The author of this article just doesn't get it. It is the very suggestion that somehow the Clinton campaign is being crass and opportunistic by "deploying" Chelsea that is offensive. Did anybody wonder whether Mitt Romney is "pimping" his sons? How about John McCain's daughter? Why is Chelsea's participation in the campaign perceived as "crass" and "manipulative"?

Of course that is not the issue.

The issues are:

1. The Clintons have long declared Chelsea off limits to the press -- no interviews, no questions...which is fine, especially when she was a child, but you cannot have her part of the campaign and still be off limits.
2. The reaction on their part was over the top -- which is too common a pattern (and I LIKE the Clintons).

DebbieR:

The author of this article just doesn't get it. It is the very suggestion that somehow the Clinton campaign is being crass and opportunistic by "deploying" Chelsea that is offensive. Did anybody wonder whether Mitt Romney is "pimping" his sons? How about John McCain's daughter? Why is Chelsea's participation in the campaign perceived as "crass" and "manipulative"?

I'm afraid I don't agree. Now I'm among the "youth vote" and I can say that I find it highly exploitive that Hillary Clinton who as recently as 2006 called my generation lazy, now sends out her own daughter to try and court my vote.

I don't doubt Hillary Clinton worked very hard for everything she ever had. But so have I, and I've done it with a lot more student loan debt than her or her daughter ever had to accumulate, so, please, don't call me lazy.

Secondly, Chelsea who has up until this point been completely absent from the public eye, suddenly appears in Wisconsin on a college campus. There is no other word for this than exploitative. They are exploiting the youngest member of their family to try to "relate" to me. A lazy young lawyer with $100,000 worth of debt.

"The author of this article just doesn't get it. It is the very suggestion that somehow the Clinton campaign is being crass and opportunistic by "deploying" Chelsea that is offensive."

OK, I was wondering that. I didn't understand what the source of the offense was. I can see what you're saying at least, although I still don't think it's offensive. I suppose this is ultimately a matter of what people find crass and opportunistic -- a question of taste really. While I don't personally find the "deployment" of Chelsea to be all that crass and opportunistic, I do find it to be a transparent attempt to address Hillary's generational demographic disadvantages, and I can see why some would find it to be an outright crass and opportunistic use of their daughter's youth (espcially when she looks painfully shy and uncomfortable in most of the press events they've sent her to).

And even if not everyone agrees, I certainly think it's a fair point to make, just as it is a fair point to disagree with. As others have said, the language used was coarse and crude (particularly to the ears of people from the age demographic that typically votes for Clinton), but I am always leery of attempts to squelch or punish discourse on the grounds of "offensiveness." To my mind, it's fair to agree or disagree with Shuster's comment. But if the point was simply that he felt their use of Chelsea was crass and opportunistic, I certainly think that is a viewpoint that at least deserves airing.

There seems to be a weird disconnect, here. Scrutiny doesn't mean insulting people, or calling them prostitutes, as Shuster did. Being in the public eye doesn't merit calling for the murder of a person, as Branum did.

Did Branum happen to mention that, in his article, he asked for Ms. Clinton's death (facetiously) and then named the dorm at which people could find her? No wonder the authorities came to look for him.

Let's recap. Press scrutiny? Fine. She doesn't want to give a formal interview? Fine. Calling her a prostitute? Not fine. Calling for her death? Not fine.

That's the crux of the issue. All the other stuff is just misdirection.

tunaslurpee:

recap. Press scrutiny? Fine. She doesn't want to give a formal interview? Fine. Calling her a prostitute? Not fine. Calling for her death? Not fine.

Sorry, but I only half agree. Calling for her death, when she was a student who valued her privacy, was over the top. Although I DO think we should keep in mind that this was a student newspaper and the column was written before the Big Game between Cal and Stanford. Believe me, this is not the most offensive thing Cal students have ever said about Stanford students in the week before the Big Game. That context matters. Still, it wasn't funny or clever to say that, and I don't respect it.

But the pimp comment, in my view, is not a big deal. I'm not saying I totally agree with the point Shuster was trying to make, but I have no problem with him making it. It seems obvious to me that his intent was to imply there was something dirty, exploitative, and inauthentic about the way the Clintons were using Chelsea to score youth votes. Again, I can see arguments in both directions here, but that's not my point. My point is that there's nothing wrong in airing the opinion.

I think you have a point, Ziggy. Still, it was Shuster's "poor choice of words," too, and he should give more than a cursory apology. His email exchanges with the Clinton campaign very much defended his comments, and tried to put them in a context that was different from the original broadcast.

I do agree that it is a political act to campaign for a candidate. What I object to is the manner in which Shuster described it. It's not acceptable, and he should give a very fulsome apology. Just a few weeks ago, a woman put Tiger Woods together with lynching. Her phrasing was, by all accounts, just a poor choice of words. I agree with that. She apologized her butt off. She didn't "pimp herself out" to the PC police. She did the right thing. She didn't mean what she said. Shuster probably didn't mean for everyone to interpret what he said in the way that they did, but, like the woman who mentioned Woods' lynching, he should understand why everyone feels his comments were out-of-bounds. Shuster should give the same kind of apology, and we'll all move on. Except for the guy who has the grudge dating back to the previous century.

And just to reiterate, the 1997 article by Branum gave the location for the hypothetical carcassing. That's what takes it from "poor choice of words" to something much more. He made the suggestion and then essentially gave out her address.

I mean, "kill the other team" and "kill the quarterback who lives in apartment 11 on the corner of Sacramento and University," those are two different things, no? And very telling that Barnum doesn't mention that point in his article.

Again, you have a good point, but I think further context weakens it a little. I really would like to move on, myself. Chelsea Clinton is politicking. She's not a prostitute any more than Dick Cheney's daughter.

tunaslurpee:

I really would like to move on, myself. Chelsea Clinton is politicking. She's not a prostitute any more than Dick Cheney's daughter.

Wait just one second. Are you implying that Dick Cheney's daughter could not be a successful prostitute because of her sexual orientation?!?!? Just kidding. I agree with you it's about time to move on. The good news is, tomorrow Michelle Obama will have said she has an "itch" while looking at a photo of Hillary and people will be speculating on whether it was an intentional rhyming with "bitch," or Bill will have said blue is his favorite color and people will be enraged it's not black or ... whatever, we'll all have moved on to the next tempest in the next teapot.

I don't think it is perceived as manipulative merely because she is stumping for her mother. It is seen as manipulative because previous to a couple of months ago, Chelsea was "off-limits" and "behind-the-scenes". Now, however, she is making personal phone calls to celebrities and super-delegates and straight-forward asking for their vote. The Romney boys were actively involved from day 1.

Though the choice of wording was terrible, and he did owe an apology (though perhaps not the suspension, free speech and all), Schuster's larger point (shown in the full quote of what was said...which I cannot seem to remember off-hand) was this sudden turn around seemed strange and unseemly given it's timing with her slipping numbers. I do think personal pleas for votes over the phone to celebrities is squicky, and I doubt it was Chelsea's idea.

See because for some reason I envision it like this:

Chelsea agrees with her mother's politics, wants her to win (and maybe excited about it) but she sees that her mother is being unfairly discussed in the press, while Obama is slipping through the cracks like he's dipped in grease. Before she may not have thought it would be necessary (and Chelsea has an incredibly demanding "civilian job" that takes up much of her time), but now, because she believes in her Mom (as many others do), she wants to help. So she volunteers to.

Why is that scenario any less plausible than any others? And why is that wrong? Why does anyone doubt it was Chelsea's idea? I know I would do the same if it were my mother.

mercadia:

See because for some reason I envision it like this:

Chelsea agrees with her mother's politics, wants her to win (and maybe excited about it) but she sees that her mother is being unfairly discussed in the press, while Obama is slipping through the cracks like he's dipped in grease. Before she may not have thought it would be necessary (and Chelsea has an incredibly demanding "civilian job" that takes up much of her time), but now, because she believes in her Mom (as many others do), she wants to help. So she volunteers to.

Why is that scenario any less plausible than any others? And why is that wrong? Why does anyone doubt it was Chelsea's idea? I know I would do the same if it were my mother.

I don't think what you've said is implausible at all. In fact, I think it's very well said and likely to be true. However, there is an alternative viewpoint that is also plausible and may be true: namely, that she doesn't much want to do it but feels guilted into supporting the family "business" just like Michael, LaToya, and Tito (God bless Tito) feel guilted into supporting theirs. She certainly doesn't look at ease on stage. That being the case, Shusters' opinion, like yours, is plausible, and deserves to be discussed in public. No one's saying HRC needs to be brought to trial for child abuse. But what he said is well within the bounds of acceptable and even valuable speech about a public figure in the context of a public political discussion in this country.

I seriously doubt that

ZiggyTosh:

I don't think what you've said is implausible at all. In fact, I think it's very well said and likely to be true. However, there is an alternative viewpoint that is also plausible and may be true: namely, that she doesn't much want to do it but feels guilted into supporting the family "business" just like Michael, LaToya, and Tito (God bless Tito) feel guilted into supporting theirs. She certainly doesn't look at ease on stage. That being the case, Shusters' opinion, like yours, is plausible, and deserves to be discussed in public. No one's saying HRC needs to be brought to trial for child abuse. But what he said is well within the bounds of acceptable and even valuable speech about a public figure in the context of a public political discussion in this country.

For some reason, I just seriously doubt that anyone would have considered Chelsea Clinton's participation in her mother's campaign as any sort of key to success. Indeed, Chelsea has been so private, and so removed from politics, I was a bit shocked to be reminded that she even exists. It certainly wasn't as if I thought to myself, "well if Chelsea's onboard, then that clinches it for me!"

It is not fitting to compare the Clintons to the Jackson family (the children being the sole reason for their parents success). I don't think it reasonable for Hilary to think she had that much to gain by guilting her daughter (if that were true, Chelsea would have been involved from the beginning). I think it more reasonable to believe that Chelsea volunteered, and now she is doing what she can (despite her shyness).

mercadia:

I think it more reasonable to believe that Chelsea volunteered, and now she is doing what she can (despite her shyness).

I think you're right. It is more reasonable to believe that. But the other viewpoint is just reasonable enough to be worth considering and, more to the point, saying.

Right, it deserves to be said, but not by Schuster, and not on MSNBC. Or have we become so apathetic to the ideology-as-news paradigm created by Fox News that we no longer believe in journalistic integrity or careful speech?

mercadia:

Right, it deserves to be said, but not by Schuster, and not on MSNBC. Or have we become so apathetic to the ideology-as-news paradigm created by Fox News that we no longer believe in journalistic integrity or careful speech?

But it wasn't said during a news report. It was said during a segment on "Hardball" a political debate show based around opinions. Shuster was on as a "pundit" to give his opinion.

You can argue the merits of having a debate style "opinion" show on a news network. But this type of show has existed for a long time, I mean "The McLaughlin Group" started in 1982 and is on PBS, that's a far cry from Fox News.