So I'm looking at this piece from Salon's War Room about David Shuster. I'd seen it linked and mentioned in passing elsewhere, but I hadn't actually read it myself. The nugget seemed to be that Shuster said, aloud, that he knew that the hammer came down on him for more than what he said about Chelsea Clinton, that he was being punished for the sins of other, bigger game at MSNBC that weren't going to be touched (read: Chris Matthews).
But then I read it, and to Alex Koppelman at the War Room, I don't know that you can really call this an apology of sorts from Shuster, because it seems to me he still doesn't get it.
"I have the responsibility to make my point precisely and aggressively, without using coarse language," Shuster says. "Clearly, it was inappropriate for a lot of viewers. I made a horrible mistake by allowing people to be distracted by some words rather than focus on the story."
It was more than the words. The very idea that there was something unseemly about Chelsea Clinton doing what adult children of presidential candidates have been doing for decades was also a big part of the problem. It's the Clinton rules in full effect.
So let's make it clear--there was no story in the first place, Mr. Shuster. What Chelsea Clinton was doing was no different than what Mitt Romney's sons were doing, or what the Bush daughters and Kerry's step-kids did in 2004. That her last name is Clinton doesn't make it suddenly unseemly. That's the lesson you needed to take away from this, and it seems you didn't. Try again.