Chelsea Is All Grown UpIt's time for the press to scrutinize her.
Posted Monday, Feb. 11, 2008, at 5:50 PM ET
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.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponI 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, who asked the Secret Service to search my apartment and quiet me down, according to Chris Von Holt, one of the nice agents who visited. The Clintons later denied any involvement, but I did manage to get the agent's claim otherwise on a tape recorder I had with me. The message to 21-year-old me and the rest of the press was clear: Stay off Chelsea. The media has long abided by, and even approved of, this ban. The Clintons were lauded for protecting their daughter from uncomfortable scrutiny. What has been ignored is the degree to which they've dragged Chelsea in front of the cameras any time they need to look like a family, deflect talk of Bill's extramarital affairs, or now, shore up Hillary's flagging support among voters under 30.
The Clinton campaign is seeking a bulletproof spokesperson. Last year, the Edwards campaign made a similar move when it unleashed the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, as primary attack dog. She was a brilliant, articulate voice for the campaign, and all the more effective because her untreatable cancer diagnosis made her unassailable. You could question Elizabeth Edwards' policy arguments, but you couldn't attack her personally. (When John Dickerson questioned the deployment of Elizabeth in Slate, she responded indignantly.) Hillary's campaign tried to use Bill similarly after Iowa. The former president landed a few good blows before Hillary's New Hampshire win, but then went further in South Carolina and ended up alienating African-Americans, the Democratic establishment, and everyone who remembered just how divisive the last Clinton White House was.
The turn now to Chelsea is logical, but it's similarly destined to fail. When Bill was first elected, Chelsea was 12; treating her with special deference made sense. Now she's 28. She's old enough to vote, get drunk, and run for Congress. She's chosen to enter the political fray and campaign for her mom. That's cool, but Chelsea is also old enough to answer for the positions she's espousing and to be treated as any other national political figure. Last summer, Clinton campaign spokesperson Howard Wolfson told the New York Times that, "Even though President and Senator Clinton are public figures, their daughter is not." That's legally implausible and an impossible stance in the face of Chelsea's consistent presence on the campaign trail. Chelsea has been courting voters from Iowa to California, and soliciting the support of superdelegates over the phone. Yet she has the temerity to tell a 9-year-old reporter she's off limits. This is stupid.
Slate Editors Spent All Day Arguing About Cancer Screenings and Health Care Rationing
What a Meal of Beef Stomach and Duck Throats Taught Me About the New China
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Train, Plane, or Automobile? What's the Greenest Way to Travel for Thanksgiving?
The Two Craziest Men in Hollywood Teamed Up To Make This Movie
Did Easy Rider's Predictions About America Come True?
Remarks from the Fray:
That Miss Clinton has chosen to speak out about her political beliefs does not mean she has given up all privacy and the right to be treated with respect. She has not shaved her head in public, spread her legs for photographers, or been rushed repeatedly to mental hospitals. She also isn't "a national political figure," she's the child of one. Miss Clinton has never run for office, held office, or done anything to be a public figure. She hasn't flaunted her private life. She participated in political discourse, as I am [doing by posting] here. She has the right to express her views in public, as all Americans may, without foregoing the right of personal privacy. One may certainly argue with her views, but calling her a whore is not doing so.
--MacAdvisor
(To reply, click here.)
When Bill Clinton first took office in the early nineties they were right for protecting their little girl from the harsh and merciless limelight that politics have become. But as Guy pointed out, she is now 28 years old and has willingly joined the political fray in this nation. For Senator Clinton and her husband to act like their daughter cannot be criticized or lampooned like any other adult in this country is ridiculous.
Remember if Hillary wins and serves 2 full terms Chelsea will be old enough to run for president. Will Chelsea still be able to proclaim herself off limits to criticism and lampooning as she claims experience back to her play pen when Daddy was a governor?
Chelsea must learn that if you jump in the mud hole you're going to get mud all over yourself. Look how the Bush girls were treated as they drank themselves stupid and did illegal drugs. They were skewered and rightly so. Chelsea does not get a free ride either.
--NickD
(To reply, click here.)
The fact that "pimped" is now used to refer to things like cars or data in no way means that popular culture has decided it's acceptable to use it in reference to women. When MTV gets a show called Pimp My Daughter to refer to mothers getting their daughters dates, then you could make that claim, but Pimp My Car is in no way equivalent. I agree that popular culture has expanded the phrase from it's original meaning, though I completely disagree that it could ever be said to be devoid of at least a sexual undertone, but when you use "pimped" to refer to a woman, you're making the undertone explicit again. When someone says a person is being pimped out, it means they're a prostitute. When someone says a car is being pimped out, it means it's being decorated in the gaudy fashion that a pimp might like. It still celebrates the idea of the pimp, but it's no longer explicitly celebrating the act that a pimp performs. So pimping a car and pimping a person, while the same phrase aren't making the same comparison at all.
--Wpeotih
(To reply, click here.)
I had a soft spot for Hillary back in 92 when Hill and Bill were on their first national campaign, She was (and is) a very bright lawyer (ranked in the top 100) and highly knowledgeable on a vast number of topics. At that time the media and many of opponents wanted her to be the traditional first lady. However she fought back, with her "I don't bake cookies" comment and others...which I thought was great.
However, for the last 16 years Hillary never seems to have stopped fighting. She fought Travelgate, for her healthcare plan, Whitewater, "the vast right wing conspiracy", the media, et al. When she talks about her campaign against McCain, she uses the language of "taking the fight" to him. Even McCain doesn't talk like this...and he's supposed to be a hot head. When she talks about "healthcare" she spews a lot a detail and then say's she's going to "fight" for a plan that covers everyone. Now she's in a bar fight over some "off color" comment from a media guy whom hardly anyone even one cares about.
For the last 8 years, the US has had a first class fighter and supreme jerk as its CIC. Perhaps it's time the nation had a breather. Obama, may be lighter on details. However he's got the first and most important step right. For true and lasting change, we need to work together, and need to stop demonizing each other. If you expect a fight, you'll definitely get one.
There are an awful lot of Republicans who don't agree with Obama's "liberal" positions, but would nevertheless vote for him because they feel he'll be reasonable. A some level, I believe that many voters for Obama are simply looking for a truce.
--Bullspotter
(To reply, click here.)
I don't think any card carrying member of the corporate mainstream media, especially one associated with the Clinton-Gore hating MSNBC crowd, would ever have said that any other Presidential candidate was "pimping out" his or her child. That's the kind of coarse language reserved for the Clintons. Furthermore, what's wrong or "weird" with Chelsea Clinton campaigning for her mother? This point has been made before, but the children of candidates routinely campaign for their parents and nobody thinks twice about it. The "boys" of MSNBC have a definite problem with Hillary Clinton, as anyone who saw the loopy Chris Matthews criticize her "Chinese clapping" must attest.
It's tiresome to see how other members of the media, including careerist liberals, close ranks around their fellow journalists and refuse to acknowledge the obvious. [...] Everyone, apparently, wants to be invited onto Hardball. What do you think the reaction would have been if someone had suggested that Cheney was "pimping out" his daughters in a weird way in 2004? Pretty self-evident, isn't it? Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing gong show would still be bellowing about it.
--Ed Szewczyk
(To reply, click here.)
(2/12)