NP Rank:
Heated Emails from Clintons to MSNBC’s Shuster « POLITISITE: Politics from the RIGHT Side of the WEB
Politisite has obtained the email exchange between the Clinton camp and
MSNBC’s David Shuster who now is on leave due to his remarks about
Chelsea Clinton being, “pimped out by the Clinton Camp” because of her
calls to super delegates and others. Here are the emails
Heated Emails from Clintons to MSNBC’s Shuster
Posted on February 9, 2008 by politisite | Edit
Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonNice to hear from you, philippe.
It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that’s the reference.
Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying “I don’t want to talk.”. But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea…that’s an issue.
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.Since you guys asked for the transcript - here specifically is what David said on air:
SHUSTER: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC’s air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.David - I want to make sure I’m crystal clear here - you’re saying that because she doesn’t grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?
I don’t need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out of line. Nobody’s jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or talking about calls she made. And you know it.
There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.No. That’s not what I’m saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was raised, you would know that.
The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You can’t have it both ways. Reporters have long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And you know that.
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.I think we’ve each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this email exchange, we’re assuming two things:
1) You are not disputing that you said on air: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above
Filed under: 2008, Campaign, Celebrities, Clinton, David Shuster, Debate, Democrat, Election, Elections, MSNBC, Negative, Nowpublic, Philippe Reines, Politics, Shuster, chelsea, democratic, political, politisite, super, super delegates
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
Albert Milliron
Columbia, South Carolina, United States




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 10:44 on February 9th, 2008
politisite, good catch! You must have your sources.
at 11:07 on February 9th, 2008
A few. I am not the only one who received the emails
at 11:21 on February 9th, 2008
Seems like more "gotcha" to me... am I just conditioned to pop culture and lingo, or does this whole issue seem like a bit of a non-event? I also think that the pimp/prostitute metaphor is more apt in campaigns than anyone likes to think, but hey, that's just the poli-sci degree talking... I feel so dirty.
at 15:07 on February 9th, 2008
Jordan, your Pol-Sci is straight talking. The other candidate children are NOT calling super delegates and Talk shows. What gets me is the hedgerow that have around this twenty-seven year old. If you remember the no story clause and no interview clause on this girl. She has made herself a public figure now and all bets are off in my opinion. I don't see much wrong with her. She seems like a nice lady
at 14:11 on February 9th, 2008
politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 15:23 on February 9th, 2008
Good scoop politisite.
I think I have a different spin on this. Saying that the Clintons "pimped" out Chelsea, while poorly worded, is basically true. Campaigning is one thing - personally calling up Super Delegates is another thing altogether.
My problem with this whole thing is that a reporter, David Shuster, was editorializing in the first place. It seems like no reporters are content on being reporters nowadays. He should have just reported the news and let us figure out on our own that Hillary and Bill clinton are pimps.
at 17:44 on February 9th, 2008
I agree. MSNBC is a big problem with this. Shuster has been pretty good in the past. I think that line is being crossed more and more each day. I have to be careful as well
at 20:44 on February 9th, 2008
Wow. Though it is possible to dispute there are troubling issues
with this kind of intimate glipse into their conversation, it is
definitely interesting to see how the two parties defend
themselves/react. The comment made on-air had serious and resounding
backlash, but with talk that Clinton may opt out of the MSNBC debates,
I'm surprised that David Shuster is not willing to slightly move his
ground. Also surprised with the rather unmasked Clinton Camp.
Very interesting, thanks.