Guess I can wear my “LEAVE CHELSEA ALONE” t-shirt again. I bought it in Washington in '93, when the press was commenting on how homely she was.
T-shirts are so passe. What you need to do is to start a website.
Then you can sell the t shirts to promote the site.
not for anything, but the expression “pimp” is kind of mainstream now and it use for a lot of stuff…
There’s even an MTV show called “Pimp my ride”.
This whole thing is much to do about nothing.
Yeah, I think there may be a generational divide at work here. Wouldn’t be the first time in this campaign.
This was not in the lighthearted context that you’re portraying in. This man was calling Chelsea a whore.
That aside, I’ve got mixed opinions about this. Yes, it’s a whiny, cheap, over-the-line comment and he deserves to be punished for it. But the Clintons are actively using Chelsea to help campaign and that makes her fair game for at least some abuse, even if this was over the line.
No. That’s not what the OP says. Feel free to go back and read it.
What it is, is manufactured outrage – which has sustained for several days, for no reason, since he’s apologized.
And apparently I’m not the only one who thinks she’s kind of milking it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-campa-1.html
Rush also apologized, as I recall, for calling her “the White House dog”. That didn’t mean that he didn’t really think of her that way; nor does apologizing about effectively calling Chelsea a whore mean that this guy doesn’t look at her that way.
The Right has a history of misogyny, and of targeting that misogyny at Chelsea ( and Hillary, for that matter ). I see no reason to believe that such comments are not meant in the most insulting manner possible, nor do I see any reason to believe that they are not reflective of the deep hatred and contempt of women that dominates the Right. And if their enemies make the mistake of letting their bigotry too blatant, I see nothing wrong in the Clintons pounding them over the head with it, apology or not.
And if the headlines several days later still say Hillary’s dropping out a debate because of an insult to Chesea [sic] instead of about Obama sweeping the weekend contests, I guess that’s just a fortunate coincidence.
Several points:
The words “pimping” and “whoring” have sexual origins no doubt (as does the word “jazz”) but clearly the meaning was not sexual in this context. He, somewhat crudely perhaps, was expressing the POV that they were using her in this campaign, in his opinion, inappropriately. While there is nothing wrong with an adult child of a candidate working for the candidate, it is of mild note in this case since the Clintons have famously tried to keep her out of the public domain and she herself will not talk to reporters, even “cute” ones.
His charge was no more that she was literally a whore or inappropriate than any charge that Powell whored himself to the Bush administration when he testified that there was good evidence of WMDs. The gist of his charge may or may not be justified. Personally I think it is hard for them to have it both ways - keep her out of public domain or she’s public domain, and working the phone banks puts you in it. To be offended by having that apparent hypocrisy pointed out seems a bit much, and it was gracious of him to apologize for the rude way in which he made the point.
Even if he hadn’t apologized the reaction seems manufactured, but the implication is worse if it is not. As President would she refuse to deal with media outlets that have employed pundits who have said things that she takes offense to? “Fox reporters are not allowed at my press conferences because a reporter there said a nasty thing about Bill.”?
Nah, just post a video on YouTube.
He was hardly calling Chelsea a whore. He was just suggesting that she’s being used by her family, yet she is not allowed to speak. It’s weird. Recall the little 9 year old who asked her a question recently, and she responded that she “couldn’t respond”, although she thought the little girl was cute. These clinton parents have a lot of oppressive control over Chelsea. And I realize they have a lot to be overprotective about after their own behavior brought a lot of negative media attention on them. So they’re overly cautious to the point where Chelsea is not allowed to speak. That’s just really weird. It’s not as though she’d ever say anything derrogatory or respond to anything derrogatory about her family. She’s been trained by her mom on how to respond… which is basically no response.
MSNBC is part of the Right Wing Hate Machine? MSNBC? The home of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Erin Burnett, who, on Morning Joe a few weeks back, twice called GWB a monkey when contrasting him with President Sarkozy of France (for whom she professed to have developed a “man crush” despite the fact that she’s a woman)? That MSNBC?
Or perhaps you mean the Republican party - home to Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Condoleezza Rice (plus many others whom I don’t have time at the moment to look up), all of whom have somehow managed to gain office despite the deep hatred and contempt of women running so rampant among their constituencies and colleagues?
Either way, the ridiculosity of your post stands as its own condemnation.
ETA: I might also point out that a not insignificant number of the “Right” are themselves women, which further puts the lie to your ridiculous statement that the “Right” feels hate and contempt for women.
pimping out means whoring to most of the electorate. it was a bad line and even if not uttered with intent about equal with the ‘nappy headed ho’s’ line.
cheney’s lesbian daughter had the same kind of debate during a previous election. gore very crassly raised the ‘lesbian’ meme in a debate.
As an alternative, the guy from Talon News would be available for a go-to role in the WH Press Room. He’ll do almost anything for cash, too.
Josh Marshall has a plausible explanation for why she’s hammering on MSNBC - their coverage in general, as her letter shows, not that of this nobody Shuster’s specifically:
China Guy, you too are too tightly focused on individual comments and thereby miss the context: Cheney’s daughter was not being “accused” of being a lesbian, nor was Cheney being “accused” of raising one, nor was mentioning the point a personal attack at all. Rather, it was a direct means of exposing his and his party’s hypocrisy about *their * publicly considering homosexuality a sin or a persnality defect when personal experience should have made the facts clear.
I trust you agree that hypocrisy is a valid target of political criticism?
It is entirely possible that Chelsea is interested in politics, believes her mother would be a good president and she wants to help her if she can. To imply she is doing her parents bidding against her own will is absurd. Can you make your kids do that? Could your parents make you go on stage against your beliefs.? Cmon.
I see no reason why either I or the media should be expected to cooperate with this. Chelsea is 28 years old. If she can’t stand the heat, she should stay out of the kitchen.
What heat. Being called a ho or being said to be pimping herself out? Just trying to help her poor parents out. Very commendable.
The heat of media interviews, of course. Read much?
And who was doing that? No one I have heard yet.
Tris