To do...

Any report that suggests that Chelsea Clinton is a lovely girl can only be considered pandering.

If that story about Tim Russert preventing David Shuster from being fired is true, Russert did his colleague a terrible disservice. As it stands, Russert is neither working or available to look for work. He’s ineligible for unemployment; he’s just twisting in the wind, awaiting grace from a Clinton.

How’d you like to be him? Russert should have stayed out of it. Shuster could have then hired an attorney and sued for wrongful termination. As it stands, the guy is languishing, neither in nor out. The Clinton plans seems to be delay, until people forget, and Shuster disappears.

It is not about the Clintons need to pick fights with those who can’t or won’t defend themselves. The hypocrisy of any Clinton to not accept an apology is not at issue. The refusal of Clinton to state what she thinks would be sufficient is not at issue. The implication that Hillary Clinton will use her position as president to quietly avenge everybody that was mean to her husband is not at issue. Shuster’s comment is not at issue. Russert’s intentions are not at issue. Our expectations of grown up millionaires are not at issue. Whether or not Chelsea Clinton can be considered a “woman with needs” is not at issue. Whether or not she is a lovely girl, or an arrogant piece of dirt, is not at issue. Whether or nor Chelsea cried about it, not at issue. Whether or not allowing this to go this far shows class is not at issue. Whether or not a mother has a right to be deeply offended is not at issue. It is not at issue whether or not rearranging the desks in your campaign office is actual change. It is not about situation comedies, which paint every male character as a buffoon. It is not about Bill Clinton’s habits. This is not about sexism, how far we’ve come, or how far we need to go.

What is at issue, does anybody, elected official or private citizen, have the right to control the media?

That’s the reason this fight must be fought. Shuster needs to lawyer up, and have his attorney send a letter demanding he be reinstated immediately or fired. If he’s reinstated, that should be the end of it. If he’s fired, which is the best move for everybody, he needs to file suit. Against not only his company, but also those who called for his firing, the Clintons, and a random number of John Does. Citing that the expression used was a commonly accepted figure of speech, a figure used in the past by members of the same network to express the same point. The lawsuit will provide some cover for all those involved. All should lawyer up, batten down the hatches, and find a soft place to land.

I suggest that people simply refuse to comment on Chelsea. If you can’t say anything that could possibly be perceived as remotely negative, or off color, then anything complimentary must be suspect. Just mention a fear of the wrath of mom and if you need your job. I see that’s already happening.

Other option, bide your time and hope for the best.

Hillary Clinton, in her cowardly passive aggressive way is simply bullying the media. She expects considerations that she herself is unwilling to extend. It’s part of a large troubling pattern.

If she or her daughter felt that Shuster had defamed either one of them, the remedy is not threats of government contracts being renegotiated, but a civil suit instead. Perhaps Paula Jones would be so kind as to recommend a qualified attorney.

Do we all have to have Ivy League degrees and sensibilities to be Americans? Are we allowed to be each of us our own person? Complete with our own interests, opinions and micro-trends? If we’re a little unpolished, or even disrespectful at times, this is the time and the place.

The only good way out of this contrived mess is for Chelsea or the Hillary Clinton camp to come out publicly quoting Voltaire, and apologize that this has gone this far. Course, she’s put herself into a corner. Does she boycott the debate, or use that forum to be magnanimous? Hold herself up as a pioneer who got the nation talking about sexism. She often sounds Christ-like, in her willingness to go anywhere where two or more are gathered in her name. Also by saying that anything we do to or for her, we in fact do to and for all women.

She’s requested debates, and now might not participate?

I understand MSNBC’s position. I just don’t see why HRC thinks she’s in a position to decline any airtime.