You're letting your distaste for the Clintons cloud your judgment on this one. Shuster should go. His half-hearted apology suggests he doesn't get it. And, yes, the Clintons did a superb job of raising a child in the White House.
 

Half-hearted apology? What should he do, fall on his knees and beg forgiveness?
 

Chelsea isn't the candidate ... Hello, if your parents were the Clintons, wouldn't you want to grow money and stay out of the public eye? Not everyone needs to be public servant, artist, academic, etc.
 

Look, the Clintons had their arses dragged through the mud with all sorts of name calling (much in excess of the legitimate criticism they may have deserved) for 8+ years. Hillary learned from those years not to take any more of that kind of disrespect, not for one day, without hitting back, and hard. I don't blame her one bit. And any parent, whatever the age of your kids, feels protective toward your offspring. Maybe someday, Richard, you'll see this.
 

oops, I messed up the possessive adjectives. point is still the same.
 

Like the Clintons have never taken advantage of Chelsea for political purposes before? I seem to remember a certain photo of her walking across the White House lawn holding her parents' hands.....

The Clintons can't use Chelsea as a prop, then get upset when people point that out, even if it's in tacky language. I suspect they get so angry about it because they know that, basically, it's true.
 

Not to delve too deeply, but perhaps you are sensitive to the issue of the protection of a former President's child as they reach the age of thirty and beyond...?
 

Totally agreed, RB. Clinton "outrage" is getting to be a tired joke. They're like the annoying neighbors who can't tell when a conversation is over. You think, "don't they have homes?" To quote Hemingway by way of Carver: will you please, please be quiet please?
 

Whether the Clinton's outrage is real, manufactured, or a mix of the two, who can blame them for going nuclear. They had to for both human and political reasons. So you are wrong about that.

You are entirely right about the Clintons not allowing Chelsea to address it directly, as an adult woman, saying that not only is she not being pimped out, but it's an honor to accompany and campaign for her mother and here's why....BIG missed opportunity.
 

This is just a huge generational gap being exposed. The word "pimp" has become commonplace these days (unfortunately, I certainly agree) as both a description of someone who has proved adept at something (and rarely used as a noun in the literal sense) or as a verb, usually meaning to re-fashion something into something fresh and new.

While he was using it - however jokingly - in the original sense, the word is simply tossed about all the time these days, so I think some people just don't realize how common it has become - making it a lesser offense. Again, however, I think it's an incredibly lame development.
 

It should be fair game for the press to look at Chelsea's role in the campaign, as well as her career. What kind of clients does her hedge fund have? Are they investing in the hedge fund to get access to HRC? These are legitimate questions.

But let's be honest. Shuster was calling Chelsea a whore. Plain and simple. That is way beyond the pale. And it is so obviously offensive it is amazing that one even needs to point out how offensive it is.

Shame on you, Richard, for not recognizing the difference between legitimate journalism and offensive attacks. Shame on you.
 

Oh puh-lease.
 

Imagine, 7:36—someone calling a politician a whore. What a horrible thought. You're so right.

In fact, the sexism is yours, for still thinking of Hillary as a girl-child. She's not. She's a woman. Would you treat an almost 30-year-old man with the same level of protectiveness you extend to Chelsea? Clearly not, you chauvinist pig.

So let's set the record straight on a couple matters.

First, Chelsea Clinton, a young woman after college with every opportunity in the world, went to work for a consulting firm, then a hedge fund. If one of the Bush daughters had done that, can you imagine the criticism they'd hear from liberals?

Clearly, she doesn't need her mother to pimp her out; she can pimp herself out just fine.

And a matter of linguistic accuracy: When you accuse a person of pimping someone out, the real insult is not to the pimped, but the pimp; not, in other words, to Chelsea, but to her parents. (Although urban dictionary has yet another definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimp+out).

Another reason why the Clintons' outrage is silly: They're defending Chelsea, when the real insult is directed at them. Their outrage is just manufactured to try to get some political momentum—and they're pimping Chelsea out to do it.
 

Sorry, make that "still thinking of Chelsea as a girl-child."
 

That post is so absurd it is almost not worth responding to. But here goes.

I made it clear that Chelsea's professional record should be fair game. I disagree that we liberals hold her to a different standard than the Bush daughters. I for one would be thrilled if one of them got a job at McKinsey. That's real work. You may get the job based on your name, but you don't get to sit around based on it. If one of the Bush's worked there I would think, hmmm, maybe I was wrong to thing she was a ditzy sorority girl.

Second, regarding the "linguistic accuracy," yes, you're insulting Hillary (calling her a pimp), but what are you saying about Chelsea? What do pimps do? They control a group of whores. So to say HRC is "pimping out" Chelsea means that the pimp is getting the whore out on the street to pick up johns. And if that is not offensive, than I don't know what is.

There is no doubt that the Clintons wanted to have it both ways with Chelsea in the White House in the 1990s. I recall that they were outraged when Mike Myers said she was ugly on Wayne's World on Saturday Night Live and they called the show. And then, yes, they wanted her to stand with them to show familial solidarity when the Lewinsky thing happened. But I think you are confusing that history with this.

This is different. There is clearly a different standard with the Clintons. They can be called everything -- murderers, drug dealers, and now pimps and whores. And it is considered completely acceptable.

Let me turn it back to you. What would be the reaction if the press said Obama was hopping {or insert some other favorite drug slang} based on his past drug use?

And for what its worth, you've never shown that Chelsea has done anything wrong, except that she had the temerity to work for a consulting firm and a hedge fund, which in your anti-capitalism world view is a sin beyond forgiveness.

What happened to basic journalistic standards? To civility?
 

Think Twice, as I said in the original post, I think the remark went too far. We agree on this. But if the Clintons are going to try to exploit the remark with exaggerated outrage for political gain, it's fair to say, Fine, you want to go down that road? Let's go down it.

And for the record, I am not anti, but pro-capitalist. I think any pro-capitalist person of some moderate degree of intelligence would be skeptical of both the consulting biz and hedge funds.

Finally, I also think it's reasonable to suggest that someone who's grown up in the White House, with all the amazing opportunities that Chelsea had (on the taxpayers' dime), probably ought to give back a bit more than one does by working at a hedge fund.

But hey, that's just me....
 

Novelist Elinor Lipman has this exactly right in the Sunday Globe.