I can't help thinking that we tend to read into this things that are not there, sort of projecting our own fears and dislikes. Let's go to the start of it all: Both male and female prostitutes have pimps; so, why is the statement "misogynistic"? had Chelsea been a son rather than a daughter, the statement would have applied equally - but would the outcry have been the same? I am not 100% sure it would have.

As a statement it may be crass and misjudged, it might even have been meant to upset, but was it "offensive"? Are we being a little too delicate here? If the Clintons took out a lawsuit for defamation, would it have stood? Again, I am not too sure it would have.

Note also the use of "sort of ...", where Shuster uses the expression to compare or clarify, but does not attribute it directly. I am sure any defense lawyer worth his/her salt would have had a field day with that.

I think therefore that there is a material difference between this case and the "nappy headed ho" one - the latter statement is clearly both misogynistic and racist, as no other interpretation could exist, and defamatory to boot. The former is intended to upset and taunt, but I don't see them in the same category. In fact, the real taunt here as I see it was the implication that Chelsea has no will of her own and little child-like she is being trotted out and exploited by her folks. Nothing to do with being a woman, of whatever colour or profession.

As for Chelsea's campaining for her Ma, well, she's a big girl and that's her business. Couldn't care either way.