If it's a non-issue he should not have said it. That is illogical, if it's a non-issue, why NOT say it? That Hill has pounced on it makes her look desperate and out of touch with young'ns; which may be why Obama rocks their world.

That would be almost as good as seeing one in Congress sometime.

Another example of real issues being denied in favor of silliness. And the silliness extends to this blog.

We need you guys wrapped up in your underwear for awhile longe so that we can get our national campaign up and running.

So for that, thanks Schuster.

In general, MSNBC's coverage of McCain and Obama has been adoring, while they have been hypercritical of the Clintons.

1. “youth” = appealing to Obama's youth groupies

2. Reduces the likelihood or at least the number of future Clinton-campaign racist shots at Obama as an alternative [scowl]

Particularly given their character and their track record.

The whole overreaction to this statement (far worse, more ridiculous than to Limbaugh's cheap shot at Chealsea many years ago) makes not the Clintons but the other whiners the real (and really pathetic) story here.

I agree with Joe that the question was dumb, but I think what was really bothering Shuster was that Chelsea had been fiercely protected for years from the media (which I think is great and an excellent decision by Bill and Hillary) but now that Chelsea was actively campaigning she should be available for more scrutiny, but she is still being protected. if Chelsea is going to take a high profile role (by campaigning to get younger voters) and powerful position in the campaign (I think calling super delegates is pretty powerful- you just don't let anyone call the movers and shakers on your behalf) then I think she should be open to more media scrutiny. I think it's fine that Chelsea campaigns for her mother.

As Joe mentioned, Hillary is now the victim- that' s how Hillary is spinning it and the perpetrator is a man, picking on her child. Of course Hillary is going to use that moment to her benefit and think of all the free coverage she gets that she doesn't have to pay for.

Bottom line for me: yeah, the comment was unseemly but Hillary has blown it out of proportion and deftly used it for her benefit. Because Chelsea is now actively campaigning for her mother in the way that she is (calling super delegates / campaigning for younger voters) then she should be available to the media. Chelsea is an intelligent young woman who is still being overly protected by her mother.

Shuster was wrong to say what he said, no one did anything to deserve it – to justify picking on the dau. for actions people don't like about the campaign is terrible precedent. This thread is not about a campaign staff person now equivocating over the debate. It's about Shuster. They should stay separate and judged separately.

To question what is deserving of making a parent “truly upset” is so subjective and judgmental. Again, I'm really kind of surprised.

I found this UK article interesting, even at Stanford the Clinton machine controlled the press:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america…

Even as an adult, Chelsea still enjoyed special protection. When she enrolled in Stanford University – to where she switched after two years from medicine to history – a student journalist who dared write an article about her found herself dismissed from the campus newspaper. The media was thereafter kept at bay even when she graduated with honours and spent a year as a Rhodes Scholar (following Bill's footsteps) studying international relations at the University of Oxford.

Did Howard Wolfson call GE's CEO in a private to protest, no we get a media circus over a stupid comment. I wonder what McCain said about the first daughter…

This is very unfair unless you are going to apply that standard to absolutely every single child of a candidate out there: “She is just playing a silent cheerleader role by being on stage at various events. Her presence is just as pandering as “snowflake babies” used during the stem cell issue.”

And I think that that is a very, very unnecessary and unhelpful thing to do. We're all smart enough to figure out whether a candidate's kid is a positive or a negative. We don't need people making comments like David Shuster's in order to help us figure that out.

Really – I'm surprised you're unable to untangle this.