I don't think any card carrying member of the corporate mainstream media, especially one associated with the Clinton-Gore hating MSNBC crowd, would ever have said that any other Presidential candidate was "pimping out" his or her child. That's the kind of coarse language reserved for the Clintons. Furthermore, what's wrong or "weird" with Chelsea Clinton campaigning for her mother? This point has been made before, but the children of candidates routinely campaign for their parents and nobody thinks twice about it. The "boys" of MSNBC have a definite problem with Hillary Clinton, as anyone who saw the loopy Chris Matthews criticize her "Chinese clapping" must attest. It's tiresome to see how other members of the media, including careerist liberals, close ranks around their fellow journalists and refuse to acknowledge the obvious. As the old saying goes, "None are so blind as they who will not see." As otherwise stated, "It's impossible to convince someone of something whose livelihood depends on not being convinced." Everyone, apparently, wants to be invited onto Hardball. What do you think the reaction would have been if someone had suggested that Cheney was "pimping out" his daughters in a weird way in 2004? Pretty self-evident, isn't it? Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing gong show would still be bellowing about it.

I think this author is more concerned with the hypocrisy of putting Chelsea in the spotlight, but not allowing her to be criticized or keeping her from interacting with the press. I've heard the press comment that Clinton's campaign is not as open to the press as some others, though, too. For examples of other candidate's adult children getting flack, look no further than Cheney's lesbian daughter, the drunken Bush twins, the gun-toting dog-torturing Huckabee son, Romney's military-service-dodging sons, and more. A little bit of Google goes a long way. 'Pimping out' is a youthful version of 'exploiting' but probably a bad turn of phrase for a big cable-news show like Hardball.

To augur in an era of change America will need a light deft managerial touch at the helm. Hillary has a reputation for going after people she feels crossed her. Blowing up a reporter's career and threatening to boycott substantive dialogue with MSNBC is not the act of a leader likely to smoothly initiate D.C. bi-partisanship.

I agree with Ed Szewczyk's previous comments on Hillary's always being in a fight.

about what they feel are important topics. It happens all the time on every channel and on every side of the political debate. It has always happened and it will happen always.

Part of the reason this happens is because of our collective focus on the "horse race" rather than on substantive issues. Real discourse on policy takes a back seat to gossip and prediction. It's more exciting and junkies like us can't get enough.

Finally, I'll just say that if the Clinton were so offended by Shuster why in the world aren't they clamoring to get the real violators off the air permanently? I think I know why.

Why would someone "clamor" to get another person permanently off the air? I don't get what you're driving at.

I have never heard any commentator refer to John Kerry, George Bush, mitt romney and his four sons (none of which are in the armed forces), pimping their kids. that kind of language is saved for the clintons. Hillary had every right to be angry. many year ago when margaret truman sang and got a blistering review, her dad said he would punch out the reporter if they were ever in the same room. so nothing has changed we defend our kids. david schuester is right where he belongs at home with a long timeout. I think I will have to go to cnn and get my news.

The Clintons are pathetic and their games are outdated. How many times has their message had to be retooled so they could say what you wnt to hear? Barack hasnt changed anything since he started! Enough said...NO MORE DRAMA in the whitehouse!!!!

Chelsea Clinton is not a child. Any 28 year old that enters politics by making campain speeches is emancipated and open to all the arrows of politics. For H. Clinton to send the daughter out to campain but claim her to be a defenseless child is more of the Clinton doublespeak-- a campainer who is not a campainer. This whole topic is illustritive of how the Clintons throw smoke in the air while stealing the silver. Does anyone- even their defenders- want 4 more years of wearisome Clinton behavior?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Chelsea campaigning for her mother, but when she is given access to campaign tools and information that only public figures have, such as cell phone numbers of super delegates, she becomes a public figure. Right or wrong, all the controversy does is further substantiate the image of Hillary as humorless and unapproachable. Many of the same people who are up in arms about the pimping remark were also critical of Dick Cheney calling his politically active lesbian daughter off limits. We can't have it both ways.

The media does put the Clintons through a lot of unfair scrutiny. They always have. Hillary was often the one to call the media out. As a first lady, that was debatably a good role. Now, however, she's auditioning for the role of commander in chief and playing the victim card only enhances her vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

i would say this goes a long way towards seeing bills wife in her true form,,and it aint pretty....

I saw Chelsea Clinton speak on her mother's behalf last week, and all policy and polictics aside, she seems to be an intelligent, articulate young woman. Because she is so obviously intelligent, it amazes me that she would choose to put herself in the public eye and not expect to be watched. She also has been surrounded by politics her entire life, and I can't imagine she didn't think she would be criticized, whether it was deserved or not. If she made the decision to travel and campaign for Hillary, Chelsea would have been well-aware of the potential consequences and by setting foot on stage, accepted those consequences. If she was pressured to go out and get the support of the country's youth, then perhaps the dictionary definition of "pimped" wasn't too far off. I agree that it may have been used in poor taste, but it's fairly obvious the intent wasn't sexual.

I am a 25-year-old woman, and my parents explained to me at an early age that my actions had consequences, and I should consider them before I acted on anything. Judging by the actions of my peers in the media (Britney & Jamie Lynne Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, etc.), not everyone got that lecture. For Hillary to imply that the media can't throw darts at the bull's eye on Chelsea's forehead only reinforces what so many people my age haven't been taught. If it had been my DUI or cocaine in my pocket, I would rightfully expect to be put in jail--for far more than a few hours. That's why I don't do drugs. If I was wearing a short skirt and getting out of a Mercedes surrounded by cameras, I would wear underwear and keep my legs together. If I were campaigning for my mother in a high-profile Presidential race, I would expect the media to criticize myself and my family, fair or not.

Money and power should not have the ability to remove consequences, especially in a country founded on equality and freedom of speech. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Goota chuckle about all the words here to defend the Clintons and baby Chelsea, the masters of the politics of personal distruction have suddenly become pure. Give me a break, the Clinton's cannot and should not be defended, period. They remain a blight on this country, when will we be finished with these people and their Chinese backers.

Right on, I agree 100 %

Can you imagine the reaction if David Shuster
had said "Obama is pimping out his wife" because
she is stumping for him? Can you imagine the
justified outrage? Yet for some reason Hillary
and her daughter are fair game (from both the
right and the left).

"playing the victim card only enhances her vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

Oh, I see she should just do nothing?

Like John Kerry did nothing when he as swiftboated.

Like Al Gore did nothing when the media was rife with stories of

him claiming to have invented the internet. etc..

If she did nothing, she'd be heavily (and rightly) criticized for

being a doormat.