What, you want Chris Wallace to strap her down and waterboard her until she agrees to an interview with him?
You mean “blowtorch”, right? The mass, and Beltway, media do not cover the Clintons in the same way they cover most other political families, as I’m sure you’ll agree. A bit of caution, and a phased approach, into entering that realm out of a protective cocoon is certainly called for. But Chelsea does seem to be going that route.
Check again come summertime, or even sooner, and I think you’ll see those interviews.
This is nuts. How is it not OK for Chelsea to campaign for her mom? Was it a problem when the Bush twins campaigned for W? Or for Barbara Bush to campaign for her husband? Why should any of these people be, quite literally, accused of being whores?
So Elv1s, let’s break this down into its component parts-
Is it a fair thing to point out that the Clintons on the one hand are saying that Chelsea is off-limits to the press and on the other are using her publicly in the campaign and that that appears to be hypocritical? Even if you disagree with whether or not there is a hypocrisy involved, is such criticism off-limits?
I would say that such criticism is fair game. And I personally agree with the charge of hypocrisy.
How offensive is the word “pimping” as a description of using someone in that context?
I would say mildly at most, if at all, and an apology as offered was gracious.
Is HRC’s continued umbrage at having had the use of Chelsea in the campaign as both public but off-limits characterized as “pimping” authentic or manufactured?
Many of us see it as manufactured and only disagree about to what end. Obviously those of who see it this way are biased by our past assessments of HRCs lack of authenticity and you may be biased by your belief that she is completely forthright in all things. But to keep it up after an apology has been offered seems disproportionate to any possible offense.
Is it appropriate for a possible President to attempt to punish a major news network because a reporter working for them has said something offensive about them or about a family member?
I would say absolutely not. Such a judgement is more in keeping with a Putin than in someone trying to be President of the United States.
squeegee when the Bush twins campaigned they then became fair game and their wild antics were media fodder. Even Bush didn’t try to punish the news networks for making fun of them.
It’s fair to mention it, but the hypocrisy charge needs some explanation.
No criticism is off-limits in a campaign. But is it valid?
When used in relation to a young woman, very. (Disclaimer: I’ve never been a young woman). I’ll ask a question from earlier in the thread: Was Romney “pimping out” his sons in Iowa? Would you, or any reporter for that matter, even think of using the word in that context?
As also pointed out, the conduct under question isn’t only Shuster’s. You might note that.
Both. What a shock, huh?
“Punish”? In what way? Loss of license? Reduced air time? Reduced access to the candidate or the candidate’s thinking? Nobody is keeping anybody from reporting anything. In fact, limiting reporters’ contact is more likely to lead to negative reporting than the reverse. For most people, that is - the Clintons get do different treatment. You agree, right?
As noted before, to some people, if she fights back, she’s bitchy; if she lets it ride, she’s spineless. All we are saying, is give us a break.
There’s no such thing as “off-limits” for adults. The Clintons don’t set the rules for the press for their adult daughter. If she doesn’t want to give press conferences or interviews, that’s her choice.
I don’t recall any reporter or pundit ever calling it “unseemly” for the Bush twins to campaign, or say that the Bush family were “pimping” their daughters.
The Bush administration has regularly retaliated against news organizations and especially news reporters who they felt were unsympathetic towards them, by denying them access.
Oh, give me a break. Sure, this can be a Scotsman fallacy when whatever I point to (Hillary talking health care, McCain talking Iraq, etc.), you can say it’s just empty political rhetoric, but obviously all of the candidates talk about the issues some of the time.
And seriously? Even talking about their own campaigns? That’s something you haven’t heard them do?
I disagree; it makes Chelsea out to be a spineless victim of her wicked mother and the evil Democratic Party machine. Chelsea’s a big girl and can decide to work on her mother’s campaign.
And, pardon the hell out of me, but kindly explain to me how an adult woman being politically active is so much more exploitive on the part of the candidate than young men doing so.
This is an insult to Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and every woman in this country; for the condescending assumption that an adult woman is so easily exploited; for the implication than any woman entering the public sphere is no better than a whore; and for the assumption that the rest of us are dumb enough to fall for this.
And ‘pimp’, as a verb, and ‘pimp out’ have different meanings.
I have said, more than once, that I think the fact that Chelsea is campaigning is a non-issue and lots of family members do it. The exploitation part comes in saying (disingenuously, if you ask me) that he called Chelsea a Ho. He didn’t even call Hillary a “pimp,” per se. He said she was “pimping out” Chelsea. Off-color, unprofessional, and stupid – absolutely. But calling Chelsea a Ho? Absolutely not. Hillary doesn’t beleive that for one second.
By saying “Hey everyone, called my baby a ho! Isn’t he awful?” Hillary made it out to be much more of an issue than it needed to be, and much more about Chelsea than it really was. That is why I feel she’s just proving Shuster correct.
Um, no. Chelsea didn’t say she “couldn’t respond”, she said “I don’t talk to the press, and that includes you.” By all accounts I’ve read, it wasn’t “the Clintons” or “Hilary” or “the campaign” that decided Chelsea wouldn’t talk to the press. Chelsea decided Chelsea wouldn’t talk to the press, in an effort to preserve what personal privacy she still has. Certainly Chelsea has been the one enforcing the rule, since it’s her mouth that’s zipped. Whether the decision was wise, or justified, or a waste of her time, or somehow cheating the electorate and the media by depriving them of juicy quotes and gossip, is a separate issue from whose decision it was: hers.
But of course, if we credited Chelsea with the ability to make her own decisions, then we’d lose another excuse to criticize her parents. Can’t have that, can we?
Seriously, parents are like that, protective. At least she didn’t try to claim those phone calls were Chelsea’s service to her country.
Well, I wouldn’t if you use ‘exegesis’ to refer to the discussion of an off-the-cuff political comment of dubious taste.
‘Tortured’, I will admit to; way too many clauses in that sentence.
But I am quite serious about my ‘exegesis’.
My response to that story was:
Who the hell is he to decide Chelsea is being used?
Have we really returned to a mind sent when any woman in public life can have her morals questioned, just for having a public life? (Using ‘pimp out’ does imply a whore. Historically, ‘good’ women did not lead public lives.)
Why the hell is it news when a woman campaigns for her mother, but not when sons for their father?
And, “I hope Hillary kicks his ass.”
Frankly, I think Chelsea’s response to that girl showed her respect. She could have made some pointless remark to a cute little girl, but instead she treated her as a journalist.
“Exegesis” is commonly used in literary theory outside of its biblical context. It implies close reading and careful interpretation, which is why I used it in jest at your over-the-top presumption that Shuster was saying women shouldn’t have public lives (or whatever). I’m sure she’d love everyone to feel it was much more than an offhand slur, and that we should fill her coffers in outrage, but I’m not buying it.
I never said it was. I’m not the one who insists on arguing that Chelsea has a right to campaign, which has the curious function of supposing that question is in doubt. For me, it never was. The thread I opened asks one question:
"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? "
Ah, the old “Hillary can no do no right,” argument, which is really insisting that she could do no wrong. She’s above criticism, because whatever she does, her defense is that we would have ALSO criticized her if she did the OPPOSITE. I have no recourse to such claims, since alternative history is non-falsifiable, but I myself will never criticize anyone for not sweating the small shit, for ignoring some hack, or for keeping her mind on principles. Moreover, I have never once heard Hillary criticized for being soft or weak.
FTR, I thought Obama’s outrage over Hillary’s MLK statement was also manufactured, but it seemed to go away much more quickly than this Chelsea thing. YMMV.
The word nigger (or niggah) has taken on another meaning too but the adoption of offensive slang by the media is unacceptable. I agree with the OP that Hillary is trying to make too much hay out of it but I’m not offended by it yet.
I don’t like the comment about pimping but considering that she has benefitted so much from her parents position its not really all that commendable. Didn’t she get her job at a NYC hedge fund through her parents’ connections?
First of all, it was Edwards, who was the nominee for vice president in 2004, not Gore, who was the presidential nominee in 2000.
Second, it was not crass. His point was, “Look, your daughter is a lesbian, right? And you don’t think she’s a danger to society. So why don’t you admit that homosexuality is not a danger to society.” That’s not crass. That’s simple logic.
