Heated Emails from Clintons to MSNBC's Shuster

Politisite has obtained the email exchange between the Clinton camp and MSNBC’s David Shuster who now is on leave due to his remarks about Chelsea Clinton being, “pimped out by the Clinton Camp” because of her calls to super delegates and others. Here are the emails
Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Nice to hear from you, philippe.
It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that’s the reference.
Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying “I don’t want to talk.”. But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea…that’s an issue.
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.
Since you guys asked for the transcript – here specifically is what David said on air:
SHUSTER: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC’s air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons – or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.
David – I want to make sure I’m crystal clear here – you’re saying that because she doesn’t grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?
I don’t need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out of line. Nobody’s jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or talking about calls she made. And you know it.
There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.
No. That’s not what I’m saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was raised, you would know that.
The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You can’t have it both ways. Reporters have long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And you know that.
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.
I think we’ve each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this email exchange, we’re assuming two things:
1) You are not disputing that you said on air: “But doesn’t it seem like she’s being–but doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above
Here is the video in question:

1 Comment

  1. Pressure is being brough to bear on MSNBC by the Clintons. And MSNBC is caving.
    Chelsea also telephoned first “three” women on “The View.” The three women “giggled” over it. The next day they read how wrong that was of them to giggle from one of the magazines.
    Chelsea refused to talk to a young school girl.
    Chelsea is doing exactly that: sent out to pimp for the Clinton’s. She is 27 years old. No longer a child. If you’re a surrogate, you have to accept reportage. The Clinton’s are sending her out to “work the public,” but don’t want any repercussions touching her.
    When you play in the mud, Chelsea must expect to get dirty, like everybody else does.

Comment on Politisite Story