DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she's apparently also calling these super delegates.
BILL PRESS: Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it's great, I think she's grown up in a political family, she's got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she'd make a great president --
SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?- Advertisement -
Schuster asked appropriately whether Chelsea should be calling Super Delegates to convince them to support her mother. Bill Press compared this to the Bush twins working for their father. I like Bill Press but his analogy to the Bush kids is not the same. There is a difference between working for a parent in a political campaign and calling Super Delegates. Super Delegates are a critical part of the choice for the Democratic nominee. If I were an undecided Super delegate getting a call from Chelsea Clinton, I would have felt that her call was a subtle or not so subtle inappropriate use of a child to appeal to my emotions rather than my objective choice as to who I would support.
There are many important issues of advocacy in which I am involved. I have a beautiful and intelligent daughter who is Chelsea's age and I would never put her in a position to use her to try to compromise someone whose support I needed. Chelsea's knowing many of these Super Delegates because her father was President does not give the Clintons the right to use her in an advocacy role. In my opinion the use of Chelsea to call Super Delegates shows how desperate they are and to what lengths they would go to win.
I feel for Chelsea and as a parent have a lot of empathy for her. Hillary is a wonderful mother but Bill has caused much public humiliation for Chelsea at a time when she was barely out of high school in 1998 because of the Monica scandal. And the Clintons rightfully wanted the press to respect her right of privacy. When they interjected Chelsea into this primary, the Clintons changed the very rule that they wanted the media to respect. So David Schuster correctly pointed out the unseemly nature of Chelsea's use in this campaign and the utter hypocrisy of the Clintons desire to protect their daughter.
Schuster did not call Chelsea a "nappy haired hoe." He criticized the Clintons for using Chelsea in a weird sort of way for being "pimped out" by her parents. Pimped out is a phrase that means exploited to most. In urban vocabulary it actually is complementary. If Schuster had used "exploited" instead of "pimped out", his analysis would have been more mainstream. Although his choice of words was not good, his point was arguably valid. Clearly Schuster was referring to the Clinton campaign people and not attacking Chelsea.
Schuster knows how ruthless the Clinton campaign team can be. I know enough about them to make me question their strategy. The belligerent members of her team have managed to grasp defeat from the hands of victory by their inappropriate use of Bill Clinton and their exploitation of Chelsea. They ruined Hillary's campaign by injecting race and gender into this campaign. Now they want to exploit Chelsea whom I know hates to be in the public limelight.
Taylor Marsh wrote a Huffpo criticizing Schuster for being sexist in his comment about the use of Chelsea at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/msnbcs-david-shuster-ch_b_85649.html. She injected the gender card as the reason that Schuster was sexist. "Pimped out" is a phrase which has been used more about men than woman. When Bill Clinton protested, Taylor Marsh had her gender-biased response. Taylor seems to forget that Bill Clinton's behavior in the past is about as sexist as it gets. But, many women seem to give Bill a pass on this because of his enormous personal appeal. He has subjected his wife and daughter to a terrible personal humiliation. Bill of all people should have kept his daughter out of this for that very reason. I as a father would never had allowed it.
I do not understand why Hillary does not protect herself from her husband and his campaign team. She unfortunately has allowed her husband to dominate her campaign to a point where she is in serious jeopardy of losing. However, she allowed this to happen and must suffer the consequences. It is too bad that people cannot view this objectively and have made David Schuster the scapegoat for another Clinton indiscretion.