Saturday, February 09, 2008
Hillary and Chelsea
No doubt Hillary is sincere in at least some amount of irritation that an MSNBC talking puppet characterized her as having "pimped out" her daughter Chelsea. I wonder, though, whether all of Hillary's apparently intense outrage is sincere. Genuine or not, the incident raises some interesting questions.
First, was "pimped out" such a terrible thing to say? Frankly, it seems pretty mild compared to the horrible and uncivil things people say about each other these days, especially in connection with partisan politics.
What about Chelsea? Chelsea is no longer thirteen. She is an adult, not just legally but in practice, and has chosen to inject herself into a presidential campaign. Given the well-established proclivities of the Clintons to fight for victory by virtually any means available, does anybody seriously think that this random comment troubled Chelsea in the least? If it did, she needs to get out of politics. Or at least her mother's campaign.
My guess is that Hillary's outrage is partly and perhaps primarily staged, designed first to evoke sympathy (an increasingly tiresome tactic in her campaign), and second to deter hardball from other quarters.
But let's suppose the alternative for a moment, that Hillary is genuinely furious about this comment. What would that say about her famously thick skin, which she has also made a central feature of her campaign? Perhaps she did not "weather" the storms of her husband's presidency so well after all.
13 Comments:
By 
SR, at
Sat Feb 09, 10:02:00 AM:
Can't stand Bill or Hillary. Don't know anything about Chelsea.
It is really great, however to see a "news" liberal take a hit for a rude comment. The whole left-wing news conspiracy has been getting away with too much incivility for too long.
By 
, at
Sat Feb 09, 11:03:00 AM:
Shuster is glib, while not very thoughtful. His use of the "pimped out" slang was a clumsy attempt to emphasize his youth (which seems to be his MO) while making a point about the Clinton's cynical manipulation of Chelsea's media coverage. His proper response to Raines should have been "Sorry if you were offended- I was just trying to jazz up my point with slang. Bad idea. But the point is a serious one- will you consent to an interview with Chelsea for me? I want to talk about her campaign involvement generally, and focus especially on her role with the super-delegates."
The MSNBC twerps are now seeing first hand what bullies and thugs the Clinton press team can be when they need to be, since they are only beating up on Shuster (easy enough to do) in order to force more sympathetic coverage from the rpess generally. They've been complaining for weeks that Obama isn't getting the scrutiny they want, so this is their way of forcing a quid pro quo-- "you mean press guys lashed out at my poor (adult) daughter, so now you owe me!".
Welcome to Clinton-land all of you shocked Democrats- race cards, identity politics, cynical victimization, ego-driven press tactics, financial chicanery on a constant basis, etc etc. How do you like it so far? Believe me- it's going to get much worse.
By Ray, at
Sat Feb 09, 12:03:00 PM:
TH, I think you're both right and wrong. It is very common to hear that sort of thing in politics today. That's no reason to tolerate it, nor is it any bit less offensive.
The separate language of politics all too often obscures the fact that we're talking about people: fellow people among whom we choose a few for higher office.
If you wouldn't say it about a colleague's daughter, you probably shouldn't say it about a politician's daughter, either.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Feb 09, 12:08:00 PM:
I'm not saying that we *ought* to say such things or let them go uncorrected, only that some portion of Hillary's outrage is intentional, or, alternatively, that her ability to deal with personal attacks on her or the other political operatives in her family is less robust than she has claimed.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Feb 09, 01:09:00 PM:
Chelsea will be 28 years old on Feb. 27.
By Georg Felis, at
Sat Feb 09, 01:56:00 PM:
I am certain that the thought process of Mrs. Clinton went as follows. "That irritates me. I wonder how I can use it to get votes?"
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Feb 09, 05:08:00 PM:
SR's moronic comment about the so called "liberal" press is instructive. There is no "liberal" mainstream media. There's just the media, and in order to meet marketing goals and returns on investment, journalism has gotten more crass and journalists more "unprofessional." Of course the full circle aspect story goes: that's what the public wants. It doesn't want Cronkite or Murrow, it wants blondes and "guys who look/talk like us." That's why the pimped out comment is more the norm, than the crass exception.
HOWEVER: yeah, Hillary did pimp Chelsea out. Yeah, Hillary did use the comment as a stool from which to growl.
By , at
Sat Feb 09, 07:32:00 PM:
Here is an interesting story on Hillary's "thick skin."
A Master Sgt in the Air Force told it to me last week. He is quiet and studious, not actually given to talking much at all. I pressed him, asking him if it really happened and he promised it did.
He was a loadmaster on an AF plane in the 90s. Hillary was flying on it and her aides came over to him to ask him quietly if he (and I assume his guys) would not look "at Hillary below the waist. She is very sensitive about her thighs."
By Ray, at
Sat Feb 09, 08:18:00 PM:
I think that Hillary, like any Democratic politician, is very skilled at the politics of outrage, be it feigned or real.
By jj mollo, at
Sun Feb 10, 12:30:00 AM:
Thick skin or not, it's not necessary or particularly clever to pick on your opponents' children. Harry Truman was more than a little ticked off when a critic panned Margaret's musicality. He was serious, but it was good for his popularity. Was it Dukakis who lost a lot of his popularity when he didn't get offended. Some reporter asked what he would do if his wife were raped, and he answered the question civilly!
By , at
Sun Feb 10, 12:30:00 PM:
I still maintain that the sensitivity about Chelsea results from the fact that Bill is NOT her real father. Clinton is and has been, impotent. Thus, the real reason his medical records have never been released. A compliant media allowed him to get away with what a Republican never could.
Think about it. Why would the President risk concealing his medical records unless they hid a dangerous secret. Dope addiction? STDs? They may have been there, too, but the key secret is proof that he is not Chelsea's father.
Who is? No idea! But, I'd bet on Webb Hubble on the basis of the time he and Hilly spent at Rose Law Firm while Bill was getting some as governor of the Arkies a nd based on Chelsea's jaw line.
The Clintons want no focus on Chelsea so as to avoid discussion of her paternity.
By jj mollo, at
Sun Feb 10, 02:18:00 PM:
Which might go a long ways toward explaining Hillary's loyalty to Bill, but I just don't believe it. One look at Chelsea is enough to convince me that either Bill is her father, or it's someone who looks an awful lot like Bill.
By Chris, at
Wed Feb 13, 11:49:00 AM:
Chelsea Clinton is an adult, and has chosen to participate in a political campaign, which makes her fair game for criticism. Criticism need not include gratuitous insults, which this was. If someone stated that my daughter was a "whore", which is what "pimped out" implies, then I would punch them in the face. Civilly, of course.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter is Hillary's outrage is manufactured, the MSNBC commentator behaved like an ass. She has every right to be as outraged as she wants to be.
