Hillary Clinton writes to Steve Capus…
The Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel and Michael Calderone write about Hillary Clinton’s letter to Steve Capus over the Shuster incident. Here’s the full text of the letter…
Dear Mr. Capus,
Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster’s comments.
I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.
However, I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.
There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
First of all I’ll extrapolate what Clinton all but said; she wants Shuster fired. Yesterday, I said that Shuster’s suspension was warranted and I stand by that. But fired? No. It doesn’t rise to the standard, particularly when you examine the full context of what Shuster said. He should be suspended for the poor choice of the words “pimped out” but it’s hard to argue that he had it in for Chelsea given what came before those words. Shuster is guilty of shooting from the hip, not deliberately gunning for Chelsea.
Second, this letter was written for one reason and one reason only, to get it released so to take advantage of the situation. Anything Clinton had to say surely must have been said during the conversation with Capus. I cannot for a second believe that she just happened to leave out communicating any of the above in the phone conversation if it was that important to her. This letter is grandstanding at its finest. It’s very shrewd and, from a political and PR standpoint, smart. It paints Hillary in a sympathetic light as a mother first and a politician second. That’s always been widely considered as Hillary’s biggest weakness among a sizeable chunk of the public, that she’s not human enough. And it beats up on everyone’s favorite whipping boy, the media. Because of all that I can’t take this letter as anything more than a means to an end.
They fired Imus for similar language. Why should Shuster be given a pass…. I know it is because he is a liberal? If he were a conservative he would be long gone!
Comment by Steve L — February 9, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
They fired Imus because the targets were African-American. It’s as simple as that. Had he referenced the Obama campaign, he would have been fired. No one should be fired or suspended for speech, except when it incites violence. He clearly spoke off the cuff as part of the bantering between commentators, as did Imus, as part of his humorous bantering. This is all tied to whatever agenda of the monnth. Apoplogies were warranted and were given. End of story.
Comment by ind2002 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Nobody likes vulgar language toward another person i personaly think is very very low, this is not about that.
This tells us the reality of the double standards, when it comes to the Clinton`s different rules apply.
Clinton dictates -media obbey.
Freedom of the press?
Dictatorship for the press?
Comment by Sarah P — February 9, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
The Democrats canceled their Fox News debates purportedly because of a dumb joke that Roger Ailes made in a speech (a joke by the way that was not even making fun of Obama but rather president Bush for being stupid).
So… if they are going to get all petty and stupid with Fox they might as well be all petty and stupid with MSNBC also.
Comment by Julie — February 9, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Spud makes great points. I will disagree with one part. Hillary doesn’t want Shuster fired. This is not, was not, and never will be about Shuster to Hillary, it’s about the constant sniping she gets from that network, while they collectively orgasm over Obama.
She’s saying this isn’t enough because this isn’t about Shuster nor about the media in general. It’s about the pattern of conduct by an extremely biased network that all but advertises its agenda.
Comment by Haile Welde — February 9, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
Yeah, firing him is a bit much…better to give him a sucky permanent demotion. Make him cover something like bovine flatulence in rural Oklahoma, then hopefully he’ll go shopping around for a new network (again) or quit to “write a book” that will never materialize.
But this is just a power play on Clinton’s part…she’s just trying to see how much she can manipulate the media. A politician running for office dictating the termination policies of what is supposed to be an objective and constitutionally protected media smacks of fascism.
Comment by sivart — February 9, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Should BJ Clinton’s lackeys have been fired for using even worse language to describe any victim picked out of a line-up by “Little Willie” who later spoke up about it? I would like to Hillary explain her position on that.
Comment by Jim — February 9, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
A politician running for office dictating the termination policies of what is supposed to be an objective and constitutionally protected media smacks of fascism.
What have you been smoking? Whom did she threaten to execute? Whom did she throw into a 6x6 cell, after hours of excruciating torture? Your criticism is not only extreme, but you make fascism sound quite harmless.
Furthermore, media isn’t “supposed” to be objective as you claim. Objectivity is a recent phenomenon, all the old newspapers were clearly partisan and advertised themselves so.
Comment by Haile Welde — February 9, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Jim, that is a brilliant point. The Clintons are so sleezy and hypocritical!
Comment by James — February 9, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
HW, you have a point about how previously the media was not objective…and they specifically had a right to say whatever they wanted, because it was (and is) a “free press”. Freedom also means they can hire and fire whomever the hell they want, and it’s about as much Hillary Clinton’s business as it is Fidel Castro’s. Maybe she’s not telling them to disembowel him or anything, but considering the fact that she does not work for NBCU and quite understandably has a personal axe to grind, I would submit that her belated letter is at the very least completely irrelevant, and at most a thinly veiled attempt to control a critical media source (which is why the letter was released).
I don’t smoke anything, but believe it or not I am sympathetic to how she must feel, because that was an awful thing to say, especially concerning one’s daughter. But the privilige of freedom should inspire the courage to be objective, and objectively, he doesn’t deserve to get axed and she is trying fire him.
Comment by sivart — February 10, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Imus got fired because he made a bad tsste joke which was the final straw after years of over the top rhetoric. Shuster made a poor choice of words after saying nice things about Chelsea. That’s the difference in my opinion.
So… if they are going to get all petty and stupid with Fox they might as well be all petty and stupid with MSNBC also.
Interesting analogy.
Comment by Spud — February 10, 2008 @ 12:06 am
sivart, the difference I have with you is, you make valid points, but then you throw out the ‘anti-free-speech’ bomb. She has taken no governmental powers to deprive anyone of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech also means she has the right to lambast MSNBC for their pattern of conduct, and to tell them what punishment of their employee would satisfy her (which she has not said).
All too often people accuse a public official of holding fascist or authoritarian views. Its misguided when they call Bush “the imperial President”… they clearly have no notion of what an empire is. Nor when they do the same to the other side. It was fascist when members of Congress, from their offices, on Congressional letterhead, sent a letter to get Rush Limbaugh fired. Now that IS the use of governmental authority to coerce a citizen into silence, and it is in fact fascist.
Comment by Haile Welde — February 10, 2008 @ 12:44 am
Spud is right on the mark with his analysis - grandstanding at its finest, and it’s a smart move because the “I’m a mother first” theme plays right to her base voters, which are female.
I don’t fault the Clinton Campaign for taking advantage politically of the situation, but they might risk a backlash if Shuster is fired and they are perceived as pulling the strings. Many times the Clintons are accused of in some way manipulating the media to their advantage…being seen as pulling the strings to Shuster’s firing might not be the p.r. they will want in the end.
Comment by FishOil — February 10, 2008 @ 3:22 am
Here’s another question. BJ claimed that Chelsea was a witness to voter intimidation in a Las Vegas hotel hallway. If Bubba dragged her into this, where do the Clintons get off telling the press they can’t ask Chelsea if her father was telling the truth?
Comment by Jim — February 10, 2008 @ 3:43 am
Haile, good example with the Rush situation. Power is power, no matter how you slice it. She IS a government official, and an extremely powerful and influential one. Her spouse was at one point the most powerful man in the world, and arguably still is in some respects. Is it not fascist for one of the most preeminent authorities in our government to privately and publicly pressure a civilian organization to conform to her will by discharging someone who offended her? Could it not be considered fascist for government officials to use their power and influence to shape the media according to their political needs? What is the point of a free press if they are subject to the desires of politicians? Call it whatever you want…
Comment by sivart — February 10, 2008 @ 4:52 am
sivart… the difference between what Congress did to Rush, and what Hillary did to Shuster… is Congress used their offices to compel compliance. Hillary used her voice as a private citizen, which she did not abdicate upon entering public life. She used no public funds, facilities, staff or authority in her communications with MSNBC.
You would deprive her of HER freedom of speech? You’re defining fascism as “whoever uses their great influence to make something happen is fascist”. By your definition O’Reilly is a fascist, because his words carry great power. No, fascism is… when the other party does not comply, you use or intend to use governmental authority to force compliance. Be careful with words that have highly-charged meanings, that they lose not their meaning.
Comment by Haile Welde — February 10, 2008 @ 5:30 am
HW, you have a good point there too. Out of respect for Spud, I feel guilty drawing this conversation out back and forth in the comment forum, but I would be interested in continuing the discussion. If you do as well, please feel free to e-mail me at jamestravisyoung@gmail.com
Comment by sivart — February 10, 2008 @ 6:09 am
Oh, boo-frickin-hoo. I feel sorry for people like the women who had the misfortune of catching horny Bill’s attention and then turning him down, before being smeared and harassed by the Clintons’ private detectives and rabid political operatives.
I also feel sorry for Billy Dale and the other (former) employees of the WH Travel Office, who were not only fired from their jobs to make way for Clintonian cronies, but were also dragged through the mud — and the legal system.
None of these people asked for the attention, while Chelsea is putting herself out there. I’ve had no respect for her ever since she concocted a lie about being in lower Manhattan on 9/11.
Comment by Amused — February 10, 2008 @ 8:25 am
Lets see Obama swept all three states last night none for Hillary and we are talking about this. Hillary Clinton Mission Accomplished.
Comment by Ree — February 10, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Stupid Comment. Instead of doing what Hillary wants (make her a victim, take mind off of losses), they should be asking about Bill’s shady Biz deals and Chelsea’s aversion to the media. She isn’t a teenager anymore.
Comment by cornycob — February 10, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Man is Hillary playing this for all it’s worth or what? We know she’s down in the polls, having money issues, and in a fight for her life to tie up the superdelegates if not the popular vote in the primaries in order to secure the nomination. So she plays the “I’m a Mom and I’m defending my child” card, which as Spud points out, is designed to get maximum mileage with the female voters, her “base”. Once again, Hill is a victim and boy does she love playing that role. It won her NH after all. But if anything proves that Shuster was right, this letter proves it. Dominate the news cycle, take away from the attention on Obama and maybe no one will notice you’re going to lose the next several caucuses and primaries and hey, if you can pick up a few votes from “Mom’s” out there, go for it.
And then there’s the ability to bring a network to heel and make them bite their tongue every time they want to point out a legitimate question or concern or opinion about your campaign. So see, it’s a two for one here. And MSNBC being the dumb bastards they are, will play right into her hands. Yes they are brave “Truth-tellers” aren’t they? Unless that truth offends a Democratic candidate. So why didn’t they suspend Matthews a couple of weeks ago? How about Scarborough for his remark about Fred Thompson’s wife? How about any number of sexist and racist comments Keith Olbermann has made? So many questions, so few answers.
Comment by Alison — February 10, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Alison, it is true the Media isn’t as Bill Press said ,saying anything they want about the Clintons, it is the opposite, they are walking on egg shells, they are scared to death of them. Alls fair in war and ratings? Geraldo, unabashedly trying to get the Dems to change over to Fox for their debates, he said, as much last night on his program…pandering thy name is Rivera.
Comment by Ree — February 10, 2008 @ 12:42 pm