« The quiet death of ENDA, hate crimes | Main | Hillary Clinton's truthiness problem »
March 26, 2008
An apple falls close to the tree
Posted by: Chris
Her father's reckless philandering wrecked his second White House term and crushed the hopes of countless progressive legislative initiatives -- not to mention costing the Democrats the 2000 election and giving us eight years of George W. Bush.
Her mother may not have been to blame, except he was enabled by years of her turning an obvious blind eye; part of a political marriage that has paid off for her personally, even as it screwed over the rest of us. (Not to mention that both her parents oppose our marital equality, a haughty stance considering their own unconventional "arrangement.")
And yet there was Chelsea Clinton, taking personal umbrage when a college student had the temerity to ask whether the Lewinsky scandal hurt her mother's credibility:
Far be it from us mere voters to ask whether putting her parents back in the White House risks a scandal-plagued repeat.
Clearly, the arrogance apple did not fall far from the tree.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e5518be9068834
Comments
-
Chris, would you think it was appropriate to comment on your parent's extramarital affairs, even if one parent was an ex-President and the other was currently running for President? The questioner asked for her personal opinion on the Monica Lewinsky affair -- I'm sure she has many feelings, none of which can be summed up in a college student union Q&A session, and all of which are deeply personal. I agree that the scandal's effects are important factors to consider in a H.C. Presidency, but I don't think that Chelsea who, along with Hillary, was made a direct victim of the affair, should be expected to share her thoughts with us. After all, she was only 17 years old when the scandal broke.
-
What I do not understand is that the bar seems to be set very low for Chelsea. I'm sure she's a fine human being and all that, but when she says the simplest of things, many respond as if she's brilliant. Say what?
-
Chelsea CHOSE to campaign for her mother. She is now no longer a "private" citizen. So, is she is just supposed to spurt out her mother's propaganda, and then make her quick get away? What are people supposed to ask? What is the name of her mother's lipstick color? Who is Hillary's favorite pant suit designer? Chelsea is a big girl who is ACTIVELY part of a Presidential campaign, that is getting increasingly heated, but she has chosen to REPRESENT her mother. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, girl.
She should be able to take it. AFTER ALL, wasn't she with her mother in Bosnia, dodging bullets as they ran for cover? LOL The question was HARMLESS. No one asked her about HER feelings about the sex scandal. Someone simply asked if she thought the scandal had hurt her mother's credibility. I'm sure NO is the answer Hillary would want her to put out there, so just say no. Next Question! Hillary and Bill had actually not PREPARED Chelsea for such a question, to the point that she would act SURPRISED? That shows A GREAT lack of planning on Hillary's part. Sure hope Hill is never part of war planning. The scandal is PART of the campaign, that the Republicans will make hay with, if Hill is the nominee. YULK! BUT the Democrats very carefully tip toe around it.
Bill LIED to Hill about Monica, and she BELIEVED him when everyone in the Country either did not believe him, or kept in mind that he COULD be lying. He had betrayed Hillary before, YET she chose to feel CERTAIN that his denial was the truth. This shows her as SO gullible. Bush told her lies about Iraq, and she BELIEVED him. Barack was saying NO. Joe Wilson and others were exposing George's lies. Senator Byrd BEGGED the Senators to say NO. 23 Senators did say NO. With PRIDE I can say 21 Dems said NO, along with 1 lonely Republican, and 1 Independent. The U.N. inspectors were saying, NO THREAT. France and Germany were saying NO. BUT, Hillary chose to believe ONLY Bush. This shows gullibility, yet again. I didn't believe (or trust) Bush.
I sure hope the Monica thing, and the Iraq thing, bothers people enough that she continues to lose to Obama.
-
Chris:
This question was a cheap shot whose only purpose was to provoke Chelsea. What does Bill Clinton's affair have to do with Hillary's credibility? Zip, that's what. As you noted above, Chelsea had nothing to do with her father's affair and neither did Hillary. It's rather unfair to judge a candidate by the moral failings of his or her spouse.
If the student had wanted to ask Chelsea the tough questions, there is plenty to choose from.
-
Anon: Of course I understand that the question was uncomfortable for her but she's a big girl now, campaigning for her mother across the country, and that can mean answering some uncomfortable questions. If she's not ready for that -- witness her refusing to talk to a 9-year-old "journalist" earlier this year -- then she should stick to short personal introductions and smile from the background.
It's also unfair to say she was asked about the affair itself or even her opinion of it. She was asked what it said about her mother's credibility, which as I argued was put directly at issue by her willingness to turn a blind eye knowing the risk it might pose to his presidency. If elected, will she also turn a blind eye to Bill's cavorting with despots and the wealthy elite who use his influence abroad?
Strict: First of all, you're wrong about the question; it was asked by a strong Hillary supporter. Second, Chelsea didn't say the question was irrelevant, she said it was none of his business -- as if the national nightmare had been a private matter that didn't have the ripple effect I describe in my post.
The Clinton White House was scandal-plagued, and it's absolutely fair to ask anyone associated with her campaign -- especially since she's running on the record of that administration -- whether we'd be in for more of the same if she sits in the Oval Office.
-
Hip-hip-hooray, Chris!
-
Geeesh Chris, chill. I didn't mean to raise your hackles; we just disagree on this.
-
A Diff Me: Love the name; laughed out loud.
SS: I'm chilled I swear. Just responding to what you wrote. Always enjoy your comments but never take things personally.
-
Chris,
I'm not one to suck up to you, but yes you got this one right.Chelsea is a big girl, pushing 30. She's lived 1/2 her life in D.C. circulating amongst the most powerful people who walk this earth. If she doesn’t want the tough questions and the “low blows”, fine, stay home. But let’s be honest, if daddy and mommy were president, Chelsea is going to make bank on that. I thought her response was very immature.
Why didn’t she just stand there and chant “ I’m rubber and you’re glue”
The comments to this entry are closed.
anon on Mar 26, 2008 3:18:25 PM:
Chris, would you think it was appropriate to comment on your parent's extramarital affairs, even if one parent was an ex-President and the other was currently running for President? The questioner asked for her personal opinion on the Monica Lewinsky affair -- I'm sure she has many feelings, none of which can be summed up in a college student union Q&A session, and all of which are deeply personal. I agree that the scandal's effects are important factors to consider in a H.C. Presidency, but I don't think that Chelsea who, along with Hillary, was made a direct victim of the affair, should be expected to share her thoughts with us. After all, she was only 17 years old when the scandal broke.