How is one thing not like the other.

Right wingers taking potshots about Chelsea Clinton’s appearance [hey pudgy bastard Rush, we’re looking at you].

Articles that note the behavior of the Bush daughters, including violations of state statutes on underage drinking.

Right wing articles complaining about the Obama daughters taking a vacation.

It’s not even a matter of context. In the first instance, the right wing went after Chelsea for who she was and what she looked like. In the third instance, the right wing went after Obama’s daughters because he’s a President that they seek to destroy by any means necessary. That means wearing him down by any and all means - up to and including attacking his children because they were able to take a vacation from the White House (which pretty much every modern president who has remarked about the situation considers it to be a fishbowl and looks to get away as much as possible). It’s not the best place to raise kids, precisely because of the media attention, but it can be done - pretty successfully by the last four occupants with youngish kids (Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama) despite the media attention.

As for vacations/trips and cost - the Executive Budget is agreed to by Congress and includes the expenses for the WH and the First Family. It includes costs for USSS coverage for the First Family. Trips involving the kids without their parents isn’t newsworthy, unless the kids do something to get in the news (like say get injured on the ski slopes, break the law, etc.). It’s a rationale that other presidents have sought for their kids while in the WH, and the Obama’s aren’t an exception.