My late mother would be horrified to read the comments by her fellow alum Guy Branum about Miss Clinton.

First, to suggest "pimping out" your daughter is a common reference approved by parents everywhere is silly. I think most mom's would object to someone suggesting they were pimping out their own daughter. Certainly people of my and Hillary's generation would be(yeah, yeah, yeah, we're old squares). Its meaning may be shifting, I grant you, but it has hardly been rendered powerless of its degrading meaning.

Second, that Miss Clinton has chosen to speak out about her political beliefs does not mean she has given up all privacy and the right to be treated with respect. She has not shaved her head in public, spread her legs for photographers, or been rushed repeatedly to mental hospitals. She also isn't "a national political figure," she's the child of one. Miss Clinton has never run for office, held office, or done anything to be a public figure. She hasn't flaunted her private life. She participated in political discourse, as I am here. She has the right to express her views in public, as all Americans may, without foregoing the right of personal privacy. One may certainly argue with her views, but calling her a whore is not doing so (and a girl who is "pimped out" is a whore).

Third, while the Secret Service may have over-reacted to your mis-quotation to trash Miss Clinton, it is not an uncommon reaction to such situations. Wander the White House on tour and make jokes about killing Mr. Bush. See what happens. Heck, stand at an airport bar and mention that bomb in your briefcase loudly and see what happens even if you are only talking about a bad play someone wants you to produce. The Secret Service takes the idea of harm to the President and his family seriously and I am not sure we want them to do any less. If someone had suggested anything concerning my daughter. her bloody carcass, and I had my own Secret Service, I assure you'd have had a visit and not as polite a one.

Last, you haven't presented any evidence that Senator Clinton has "used" her daughter, calculated or otherwise. If my mom were running for president, I would be a vocal advocate for her even if she asked me to shut up (she's been dead some five years now and I suggest she would do a better job than the current occupant even in her current condition). I would be willing to bet Miss Clinton supports her mom and would like to help. A child being proud and supportive of her mom isn't all that rare, particularly once the child isn't a teenager any longer.

I wrote for my student newspaper, The Pacifican, (Go Tigers!) and managed to be sufficiently controversial the University President hit me in the face with his closed fist, so I can relate to your goals, but I am not sure your latest column indicates you learned much at Stanford (and your parents spent all that money!) or since.

Have you considered become a lawyer where being fast and loose with the facts isn't frowned upon?

MacAdvisor, please learn how to read before posting. Appearantly at The Pacifican they didn't teach you reading comprehension well enough to see that the author of the article went to UC Berkeley, while Chelsea Clinton attended the rival school Stanford.

Have you considered night school considering that at almost any job in the world getting the facts totally wrong is normally seen as a minus?

Being fast and loose with the facts as a lawyer ends up causing a very short career. Unless you head to Washington, D.C.

Apparently she got the school wrong. Darn.

Of course, that says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of her critique of the writer. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the criticism is valid?

JBR, you pointed out an unsubstantial mistake in a fray reaction (not an edited article where we have seen worse mistkes) and used that to trash the author. Do you want other people to point out that you should hardly debate anything if you cannot spell "apparently" or use spellcheck? Chill out, dude.

The problem becomes that she made herself a public figure by participating openly in her mother's campaign. She didn't have to leave her job (I assume given the amount of time she is spending with her mom), she chose to pursue a high profile position in the campaign. Therefore, she has chosen to make herself the focus of media attention and therefore, based on reasoning not too far removed from that considered by the Supreme Court in such cases, she is a public person. Her use/role in the campaign is absolutely open to examination by the media. Much like the author's column title was mangled, so was Shuster's statement. While it may not have been a smart thing to say or wording to use, the essence of the comment is not inappropriate for a journalist to consider.

It was bad journalism, and rude behavior; Chelsea's role in her mother's campaign doesn't excuse it.

tosch, you are right, except that the wording is not mangled, but simply derogatory and inappropriate. I agree that it would be very appropriate to discuss Chelsea Clinton's public role, and to criticize her for whatever (although I do think it is her choice whether she wants to takl to the press or not), but it should be in appropriate language, as should be criticism of e.g. the POTUS. I think that's not hard to understand.

traugott, I don't believe getting the school wrong in the title of the piece is unsubstantial. Not when they keep coming back to it. And yes, I do believe it is important to read the article carefully enough to get the key points straight before attacking it. Call me crazy that way.

And before you comment on someone else's typos, learn how to use spellcheck yourself or your post could be full of "mistkes" [sic].

I don't say Chelsea is a whore for campaigning for her mother. I say she's a whore for working for the McKinsey Co., a consulting firm famous for advising its American clients to move operations overseas. I say she's a whore for working for the Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund. And I won't say Hillary or Bill are pimps. Seems that Chelsea has become a corporate ho all by herself.

A "hedge fund"???????????

The horror....

You're all wet.

Chelsea is a grown woman engaging in very high profile campaigning for a political candidate. She's doing this by choice and free will. Her comments, positions, style even, are fully within the realm of scrutiny and criticism.

And I'm not sure where you get the idea that Guy Branum is suggesting we invade Chelsea Clinton's "privacy." He's simply saying she's as fair game as anyone who engages in public campaigning for a politician, and that politics are rough.

And Schuster's and Branum's suggestions that the Clintons are using Chelsea is simply opinion commentary, not being presented as some sort of "fact." Of course it's opinion.

By the way, I didn't like the term "pimping out" that Schuster used, either. I found it to be further evidence of how coarse our culture has become, and the on-going degradation of journalism. Imagine Walter Cronkite using that term on national television.

(1) JBR, don't you understand that you took a factual mistake as an excuse to sharply attack a reasonable post, without any substantial argument from your end?

(2) Do you understand that simply asserting the fact that the school matters does not help your cause, unless you can tell us how it matters?

(3) Do you understand that I calling you on your typo/orthographic error was an example of meaningless attacks like I felt you did in (1), that I was giving you your own medicine? I am sorry that your aggressive style in your first post made me write somewhat aggressively myself.

(4) I do quite a few typos, and if you want (after reading (3)), you can attack me for that. It still does not help your cause a lot.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are foolish prig that can't see the forest because of a few leaves on the ground.

I am sorry, I just don't get it. Perhaps because of my receding hairline and expanding waistline and my over 50 years on this planet I am out of touch. Perhaps, but I don't think so. Since when does a daughter going on the stump for a parent present an open invitation to attack and ridicule? Has she lied? Has she said anything at all controversial? No, she simply has gone on the trail to support her mother, who whether you like or hate, is an accomplished woman with much to offer to her current constituents and any that the future holds.

Was she forced to go out there and speak? Could that be the genesis of the "pimped out" remark? Did her parents threaten to disinherit her if she didn't get out there and lie about Mom? Trash her Mom, sure she is a public figure running for office. But to trash someone for simply saying publicly that she believes in her Mom is indefensible.

One word for the actions of Messers Shuster and Branum, and all that support this as journalism ... despicable.