Let me start by saying that, no, I don't believe David Shuster was actually implying that Chelsea Clinton is a prostitute.

Also, I don't have a problem with scrutiny of public figures, but I'm just wondering why only Chelsea Clinton is worthy of having her life torn apart in the name of this "scrutiny?"

Mitt Romney's 5 sons were active in their father's campaign, but nobody looked at it like anything other than the fact that the Romneys are such a strong family (heck, the only time they were ever the issue is because Mitt said that they were serving their country by helping him get elected instead of serving in that war he loves so much...but even then, the story was about Mitt's crassness in saying that, not the fact that Tagg and the gang weren't serving). Meghan McCain is out there doing her thing, and all we hear about is how it shows that how independent and authentic she is (she's such a little maverick just like her dad!)

But Chelsea Clinton gets out there to do nothing more than campaign for her own mother and there somehow must be something nefarious about her motives (and by extension, her mother's motives...she's such a cynical opportunist just like her mom!).

Should she be immune from criticism? Of course not (although, seriously, when has anyone ever treated someone named "Clinton" as immune from criticism?). But I'm just wondering whether or not this movement that we have to scrutinize Chelsea is going to subject her to the same level of scrutiny and criticism as Meghan McCain or Tagg Romney or Sarah Huckabee or Cate Edwards...

Actually, who am I kidding? I'm not "wondering" that at all...they aren't called the Clinton Rules for nothing...

Amen!

Although I disagree with you about the use of the word "pimp" because I think it's slang usage can't be divorced from it's etymology, I think that somewhat misses the larger point. What really bothers me about this episode is that it's applied so selectively to Chelsea Clinton.

For example, Mitt Romney has five grown sons and none of them were encouraged to serve in the military, yet we're supposed to take it on faith that daddy Mitt understands the sacrifices that soldiers make? Gimme a break.

You see, you may or may not agree with the paragraph above, but you never heard it bandied about on MSNBC. David Shuster (or Chris Matthews or whoever) didn't casually disparage and insult the Romney boys - not at all. And yet when the Clintons complain about mistreatment it's whining? Well let's see you treat everyone fairly first and then if someone complains we can decide if it's whining.

For now it looks like someone got called on his B.S.

Do you not remember what happened when Romeny claimed that his sons were serving their country by serving in his campaign? They were all roasted.

Second, Chelsea wasn't a worker bee in the campaign. She was calling the super delegates who will decide the nomination. It fits a pattern of the Clintons protecting their daughter from any and all media coverage, until it's in their political interest to use her. I think that's it's perfectly valid to make that point.

Third, etymology can be very strange. Pander originally meant "arranger of sexual liaisons" while pimp meant one who dresses elegantly.

So if you really want to go back to original meanings, Romney the "Pander Bear" is the real insult, Shuster merely said that Hillary dresses Chelsea nicely.

"It fits a pattern of the Clintons protecting their daughter from any and all media coverage, until it's in their political interest to use her. I think that's it's perfectly valid to make that point."

But what IS that point? That the Clintons are self-interested and don't care about anything, even their own daughter, when it's politically convenient to them?

If that's the point you want to make (and I'm guessing it is...and I know it's what the author is trying to say), fine. But why go after Chelsea Clinton but not, say, Meghan McCain? Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mom an example of her being cynically exploited by her nefarious mother, who doesn't care about her or anything else except inasmuch as she can be a political asset...while Meghan McCain and the Romneys and Sarah Huckabee and all the rest working for their dads are just an example of how strong these families are and how these kids just believe in their dads so much!

And I'd just propose, to you and to the guy that wrote this article, that the fact that the Clintons shielded 12-year-old Chelsea from being a public figure when she was a child (not that it stopped John McCain from telling jokes about how ugly she was...) has nothing to do with, really, anything right now.