Friday, February 08, 2008

Hillary: Now they say she's "pimping out" her kid

If you thought the sexism and outright misogyny expressed by men opposed to Hillary Clinton's run for the White House had reached its depths before Super Tuesday, you'd be wrong. For today brings word that MSNBC reporter David Shuster accused Hillary Clinton of "pimping out" her daughter, Chelsea. Into what mode of prostitution has the mother sold her girl? Why, politics, you fool!

Your blogstress finds it absolutely amazing that Shuster should use the language of prostitution to describe Chelsea Clinton's work on behalf of her mother. Over at Huffington Post, Taylor Marsh states the case: this should be Shuster's Imus moment.

This is the kind of crap that's adding fuel to the fires dividing feminists right now. The more misogyny of this order that's heaped on the Clinton campaign, the greater some feel an imperative for feminists to vote for Hillary. I don't agree that there's an imperative, but I do find myself more inclined to pull the lever for her every time some guy makes some stupid, misogynist statement, whether it's John Edwards trying to make himself look tough by kicking Hillary for having a verklempt moment on the trail, or Shuster accusing Hillary Clinton of "pimping out" her daughter.

Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

S.W. Anderson said...

Schuster's statement was tacky, tasteless and completely uncalled for. He certainly deserved to be taken down a peg for it, and it appears he has been.

That said, I don't think what he said arose from deepseated misogynist sentiment. I think he was trying to sound hip and trendy, and wound up being too cute by much more than half.

According to Keith Olbermann, Schuster has personally apologized to the Clintons, as has MSNBC. I'm sure he's painfully embarrased and has learned a very hard lesson.

Catherine Kozub said...

I agree that Schuster's statement is uncalled for. I wonder how much he thought about what he was going to say before he said it. Do you know whether Hillary is paying Chelsea, and how much? I would assume that her travel costs are covered. If she's giving Chelsea thousands to speak on her behalf, then I guess the "pimping" word could be used - although it is still a tactless (and sexist)statement. The word choice would likely have been different if Hillary had a son (speaking for her). Regardless, Chelsea is an adult, not a "kid." She is no longer the braces-wearing awkward child that she was in 1992 when her father was elected. I would say that the public should be impressed that Chelsea holds her mother in high enough regard to go out on the campaign trail and speak for her - I guess that's the whole point behind having her speak.

Now if Chelsea is offered a cabinet post, any government job for that matter or is given full-time room and board in the White House when her mother is elected, well, that is another matter altogether.