So does anyone think that Hillary’s continued outrage over some guy at MSNBC saying she was “pimping” Chelsea is a manufactured attempt to win votes and sympathy as a mom protecting her baby? Because, really, the insult was to her, not to Chelsea. And because the guy apologized, but she won’t drop it. Plus, by keeping it in the news, she’s keeping the comment in the public eye.
I didn’t think the tears in NH were manufactured, but this strikes me as calculated and manufactured. The thing is, if she is (and she totally is), then it kinda proves the guy was right. She’s exploiting her child for votes by introducing the theme of angry mom bear even when she isn’t asked.
Meanwhile, John McCain’s son is in Iraq and he doesn’t mention it in stump speeches. Nobody can call him a pimp.
She’s pushed back, and the guy apologized, and now she just brings it up mid-interview instead of talking about, like, the campaign or issues. Finding that weird has nothing to do with her being a woman and playing by different rules. I think that dog don’t hunt anymore. She’s running for president. She’s being treated like a candidate. I think bringing it up well after the fact is weird, and I suspect she wants the talking points to be about how some bad guy went after Chelsea and she rushed to her baby’s defense.
And I think it’s bullshit.
And I think the insult was to her, not Chelsea, and I think she’s proving it was deserved.
You’re seeing this guy as an isolated individual, not part of an interest group with its own well-developed subculture, and this crack as similarly isolated despite years of drumbeats about her “divisiveness” etc… It’s *that * powerful subculture and its actions and customs that she’s pushing against with this - and she’s using this because this time she has something incontestable to do so with, not a grievance vague enough for the likes of you to dismiss as whining or bitchiness or whatever the talking point du jour may be.
How a woman of Chelsea’s class and charm came from that pair of unctuous brats just boggles the mind. I’m figuring it was those eight formative years in the White House when her upbringing was, I presume, mostly in the hands of others.
He clearly wasn’t using it in the sense of “pimp my ride.” He was talking about whoring her out. He is rightfully being suspended, with possibly additional action.
But, he also had a point. The Clintons are using Chelsea to campaign, while simultaneously demanding that the media not even think about interviewing her. It is a hypocritical position. The media should be allowed to ask her, for example, about the e-mails she sent out saying Obama wasn’t really pro-choice.
The idea was that they’re using her while trying to keep her off limits. But he expressed it like an asshole.
True, she’s averse to giving the Heathers talking points, and I’m sure you understand why as well as I do - but she’s hardly private and hardly inapproachable by “real people”, even though that’s a fairly recent development.
The tactic of candidates using family members as campaign surrogates, and as image-humanizers for that matter, is as old as democracy itself, and the criticism we see of this example is so silly as to have the motives for it be automatically called into question.
My understanding–and I don’t really know since I’m not a reporter–is that the Clinton’s try to retain the media bubble around Chelsea that they had during the 90’s. This despite her active involvement in the campaign, as you note.
That might be factually false. Like I said, I don’t have any way of judging except that I haven’t seen any interviews with her and this is what members of the media say. But it was nevertheless his point, which seems valid to me (if true).
Well, that linked story does confirm it - *no * media interviews.
But that may be just the next stage in her becoming a public figure - once she’s more comfortable in the role, and has her antennas more finely calibrated, it will become “safe” for her to give interviews as well. But at this point, not even Larry King.