Honestly people. We Democrats sound like the Christian right and the religious fanatics in this country who freak out at a 1/2 second shot of a nipple.

Oh my GOD he said the word pimp! Since when are we so sensitive? Look Democrats, we all want to shed the image of the weak, spineless liberal. Let's start by not getting carried away with pimpgate here.

Does anybody here really think that Shuster's comments sparked countless American's to recoil in disgust at the thought of Hillary selling her daughter's sexual services for money. Did the Wisconsin police investigate the possibility of an all-Clinton prostitution ring? OR, is more likely that people understood in context, and in the common usage of the term, "pimped out" exactly what Shuster was saying.

This man is losing his job for using a term that in modern day vernacular has been stripped of nearly all it's meaning? And let's be honest, he was not talking about a child, but about a 28 year old who is hitting the campaign trail pretty hard.

But back to my main point; Fellow Dems, lets leave the "Won't somebody think of the Children" routine for the evangelicals and all stop being such humorless dicks.

It's not "humorless" to object to uncivil and unfunny speech directed at someone else-- it's common courtesy.

Obama continues to get a pass while reporters are hopping on the straight talk express.

ClaimsAdjuster:

Obama continues to get a pass while reporters are hopping on the straight talk express.

Yeah right, Obama get's a pass when the NY Times runs a front page story about his admitted drug use. For no other reason than to try and keep their endorsement afloat.

There wasn't even a story there, but that they couldn't find anyone to corroborate that he took drugs. They even accused him of lying....That is front page news? That is what you call a pass?

Give me a break.

thewolf05827:

It's not "humorless" to object to uncivil and unfunny speech directed at someone else-- it's common courtesy.

'

Someone else who, is a public figure and made themselves open to criticism when they hit the campaign trail, right?

A personal, vindictive attack is not criticism, constructive or otherwise.. Had Shuster attacked either Hillary or Chelsea's position on issues, than sure, fair game. That's not what he did though, now is it.

spruce:

A personal, vindictive attack is not criticism, constructive or otherwise.. Had Shuster attacked either Hillary or Chelsea's position on issues, than sure, fair game. That's not what he did though, now is it.

What Shuster did was suggest that Hillary Clinton was trotting her daughter out in an inauthentic way in order to USE her cache with younger voters.

Admittedly, Shuster used colloquial and perhaps uncouth terms to make this criticism, but understanding the modern usage of "pimping out" and from the context, this is clearly what Shuster meant.

You don't think that observation, is a valid criticism? I have no qualms saying that Obama was pimping out Ted Kennedy, in order to court White, Chowder-eating, New Englanders. I wouldn't have been offended had Shuster made that reference and, frankly, given Ole' Teddy's history with the prostitutes maybe that would have been even worse.

So yeah, I do think, it was a valid criticism, albeit stated in inadvisable language.

What you call "common courtesy" many consider a priggish rush to criticize and stifle with language-police tactics.

The poster is absolutely right--the joyless deathmarch of political correctness that the Democratic Party practices doesn't attract most people, it turns them off. Those it does attract--and you're one of them--are those small, vinegary people whose need to shrilly correct and chasten others is, for you and your bitter kind, irresistible, and for the rest of us, annoying.

You mean he's ADMITTED to using ILLEGAL DRUGS???

Well geez. Don't you think that's newsworthy? That a drug-using Presidential candidate will be in charge of the nation's drug policies if elected? You don't think the Republican moralizing bastards won't make an issue of it?

No, I'm sure you're right. They won't, because they always play so nice and fair, don't they?

ard_vrk:

You mean he's ADMITTED to using ILLEGAL DRUGS???

Well geez. Don't you think that's newsworthy? That a drug-using Presidential candidate will be in charge of the nation's drug policies if elected? You don't think the Republican moralizing bastards won't make an issue of it?

No, I'm sure you're right. They won't, because they always play so nice and fair, don't they?

Yeah of course, it's newsworthy. WHEN he published the book 2 and a half YEARS AGO! Or if there were actual news about it. But this was just a needless rehash, and a very do suggestion that he may have made up his drug use.

But anyway, I don't care if they publish this, it's part of the vetting process. I just object to the statement that Obama has gotten "a pass" when this story in front page of the NY Times. On Sunday no less.

ard_vrk:

You mean he's ADMITTED to using ILLEGAL DRUGS???

Well geez. Don't you think that's newsworthy? That a drug-using Presidential candidate will be in charge of the nation's drug policies if elected? You don't think the Republican moralizing bastards won't make an issue of it?

No, I'm sure you're right. They won't, because they always play so nice and fair, don't they?

Then the "moralizing bastards" should be reminded that they elected an admitted alcoholic and user of illegal drugs when they elected W

In order for this to be valid criticism, you would somehow have to prove that Chelsea is somehow being used by her mother rather than doing what many adult children of politicians do--support their parents' campaign.

Additionally, Obama didn't "pimp out" Kennedy. Kennedy endorsed Obama, just as politicians around the country endorse candidates all the time.

Maybe, being in my late thirties now, I am hopelessly square these days. Nonetheless, I do not see any context in which "pimping out" would be the appropriate term in the scenarios you have described. Sure, I can understand "pimping" a "ride" or someone dressed to the nines looking "pimp." I do not think Shuster was using the word "pimp" in that manner though (what we eighties kids called "awesome" or "rad"). He was making the unfounded claim that Hillary Clinton was someone exploiting her daughter, much as a real pimp exploits a prostitute.

spruce:

In order for this to be valid criticism, you would somehow have to prove that Chelsea is somehow being used by her mother rather than doing what many adult children of politicians do--support their parents' campaign.

Additionally, Obama didn't "pimp out" Kennedy. Kennedy endorsed Obama, just as politicians around the country endorse candidates all the time.

Maybe, being in my late thirties now, I am hopelessly square these days. Nonetheless, I do not see any context in which "pimping out" would be the appropriate term in the scenarios you have described. Sure, I can understand "pimping" a "ride" or someone dressed to the nines looking "pimp." I do not think Shuster was using the word "pimp" in that manner though (what we eighties kids called "awesome" or "rad"). He was making the unfounded claim that Hillary Clinton was someone exploiting her daughter, much as a real pimp exploits a prostitute.

First of all, Shuster doesn't have to prove anything, he is a pundit on hardball. He was editorializing, not offering a news report. Many, including myself, believe that cable "news" has too much editorializing, but that is neither here nor there. He was offering his opinion that Hillary was indeed exploiting her daughter's youth and relative political "outsiderishness" for her own gain. I happen to think this opinion is right on, but that's an opinion. I also think Obama was exploiting the Kennedy name as much a possible leading up to the MA primary.

You say that you don't think pimping out is an appropriate slang for exploiting someone. But surely you knew exactly what Shuster meant, no?

So once again, I'll ask: When did we liberals become just as sensitive and the "think of the children" conservatives? Are we sure we want to go down this road?

Pal, where have you been? The left has been humorless for a long, long time.

ard_vrk:

You mean he's ADMITTED to using ILLEGAL DRUGS???

Well geez. Don't you think that's newsworthy? That a drug-using Presidential candidate will be in charge of the nation's drug policies if elected? You don't think the Republican moralizing bastards won't make an issue of it?

No, I'm sure you're right. They won't, because they always play so nice and fair, don't they?

If Obama was an in-the-middle, split the difference bullshitter like the Clintons, he wouldn't have kind of admitted to drug use. He'd say, "I smoked pot but didn't inhale." THAT's the kind of Clintonian bullshit that drives his enemies up the walls. People wonder, "Can't people see through this lying asshole?!"