Literally, to pimp someone out means to force them to have sex with someone in exchange for money (that goes to the pimp).
There’s the traditional slang meaning of “to pimp” which means “to make yourself available for demeaning activity in exchange for money or other benefit.”
You’re quoting more recent slang meanings, which mean “to mimic the flamboyant style associated with pimps.”
Give me credit for providing examples of someone else her position not being criticized for the same thing. [That would be every politician with an adult child, not just Romney].
She was criticized for ‘siccing’ her husband on Barack.
I cannot parse this in any way that makes it into a coherent sentence. In any case, since I’ve said several times I don’t think that her family deserves criticism and that this isn’t what the thread is about, it’s a non-argument. If you want to open up another thread about the beleaguered Clintons, go right ahead. This thread is about manufactured outrage predicated on a willful misinterpretation of a comment in the hopes that it might lead to votes.
And “If she did the opposite, she’d still be criticized,” is not an argument. It’s nothing. It’s not an argument or justification or a rebuttal. It’s noise.
And just because people objected to comments Bill made earlier has nothing to do with this topic either. It’s more noise.
No j666 those would only be examples if the candidate and/or the adult child of the candidate tried to say that they were going to campaign for the candidate but the media was not allowed to talk to the adult child or to say critical things about them at the risk of having the network punished by doing something like pulling out of a debate on their network. Examples are?
First of all, IIRC, he ASKED if it SEEMED like she was pimping her daughter.
Secondly, he wasn’t implying that Hillary was loading Chelsea up with a lot of “bling”; so let’s stop with all of the “Pimp My Ride” references. He also wasn’t using the absolute literal sense of the term; so let’s not act like he was accusing Hillary of sending Chelsea out to perform sex for money. He used the word in a slightly less literal sense of “using her for her own gains.”
It was a valid question with an unfortunate choice of words. This is Much Ado About Little.
However, as a mother, Hillary is forced to defend her daughter and her own parenting. (I have learned that the worst thing that you can say about a woman is that she is a Bad Mother. Call her a cunt or a whore, and she’ll get upset. Call her a ‘bad mother’; and fists will start flying.)
The network is forced to capitulate somewhat and give this guy a paid vacation.
As a campaigner, Hillary is forced to use this situation to garner sympathy, without seeming to milk it to the point that it seems like she’s milking it.
The real question here is this: Is it a case of ‘wanting to have your cake and eat it too’ for Chelsea to be actively campaigning like she is, and not be subject to interviews? [I’m not trying to hijack this thread; I’m just too lazy to look up or start a new thread about this.]
I also want to say that if Hillary was my mom, and I was an adult, I would be doing everything in my power to help her to become the president. So I can’t blame Chelsea for doing what she’s doing. I think that Chelsea is, for the most part, “fair game”. But this wasn’t an attack on her, it was an attack on Hillary (and Bill).
Nonsense – at very best, it paints Chelsea as a dimwitted tool, when she’s an adult and can make her own decisions about if and how to help the Clinton campaign.
If some journalist had made a similar remark about the Bush twins in 2004, I’d expect the Bush family to be really f-ing offended, and I wouldn’t blame them a bit for feeling that way.
Lastly, if Chelsea doesn’t want to give interviews or make commentary to the press, that’s her own damned business.
At first I was inclined to say no, that it’s perfectly fine for Chelsea to be out campaigning for her mom without being set upon by journalists…but on second thought, her doing so gives her mother an unfair advantage in that it allows Chelsea to proselytize her mother’s message without being held accountable for her words, as her mother would be–and it gives Hillary an out (and possibly a to way try out new talking points to see how they play with an audience) to claim that Chelsea misspoke or didn’t understand the question or some other excuse should Chelsea say something that backfired against her.
In other words, it gives Hillary a propagandist and water-tester who can proselytize her message without ever being challenged on it, and I therefore call shenanigans. As an example, I read a couple of days ago that Chelsea claimed during a speech that people trust her mother because she does what she says she’ll do, and of course it went completely unchallenged. Imagine the media response had Hillary herself claimed during one of her speeches that people trusted her because she does what she says she’ll do. Once they’ve stopped laughing, they’d most likely ask just what it is that she actually would do–given that she waffles and equivocates and talks out both sides of her mouth on virtually any substantive issue–and then they’d ask for examples of her following through on campaign promises in the past.
So no, I don’t think it’s right or fair for Chelsea to make specific claims about what her mother thinks or what she would do or what she has done in the past unless she can be called upon to substantiate them.
On the other hand, if she just wants to say something along the lines of “Everybody please vote for my mom because she really loves this country and would be a good president”, I see nothing wrong with that.
I happen to disagree. I don’t know exactly who decided that it would be best for Chelsea to actively campaign without giving interviews, but I don’t think that her going along with that directive makes her a dimwitted tool. (A wise tool, perhaps.) YMMV.
IIRC, the Bush twins didn’t actively campaign like Chelsea is. They were mostly hidden from the public.
And still made fun of by the media.
Nope. It’s about having different standards for Clintons and for candidates one happens not to dislike nearly as much, standards that the critic holds to be putatively objective, and exposing the hypocrisy of them.
You can hold whatever visceral emotions you like, even vote on that basis. But to go beyond that into rationalization, to pretending you have reasons grounded in something respectable or objective, is mere bullshit, and required exposure and even derision.
That’s what the “The Clintons can do no right” argument is about - it’s holding up a mirror to the similarly-grounded “Obama can do no wrong” or “Democrats hate America” arguments we so often see, even here.
I take it you find nothing wrong with exploring reasons, and drawing comparisons to other candidates who remarkably have not drawn similar criticism from the persons in question for similar actions?
If you did, it would be a poor rebuttal to say, “Well if Obama/McCain/Huckabee/Paul/etc. had done the opposite, people would have said ______.” Because seriously, what criticism can’t be deflected with such an argument? I’m not sure what a logician would call it, but it’s obviously a fallacy.
The argument isn’t “People would have said”, but “YOU would have said”.
Or, to expand it a bit “YOU wouldn’t have said that about Obama/McCain/whoever for doing the same thing, We know that because they did and you didn’t.”
Calling out hypocrisy is absolutely a central and necessary part of debate. That’s what it is.
That was not what the comment said I was responding to. The comment I was responding to said that if Hillary had not continued to complain about the MSNBC comment, she would have been called weak (or something). So you are actually introducing a new theme, which is also a non-argument.
Either Hillary milked this thing and actually ended up exploiting her daughter to show her anger over someone suggesting that she exploited her daughter – or she didn’t. Any alternative scenarios have nothing to do with that. They are red herrings and deflections.
I don’t know that Obama has spent several days complaining about some offhand comment a media personality made about somebody in his family, but if he did, I’d think the same thing. I have not suspended all judgment when it comes to the Obama campaign. I thought the Bill Clinton/MLK thing was overblown, for example, and said so at the time. I probably didn’t open a thread on it, but it went away rather quickly in comparison to this one.
If Obama has sustained a lot less criticism, it’s because he hasn’t done this shit. He has teared up on the eve of every caucus or primary. He hasn’t created any morality plays about the hateful Republicans and the hateful Media.
No, calling someone a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, and it’s a non-central and unnecessary part of any debate.
So you’re saying that you don’t want to go to Chelsea? (She’s this years [del]ho[/del] model)
The hypocrisy lies in the argument; it is *not * a “characteristic or belief of the person”. It is an ad hominem argument to attack a person for conduct based on her gender, though.
Wrong again. When the debate is about standards of conduct or morality, either those standards are universally applied or they are not real standards at all. It is absolutely appropriate to point out when the latter is the case.
The relevant point is that it wouldn’t have happened to him in the first place.
They haven’t tried to destroy him. Yet.
I myself consider accusations and speculation to be irrelevant. You and I differ on what is essential and relevant to a debate. I don’t see how a debate can proceed given such differences of opinion on what the ground rules and objectives of such a discussion are.
“Actively” campaign? Why the distinction? Other than as an advance saving throw, to elevate the Bush twins above comparison, using your own standard of “active”?
The
Bush
daughters
campaigned
for
their
father.
Hell, they spoke at the Republican Convention. Surely that counts? And they generally didn’t talk to the press, just like Chelsea. So either they all (the Bush daughters and Chelsea) deserve criticism, or none of them do.
None of them do.