How would you react if David Schuster had said "George Bush is pimping out Jenna " ?

[Armstead]

Just curious.

ADDED ON EDIT:

I'm not defending what he said. It was in bad taste, and he deserved to be called on the carpet.

However, I think some perspective and intellectual honesty is called for here.

Back in the day, before the primaries when we were more focused on Bush, Duers said incredibly insulting things about Republicans and Bush. And cheered on any commentator who slammed the Bushes no matter how bad taste the slams were. That included his daughters.

If Schuster had said that about Bush and his daughters in the 04 campaign, do you really think the majority here would go into high dudegon of indignation about Schusters's bad taste and sexism?

Or, more likely, would DU have cheered him on?

And if the Bush White House had come down upon MSNBC and forced the network to silence Schuster would we have agreed and stuck a pitchfork into Schuster ourselves? Or would we howled about censorship and rushed to his defense to protect free speech?

[joeybee12]

1. I woukd have said that was highly inappropriate...I loathe the

Bushes, but I'm not on national television and would have to uphold some standrads.

Nice try.

[H2O Man]

2. The same.

I think that David made an error. I think that type of language is insulting, and does not belong on a news report. I hope that he learns from this experience to be more careful, and becomes an even better journalist. I think very highly of him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Here's A Better Example

If David Shuster said John McCain had pimped out his daugher, Meghan*, it is my opinion that there would be near universal condemnation from the right including the supporters of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney ...


You can infer from that what you want...





*-she's roughly the same age as Chelsea

[liberal N proud]

5. The fundies would go nutz

Remember in 04 when Kerry mentioned that Dicky's daughter was gay? She was openly gay but the mere fact that he mentioned it got coverage for days in the right wing MSM media.

[Armstead]

17. No I am looking for some intellectual honesty here

I'm not defending what he said. It was in bad taste, and he deserved to be called on the carpet.

However, I think some perspective and intellectual honesty is called for here.

Back in the day, before the primaries when we were more focused on Bush, Duers said incredibly insulting things about Republicans and Bush. And cheered on any commentator who slammed the Bushes no matter how bad taste the slams were. That included his daughters.

If Schuster had said that about Bush and his daughters in the 04 campaign, do you really think the majority here would go into high dudegon of indignation about Schusters's bad taste and sexism?

Or, more likely, would DU have cheered him on?

And if the Bush White House had come down upon MSNBC and forced the network to silence Schuster would we have agreed and stuck a pitchfork into Schuster ourselves? Or would we howled about censorship and rushed to his defense to protect free speech?

[dsc]

23. I would have condemned him

just like I repeatedly condemned people who attacked Jenna and Barbara on this forum.

[Armstead]

25. If so, you are consistent....and that's a good thing

[dsc]

28. search under my name

it isn't an if. I have consistantly stood up against the sewage of those kinds of threads.

[Armstead]

I know that. Forget the "if"

I've respected your standards for a long time (even when I've disagreed with you).

[dsc]

54. thanks

I admit to being more anti Obama than pro Hillary but the sexism in the coverage of her is nothing short of appalling. She, and more importantly we, deserve better.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I was never comfortable with attacks focused on the Bush twins

And I remember that I made at least one post about that back then. But I am enough of a partisan (and the Bush girls behavior at the time certainly appeared to me to be on the whole less generally outstanding than Chelsea's) that it would have taken a lot for me to go up in arms over media mistreatment of them. I am confident that I would have gone on record here condemning any commentator who said Bush was pimping out his daughers. The difference is that I most likely would have felt going on public record defending the Bush twins from that type of slime once or twice would have covered my ethical needs. When it happens to a Democrat I probably do care more about it and follow the incident closer and speak out about it more.

I would have backed a suspension of a commentator who made remarks like that about the Bush twins. If there was not a pattern by that person of making those kinds of remarks I would have been OK with them getting their job back later. I feel that way about Shuster now also. Because I generally like him I probably will go to bat for him more than I would some right wing asshole who gets himself into this type of trouble, AFTER Shuster serves a suitable suspension because of this.

[Armstead]

60. Thank you for a straight answer

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Even Tony Montana Didn't Target His Enemies Kids

I don't want to be lower than him...

[Armstead]

41. Tony Montana? That's going a little far....Please see my post 37

Schuster's comment was not an attack on Chelsea, but raising a question about the Clintons.

Again I am not defending the use of the phrase. But having seen many many worse attacks on the Bush twins on DU, and the cheering on when someone in the media made personal attacks against Republicans, I'm just wondering whether we are applying a double standard here.

Ultimately, (assuming that Schuster deserved to be repremanded for his careless use of a derogatory slang word), this whole thing makes me wonder why the irresponsible behavior of the media only seems to matter when someone's own candidate is the target?

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Would any commentator have accused John Kerry of pimping out his daugther Vanessa in 2004?

Vanessa Kerry was the same age then that Chelsea is now. She helped her father's campaign also. Maybe some Kerry supporters can imagine how they would have felt about that. Personally I don't think this would have been said about any Presidential candidate and his or her child other than Hillary Clinton. There is a political assumption too often made that anything goes when attacking Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Res Ipsa Loquitur

"Name one attack on Hillary Clinton that can go too far."


-Tucker Carlson

[Patsy Stone]

13. Was Vanessa Kerry available for interviews during the campaign?

Yes. So your point is moot.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/31/politics/main3658586.shtml

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. So Chelsea's A Whore Because She Refuses To Grant Interviews

Great logic there...

[Patsy Stone]

26. Where did I say Chelsea was a whore?

I said the logic in the post I responded to was faulty, because the example he gave was not the same.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. That Was Originally Shuster's Defense But His Obscurantist Tactics Didn't Carry The Day

He tried to say that his "pimping out" remarks were in the context of his criticizing Chelsea's refusal to give interviews... A person would have to have a I Q of around room temperature to make that kind of contruction or be totally disingenuous... I suspect it's the latter...

[Patsy Stone]

39. Which post are you responding to?

:shrug:

ed: And what does obscuantist mean? Is that a word?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Fixed The Spelling

Obscurantism (from the Latin obscurans, "darkening") is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known. There are two common senses of this: (1) opposition to the spread of knowledge—a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public; and (2) a style (as in literature or art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness.<1>

In this article, obscurantism in the first and second senses are explained in the following two separate sections, respectively.

[Patsy Stone]

44. Do you agree

or disagree that Vanessa Kerry's situation in her father's campaign does not parallel Chelsea's?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. One Gave Interviews...One Didn't...

I just don't see the nexus between the granting of iterviews and being "pimped out."

[Patsy Stone]

52. Then you and I agree

Because Vanessa Kerry granted interviews and Chelsea doesn't. The post I responded to said the situations were equal, and they are not.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. No. It is not

It makes this whole incident even more sorid. If Shuster or anyone else wanted to attack Chelsea Clinton for not doing media interviews there was a simple way to do that; attack her for not doing media interviews. His attempt made to "smoke her out of hiding" or force Hillary to "deliver her up" by escalating rhetoric against her to an obscene level makes all of this far worse. Reading the email exchanges that followed between Shuster and a Clinton aid proves that Shuster did not make some mindless slip of the tongue. Shuster literally defended his saying Hillary was pimping Chelsea out by using that as an excuse. He only dug himself in deeper.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Maybe I'm Not As Smart As Some DUers

Can you please show me the nexus between refusing to grant interviews and being "pimped out" ?

[Patsy Stone]

29. You used Vanessa Kerry as an example

It was a bad example because the situations are different.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. It wa only different because in that Chelsea perhaps can be criticized

for not granting media interviews and Venessa couldn't be (assuming those are the facts). Shuster did not use public air time to talk about Chelsea not granting media interviews however.

[Patsy Stone]

35. Yes he did

That was why he made the stupid comment to begin with. It was while he was talking to Bill Press and Bob Franken.

"SHUSTER: Well, here is the big deal. I will give Chelsea Clinton a break when she sits down and gives an interview to somebody like --

PRESS: Oh!

SHUSTER: -- Bob Franken, because if she --

PRESS: Oh, yeah!

SHUSTER: -- wants to do all this stuff, then she should face the questions, right?"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080003

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Fine, then I go back to my original point: It just make his hit more sorid

Twisting arms, raising the pain level, until his victim cries "Uncle" and grants him a fucking private interview.

[karynnj]

15. I posted yesterday that this was despicable and that I would say the same if it were the Bush girls

It was an asinine comment on every possible level. In 2004, if anything Vanessa and Alex Kerry (and Chris and Andre Heinz, for that matter) were if anything more involved in the campaign. Kate Edwards was out there as well. Two of the Gore were very prominent in 2000. Chelsea has chosen a lower profile, rarely speaking.

Adult kids have a unique ability to vouch for their parent. I know a long time Republican woman who voted for Kerry in 2004, where a major factor was that she trusted him, in spite of the RW nastiness, because his daughters spoke of the same values that he did - and their lives matched them. I am sure this has happened in other elections as well.

[Armstead]

37. Without defending Schusters' use of the phrase...

..I would point out that the remark was not made to attack her, but to ask if it was appropriate for The Clintons to use Chelsea to make the sales-phone-calls to Super Delegates for their support.

A less tasteless way to say it would have been "Is it appropriate for the Clintons to use their daughter, with her unique status, to personally contact Super Delegates to influence them?"

[Patsy Stone]

43. Give it up.

No one can talk about this unemotionally.

I was just accused of having a room temerature IQ for being able to hold two different thoughts in my head.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Chelsea will be 28 years old in a few weeks

She is old enough to make her own choices about when and how she does or does not want to provide political support to her Mother while she runs for President. I frankly find all this talk about how unseemly it is for Hillary to be "using" Chelsea over this to be bizarre and even ageist, from a direction I never expected.

[Armstead]

58. There's more to it than that...Apart from Scuster's tasteless remark

But not time to get into it here.

I think frankly it's another example of the Clinton's trying to have it both ways. They want to exploit the unique iconic position of Chelsea, without the responsibilities that go with that. They want all of the coverage to be on their terms.

Kerry's daughters, who could have stayed in the background, campaigned for their father and subjected themselves to media scrutiny and interviews.

The Clintons on the other hand, seem to wanting to use the benefits of her daughters image, while trying to place her on a pedestal that is somehow above scrutiny.

Again, again,again....I am not defending Schisters use of that phrase. But since the Clinton's have decided to blow it up out of proportion, the other questions it raises shouldn't be glossed over.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Chelsea is out in public on her own campaigning for Hillary

She was just up in Seattle doing so, there was a nice story covering her doing so posted here at DU either yesterday or the day before. I believe Chelsea was at a universitiy. She's semmingly just not doing personal interviews.

[okasha]

57. There is no way to say someone is being "pimped out"

without the accompanying inference that that person is a "whore." It may not be a direct attack on Chelsea Clinton, but it is certainly an attack, and an extremely personal and ugly one.

If Schuster had phrased his remarks as you suggest, there would have been no attack, no insult, and no reason to question his integrity.

[KoKo]

70. Comment from Atrios and TPM Viewer you might find helpful.....

You just don't call kids parents pimps and imply that they are whoring for them.

Read this from Atrios and a TPM viewer for some perspective on why so many of us found it offensive.

--------

Viewpoints
02.08.08 -- 10:32PM
By Josh Marshall

TPM Reader VH checks in ...

I am not a Hillary supporter - I voted for Obama. But, I applaud the response of the Clinton campaign for the insulting remark about Chelsea and Hillary. It is extremely important for both Democratic candidates to make the networks aware right now that treating either of them as Bill Clinton was treated will be done with severe consequences. If that means every single network finds itself on the outside looking in, then so be it.

Bush made sure the networks, and news media in general, knew that any disrespectful treatment of him like Bill Clinton was subjected to was going to bring results they would find very uncomfortable. That worked - of course in part it worked because the networks and media in general supported Bust no matter what he did. But, even if they don't support the next Democratic president we can't allow him or her to be treated with the dripping contempt that Bill Clinton faced. This episode was the first shot in that "war".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177715.php


----------

...and an interesting comment from Atrios about Shuster's comment:


Shuster

While the "pimped out" comment was bad, in and of itself it's the kind of thing I could give a pass on based on the fact that sometimes stupid shit comes out of your mouth on live TV. It wasn't something he should have said, obviously, but there probably wasn't real animosity behind it. Just dumb.


But what I find worse is that it's part of a general pattern of taking perfectly normal political activities - in this case a family member helping out with a campaign - and talking about them as if they're unseemly, or corrupt, or inappropriate, or seedy, or sleazy, etc... The press has a long history of doing this with the Clintons, holding them to a weird standard that no one else is held to.
-Atrios 18:15

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_02_03_archive.html#3137...

[Bongo Prophet]

82. If he had said what was in your quote there would be no problem, and made the same point.

That is a valid question to consider. Poor use of words, truly - but that should not distract from the question itself, and the larger issue of propriety.
What are the precedents for meeting superdelegates to lobby them? I don't know.
But we should consider that superdelegates are not all exclusive superheroes in their fortresses of solitude. They are largely public figures, many of whom are family friends. It does not seem to me to be anywhere NEAR scandalous, within the context of the system and class structure we live in.

With all the things we need to focus on, this is low on my list - it seems like legit lobbying.
That is my non-emotional take on it.


As for the original question - yes I was always against talking down "kids" - though that does not apply here, as no children are involved.
They are not off limits, but accountable IF the issue is an important one.

I found that I have a double (or triple?) standard however -
If the phrase were used against some lobbyist that big pharma sends out - pimps out- to members of congress?
No problem, regardless of sex of that lobbyist.
If it was "McCain has pimped out Lieberman to help him in Connecticutt" - no problem.
Maybe it depends on whether I think the person "deserves" it - and that is subjective.

I gotta admit, I am not consistent on this.
The Chelsea thing was wrong, but after Abu ghraib and death tolls in the hundreds of thousands, and elections to win and wars to avoid? Well...they can all be important, and I can recognize many aspects to it. the OUTRAGE is just less visceral.

Something to think about.

Edit to fix an inadvertent emoticon, and to say that I wouldn't be in this worn out subject of a thread except for the respect i have for Armstead, and the attempt to take it meta to the point we can see the underlying morality IN OURSELVES, beyond shuster himself.

[mondo joe]

6. I'd think it was a gross, misogynist slur. THat kind of shit is pervasive in cable news,

but sometimes it exceeds even its usual creepyness.

[Armstead]

27. I agree on a basic level

Journalism standards have fallen. That's a bad thing.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. DUers have not exactly been respectful towards the Bush twins, to put it mildly.

And if you would have spoken out in defense of Jenna and Barbara,, then you are intellectually consistent and not what I'm talking about.

[boobooday]

7. I would be appalled

Presenting another alternative: Try to imagine him saying it about one of Mitt Romney's sons . . . it's a slur against a woman, and it would be no matter whose daughter he said it about.

[w13rd0]

8. It's an inappropriate remark...

...I wasn't aware this was something in debate.

[Iceburg]

9. Its reprehensible PERIOD. As are those who ignore it or defend it.

[izzie]

11. I did not hear it and I am glad.

Sounds like the kids on the school yard stuff.

[Honeycombe8]

12. The same. No big deal. It's just an expression. nt

[lunatica]

14. It's inappropriate. Period.

Shock radio and FOX's version of news (anger, bile and spittle) have lowered the acceptable standards to the level of the gutter. Imagine Walter Cronkite or Peter Jennings or Jim Lehrer using words like 'pimped out' on the air, and then the truth of the degeneration of professional behavior becomes very obvious. No one talks about bad manners anymore, but it would be very bad manners, in the poorest taste and crass behavior.

[rucky]

19. Honestly?

I'd cheer.

I have no respect for Bush & his dysfunctional family. They deserve none.

I know it's wrong, but :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I Wouldn't

Even John Gotti didn't target his enemy's kids...

[rucky]

22. I see it primarily as an insult to the pimp.

If somebody was literally pimping-out their kid, you wouldn't pass judgement on the kid.

[lynne]

88. That's how I see it, too -

- the word "pimp" was used as a verb and not as a noun. As a verb it means "to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit" and is clearly directed at Hillary using her daughter to make the calls and not at Chelsea's actions. IMO, all this piling on appears as though people don't understand English.

Can't help but to wonder if those so upset over this word were as indignant when Hillary used the "spade work" phrase about Obama. Oh, wait, it meant something different when used in that context!!! ;)

[Arkansas Granny]

24. The same way. It was a totally inappropriate remark regardless

who he was talking about. It's pretty common for a the grown children of a candidate to campaign for their parent. That shouldn't make them subject to vulgar comments like this.

[TexasObserver]

32. It's much ado about nothing. Typical playing the victim by Camp Clinton.

The Clinton campaign has one strategy: act outraged, act hurt, act the victim.

They have nothing to offer Americans that Americans want, so Hillary seizes on anything insignificant to try to milk sympathy for a few more votes from her base. Awwwwwww! You're going to make Hillary cry!! Vote for Hillary, cuz someone made her cry.

The remark by Schuster was over the heads of many people over 50, which is to say, Hillary's primary voters. It was not a criticism of Chelsea, but of her disgusting parents, who did pimp their daughter to try to get superdelegate votes for Hillary. The term "pimping" like the term "screwing" has a meaning in our language far beyond the reaches of those who haven't known a term added to the lexicon since they heard "sock it to me, baby."

It's false, phony outrage, a lot of hot air and contrived injury over nothing.

Bill is a whore. He's whored himself to special interests for the last 7 years and has the tens of millions to show for it. Hillary has whored herself to special interests, too. See how that works? Whored is a perfectly good term political metaphor, as is pimping.

They pimped her out. If you want to think that means Bill is a pimp selling Chelsea to superdelegates for sex, well, that's YOUR problem. Welcome to 2008. You don't own the word.

[Enrique]

75. typical blame the victim by Clinton-bashers

[TexasObserver]

77. another Hillary fan with an inability to accept impending doom

run along, dude, I noticed your stupid comments earlier, but waited to put you ignore until you said something stupid to me

buh bye ricky

[Enrique]

78. that couldn't have been me

I haven't made any stupid comments. :shrug:

[zulchzulu]

34. Let's tar and feather David Shuster for a Hillaryworld Pay-Per-View fundraiser

The guy slipped up with an unfortunate comment. Let's kill him.

It's a good thing no Hillaryworld surrogates have never said something stupid about Obama.

:sarcasm:

[JeanGrey]

38. That has been said and a lot worse about Bush's daughters.

I wish families would be OFF LIMITS. But unfortnately it doesn't work that way.

[WinkyDink]

50. FAT LIE. NO WAY has a REGULAR correspondent EVER "said...a lot worse about Bush's

daughters", and you can search all day to find one.

I'll send you fifty bucks.

Oh, unless you mean the TRUTH, via PHOTOS, of Jenna's past drinking.

[JeanGrey]

66. Oh you mean the fake picture of one of them lying

naked on a table with bottles? Or all the nasty crap said about them? Please.
Families need to be off limits ALL OF THEM

[WinkyDink]

71. FAKE? Bwahahahahaha! Even though it was only in a TABLOID (not on MSNBC), the photo was REAL.

[Medusa]

45. Some people here have very short memories.

Let's see, Joe Scarborough said that Fred Thompson's wife looked like she "worked the pole". People here thought that was absolutely hilarious and applauded him for it. Countdown labeled the wife of Sen. Vitter (can't remember his first name) a "ho" because of the dress she wore to a press conference. Again, people here thought that was the funniest thing and said that it was 100% true. Oh yes, women who wear wrap dresses are all whores in the eyes of DUers I guess. So now some of these same people are claiming they'd be equally outraged if someone said the same thing that Shuster said about say the Bush daughters or McCains daughters? Yeah right sure.

[WinkyDink]

53. You pointed out the difference: daughters. INDEED, ONLY CHELSEA

has been ridiculed and mocked.

Yes, there is a difference with the spouse---partner---of a candidate.

[DiamondJay]

47. thats like asking "how would you react if the cow jumped over the moon"

[WinkyDink]

49. 1. DU is not MSNBC. 2. "What If's" = specious arguments. 3. Give one example of a major

commentator (NOT a guest partisan) "who slammed the Bushes...That included his daughters." ONE example.

[Armstead]

55. I've seen snarky coverage of the twins

I don't have time to search on the web, but I can distinctly recall smirking coverage of them in the MSM.

[WinkyDink]

72. There's MSM (Fox, e.g.), and there's MSM (normal, such as CNN, MSNBC, the "Big 3"). I can wait.

[onenote]

51. I'd think it was a stupid comment

Because it would be. And because it would garner sympathy for chimpy.

[sfam]

56. How would you react if I said the OP is pimping out this pimping out idea...

Just like the other 40 threads. Hey - here's a thought - lets make one pimping out thread for every daughter of every famous Pol we can think of! I'm sure people would react differently to each of them!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. its inappropriate. and i am not being a hypocrite. during the election ins 2004

i asked the admins to stop allowing people on du to trash bush's daughters because it was sexist and unnecessary and pretty foul.

[Armstead]

62. Then you are consistent. That's all I'm asking.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. ofcourse i am consistent. sexism is bigger than our party affiliations.

[Armstead]

65. Many aren't

[Hepburn]

64. I would just think that both of them had been....

....hitting the sauce again.

[IsItJustMe]

67. He would not have said it. Thats the problem with our msm. They sh!t on the dems, and spin for the

repugs.

[TexasObserver]

68. I would have thought nothing of it, same as with Chelsea

[ursi]

69. I would have laughed and said "how disgusting that her parents are doing that!"

[Hawkowl]

73. How much is he charging?

Is Jenna the blonde or the brunette?

[Enrique]

74. speaking of intellectual honesty

has fairness to Bush been a longstanding issue for you?

Personally, I haven't seen many, maybe not any, posts questioning DU's disparate treatment of Bush compared to dems.

Is this a true concern, or is it just a tool to excuse Schuster (despite your qualification) and ok the attack on Chelsea (despite your qualification).

[WA98070]

76. It was an unfortunate choice of words but our language and the use of words is fluid.

No body actually thinks Bush screwed the country, he just destroyed it.

Nobody really thinks Schuster implied anything sexual. He could have chosen his word more carefully. But the Clinton's are putting their daughter to use for the campaign as they see fit... questioning the appropriateness of using a child is appropriate journalism especially when the candidates say leave the kids out of it. What word fits better?

The Clinton's will milk this for all they can...continuing to use her to advance Hilary's campaign; to allow her to become the story rather than issues.

[donheld]

79. Since 97% of what george bush says is inappropriate

who would notice?

[Sapphocrat]

80. Big difference.

Chelsea doesn't deserve any disdain. Chelsea never acted like a drunken little slut.

Would it still be wrong of Shuster to say "George Bush is pimping out Jenna"? Sure. It's a sexist, classless thing to say. But the Bush twins invite scorn by their tawdry behavior. Chelsea is an upstanding young woman. Always has been, and I expect she always will be.

What I'd like to know is this: How many of these "Oh, get over it!" Shuster defenders remember the outrage over Rush Limbaugh cracking "Chelsea is ugly" jokes (especially during her awkward teen years)? Did they say, "Get over it!" then? What's the difference now?

For the record, I wouldn't have called for Shuster's suspension or sacking. A heartfelt apology would have been enough, given his record. But that's not the point; the point is the double standard: If you hate Hillary, then Chelsea, it appears, is now fair game.

[piesRsquare]

81. I would NOT have cheered him on!

It's disgusting that this whole ordeal is even being ARGUED about here--or anywhere!

"Pimped out" is NOT an appropriate nor acceptable expression to be using in broadcast journalism--PERIOD!

I'm disgusted that the phrase is used as much as it is in conversation!

How dare a broadcast "journalist" refer to a former President of the United States and sitting United States Senator as "pimping out" their daughter?

How can ANYONE think that is excusable?

Trashy rap-language doesn't belong in such a context!

Does ANYBODY have ANY sense of appropriateness or dignity anymore? Or is it all just "ho's" and "pimps" and "word, dat" garbage?

Since when did ghetto-talk replace Standard American English?

[NMMNG]

83. Sadly

I've been informed that such language is common among the "under 40 crowd" and that anybody who can't deal with it is just "stuck in the 1960s". It would seem that using proper English and refraining from sexist gutter talk marks one as a fossil of sorts. :shrug:

[piesRsquare]

86. Interesting, your point, in that

I AM in the "under 40" crowd!

I say "pimped out" when referring to what Britney Spears' parents did to her, in gossipy conversations with a friend, but I wouldn't say it in any other context!

Unbelievable.

Sadly, indeed!

[NMMNG]

87. I'm in the under 40 crowd too

But for some reason I'm lumped into the older crowd here by many.

[Onlooker]

84. Most people, I think, would strongly side with Bush ...

... if he blasted MSNBC for saying it had pimped out Jenna. The fact that you even raise the question supports the contention that there's a lot sexism in DU. And, no, most liberals at least, would not have raised it as a free speech issue. Sexist and racist language are indefensible, especially by journalists and others who should know better.

[fujiyama]

85. I'd be disgusted

It's uncalled for.

Jenna, like Chelsea is an adult and is free to work on their parents campaigns as they chose.

Why didn't Schuster say Mitt Romney's sons are "pimped"? One of them was an "advisor" to his failed campaign. What about McCain's older daughter? Hasn't she campaigned for him?

I am dead set against nominating Hillary, but this is the kind of shit that has no place in politics.

[Political Heretic]

89. Heh people DID say it here.

When his daughters were interviewed and they made major plugs for their Dad.

How times change...