how smart she is!

I see that she got her mom's and grandparents' eyes.

she looks like a really smart baby to me. Not swooning.

nothing like the joy of holding a Grandchild.

Babies are so irresistible.

around her little finger

but for her sake, I wish they did not do this.

There are many, many, many reasons why these photos should remain in family albums... and while incidents are rare as hell, still.

Limiting contact with their grandchild .

sorry.

I would not have run either of those photos. But then again we avoid running the photos of regular folks as well. Why? rare as they are, kids can be harassed or targeted.

And no, the child of an artist, or a politico is not fair play. Nor are they public persons.

when she does enter politics that restraint is gone.

That said, fortunately I should be six feet under by then.

so even doing that I suspect I will be pushing daisies...

But since it's Clinton, who is analogous to Reagan/Nixon/W in her eyes, it's a bad thing.

We've all seen this movie before.

we actually run an actual news service. We, as policy, DO NOT run photos of children... I don't care who they are the kids off.

Here, 27 so you can read it at your pleasure.

27. And whether to run a photo or not is the decision of

people with free will who are called editors. We decided a while ago, gasp I know, free will and all that...that we do not run photos of kids perhaps it is my 10 years in EMS...
There are exceptions of course, like kid is the story. (This is not the case here) But for the most part we do not run photos where you can ID the kid. Trust me, I know the rules. Yesterday we had photos of kids, the better photo at Disney, for example, of the monorail, had kids you could ID. We chose instead to run the photo where you could not.

There is this thing called editorial restraint. I would not have run those photos...not because of the public persona. Yes, I can run pictures of a former president all day and twice on Sunday. I would not because of the kid. The kid is not a public person and there was a time when U.S. (And British) press exercised that restraint.

As I said, cute kid. For her sake and all that, editors should use that common sense they once did.

By the way, we had the grandson of one of the local board of supers giving the pledge at one event, park inauguration. He was a cute and quite nervous teen We sent a copy to the Super, we did not run the photo either. Never mind the rest did. A local editor asked, I explained my reasons why not. It is what it is. I don't expect the rest of the media to follow suit either.

Just if I ever get a similar shot, will live in my HD with a bunch of other cute kids.

Whether the family welcomes the attention or not, there will always be photographers around this child.

people with free will who are called editors. We decided a while ago, gasp I know, free will and all that...that we do not run photos of kids perhaps it is my 10 years in EMS...

There are exceptions of course, like kid is the story. But for the most part we do not run photos where you can ID the kid. Trust me, I know the rules. Yesterday we had photos of kids, the better photo at Disney, for example, of the monorail, had kids you could ID. We chose instead to run the photo where you could not.

There is this thing called editorial restraint. I would not have run those photos...not because of the public persona. Yes, I can run pictures of a former president all day and twice on Sunday. I would not because of the kid. The kid is not a public person and there was a time when U.S. (And British) press exercised that restraint.

As I said, cute kid. For her sake and all that, editors should use that common sense they once did.

By the way, we had the grandson of one of the local board of supers giving the pledge at one event, park inauguration. He was a cute and quite nervous teen We sent a copy to the Super, we did not run the photo either. Never mind the rest did. A local editor asked, I explained my reasons why not. It is what it is. I don't expect the rest of the media to follow suit either.

Just if I ever get a similar shot, will live in my HD with a bunch of other cute kids.

My only point is that it's unavoidable that photos of this child will be posted everywhere due to her grandparents' fame and even her mother's. It's just like stopping pics of William and Kate's children from being sold to media outlets. The paparazzi will always be on the lookout for the money shot.

buy the content.

Now in California, because of the Paparazzi, those two photos are on somewhat thin ice by the way. Legally that is. They are good shots by the way.

Here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/paparazzi-bill-passes_n_3991404.html

Which is another reason why you would not have me run that photo, or give money for it.

As I said, I know the business.

from this photo in just a couple of years. (Although her family would always recognize her. )

I think it's fine as long as it's pics like in the op where they are with family during some public appearance.

But if they were following them for private things it would be totally diffrrent.

It is an editorial decision. I know standards have changed greatly. But...

Cute kid. Don't try to sell me the money shot. I won't buy it.

Bebeh is adorbabble. Squee!

That's a BC expression, completely, in the top photo!

Grandpa President Clinton!

sorry couldn't resist-I just watched the HBO Special on Ann Richards today on HBOGo

happens to be the same democratic blue Ann was wearing when she tore the Convention down. I bet Hillary wished she had Ann around today guarding her flank-don't forget the Clintons and Richards were great friends

deep blue eyes....what an adorable child!

her home ASAP.

She has his eyes.

Cute kid.

There's an acorn on her shirt... in case someone wonders about the comment.

Great pics!

Thanks

Charlotte is just so cute.

What a little cutie pie!

Love those big gorgeous eyes!