008 7:44 AM
You are so right: British newspapers are superior. They value humor and ironic observations, and generally write in a less formal voice. I hope you're right about the LA Times.
Jeff at February 10, 2008 7:46 AM
Chelsea ain't pimp'd.
But Bill is pimpin'.
Schuster and MSNBC are the bitches now.
Tom at February 10, 2008 8:03 AM
Free Schuster!
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 8:20 AM
I think the remarks were thoughtless, and completely inaccurate.
Whether or not you think Schuster was wrong or stupid, I want people in this country to be free to give their opinions, in person and in the media. Only when they do do we have debate. Otherwise, everybody's just home playing Wii.
My column gets dumped from papers whenever I, say, suggest that most men don't like fat women (Ithaca Times, to name one), and that if you're a woman and you want to keep your men in your bed and in your life, you might take care of your looks. I think that's rather helpful advice, but it doesn't play well with the angry feminists.
C-ville alt weekly dumped me after I wrote a column debunking myths about men and male sexuality. They say that wasn't WHY they did it, but my column was popular in that paper for years, and they continue to get reader mail (and even readers posting signs on their windows to bring my column back). In its place, they run some dopey sex therapist who does columns where she tells women to go grab a mirror and get to know their vaginas.
Well, that'll help relations between men and women! It did make me laugh, although I think that wasn't the columnist's intention.
To the credit of The Morning Call in Pennsylvania, when it was the class assignment of a women's studies lecture to write letters to get me dumped from the paper they kept me. This should happen more often, and not just to me but to people whose views I am utterly opposed to -- providing they make their arguments well and with some writing style.
PS I have those letters in my garage (from the women's studies class). I'll have to dig them out and post a few of them, even though they're old, because they're a hoot.
I believe they objected to the line, "A man doesn't buy a sports car expecting it to morph into a cargo van," from a column about how male sexuality is visual, and if a woman wants to maintain a man's interest, she can't gain 80 lbs. in pregnancy, decide she doesn't feel like doing anything to lose it, and then order her husband to be attracted to her anyway.
It's a war on sense, really.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 8:32 AM
I think that's why I agree with Kaminer's take, this shouldn't be a firing offense.
But I think I see a difference between you and Schuster. While Schuster is being called a pundit, in reality he is officially a reporter, isn't he?
As a reporter he can/should be judged by how closely his reporting matches what appears to be the facts, and if his sense is that the Clinton's were pimping their daughter out while Romney, Bush, Cheney, and everyone else was not, then, something really weird is going on that he may wish to discuss with the viewers, because his views seem to wildly diverge.
Part of the problem is that the networks and journalists have smeared over the difference between independent pundit and "objective" reporter.
jerry at February 10, 2008 8:46 AM
"For a country that pounds its collective chest about the glories of our freedom of speech, we're far too prissy about thought and language in our media."
Amen to that, Amy. And as to this case specifically--why is everyone up in arms about a comment about an adult who has willingly (though mutely) injected herself into the race? Chelsea's no longer the geeky sixteen-year-old kid w/braces whom everyone felt sorry for. Her behavior is fair game.
Kaja at February 10, 2008 9:30 AM
British newspapers are known as some of the most small-minded, recklessly intrusive, irresponsible texts ever composed
> Nothing Chelsea is doing is
> any different from the Romneys
> or the Bush twins or Mary Cheney,
Well, it kinda is. Her savege, ambition-bot parents have used her as a signifier for family affiliation whenever they needed a shot in the polls. You can't hate the Clintons with the verve they deserve if you don't hate Chelsea too.
> While Schuster is being called
> a pundit, in reality he is
> officially a reporter, isn't he?
What do you mean officially? There's no certifying agency for this stuff.
> Part of the problem is that
> the networks and journalists
> have smeared over the difference
You are so wrong about that. One of the great things about the internet is that the precious and imaginary line between these functions is being erased. And all those darling little shits at the National Press Club luncheons are heartbroken, which makes it even better. For years they've pretended that this distinction has been an essential component of the American miracle; being able to bloviate about it for whole weekends at time has allowed them to socialize with doctors, lawyers and genuine men of achievement in their neighborhoods, guys who paid cash for their houses. But the media types were just hacks. The triviality and density of their quibbling rhetoric proves only that they were technocratic functionaries, typical office-politic weasels, not daring community stewards.
In a righteously free media market, their children would have starved. But the distinction between reporting and punditry has always been more about the cost of distribution than about any moral or sensible principle. Owning a record label isn't such a big deal any more, either.
I'd love to stay and be bitter, but I gotta gota work.
Down with Hillary; down with her little daughter, too.
Crid at February 10, 2008 9:40 AM
I don't wanna go to work; I wanna comment on that Kaminer piece.
I read a this book by Kaminer years ago. It as OK but colorless, and I've been waiting for her to say something sparky and interesting ever since. Ever ever ever since. It was almost twenty years ago.
Late for work
She says: Yes, it was a stupid and at least arguably sexist comment: Has Shuster ever said, or would he ever say, that Mitt Romney “pimped out” his five telegenic sons?
The answer is: Of course he would! This is exactly the frame of mind at work in the "feminism" betokened by Hillary. It's about a childlike hypersensitivity to things that are "at least arguably sexist" without regard to contexts, outcomes, or other interpretations... In other words, without regard to reality.
Somebody here was harshing the NY NOW chapter again a few days ago, and it seemed a little unnecessary because they've already been identified as loonies. But I'm starting to wonder if this disassociation from reality is something that needs to die with the baby boom generation.
Maybe that's function of radical islam in human history: To remind these coddled little girls not to be afraid of imaginary dangers when there are real ones to worry about.
(PS_ I recognize that Kaminer is essentially on the good side of this one. I'm just still waiting for her to say something really great.)
Crid at February 10, 2008 9:54 AM
Thanks, Crid - just put it on hold at the library.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 9:58 AM
Red Herring. Hillary's lead is dwindling and she needed an excuse to back out of the MSNBC-sponsored debates, lest Obama be given another chance to verbally shine. She probably had a team of interns scouring MSNBC's coverage looking for any "negative" coverage that could provide the requisite outrage.
snakeman99 at February 10, 2008 10:25 AM
One last bitch, then I'm going to open this script and get at it...
I really, really believe that Bill and Hillary are a hideous personification of what's to hate about the Boomer mentality. They're about personal ambition and aggrandizement at all costs and to the detriment of family stability, both of their own families and of others. We see that Bill pursues this foolishness in a distinctly masculine way. And I think Hillary pursues it in a distinctly feminine way. And just at the point where someone would call their bluff and say "You fuckers are way out of line!", they trot across the White House lawn to the helicopter with Chelsea posed between them as if to say "But we have this darling daughter! Don't you understand? We're just normal, loving people who've made some mistakes..."
I hate them for this. If the girl (woman now!) is so intellectually sullen or spiritually oppressed that she can't make it stop, then she deserves scorn as well.
Drudge says Hillary cried again this weekend. That the third time this year... And it's only February!
Hillary supporters, here's a question for you: Would there ever come a point where you thought it was not permissible for this woman to cry?
Anybody remember Golda Meir crying?
Crid at February 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Anybody remember Golda Meir crying?
Great point. And she actually had a thing or two to cry about.
The recent Hillary moment that sickens me the most is when she looked to be trying to cry, but failed. Reno, some woman talking about her house being foreclosed upon.
Me? I'll cry if they pass Hillarycare.
I never vote in the primaries, but I voted in this one for Not Hillary, which isn't to say I voted for Barack Obama. His name just happened to be in the Not Hillary slot.
PS In case you're wondering, I'm not a Democrat, but I don't vote for religious fanatics. The candidate I'd vote for in a hot second if he were running: Newt Gingrich. Which isn't to say I'm a Republican either.
Crid: "One last bitch" -- Oh, I thought you meant me!
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 11:51 AM
Whether or not you think Schuster was wrong or stupid, I want people in this country to be free to give their opinions, in person and in the media. Only when they do do we have debate. Otherwise, everybody's just home playing Wii.
I imagine that Schuster is of average intelligence or better. He could have expressed the same opinion in a less offensive way. However, he wanted to be hip and bring attention to himself at Hillary Clinton’s expense, and she being human, hit back. That’s what happens when you offend people. They’ll usually want to retaliate.
Schuster works for MSNBC. What he said was not in their interests. Thus they suspended him. Aside from his poor choice of words, I don’t see the problem here.
Amy, you are right when you say that men don’t want fat women. The closer a woman is to her ideal weight, the better her life will be. An overweight woman who was able to accept your advice and act rationally on it would certainly benefit from it.
But which approach do most women prefer, yours or Richard Simmons’? Most of us aren’t rational. If one wants to communicate effectively, one must be careful not to offend.
Amy, you seem to know this better than most people. Not too long ago I read one of your posts where you said that it was important for women to speak in a way that doesn’t emasculate their men. Instead of saying, “Hey the garage is dirty as hell! Why don’t you clean it for once?” they should say, “Hey honey, can you help me find the hammer? I think it’s in the garage but I couldn’t find it in there.” Please correct me if my understanding of what you wrote is off the mark.
Likewise, if you know that women don’t usually take well to hearing what men really think, and yet you still want to give them helpful advice, you just have to settle for couching your message in more roundabout language. For an intelligent, no nonsense person this must be frustrating, but again, we humans are not entirely rational.
Jamie B. at February 10, 2008 1:57 PM
When I say women don't like short men, and make a few jokes about it, I get maybe two angry letters from men across the country -- if that. American women have been trained by feminists to take offense at the slightest joke or off-color remark. Relationships are ruined all the time by this. Should men also duct-tape their mouths shut, or is the problem with those women who have been taught that humorlessness is righteousness?
I get more letters thanking me for my no bullshit approach than you could probably imagine. Furthermore, every column I write is to an anonymous letter writer -- which is why your emasculation example isn't on the mark. P.S. Brits are humans, too, and they're much more likely to laugh at a joke than write the editor about it.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 2:12 PM
Oh, and P.S. Feminists are the ones who are most frequently deeply offended by data I publish that proves them wrong -- stuff showing, for example, that we shouldn't believe that men are raping a quarter or more of the girls growing up in this country.
Oh yeah, and if you look at evolutionary preferences, men are valued by women for having money and status, and women are valued for their looks. Again, if I make fun of a guy for thinking he can lie around drinking beer all day and women will want him, I get no hate mail.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 2:15 PM
I get more letters thanking me for my no bullshit approach than you could probably imagine.
Amy:
I can actually imagine this. After all, I’ve sent you two of those letters. I asked you for advice on two occasions and both times your advice was spot on.
I’ve been reading your columns and visiting your blog for about three years now. The first time I came across your column, I was a bit stunned, shocked that I was really reading advice from a woman who seemed to understand how we men really are. I’ve kept on coming back to your blog for just that reason. Because you’re one of the few female advice columnists who actually understand and accept men as we are.
Again, if I make fun of a guy for thinking he can lie around drinking beer all day and women will want him, I get no hate mail.
Of course! I find it difficult to imagine that any guy would take issue with that. If you told a man that to his face, he’d probably just shrug and concede the point.
Don’t get me wrong. I fully support your efforts to clarify male thinking to your female readers. If a woman’s fat, she should be encouraged to lose weight. God knows the man in her life is not going to mention it! Men have it beaten into them at an early age not to be too honest about what they’re thinking when in the company of women. As a result, I suspect that the vast majority of women don’t understand how the male mind works.
Every time I’ve sat down and spoken honestly with a woman I’m dating about my feelings, they inevitably say that no man has ever spoken to them like that before. And I usually don’t tell them anything that men aren’t constantly saying amongst themselves.
On the other hand, women are always telling us about their feelings. You'd have to be a pretty dense guy to reach adulthood and not understand what women really want.
Jamie B. at February 10, 2008 3:25 PM
This little comment was so blown out of proportion. First of all, if anybody told me Chealsea was 'pimping for her parents', I would take that to mean she is introducing her girlfriends to her father.
Pimping is just not that bad a word anymore. It usually infers that something is tacky or guady.
I guess this means Lisa Lampenelli will not be speaking at any fundraisers.
Bikerken at February 10, 2008 3:26 PM
The first time I came across your column, I was a bit stunned, shocked that I was really reading advice from a woman who seemed to understand how we men really are. I’ve kept on coming back to your blog for just that reason. Because you’re one of the few female advice columnists who actually understand and accept men as we are.
Thanks so much. And sorry to whore my work, but it's rough when you don't just spit out the same old crap everybody already thinks. If I'm not in your local paper, I'd be most appreciative if you'd copy that into an e-mail and send it to them.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 4:13 PM
This article is idiocy. Since when is employing relatives for one's campaign, "pimping" them? Or in the mind of this mindless author, is it only "pimping" when Democrats do it? Mitt Romney used his five sons to campaign for him. Bush, the year 2000, used his mother's voice for electronically generated campaign calls. I suppose Barbara Bush was "pimped." (Who the hell would buy her?) Mary Cheney was "pimped" for her father.
This is a non-story! Schuster is a partisan dumbass who is so addlepated by his ideology that he would find what is commonplace in the right to be scandalous in the left. Idiot.
Patrick at February 10, 2008 4:59 PM
Crid writes:
You're high on crack if you believe that.
Patrick at February 10, 2008 5:05 PM
Amy,
Keep kicking ass, kiddo!
BTW, Tom Leykis was recently discussing a long-term scientific study proving that fat women will generally have lower lifetime earnings, marry men with lower earnings, have lower-profile jobs, etc. The fatter they are, the greater the effect.
Jay R at February 10, 2008 5:11 PM
Thanks so much, Jay!
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 5:26 PM
Newt Gingrich?? You mean the guy who is tight with Rush Limbaugh and never misses a chance to diss secularists? No hero there.
Rojak at February 10, 2008 7:18 PM
Amy, thanks also for noting the pretentiousness of Olbermann.
> and she being human, hit
> back. That's what happens
> when you offend people.
> They'll usually want to
> retaliate.
If you're a willfully public figure in the United States, especially one who's running for president, you ought to be able to take a punch.
> Aside from his poor
> choice of words, I don't
> see the problem here.
If you'll concede that the only thing that made his word choice poor was the commercial consequences, I'll agree with you. If the problem is that everybody's supposed to be walking around with nosegays and lacy shirtcuffs blowing kisses to each other, then to Hell with it.
> If one wants to communicate
> effectively, one must be
> careful not to offend.
Must one? I don't think so. Why do you think so?
> you just have to settle
> for couching your message
> in more roundabout language.
I kinda disagree with this. It's feminine nature to be emotionally manipulative, and I don't mean that in a backhanded way. The happiest men and women I know are the ones who handle that well. The happiest men I know are the ones who are thoughtfully stroked. But "Why don't you clean it for once" has all sorts of "roundabout" implications that aren't found in a warmer approach. Hurtfulness takes energy.
> Men have it beaten into
> them at an early age not
> to be too honest about
> what they're thinking when
> in the company of women.
Men hide their feelings for lots of reasons, and simple decency is one of them. It ain't about programming. Women don't really want to know.
> this means Lisa Lampenelli
> will not be speaking at
> any fundraisers
If she did, I'd cut a check. (Bonus factoid: She used to be the receptionist at Spy magazine.)
> Schuster is a partisan
> dumbass
Does partisanship make someone a dumbass? Do you imagine yourself to be non-partisan?
> so addlepated by his
> ideology
Maybe that's true. I'd never heard of Shuster until this event, though as it turns out we share a hometown. But Wikipedia says (with citation): "Shuster is especially known for strong opposition to the administration of President George W. Bush."
> Idiot.
Patrick, sometimes I think you're the most bitter, dark-spirited, frustrated guy in America today.
> You're high on crack
> if you believe that.
See what I mean?
Crid at February 11, 2008 2:38 AM
But "Why don't you clean it for once" has all sorts of "roundabout" implications that aren't found in a warmer approach.
Absolutely agree.
And you're welcome, Crid. You can just see the guy fancying himself Edward R. Murrow, Jr., in every "sir."
Amy Alkon at February 11, 2008 5:31 AM
Leave a comment