As a woman, I am strangely offended by the stealth aspect of Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign. Clearly, no one related to any candidate should be subjected to ad hominem attacks but let's face it, the Clintons use each other to advance complex political agendas and when charged, respond with the much heard "We all have strong and supportive spouses". Chelsea is somehow different in that she does not have to engage the public in any capacity except to ask people to vote for her mother. She is not assumed to have any insight or qualified judgment about politics or the American condition. She is not representing any constituency (like, for example, the "Ugly Betty" star). She is also not a child or eccentric to the media's campaign coverage (unlike the Rutger's basketball team-Imus situation).

I don't like the Pimped-Out comment but I also don't like Chelsea's zone of protection. I don't think Shuster should be subjected to a prolonged suspension. He does not have a history of mean-spiritedness or misogyny and is a very good journalist.

I respectfully disagree. The family members of candidates campaign all the time, wheter its on stage, on camera, or whatever. The point is not that Chelsea can't be criticized for any reason, but that it's acceptable for the anchor of a major mainstream media outlet to infer that a female is a whore because she would make calls on behalf of a family member's campaign. If this were a Jewish person, or a African-American the behavior wouldn't fly, a-la Dum Imus, or the Golf Channel noose-scandal.

The radio host who spoke of the girls basketball team as HO's was not suspended he was fired. When Shuster made that statement he said the same thing about Chelsea but because he was referring to the female species only and not a black female he is only suspended. Obama has paraded his daughters before the camera, and often spoken about their feelings about the campaign and no one dares to speak badly about them. I am like Michelle Obama and tend to use my hands when I talk and get a great many comments about that fact, but it seems that no one is speaking about her doing it. I believe that this is why so many republicans say they would prefer that the democratic candidate be HRC instead of BHO because it would be politically incorrect to hit BHO as hard as they could hit HRC simply because women are fair game as long as they are white. But any comment about BHO would be interpreted as a racial comment ( like BC's comments on the campaign trail) clearly not racial but used to fire up the black vote, by getting them offended.

You must not be viewing the same election that I am. A lot of female Clinton supporters are claiming any women that support Obama are traitors. A local chapter of NOW went so far as to call ted kennedy a triator because he supports Obama. The fact is it shouldn't matter that clinton is a woman or Obama is black. What matters is who makes the best democratic nominee. I say that is Obama. I researched very carefully the stands on the issues before I made my choice. As far a family members of candidates campaigning all he time that is true. however other political families don't put their families in a bubble and say they are off limits and then at the same time have them campaign. The clintons need to make up their mind which it is and then act accordingly.Lastly the idea that women as long as they are white are fair game is ridiuculous. The fact is there has never been a female president or a minority president. They are equally important. I have just chosen for myself which of these two candidates is the best. I also feel as a white woman I should not have to defend my choices. Bill clinton made some indefensible comments on the campaign trail. If Obama made the same comments about Clinton being a woman there would have been more made out of it not less.