Tag: Chelsea Clinton

First things first. when David Shuster asked, “…doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” he couldn’t have been more wrong. It was inappropriate, demeaning, and unprofessional. In the wake of those remarks, he has apologized on air twice, expressed his regrets personally to the Clintons, and been suspended from broadcasting for an undetermined period of time.

That said, there needs to be some measure of perspective inserted into this affair. The term “pimp,” like many other rhetorical incivilities, has been been recast by contemporary social applications. Nobody thinks that MTV’s “Pimp My Ride” is pejorative in context. Pimping has assumed a colloquial definition of either enhancing or promoting the subject. That’s not to say that the traditional meaning is moot, and that is why Shuster is deserving of criticism.

However…

John McCain’s refusal to admonish a questioner who called Hillary Clinton a “bitch” has received much attention, in the last couple days. Good. It should. But what received much less attention was his own despicable attempt at humor, back in 2000, at the expense of both Janet Reno and Chelsea Clinton.

As reported, at the time, by Salon’s David Corn, McCain said, at a Republican fundraiser:

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

Because her father is Janet Reno.”

Classy, huh?

As Corn pointed out, the media that did report the story actually omitted to report McCain’s actual words! The same media who reported in excruciating detail the private behavior of President Clinton and his girlfriend, excused themselves from reporting the details of McCain’s statement, ostensibly to protect a sensitive public. Or was it to protect John McCain?

As Corn wrote:

McCain’s two-liner conveys some interesting insights into what he considers humorous (lesbianism, a young woman’s physical appearance), particularly since it was delivered to a Republican crowd. Remember, this is the party that champions pro-family values.

McCain’s lapse in judgment — admittedly, not as big a lapse as having a sexual relationship with an intern — may be a significant clue into aspects of his “character,” and thus relevant to the voting public. But many voters have been spared this insight, thanks to the censors in the press.

The media and McCain’s pundit sycophants talk a lot about character. Well, what does it say about a man that he takes cheap shots at a woman because she doesn’t fit his standards of femininity? What does it say about a man that he finds it humorous to take cheap shots at a 20 year old woman’s physical appearance?

Of course, as Molly Ivins reported (quoted in this Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting article), Rush Limbaugh once made a cruel “joke” about Chelsea Clinton’s physical appearance- when she was still only thirteen years old! But Limbaugh isn’t an elected official, and he has never run for public office. He’s also not held out as some sort of crusty straight-talking sage. John McCain is.

What does it say about the corporate media that they wouldn’t report McCain’s actual words? What does it say about them that the story, itself, has been largely forgotten?

As Corn concluded:

But the joke revealed more than a mean streak in a man who would be president. It also exposed how the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times play favorites when reporting the foibles of our leading politicians.

And have the televised pundits even mentioned it, at all?