I noticed on Google News that the Clinton family is outraged - outraged - at MSNBC for an offhand comment made by talk show host David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out in some weird way" by the campaign.
"Their outrage is outrageous!" I thought, so I watched the clip in question.
Sure enough, Mr. Shuster said it, but there was something lost in the cold, unfeeling reportage of The Boston Globe. The line is delivered in a lighthearted manner and responded to with laughter. I mean, God forbid that anything come from left field to interrupt a segment titled "The Chelsea Factor" - but excuse me if I suggest that the Clinton campaign is overreacting somewhat.
As the Globe reports, the campaign is apparently threatening to boycott the television network. Moreover, Ellen Malcolm of the women's group EMILY's List sent a letter to Phil Griffin, senior vice president of news at MSNBC, demanding that "the misogynistic pattern in the reporting" of MSNBC must end, also citing the talk show "Hardball" for bashing ol' Hillary.
I don't mean to get all political here (this column was originally about how Starburst wrappers should be made out of that delicious botan rice stuff you get in Chinatown), but geez, time for everyone to get their panties out of the tight bundle they're stuck in.
Maybe, maybe I could see the backlash if, say, The New York Times ran "Hillary Whores Daughter for Votes, Lets Bill Beat Her with Saxophone" as a headline. But talk shows?
Programs that people watch for opinions, let's not forget, are now in hot water for presenting quotes that are barely incendiary. Time for Hillary and Ellen's naptime, methinks.
And it's a bit more disturbing than that. The Clinton campaign and EMILY's List are obviously powerful organizations, and when they threaten to pull the plug on networks for unfavorable opinions, we're dealing with what's essentially censorship. I'm not keen on voting for a candidate that's going to abuse the First Amendment, and while, yes, it's certainly the campaign's prerogative to boycott a network, perhaps Clinton should think about the precedent she's setting.
The mere fact that such a stink has been raised will already have news networks walking on eggshells. If they follow through with the MSNBC ban, then talk show hosts around the nation are going to have to answer to "Big Sister." Push the wrong buttons and Lord Hillary's retribution will be swift and unforgiving. Ease up on the squashing of opinions, please.
On that note, it's time for groups like EMILY's List to realize that Hillary's gender is a critical part of her campaign. The group raises money exclusively for female candidates, so how is it anything but hypocritical for Ellen Malcolm to piss and moan when a show like "Hardball" makes a gender-oriented comment?
It's impossible for the nation to ignore Clinton's gender, just as it would be impossible for it to ignore Barack Obama's race. Rather than attempt to label any and all unfavorable opinions as misogynistic, both the Clinton campaign and EMILY's List should take them in stride and try to change viewpoints on the matters at hand.
I nearly voted for Hillary before deciding to put myself down as an independent, which only gave me the right to vote for a veteran's health care policy (but hey, I still did my civic duty). After demonstrating a startling lack of what can only be described as maturity, the Clinton campaign has pretty much lost my support.
If Hillary can't handle a scathing remark or two, I'm not too excited to find out what awaits the nation if she seizes power.
For shame.
Damon Beres is a columnist. E-mail him at opinion@nyunews.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!