Posted on 02/12/2008 5:50:39 AM PST by COUNTrecount
The recent emergence of Chelsea Clinton as a voice for her mother's campaign has resulted in a chorus of "poor Chelsea" from various sources. Ms. Clinton is still deeply wary of the media, and the sentiment may be valid; her life has been dominated by attention she never chose to engender. But it's got a nefarious underside, as exhibited by the suspension Friday of David Shuster, a commentator for Hardball who got put in the naughty chair for asking on the air whether Clinton had "pimped out" her daughter. Pimping is a common enough euphemism in modern parlance, but one which an indignant Hillary Clinton has managed to turn into a carnival of pity and remonstrations.
I am not unfamiliar with said carnival. Back in 1997, as a surly student journalist at U.C. Berkeley, I made a couple of comments about the use of Chelsea as a prop for controversy-free photo ops when her parents dropped her off for her first semester of college at Stanford. Scraping for something to say about the upcoming football game between Cal and Stanford, I criticized my school's rival for pouring resources into the circus surrounding Chelsea's arrival, suggesting that they were more concerned with maintaining a pristine, photogenic student body than educating as large and diverse a population as possible. I then encouraged Berkeley students to share our less refined ways by trashing the campus, including Ms. Clinton. Sure, my line "show your spirit on Chelsea's bloodied carcass" was over the top and poorly chosen. And then the AP wire snipped my column's line, "Chelsea Clinton represents the Stanford ethos of establishment worship which must be subverted and destroyed," into "Chelsea Clinton … must be destroyed." (The column is no longer available online.)
The comments made their way to Mrs. Clinton,
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Apparently until they unbunch Olbermann's panties.
(It could be a long time.)
“Pimping out” could ONLY be taken in a figurative sense with regard to Chelsea.
She is a political surrogate for her mother. Therefore, her statements (and appearances) are fair game for discussion.
Otherwise, we allow her mother to use her as a political human shield.
If the offspring is out there trying as hard as Chelsea is to foist her mother's governmental 'abilities' on us, then she's just as much of an enabler as anybody from the bitchocracy that Hillary is going to drag into office with her.
She's fair game.
She is actively campaigning for Hillary. To make her off-limits means she is nothing but a political human shield.
she never chose to engender
modern parlance
I am not unfamiliar with said carnival.
as a surly student
Geeesch... This Guy Branum should spend some time living under a bridge for a while and welcome some reality and perspective into his life. Too much time @ Berkeley.
Two WEEKS??? Yikes. Feel sorry for Dead Eyes.....however this “PIMP” thing sure took off the story about WHERE did Hillary get the 5 MILLION DOLLARS????
My God she looks like her mother. Just as ugly.
Olberman drinks Hillary’s bathwater.
GUILTY!
Trust me.
Avenue Capital may be happy to give a Clinton a plum job, but they're not handing her the keys to their store.
She's probably had some tough exchanges with Huma on this roadtrip.
.
I’m confused, isn’t that Chelsea Hubbell?
“But Chelsea is 27 years old and has chosen to publicly campaign for her mother. She is fair game for everything any other person campaigning for a candidate gets.”
Double-Dog Dittos and Amen to that!!
(BTW — is she still getting Secret Service protection?)
I was just thinking 57 posts and no pics of Web Hubbell yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.