There are long-established, objective rules about debate standards. It isn’t a matter of you and me “differing”, it’s a matter of your not knowing them.
As for your “none of them do” comment, can we see some objection from you to the Bushes’ pimping out of their own daughters, so we can get this hypocrisy thing out of the way? Hint: It may be too late for that already, but it may not be.
You are correct. I know of no such debate rules that encourage or even advocate name-calling or speculating about fabricated alternative scenarios instead of addressing the question. Care to share a link?
I object! I object to the way the Bush girls were treated! There you go. Not sure it would make me a hypocrite if I felt otherwise. My position is simply that Hillary has milked this and exacerbated it by milking it, not that Chelsea is a ho or ought to be called one. I myself find that “reading” to be ridiculous and don’t think anyone believes for one second that it’s what Shuster meant.
I stand corrected. (I actually threw “actively” in there as kind of a disclaimer. Perhaps I should have ASKED if it SEEMED like MAYBE they didn’t actively campaign. 
)
I remembered their speech, but thought of it as more of a bad amateur comedy hour bit.
I also think that there’s a difference in that Chelsea probably knows more about politics than the Bush twins combined. Whether that difference is relevant, I don’t know; but I think that people perceive them differently. Is there a difference between, say (to use 2 different extremes) Bill Clinton campaiging for his wife, and a 22 year old Bush daughter campaiging for her father? One is a political veteran saying “this is why my wife is the best candidate”, and the other is basically a cheerleader saying “I love my daddy. Please vote for him.”
Also, Is it common for candidates’ family members that are campaiging to refuse interviews?
Well, maybe I should have been a touch less accusatory. The “actively” clause did frankly puzzle me.
I can’t believe anyone would think otherwise. 
Bill Clinton campaigning is an almost unique case – he’s a former President, which a very short list. The only relevant comparison is to Bush 41 campaigning for Bush 42, his son, and I recall that GHWB did indeed campaign and , IIRC, it wasn’t thought that extraordinary.
Yes – the spouse or children of a campaigner usually only interview with someone who is friendly to the campaign and is trusted to lob softball questions like how they decorated the Taft dining room, or how important educating kids is (Jackie Kennedy would probably be the most pure example of this treatment, but hardly unique). You wouldn’t see Bill O. or Hannity (or pick some other aggressive interviewer) making screaming, finger pointing accusations of treason at Romney’s sons, for example, because they’d decline the interview because they’re not stupid. I can’t recall a case in a national election where family of a candidate weren’t treated this way and its not unusual at all.
Actually I can recall one case – Lynne Cheney going off on Wolf Blitzer when she was promoting a book. Lynne got peeved when the topic veered to the lesbian-themed bodice ripper she’d authored some time before. She damned near decapitated that guy, although it looked pretty rehearsed on Lynne’s part to me at the time, that Lynne had shown up ready to take a scalp or two. But what the hell, it was more entertaining than “rhymes with witch”.
Missed the edit window.
ETA: The Lynne Cheney example is actually not an example – this was October 2006, so her husband wasn’t running for anything. The timing suggests that it was done to influence mid-terms (and she made pointed nasty comments about Jim Webb who was running for the Senate in VA, using a talking point of the day from the GOP), but she wasn’t strictly the family of a candidate.
I maintain that using in her in the campaign eliminates the Clinton family claim that she is off limits. Wheether or not that is “pimping her” is immaterial to the fact that once she places herself as an active campaigner her actions should be fair game for fodder for criticism, whether I believe the cricism is justified or unjustified.
If she wants to jump in the water then she better be aware that she is swimming with the sharks. If she needs Mommy’s protection from the sharks then she needs to stay out of the water.
Certainly she’s fair *game * for criticism, but responsibility still requires one to consider if the *criticism * is fair - or, for that matter, appropriately targeted.