I'm 40 - maybe that is ancient, but to me, a reference to pimping someone out is a reference to a whore, and there was no cause to call Chelsea a whore. She's fair game if she's stumping for her mom, no doubt, and I'd have no problem with it being pointed out that she was always kept under wraps and now the campaign is "trotting her out" for thier advantage, while otherwise shielding her from media access. Was "pimping" simply poor word choice? Maybe, but what if we used the word "lynching" in some respect regarding Obama? Or called Huckerbee an Anti-Christ or a Judas or something. The problem is that it is automatically acceptable to used sexually demeaning language towards woman. Why is it that the Bush twins were never said to be "pimped out", or Romney's kids [and I'd have been outraged w/ either scenerio]? Is it because Bush and Romney don't have thick ankles like Hillary? Hey women let's continue pretending that misogeny is a nonissue, since its gotten us so far!

I think you're right it would have been better for Shuster to say "trotting out" than to say "pimping." Still, that's not a big deal to me. I'm not much younger than you, but I'm young enough to have heard my friends use the word pimp (and probably used it myself a few times) in all kinds of contexts that had no sexual implications. I don't think Shuster meant to imply that sexual favors with Chelsea were literally on offer here. He meant to imply that the Clintons' use of Chelsea was somehow dirty and exploitative. Am I convinced by his point? Not entirely. Do I find his point offensive? Not at all.

I think I see the problem Annna...you might simply be too old to understand the complexities of this issue.

Or perhaps, you're too puerile to understand anyone who objects to "pimping out"?

mftill:

Or perhaps, you're too puerile to understand anyone who objects to "pimping out"?

I'll bet you're old too. Don't be mad because I have a lifetime of opportunity ahead of me, while your best days have passed you by.

I promise once my generation is in power we'll take good care of you.

What a nasty little snot.

Do you grasp age has nothing to do with using the language articulately and well, age has nothing to do with articulating an intelligent question? Maybe it does. But I think there are sprouts who think well and use the language well. However, I don't think they choose to go into TV News. Alas. Sadly enough, I do NOT think they are the people most-often hired for TV purported "news." I base this only on my own curmongeonly observation.

You won't have to "take care" of me. I've fed, clothed, paid tuition for, taken care of my kids and others for ever so long and still saved for my ancient-hood. I will NOT be on your tab. I don't expect you or anyone else to take care of me.

Whar an arrogant schumck you are.

That is a pretty harsh response to what, I think, was a pretty gracious offer on my part. So much needless name-calling. Can't you baby-boomers discuss things civily?
I do agree that an articulate use of language shouldn't be linked to age, but I also think that as language changes and evolves, the young are quicker to embrace those changes. I'm thinking of my grandfather-in-law who thought the term "colored" was the preferred terminology for African-Americans.
Anyway, don't get your catheter in a bunch. I was speaking a bit toungue-in-cheek when I called you and the previous poster old. But judging by your reaction I think there is an interesting topic here about the linguistic generational divide.
And I'm liberal, so I'll be taking care of you whether need it or not. I'll call your bingo games or something.
-Nasty Little Snot