Pimping For The Truth

A sad day indeed as reporters walk on eggshells and contemplate acting as robots watching the news unfold because political campaigns are much better at using words to cynically manipulate the press. The issue: just when does "pimping" come into play?

I ask this question as Chelsea Clinton is scheduled to take a stage and podium (and likely a microphone, too) to campaign for Mom at the University of Akron. We've all seen the hue and uproar stemming from MSNBC's David Shuster unfortunate slip of the tongue in describing the use of Chelsea to make support phone calls to fat cats as "pimping", and Hillary's camp wrapping themselves in the flag of protective political motherhood to protest such a term being used to describe young Chelsea. It was a fine display of a political protection order, cowing the Ohio media lest we lose the 18th debate between Hillary and Obama. Leave my little girl alone!

At 28.

Double standard here because the Clintonistas are much better at bullying the debate than others? After all, most of us had a snicker or two at Billy Carter's beer belly in the 70s, Mama Carter's occasional pronouncements, the derring-do of Bush 41's progeny (including now-43) and Roger Clinton's occasional snorts with the law. The media, for the most part, leaves the children of Presidents alone with a few exceptions (such as boozy Bush daughters employing the typical rites of passage that come with college life; Chelsea herself had a few run-ins along those lines as well with the British tabloids) but for the most part the rule has been under 18, keep it clean.

Happier days in the big house


But Chelsea's not 12 anymore, the age when Dad moved the family to 1600 Pennsylvania; she's not in college anymore, as the Bush twins were; she's earning her own living, making her own way, and stumping for Mom like there's no tomorrow.


Except when she's treated like an adult, and then it's hands-off my daughter!

Just what IS the definition of pimping for political purposes? Let's be honest: these candidates and their families know full-well what comes with putting everyone on the platter for public consumption during the obligatory "we are family" moments. Spouses and children are part of the display, part of the show, part of the sell to convince voters that O, and H, and J, and B are all regular folk with regular family lives.

But they aren't. Your kids, most likely, aren't part of the process when you make a presentation to your boss or board of directors. Unless I miss my guess most kids aren't calling big donors and appearing on candidates behalf at fundraisers and business events. Families take pains to keep those worlds separate, and for good reason: this is rough trade, asking for our votes. We expect campaigners to talk with us, answer questions, and make the case on why we should vote for Mom or Dad.

John Kerry's kids did it four years ago; the Kennedy's do it so much we take it for granted; the Bush nieces and nephews and grandkids do it on camera during national conventions; McCain's daughter has a running blog that drives his buttoned-up campaign staff crazy.

It's time to acknowledge a truth in this campaign: Chelsea isn't a teenager anymore, she's just like us: an adult, pushing a product, trying to get us to love that product enough to vote for her March 4th.

Welcome to politics, where one puts another on display to gain a benefit. To sell or not to sell, still the question.