The Grey Entry
We are living in a period of postmodern political correctness, an insidiously repressive time during which practically any criticism or observation that approaches the boundaries of candor, incisiveness or, heaven forbid, honesty, is considered anathema by self-appointed spokesmen for any of several chronically offended groups, among them blacks, Jews, gays, lesbians and women.
David Schuster, an innocuous if not feckless MSNBC political correspondent, drew the ire of womens advocacy and political groups by musing on live television that Chelsea Clinton, who has been working the phones to persuade superdelegates to support her mother, is being pimped. Here’s a clip from Schuster’s conversation with Democratic pundit Bill Press:
The response from the Clinton camp was hysteria incarnate.
-
“Look, I think the comment is disgusting,” said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. “Its beneath contempt. It’s the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network.”
Wolfson’s rantings rise to the level of absurdity after one considers his all but certain appreciation of the difference between hard news and a news talk show, the latter of which depends on frank and open dialogue to be interesting. Wolfson said that Clinton might not participate in any future MSNBC debates in retaliation for Schuster’s comments. What, and squander an opportunity to get a catch in her throat and stammer, ‘You know it’s hard out here for a pimp,’ on national television?
Apparently the suits at MSNBC took Wolfson’s bluff threat seriously and suggested to Schuster that he apologise–again.
I am not fan of the Clintons but I disagree with Schuster’s take on Chelsea, a remarkably normal acting 27 year-old who from all appearances seems enthusiastic about helping her mother. That said, I don’t find Schuster’s remarks “irresponsible and inappropriate,” as NBC News President Steve Capus labeled them, nor do I view them as “disgusting and sexist,” as National Organisation of Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy described them.
It’s Capus who’s being irresponsible by caving to a group of people who seek to be offended and see misogyny as a governing dynamic. And it’s NOW that’s being sexist by demanding that women who are political candidates be handled with kid skin gloves.
Schuster should be the offended party, as he was made a sacrificial lamb for doing what he was paid to do: offer his opinion. Unlike Don Imus or Kelly Tilghman, Schuster’s statement, “Doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” wasn’t even ostensibly depreciatory.
Maybe it should’ve been. At least then he’d have gotten his money’s worth.
And with that, my dears and good men, I have made what will be my last entry on The Breaking Point for the foreseeable future. I have blogged in one form or another since September of 2002 and am in need of an extended break.
I sincerely thank each of you who has in some way been a part of what has been for me a most enjoyable, rewarding and fruitful experience.
I bid you adieu.
Sincerely,
LH