Pimp My Pride

Let's have a moment of silence, shall we, for the terrible awful no-good remark uttered by David Shuster regarding the daughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Of course, Shuster heretofore has been as reliable a media entity as any good librul could have asked for, issuing pointed questions and observations with an intellectual honesty that puts other attack poodles (see Gregory, David) to shame.

But now Shuster has apparently Crossed A Line, and must satisfactorily perform his auto-da-fé for the baying crowd, because the entire universe has conspired against the Prophet (PBUH) since he was but an uppity hick gubnor. And now, an extemporaneous (and, to be blunt about it, pretty stupid) remark by a basic-cable reporter has the perennially aggrieved up in arms -- which, by definition, is generally where such folks are found.

Here's the thing: once you absorb that every once in a while one of the good guys fucks up, and then check out the transcript of his e-mails with HRC's rep, the bigger picture clarifies. This is by no means the same thing as Rash Limpballs picking on poor 12-year-old Chelsea (as if he's some sort of Olympian stud-muffin, the fat fuck) back in the day.

It's one thing for a candidate's child to simply do the usual schtick of showing up at campaign events and rubber-chicken shows in a general display of support. Tagg and the rest of the OsmondRomney progeny had been doing exactly that for dear ol' dad for some time (though not, more notoriously, expressing their support for Dad's positions in more concrete terms; at least John McCain's sons are actually in Iraq). Giuliani's kids would have supported him on the campaign trail, except they're too busy studying for midterms, and happen to think for some reason that their dad's a skeevy asshole.

But Chelsea has been essentially functioning as a political operative it seems, lobbying superdelegates -- party flacks who are turning out to be hugely critical in determining the eventual nominee, because of the close spread -- to support her mother. Fair enough. It is not too much to ask, as Shuster rightly asserts, that the usual interview bubble on candidate's children (grown children at that) be lifted just a tad. Chelsea Clinton should not be automatically immune from questions, insofar as they pertain to her politicking efforts.

If Shuster had made this comment about Obama's kids, the furor we're witnessing right now would pale in comparison to the shouts for Shuster's head.

Well, Obama's kids aren't in their mid-twenties, with cushy six-figure gigs their parents got them, nor are they working the refs off-camera. Really, maybe it's the superdelegate system that's the problem in the first place. If it weren't set up so that a certain subset of inbred backroom hacks could supersede the actual vote, you wouldn't be having this fucking problem.