I was thinking again last night about Clinton's reaction to David Shuster's ill thought out comment about the campaign pimping out Chelsea Clinton. I don't think it was great but I've heard a lot worse. And, after all, it's cable/sat channeles where people CHOOSE to pay to listen to what they want, without, presumably, censorship. Here's what bothers me. It's reasonable for her to be upset hearing her daughter (and herself by extension) characterized that way and I sure don't see anything wrong with her letting MSNBC know. But when she starts to pull the threat card, implying that Shuster should be fired, that's really going beyond what I think a presidential candidate ought to be doing. Would she be this way if she, god forbid, won the election? That is, anytime she heard something she didn't like, she'd be calling or writing the media to tell them to quit or fire people? That's the perception I've had of Bush and Karl Rove. I distinctly remember in the last couple of years when Chris Matthews made a comment that the Republicans didn't like ... and they refused to go on his show until he suddently started sucking up again.

I see a difference between you and me making comments to the paper and someone who either is or wants to be in a position with great power making such requests that essentially stifle free speech and seek to control media. So it isn't just an issue of a mommy bear protecting her cub but a wanna-be president that is overstepping power bounds to muzzle and control the media.