Hillary Clinton may refuse to participate in any further debates on MSNBC, following a comment about her daughter Chelsea by MSNBC anchor David Shuster.
Here is what was said, when Shuster was guest-hosting the Tucker show:
DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there’s just something 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.
BILL PRESS: Hey, she’s working for her mom. What’s unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it’s great, I think she’s grown up in a political family, she’s got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she’d make a great president –
SHUSTER: But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?
MSNBC has suspended Shuster effective Friday, despite his on-air apology on Thursday. However, that may not be enough to make amends with the Clinton camp, as her communications director Howard Wolfson called the comment disgusting and “beneath contempt” (and for the record, I agree with that). He also said, “I, at this point, can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network.”
When Chelsea was a child, and her father was President, she was subjected to all kinds of abuse from the media; hopefully she was shielded from it, because most of it was vicious cheap shots. Most memorably, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her the “White House dog”, referring of course to her appearance.
I think it is long past time that these bullies stop finding excuses to verbally abuse young Chelsea Clinton. They can no longer say she is unattractive, since she has bloomed into a beautiful young woman, so now they are coming up with other horrid things to say. Shame on anyone who participates in that kind of behavior, when she is involved in this solely by virtue of being the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the video, so you can see and hear it for yourself.
According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I’m voting for Obama. I’ve waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
She rode into power with her husband, and together they’ve acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, “Oh, but that’s how you get things done in Washington,” I literally cringe.
I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.
Diane Wald
Hi, Diane, and thanks for your heartfelt comment. I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I support Hillary Clinton. I don’t support her presidential candidacy.
Like you, I have also waited all my life to see a woman president. I agree, she is not the right woman for that job.
I’m just speaking out against the verbal abuse which has been hurled against her daughter Chelsea for entirely too long.
Chelsea turned out to be hot. Hope I didn’t just piss off the Clinton campaign but if I wasn’t married and if I were more attractive, I’d hit it….
“Most memorably, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her the “White House dog”, referring of course to her appearance.”
“Memorably”? The truth is thats an old urban legend. He never did any swuch thing.
Mega-dittos, Larry! LOL
You are wrong, and it is not an urban legend. Good try, though.
From Mother Jones May/June 1995 issue
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html
From the Washington Post, 2/27/96
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm
“Mega-dittos, Larry! LOL
You are wrong, and it is not an urban legend. Good try, though.”
LOL!!
You think those articles are accurate??? Sorry, but they are dead wrong, I am right, and it IS an urban legend. I have a much better source. An actual transcript from the show, archived on lexis nexis, which beats your two (inaccurate)articles. (The Washington Post is using the mother jones article as a source, so its actually only one article):
RUSH LIMBAUGH
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM
LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show’s era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them–one of them in particular is.
David Hinckley of–of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has–he’s got–it’s very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.’ Could–could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at- -see who is the cute kid in the White House.
(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That’s not the kid.
(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That’s–that’s the kid. We’re trying to…
_____________________
But hey, if I’m wrong, do me one better and get the video. No one ever will because your version of events never happened. Ever notice that? Ever notice that no one has ever come up with the transcript either? Those two articles have been quoted to death. But no one has come up with the transcript of this incident that I call an urban legend, or better yet, the video, and no one ever will.
Now, what was that you said? Oh yeah, Good try though.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
“(The Washington Post is using the mother jones article as a source, so its actually only one article):”
Actually, I should say thsoe two articles only counts as one source becuase one is simply using the same info from the other.
becuase=because
typo.
**Yawn**
I’m glad you have nothing better to do than to try to one-up me with regard to an OxyMoron, a worthless blathering drug addict whose sizable ass was saved from prison by the same ACLU which he had demonized for so many years. I guess you tend to take after him, given how many times you had to correct your own statements.
I don’t accept your transcript, because it came from an unknown source. Where’s the link, Larry? What’s the source, so we can see it for ourselves? How do we know it didn’t come from Rush’s own organization …. or is that exactly where it came from, and that’s why you’re not posting the source?
Yeah, I know, I’m a “feminazi” because I dare to question a man. Deal with it.
“I’m glad you have nothing better to do than to try to one-up me”
Doesnt take long. Just a few seconds out of my day.
“with regard to an OxyMoron, a worthless blathering drug addict whose sizable ass was saved from prison by the same ACLU”
The ACLU came to his defense, but they had nothing to do with saving him from going to prison. They filed a friend of the court brief. That’s all. That means they were not directly involved with Rush’s case. They were an outside party. Simply put, Rush plead not guilty. The prosecutors office, rather than bother going through the trouble of a trial (the overzealous politically partisan prosecutor had little to no case) made a deal with Rush: They’ll drop the one charge, and Rush agrees to attend drug treatment for 18 months. Something Rush was going to do anyways.
“which he had demonized for so many years. I guess you tend to take after him, given how many times you had to correct your own statements.”
And you’d guess wrong. Considering your history of accuracy here, I’ll take my typos over your misinformation any day.
“I don’t accept your transcript, because it came from an unknown source.”
You dont accept it because it’s definitive proof. A transcript is as good as it gets. The only thing that can beat or equal a transcript is a video. And you will notice that in all these years, all of Rush’s critics has failed to provide a copy, failed to upload a video clip of the incident in question anywhere on the internet, even though videos (and transcripts) of episodes of rush’s tv show, each and every one of them, has always been available and for sale.
“Where’s the link, Larry? What’s the source, so we can see it for ourselves?”
I already told you: “Lexis Nexis”. I cant link to it inside, due to the way the website is. Their website is set up in such a way that prevents people from directly linking to any of their stuff hosted within their site. You have to register there and have a look see yourself.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/
Lexis Nexis is not an unknown source. It is the biggest archive for documents, articles, transcripts, etc. It is non-partisan. It doesnt have anything to do with Rush or his organization.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/presscenter/mediakit/history.asp
There is also a transcript service from where you can order up transcripts (and videos) not only of Rush’s show, but many other shows:
http://tapesandtranscripts.burrellesluce.com/
Go ahead. Order up the video and/or transcript. Upload it to the internet. Upload the video to youtube. Become a big hero to those on your side of the political aisle. Try and put me in my place with that kind of evidence. But guess what? That’s never going to happen. Because your version of events, the tall tales told by the Post and Mother Jones, were fiction.
“Yeah, I know, I’m a “feminazi” because I dare to question a man.”
Projection. I don’t think that. The only one who thinks I think that is you. Besides which, as I understand it, the definition of a feminazi is not someone who dares to question a man.
“Deal with it.”
More of your projection. The problem here isn’t what I can or can’t deal with. The problem here is your hostility to someone who dares to express an opinion different from yours. Worse than that, corrects you. Worse than that, corrects you with accurate and honest information. And it is you that is having a problem dealing with it. I’m dealing with it just fine.
Though you could do the gracious and honest thing, thank me for correcting you, and then correcting the record. 
Apparently you don’t understand how this works. I gave my specific sources. You gave Lexis/Nexis.
Now, I am very familiar with Lexis/Nexis, and I know for a FACT that they give you the specific source where they got the information. Lexis/Nexis is not a source. The source is where Lexis/Nexis got it.
It is not my responsibility to look this up, and it certainly is not my responsibility to pay money to prove your point for or against you, when your claim is that the Washington Post lied.
So either post the exact source of that transcript, to prove that it is from a reliable third party source, or stop wasting my time.
Speaking of Chelsea Clinton:
There is bad news about her father.
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. Moreover, there are innumerable copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
I don’t know whether to be more amazed that you are still touting your high school alma mater and quoting your high school year book, while allegedly a PhD candidate; or if I should be more amazed that you freely admit to spreading completely unsubstantiated rumors everywhere possible.
This thread isn’t about Bill Clinton, it is about Chelsea Clinton. The comment is therefore off topic, and since you have posted it as fast and as far as your 90wpm fingers can do so, it is called spamming.
I also have no idea why your typing speed is related to your comment in any way. In fact, to be blunt, it’s a very weird comment all around.
Spreading unsubstantiated criminal accusations is distasteful, at best. To do so while claiming that you are a PhD candidate, as if that somehow lends your accusation credibility it otherwise would not have (though you conveniently don’t disclose your major or how you may have come into possession of the alleged information, so in truth your educational pursuit is irrelevant unless you prove otherwise) is very, very intellectually dishonest.
One should think a real PhD candidate who goes to a Christian college would know all that, too. I guess it’s safe to assume your major has never been Ethics, LOL.
It’s also pretty safe to assume that you are a rabid ultra-right-wing Republican, given where you attend school, and therefore just interested in trash-talking the Clintons. After all, if you actually had any proof, you’d disclose it.
I have neither the time nor the patience to play games with you. So either provide proof of these alleged racist hate crimes, or don’t post anything about it at all here.