Chelsea Clinton is a whore.

If we learned anything from Don Imus calling the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed hoes" and the ensuing idiocy it's that the media and their associated talking heads pounce on stupid shit like a hooker on a dime bag.

For those of you who have missed the latest scandal here it is:

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?

For those of you who may, rightfully so, find Shuster's comment to be innocuous I direct you to this clarifying article by Taylor Marsh who, having nothing else to write about, got really, really pissy:

"I am disgusted by the indiscriminate sexism and blatant misogyny of this statement. I also cannot believe in the 21st century we have Neanderthal men parading around with such arrogance that they wouldn't immediately check themselves as a statement like this went tripping through their itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny brain."

1) The statement was not "indiscriminate".
2) I wouldn't say that a guy sitting in front of a camera is "parading".
3) Are you trying to level up your hyphen proficiency or something?

While we could focus on the media's reaction, the manner in which other MSNBC employees reacted, or whether or not the comment made Chelsea recoil to her ugly tree for comfort and solace I think there is a much more important question to address:

What the fuck political influence does Chelsea Clinton have?

My understanding is that Bill Clinton has significant political appeal and influence, that as an ex-President he has considerable clout. So when Hillary has someone like Bill Clinton on her campaign what the hell good can Chelsea really be?

The answer to that question may be the defense David Shuster needs. When you think about it there are two possibilities. The first is that the Clintons are literally whoring out their daughter to celebrities and superdelegates in exchange for votes. The second is that Chelsea Clinton has some political influence greater than her father or mother over superdelegates and celebrities.

Which do you think is more likely?

Personally, I think it far more likely that a superdelegate would be game for some nice bag-over-her-head sex with Chelsea than that a superdelegate would change their vote as a result of a phone call from the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

While I don't personally know David Shuster and will freely admit that he is something of a douche I think his "pimped out" comment is based on the recognition that Chelsea is, politically speaking, far more useful as a whore than as a source of influence over superdelegates and celebrities. If only because if he's not making that argument then he's just baselessly saying mean things about Chelsea Clinton.

And what kind of person does that?