You filthy little shit. I hope you don't mind my use of a common, if coarse, euphemism, which has long since lost its connection with excretory functions and now simply means someone who is a bit of a smug, self satisfied jerk. Which you are.

The issue with the term 'pimping out' is that Shuster used the absolute worst possible terms to describe behavior that was previously considered absolutely unremarkable when conducted by anyone else other than a Clinton. Neither Chelsea nor the Clintons did anything in any way that deserves to be compared to pimpery or to prostitution. Absolutely nothing.

If the Clintons are guilty of 'pimping out' Chelsea, then why didn't you media folks all jump over Mitt Romney when he pimped out his five strapping young sons all over the country? No doubt the answer is because you just didn't think of it. And you didn't think of it because there's one standard for the Clintons and another standard for everyone else.

Now as far as your sad and troubled history with the Secret Service, let it be known that the Secret Service is obliged by law to check out all threats against the presidents, whether overt, implied, or ridiculous. Cartoonists who have portrayed presidents as being hung or shot or dead have been known to get a visit from the SS. Your accusation that the Clintons personally sent the SS to harass you is just so much stinking bullshit--oh, wait, excuse me for another coarse term! But I'm sure you'll forgive this one as well, since it in no way implies that you actually produce real manure coming out of your mouth.

Beautifully put.

What's wrong with Slate now, anyway? I loved them once, not too long ago. Slate was kewlstuff, full of logic, archiac stories, funny, pithy comments and wise contributors you'd love to have a beer with.

Now they're pimping themselves out to all these irrational Clinton-haters, and honestly, even my local newspaper in Georgia has less yellow journalism. Silly, really, lose out on so much streetcred for one election.

Wait, but I turned on the TV this morning to find Chelsea Clinton HOSTING and LEADING a rally in Wisconsin, while HRC stumped in Virginia. Last I checked the Romney Quints weren't out giving speeches and holding rallies. Doesn't this make Chelsea fair game?

Fair game for what? Calling her a prostitute?

I don't know why the Romney boys couldn't give speeches or hold rallies or what difference it makes if they did it or not. There's nothing objectionable about it.

Bruce Reed here at Slate had a lot of fun with the Romney boys and the videos they made with their dad. Nowhere did he suggest that any of it was untoward or wrong or akin to prostitution. Neither did he call any of them names. In fact, even while he was making fun of them, he probably helped them out more than he hurt them.

Romney's sons did indeed give rallies, and traveled all over the country. They seem like good, upstanding guys, much like Chelsea Clinton. It wouldn't be right to call them vote pimps, or something like that.

This article is about a guy who has something stuck in his craw from TEN YEARS AGO. It's pretty sad.

Though until now I didn't know Ms. Clinton was *leading* rallies. That might make her more open to scrutiny, but hardly the kind of language Shuster used. I personally don't think it's a terminating offense, but the guy probably should get some kind of time out for what he said.

Do you really think that David Shuster meant to call Chelsea a prostitute? Really?

Also, I believe Bruce Reed perhaps suggested that one of the Romney boys (Tagg) was a closeted homosexual. Call the PC police!

I don't know what he meant, but that's what his words said.

As I attempted to point out in my post, if you call somebody a shit, you can't turn around and then claim you didn't literally call them a turd. You may not have meant it literally, but you've put them on the level of a turd. And if you call somebody 'pimped out,' then you've put them on the level of prostitutes.

And for what? Why should the Clintons get this treatment that no one else gets? What did she do that was so horrible?

I went to Stanford from 1997 to 2000. I shared one class with her (a small history colloquium) and I was her boyfriend's RA. Though I can't claim to have known her well (she was friendly, self-possessed, and very very reserved), I have nothing but a positive opinion of Chelsea.

While I'm not offended by Shuster's comment, I do, however, remember the incident with Guy Branum - which was in an entirely different league.

I was 20 back then, which was old enough to realize the language he used was grotesquely inappropriate. As I recall, it was even more outrageous in the context of the time. Berkeley students mobbed and injured our mascot at Big Game that year - an act of physical violence that left the student very traumatized. Stanford was enjoying a very successful athletic program in that period, and most of our students were shocked at the level of violence Berkeley students interjected into the campus rivalry.

As for the Secret Service - it's certainly true that they investigated every potential threat against Chelsea. One of my neighbors received a care package from a high school friend, who had, as a joke, scrawled on the outside of the package "Chelsea Clinton must die!" Though the package contained nothing but joke items, both sender and recipient faced intimidating interviews and room searches from the Secret Service.

Later, as an R.A., I actually got to know Chelsea' security detail rather well, as they would be stationed at every exit of my house when she was inside visiting. As a longtime chain smoker, I had many friendly late-night conversations with the agents assigned to covering her. Their intelligence, physical fitness, and dedication to their jobs was remarkable.

Nerdnam,

I am not sure what age group or demographic you belong to, but where I come from and for people my age, the term pimped out has a completely different meaning than the one you are assigning to it. When I hear the term pimped out, I don't think of prostitution, I don't even think of pimps.

Your analogy to calling someone "a shit" doesn't hold water, because of course you aren't literally calling them a turd, but you are calling that person a name that means "a jerk, bastard, something foul" etc. depending on the context. And, of course, that person is a jerk maybe it's appropriate.

So when this pundit says Hillary is being "pimped out" he is saying that she is being used for selfish ends, as the modern usage of "pimped out" and the context tells us. So, we have to ask...is she being trotted out for selfish ends?...OF COURSE she is!

I don't know how old Nerdham is either, but I am 58 and I know damned well that the pimped reference had no connotation of procuring for prostitution -- even if I were not aware of its frequent contemporary use (in which case, I would have likely been marooned on an island with a soccor ball named Wilson for the past decade or so), from the context is is clearly nothing more that a bit of hyperbole and overblown metaphor.

Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with Chelsea pimping campaigning for her mother -- but once she does so, the Clintons can no longer demand that the press respect her privacy in the way that they have been doing to date.

I agree Th Paine, and your statement highlights a rather irksome game Clinton has been playing in this primary. Clinton's campaign has used a great deal of misdirection and "hide the ball" when coming after Obama.

This was evidenced when Bill was doing a lot of the campaigns dirty work in SC. And of course, when Obama responded to a certain comment in a debate, Clinton responded with a lame excuse, "I didn't say that, Bill did." Obama rightly responded that he sometimes couldn't tell whom he was running against.

And he was right. Look here, the Clinton campaign can choose to have any messenger they desire if they feel that the candidate Hillary, is having trouble reaching a certain demographic (African American Women in SC or Youths in Wisconsin). But when you "pimp out" a person for your campaign you can't cry foul when the media, voters, or pundits call you out on it.

PS to Nerdnam: I have used a considerable amount of colloquial language in this post. If you need it translated into olde English or a vernacular that you're more familiar with let me know.

If you're 58, you'll remember when many people didn't see anything wrong with using the expression that involved finding an 'n-word' in a woodpile or woodshed. They also claimed they didn't 'mean' to cast any negative asperations on African Americans, they were just using an expression.

However the expression just doesn't work without the negative asperations of the n-word. Likewise, "pimping" just doesn't work without its negative connotations, which have more to do exploitation and abuse rather than sex. There is also the fact that the 'pimp' is a racial stock figure in our day.

Yes, many people out there are stupid and don't know what the words that fall out of their mouths might mean. I don't think we can take these people as the standard, however.

maverjoe: if you call someone a shit, you're saying they're like something dirty.

If you call someone a pimp, you're saying they're like someone who sells women's bodies and takes the money for himself. And a 'pimped out' person is like a woman who is forced to sell her body by some abusive pimp. That's the sense of the word.

You can't say that 'pimping' is an innocent phrase that doesn't mean much and then in the same breath claim that someone deserves to be compared to pimps. That's a contradiction.

No...the current meaning of the term shit is something vile

the current meaning of the term to Pimp out is to use someone else for your own advantage.

Are you saying that the American public was confused and thought that Shuster was saying that Hillary Clinton was selling her daughters sexual services for money? Did the Wisconsin police launch an investigation into a possible all Clinton prostitution ring? OR, is it more likely that everybody but you knew exactly what was meant by this comment.

The feigned indignation is getting silly.

So if my co-worker refers to me as a 'dick,' should I logically assume he has put me on the level of penises? Oh my!

Interesting. Others use "pimped out" as a term signifying improvement. If I took my car to the mechanic and payed him to "pimp it out," what would he do?

Should I check for stains on my uphostery?