Guy is correct when he asserts that Chelsea Clinton is no longer an unassailable target for reporters. In fact, now that she has willingly embraced politics and is publicly working in the family business she should expect to be fodder for late night comedians and cartoon satirists.

When Bill Clinton first took office in the early nineties they were right for protecting their little girl from the harsh and merciless limelight that politics have become. But as Guy pointed out, she is now 28 years old and has willingly joined the political fray in this nation. For Senator Clinton and her husband to act like their daughter cannot be criticized or lampooned like any other adult in this country is ridiculous.

Remember if Hillary wins and serves 2 full terms Chelsea will be old enough to run for president. Will Chelsea still be able to proclaim herself off limits to criticism and lampooning as she claims experience back to her play pen when Daddy was a governor?

Chelsea must learn that if you jump in the mud hole you're going to get mud all over yourself. Look how the Bush girls were treated as they drank themselves stupid and did illegal drugs. They were skewered and rightly so. Chelsea does not get a free ride either.

How is objecting to being called a prostitute asking to be 'off limits?'

The problem with the Shuster comment is that he used the vilest language to characterize an utterly inoffensive and absolutely commonplace activity. Every candidate in this race has offspring and most of them have publicly supported their parents. Why is Chelsea the one who is singled out and called a hooker?

So given that, as you say, Chelsea has willingly and publicly joined a political campaign is it then reasonable to describe her having done so as having been "pimped out?" Either she is an adult who has made her own choice or she isn't-- but she can't be both.

I don't accept your evident assumption that having joined the campaign automatically means she needs to be the object of ungracious behavior-- and that such behavior can so simply be excused.

"pimped out" has so many meanings today it has lost most of its sexual impact.

Okay so the Clintons are allowed a free ride. No one is allowed to use anything negative or the critiquers are bunch of meanies who should lose their jobs. Sheesh.

Chelsea is not a helpless little girl anymore and this episode hurts the Clintons far more than it helps them. Also there are millions of people who consider politicians whores in that they sell themselves to what ever group promises to give them enough money to win their next campaign. I read the comment in the context in which it was used and did not even think about Chelsea as a sexual whore. But hey I am just a plain ole American so what do i know about anything.

Politics in America is a mean business. The Clintons play it as mean as anyone else. For everyone to act as if Chelsea gets a different set of rules than everybody else in the nation is ridiculous. We have no monarchy and Chelsea isn't a fairy tale princess.

Late night comedians have been skewering politicians and their family members for years. Chelsea took the public political stage willingly so she is no longer immune to comment, satire or political opinions. She is 28 not 13.

All very nice-- none of it an excuse for bad behavior. You don't have to believe me; next time you're in the principal's office, ask whether two wrongs make a right.

Its certainly not an excuse to force a man from his livelyhood either and thats far worse than anything he said.

I think the Clintons owe that reporter an apology. Their " moral outrage" was out of line.

Haven't been to a principles office for many decades now. Many of them are younger than myself and defer to me as their taxpayer employer.

um...last time I checked, Chelsea didn't drink herself stupid and do illegal drugs, like the Bush girls apparently. What does this have to do with the topic again?

Read the entire post. I never said Chelsea did drugs or drank heavily. But Chelsea did choose of her own free will to enter into today's modern political process and help her candidate of choice. Because she is a famous person and because she chose to enter politics of her own free will, she is no longer immune to scrutiny, or lampooning or satire.

It is proper to protect the children of our nations politicians as they must sometimes make unpopular decisions. But once those children are adults, and particularly if they enter the political arena of their own free will, then those kid gloves are no longer appropriate and indeed are in appropriate.

No, Shuster merely said her mother was 'pimping her out,' which would imply that Chelsea Clinton was indeed a whore, since the persons pimps pimp out are whores..  Oh, 'the word [pimp] has lost most of its sexual impact,'  you say.

Okay, fine.  Barack Obama is pimping out his wife and daughter.  Which means Michelle is a grown-up whore, and his daughter are kiddie whores.  But not really, because according to you, this usage is perfectly innocent.  Just a more vivid way of saying, 'exploiting.'  No sexual impact.  And because Michelle and the little girls are part of the campaign, perfectly justified.  

Let's try a few more, shall we?  Dick Cheney is pimping out his lesbian daughter.  John Edwards is pimping out his terminally-ill wife.  Nancy Pelos is pimping out her five grandchildren.  Rather than continue, I invite others to submit their examples.  I imagine the list will be pretty long.

Why do I suspect that you, and especially Branum--a man who when he was at Standord "jokingly" encouraged his classmates to kill Chelsea Clinton and--would never give a pass to a a TV host who said, Barack Obama is pimping out his wife and daughters...?

Why do I suspect that if a TV host--or anybody else--said that about Obama, the howls of 'racism!!!' would be heard on the moon?

Why do I suspect that, beneath all those oh-so-reasonable rationalizations, is nothing more than that old, tired hatred of all the Clintons?

Having already distinguished himself years ago with his comments on Chelsea Clinton - comments that are in my view, much worse than what Granum himself calls "over the top -" Mr. Granum would do all parties involved, including us/me as readers, a favor by not writing about her at all for, say, a decade or so.

I write as a supporter not of the Clinton candidacy, but of Senator Obama, and as a writer, observor/thinker, and as a woman, parent, and human being. Mr. Granum's crude thought/writing is a waste of everyone's time.

Isn't there already enough of this kind of pseudo-journalism and unthinking waste of public space, digitally speaking? (More than enough, in my view.)

Why do I suspect that you, and especially Branum--a man who when he was at Standord "jokingly" encouraged his classmates to kill Chelsea Clinton and--would never give a pass to a a TV host who said, Barack Obama is pimping out his wife and daughters...?

Why do I suspect that if a TV host--or anybody else--said that about Obama, the howls of 'racism!!!' would be heard on the moon?

Why do I suspect that, beneath all those oh-so-reasonable rationalizations, is nothing more than that old, tired hatred of all the Clintons?


------------------------------­-----------------------------

With all due respect, I suspect you "WANT" to suspect that anyone who does not support your candidate is doing so because she is a woman. It makes it that much easier for you to get all upset, and then you do not have to think about any serious retort. Just scream out sexism and male chauvenism and your thinking is all done.

Of course I could be wrong but I SUSPECT I am not.