Heart-ache: Chelsea gets the Monica question
posted at 10:14 pm on March 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
It’s Clinton Day at HA so we might as well put a bow on it. Fair game? The boss’s points are well taken but the cringe factor for me is simply too high. No need to rub her face in daddy’s shame when there are so many other important questions to be asked. Like, “Do you ever worry that pathological lying might be hereditary?” Or, “If Tuzla was too dangerous for your pop, how come he sent you there instead?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
By definition, the parents have to have the trait, whether dormant or not, to pass it on to their children. Duh. I’m thinking you two should just give it up.
Blake on March 26, 2008 at 7:01 AM
By definition, a trait is a feature or characteristic. Try again…
deesine on March 26, 2008 at 10:46 AM
If Chelsea is going to step into the firefight, she needs to be prepared to take a few shots. Either she settled her own mind, and/or her ‘handlers’ helped out, but either way, she dealt with it well. Smack down. No nonsense. Pro. Kudos Chelsea!
The person that asked the question is a low-class trashy POS.
LimeyGeek on March 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Exactly.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I’ll back off some on the comment I made last night. I thought the question asked by the student had been a crude sexual remark. The actual question wasn’t that bad. It’s still not something I would ever ask the candidates daughter in person, but it is a legitimate question.
juliesa on March 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Fair enough, that is if she was on a tour promoting something else other than her mother.
If she was pressing a children’s book or charity she supports, you have a point. However, these Q&A session are about her mom’s campaign, and the questions pertaining to her mom are fair game. Especially when credibility is on the table.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM
The person asking the question is what? Do you know this person? Do you know what the question was? There was nothing low-life or lewd or inappropriate about the question.
Squish.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Intellectually honest.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Important part bolded in order to make a point. She is her mother. HER MOTHER. You back up your mother, period. There’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Who her mother is just makes it all the more critical that she does support her. You can’t fault Chelsea for being in that no-way-out situation.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 11:03 AM
You’re getting spongy on us. Again.
Spanglemaker on March 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
So, according to you, this Q&A is not about her mother running to be the Democrat Presidential candidate? No one asked her to betray her mother. Your indignation is misguided.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I think she should be left out of the Monica stuff.
Now the Bosnia thing she should be asked about b/c she did her part to maintain that lie.
Dubn8tr on March 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
It is about her running for the presidency. However, bringing up what her father did, and it’s relevance (in other words, lack thereof) to the campaign is evidence of someone who wants to strike at the Clintons with the same cold callousness that they exercise against their opponents.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Clearly you have low standards. Squish yourself.
LimeyGeek on March 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
If she is going to campaign for her mom, she is open for questions like this.
Sensei Ern on March 26, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Please (rolls eyes). What was low standard about the question? Honestly research what the question was before you assume anything. The question was legitimate.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
The Lewinsky incident alone is irrelevant. How her mom handled it in public is not. The question is legitimate.
You are embellishing the question a bit much with your retort. Do you even know what the question was?
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Hey, I’m on your side. Other posters have no business telling you to play nice. If you want to call a woman you’ve never met a “whore” that’s fine and dandy. And since free speech works both ways, if Hot Air wants to ban you lest your remarks tarnish this site’s reputation, then that’s fine and dandy as well.
America is an incredible country.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Yes, he asked if how Hillary handled the incident at the time damaged her credibility and if it affected her qualifications to be president.
You just admitted the incident was irrelevant, so the question, from a totally objective point of view, is obtuse. However, the bigger point here is that going up to a woman’s daughter, and asking how her father’s infidelity affected her job is a veiled attempt to torpedo her. Imagine the previous sentence, if applied to ANY other family. Don’t use double standards just because of your feelings towards Hillary and Bill.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Of course you do. But you don’t have to campaign for her. Surely we can agree that there is a difference.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
But according to the person who asked the question, it wasn’t. He’s actually a Clinton supporter who seemingly still supports Hillary and has had to answer the same question he asked of Chelsea several times to his friends.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Inre the out of bounds thing.
Situation one:
Chelsea Clinton: Thank you for inviting me to your campus today, where I would like to talk about my new book Why I Deserted Pediatrics For Economics. Yes, there’s a question in the first row?
Student: I’d like to ask you about the Monica Lewinsky incident and how it impacted your book.
Clinton: Why…I…that is none of your business.
OK, justified response.
Situation two:
Chelsea Clinton: Thank you for inviting me to your campus today, where I would like to talk about how my mother, Hillary Clinton, is the best choice for President through her extensive experience both in and out of the White House. Yes, there’s a question in the first row?
Student: I’d like to ask how your mother’s actions during and after the Monica Lewinsky matter make her the best choice for President.
Clinton: Why…I…that is none of your business.
Feigned indignation, imo.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I give up.
Anybody else who wants to whup on Chelsea, you be sure and ask your friends with cheating parents if the one’s infidelity made the other unfit for their job.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Now you’re just trying to use the “gotcha!” retort by nitpicking. Let me clarify further for you. The incident should have remained irrelevant, however the method of how Hillary handled it in public (which includes the “right wing conspiracy” statement) makes this a wholly relevant question.
Dude, she is stumping for her mom! No one is forcing her to do it. She is an adult and does not need you to shield her from uncomfortable questions. She is on the campaign trail.
Come on, your comment history on this website does not reflect these on this post. What gives? Is McCain’s squishiness afflicting you as well? (said in jest and in all due respect of course)
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The question was not solely about her father’s infidelity! It was about her mom’s credibility on how she handled and explained it in public! Dude! Come back from the dark side of reactionary indignation!
No one whuped on her with the question. If anything, we are whupping on those who are crying foul to the question!
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Exactly! How many more people need to spell it out like this?
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I think that’s a partial strawman.
If one of my friends with cheating parents was trying to get me to hire one of his parents for a position involving a great deal of responsibility, authority, and trust…you’d better believe the subject would come up.
If on the other hand I’m out having a few beers with said friend, I would not bring it up unless/until he did.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Question turns out to have come from a big Clinton supporter, who intended it as an opportunity for Chelsea to spike. Chelsea just flubbed it, no biggie.
RushBaby on March 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM
AP just posted a new thread on this topic.
RushBaby on March 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM
As I said above, if you believe Bill and Hill are as unscrupulous as I do, then you can’t believe they aren’t pressuring her to campaign for them. You’re dealing with two vindictive, coercive conmen. If Chelsea doesn’t campaign for them, it looks bad. They know that as well as I do. She is under duress, mark my words.
My beliefs have always been that entering into this kind of personal territory is and always has been contemptuous, and the real vile remarks have emboldened me on it. As for McCain, I’ll be giving the Republican party the conservative’s middle finger this November, come what may.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM
The Monday Morning Quarterback in me says that this could have been such a softball question too.
Chelsea: I think my mother was at first in denial that someone she loved so much could have done such a thing. I know I was, and to a certain extent I am still angry at my father. But my mother did not take the easy way out and abandon our family. Instead she stayed true to her vows and committed herself to making a difficult situation work, both for the good of our family and the good of the country. It’s that kind of dedication which makes her the best choice.
Instead, we get “none of your business.”
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Be that as it may, she is out there and on the campaign trail.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Not to mention: attention to detail, good judgment, good problem solving skills, etc…
It’s extremely unfair of you to make this suggestion.
But since you asked, everyone I know who has a parent who had an affair looks down upon the one who had the affair and seems to understand that both spouses played a role. My own father was cheated on (not by my mother but by his ex-wife), and even he will tell you that he contributed to the break up of his marriage. And that’s the exact advice he gave his son when my brother was contemplating divorce.
Hillary has put it out there that she is more qualified to be president because of her experience as First Lady. Monica was her biggest test as First Lady, the biggest test she possibly could have had. How she handled it speaks directly to her claim of “experience.”
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
As I recall, Hillary’s schedule revealed that she was in the White House during several of Bill’s “sessions” with Monica. If her vast “experience” includes failure to know what was going on under her nose, how does said experience indicate that she is able to keep track of what is going on in the country and in the world?
I think any questions are fair game… If Chelsea cannot take the heat, she should leave the kitchen.
whyme on March 26, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I actually feel sorry for Chelsea.
I have a young daughter and I cannot imagine putting her through the marriage mess they have put Chelsea through.
She is a victim in my mind.
jake-the-goose on March 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM
You’ve got to be the only one who believes this. There have been so many Presidents’ children who never once campaigned for their parents.
And if you’re correct in your assumption, then why didn’t Chelsea do anything when Clinton ran for the Senate?
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Hillary in New York was a cakewalk. Hillary nationally isn’t.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Wouldn’t that have been all the more reason for her to campaign for her? They could have eased her into the political process and taught her how to handle these situations with softball interviews instead of testing her out in a campaign that they actually have to fight for.
I mean Chelsea was untested. What if she had turned out to be Clinton’s Michelle Obama?
I’m sorry, but the woman is almost 30. She has her own life and cannot be controlled by them. Or if she is, then she’s no more than a robot, someone deserving of nothing more than our pity not respect.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 12:16 PM
She refuses to speak with a cute little girl reporter but when asked if her mother’s credibility was harmed after the Lewinsky scandal she bites the guys head off?
Where’s her credibility?
Domino on March 26, 2008 at 12:16 PM
All “blame” falls squarely, on the shoulders, of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton did have sex with a subordinate, in OUR White House, and Mrs. Clinton condoned the behavior by defending Bill Clinton, as she appeared to do, in the past.
They are the ones who put their child, in harms way. Period.
sinsing on March 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM
You’re making the assertation that they considered her a choice this time around. Like I said, New York was a cakewalk. They didn’t need to put her out there. They marshaled only minimum resources. 2006 I believe she won by what…30%?
However, this time around, they needed everything they could get. Hillary knew this wouldn’t be a lock, and she’s squeezing every drop of exposure she can. They didn’t have a choice to play the daughter card here. If they didn’t, it probably would have given Obama an edge.
I don’t care about her age. How old was Vince Foster? The Clintons are vindictive, threatening, dangerous people, and they’ll do what it takes, regardless of what it is.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I would presume that Chelsea is a bit safer in saying ‘No’ to Hillary than Vince Foster was.
James on March 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Like the Oscar winning song declared “It’s hard out there for a pimp”.
RobCon on March 26, 2008 at 12:32 PM
She’s inane, wants to campaign for mommy but won’t do interviews. Typical Clinton.
TooTall on March 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM
No offensive intended, but you’re becoming too paranoid for me. If Chelsea really is in the same danger as Vince, then worrying over an awkward question should really be the very least of her problems.
After all, if they’re really that horrible, then helping them regain the White House is really the worst thing she could do to herself.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Now the Bosnia thing she should be asked about b/c she did her part to maintain that lie.
Dubn8tr on March 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
She was. She ducked that one too, although without the weird little head pumping she did in this one.
Uncle Pinky on March 26, 2008 at 1:27 PM
As an American, I was stunned and shocked by the scandal when it happened. As a American, I am stunned, shocked, and ANGRY about Chelsea’s treatment now regarding the scandal.
How old was Chelsea when her father did this? 10 or 11? How in the world can a child that age have an adult viewpoint on the situation?
Nothing can justify the extreme boorish behavior of asking her such a question, especially in public. She did the right thing but I would have gone further and told the little twerp to go read the Starr report if he wants sleazy details about other people’s sexual experiences.
As it is now, I support Chelsea as if she was a conservative under attack. This is no different than if someone asked an 11 year old girl the same question.
The lack of basic civility in today’s America makes me want to puke.
platypus on March 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM
My reference was in relation to your claim that “she’s an adult, she can make her own decisions.”
Vince Foster was an adult. However, enough pressure was on him that he made his own decision to take his life. A good deal of that pressure was because of Bill and Hillary.
I have no doubt in my mind that Bill and Hillary would put that same pressure on anyone who would be crucial to their campaign.
Now you can stop with the ridiculous putting words in my mouth. You’re defending a sleazeball’s decision to make a name for himself, and you yourself admitted you wouldn’t ask the question. If it was a fair question, you would ask it, or you have no integrity.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM
When the shit hit the fan in the summer of 1998, she was 18 years old.
Currently, “children” of that age are fighting for this country and are in life and death situations daily. And, exactly what is an “adult view”? That [some adults] adultery is okay?
Blake on March 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM
If she’s 27 now, that would make her around 16 at the time it happened. I still agree, regardless.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Once again, you are WRONG! She is currently 28 years old and in the summer of 1998, she would be 18 year old.
Blake on March 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Are you actually arguing age? Fine, Mr. Semantics.
The affair actually started in 1995, so if she was 28 now, she was 15 when it started. However, let’s be precise.
Clinton made his famous “I did not have sexual relations” speech in late January of 1998. Chelsea was born in February of 1980. She would have been 17 when it all started.
Now, if you really want to go down this road, I’ll gladly misspell something in my post so you can correct it, and then give you an easy target for you to call me a Nazi so you can invoke Godwin’s Law. Otherwise, quit talking about adults when it’s apparent you can’t converse as one.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Now you’re just nitpicking for a fight. Do you need help taking the stick out of your @ss? I’m assuming it was shoved deep up there for you to be this cantankerous over something so insignificant.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 2:27 PM
No, you are the one arguing about age. I pointed out that she was not a child of 10 or 11 when the scandal broke but 18. You and your ilk are the ones attempting to falsely portray her as a child.
I know it bugs the crap out of you that you are not in charge and I am still here. But, really, having your panties wound as tight as you do has cut off the blood supply to your brain.
Blake on March 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Actually, if you wiped the spittle off your monitor, you’d notice I was pointing out that she wasn’t a child of 10 or 11, not claiming she was. Read before you post more clueless cretinous crap.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:45 PM
She was certainly old enough to go along with the public relations stunts after this all hit the fan….
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 2:46 PM
As opposed to…? Screaming at her parents at the top of her voice when the cameras were on? Maybe a 60 minutes segment? She was the only child of the first family. Try some perspective.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM
You’re flattering yourself a little too much by assuming I care that you’re still here.
I find it completely hilarious that you dumped all over someone for saying she was 17 instead of 18 as though it makes any significant difference, like you’re so starved for attention that you’ll lash out at others to make sure they notice you.
I’m not angry about a thing. Please, continue to hate away. It only harms you.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I have perspective. Chelsea made herself complicit when she signed onto the PR shenanigans. She didn’t want to be in that contrived photo of the three of them, but she went along anyway to help her mother’s political future.
The viewpoint that lacks perspective, I think, is the one that says Chelsea Clinton is being forced to cheerlead here.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Another thought….
If the concern here is to avoid insulting Chelsea Clinton, well…isn’t it very insulting to say that she is campaigning for her mother “under duress” and isn’t actually sincere? Furthermore, that the duress is so strong that it drove at least one man to suicide?
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Is it just me or is Chelsea the least attractive female on the planet other than her mother and Oprah Winfrey? That girl is an entirely new category of ugly. It looks like she got no oxygen to the placenta during the last month before birth.
Those are some of the worst genes anyone has passed to a child since our pre-human existence. Can’t she put a bag over her head or something? Can’t Hillary take some campaign money and get Chel a nose job or maybe switch it out with a hood ornament off a ‘57 Buick or something? How about surgeons mask if the funds are too low.
revolution on March 26, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Says the guy who just claimed that a teenage girl was in photos in order to help her mother’s political career.
Oh, and look…
More classlessness. Oops, sorry John, I’m not forming that as a detailed argument, because it is my opinion, and the basis of an opinion is believing you are right when the issue is grey. Now go right ahead and misrepresent what I say once again with “you think whoever disagrees with you isn’t conservative”. Nope John, just someone who has an extremely high threshold before he considers things inappropriate.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I think the suggestion is that he was killed, but I agree with your overall point. I even believe that it’s more insulting to Chelsea to assume she isn’t in control over herself than to suggest that her mother’s reputation was harmed by the Monica scandal.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Wow. It wasn’t, but as you invented some ulterior motive that I still can’t fathom about something else I’ve said, I’m not totally surprised.
My suggestion was, as I’ve said now about six or seven times, that Hillary and Bill Clinton are people whose main skill is making people do things for their benefit. As Vince Foster killed himself, likely in relation to his position as a result of the events that Bill and Hillary created, I don’t doubt that they would have squelched any opposition by Chelsea to stumping for her. And for the people reading between the lines that aren’t there, I’m not saying they threatened her, I’m saying they coerced or convinced her. Take the conspiracy theories to the door.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM
OK. Sorry for misunderstanding you, but it’s not as though people don’t speculate that he was killed. I didn’t make some huge leap. You were talking about how controlling the Clintons were then brought up Vince.
And we’re saying that she’s an adult who can speak for herself. I don’t disagree that the Clintons are masters at getting what they want; however, historically, people have been able to think for themselves when around them. How else do you explain Dick Moris?
And convincing someone to help you is a far cry from forcing someone. If Chelsea was convinced to work on her mother’s campaign, then she’s still working on the campaign out of her own free will.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM
She was 18, soon to be 19. Casting her as a “teenager” is on a par with complaining about 18 year old gang members being “children killed by guns.”
She made the decision to be a part of a PR effort designed to minimize political fallout. Unless she was similarly “under duress” to do so, in which case I can only wonder how many guns were pointed at her head just out of the camera frame….
Mr. Tant.
Now, you can certainly say that a post about Chelsea’s looks is inappropriate, you can certainly opine that it lacks class, and I may certainly agree with you….but just because one person’s post doesn’t have class does not mean the question posed to Chelsea Clinton similarly does not. It is your opinion, and an unsupported one at that. When challenged, you demonstrably retreated into the ad hominem.
Speaking of retreating:
If you’re going to display exasperation and say you give up, doesn’t that kind of mean, you know…you’re done posting?
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 5:25 PM
It wasn’t and I am not.
Blake on March 25, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Calling, hinting, suggesting, that Chelsea is/was a ‘whore’ because of the actions of her father was out of line. I can read trash like this on DU all day long, all of it directed at conservatives. You’re post was no less vile. Way out of line. And this is really…strike two against hotair. I don’t traffic with trash.
DngrMse on March 26, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Against Hot Air?
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Does this mean you’ll go away now?
wise_man on March 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Does this mean you’ll go away now?
wise_man on March 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Does it bother you whether I stay, or go? Explain why?
DngrMse on March 26, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Chels is the mini-me for Hils ‘n Bills. The idea that she’s somehow being forced, at her age, to shill for her parents is risible. The idea she’s still due her childhood immunity is equally indefensible.
I agree with the poster above who noted she seems to have inherited the worst of all possible genes, including the mental ones. Ughh.
petefrt on March 26, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Then I guess we’re simply disagreeing upon speculative motives behind Chelsea’s campaigning. I don’t think we’re going to get past that since neither of us can really prove either way.
All right, let’s review…semantics about her being a teenager blah blah…hyperbole about duress making it seem like I was saying Chelsea had a gun to her head blah blah…
No, I think I’ll call you John. You’ve earned no respect so far from me, considering that you’ve laced most of your retorts with hyperbole in order to discredit my points(e.g. “If you disagree with me you’re not a conservative Chelsea had a gun to her head etc”) so I’ll refer to you as whatever I like. I’m pretty close to just calling you JohnTroll in response to your tactics. It would be at about the same level.
As for ad hominem attacks, you touched it off with “your opinion does not make it true”. We’re discussing an issue of whether or not something was appropriate, and it largely lies on the decision of whether or not a family member should be questioned regarding personal family issues. Some will argue one way, some another. I would think that most conservatives would respect the family over politics, or at least most of the conservatives I know would feel that way. Maybe times have changed since the last registration on here. Either way, your constant bleating of “you’re not right” is your primary argument for you being right. Pot, kettle, black.
Finally, if your only objective is to see me stop posting, you need to ask yourself why you care. I don’t care whether you do or not. “I give up” is an expression of exasperation. If I’m going to stop responding, I’ll say so. I’m on the verge of it in response to you. Maybe if you can post back without throwing the terms “bullying” and “ad hominem” at me while underhandedly doing it yourself, the conversation can progress. Otherwise, frankly, f*** off.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM
My, my. You call the ex-marine a pr*ck and tell Tant to f*ck off. Aren’t you the little hypocrite.
Blake on March 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Oh, and you and your pals are bullys.
Blake on March 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM
What I think our friend MadisonConservative is saying is that we should all show more public decorum, you stupid f***ing pieces of s***.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 9:41 PM
There are pricks in the military, pal. I respect our veterans, but some are pricks. Being a veteran doesn’t give you a coupon to be a prick without getting called on it.
And yeah, if Johnny Boy doesn’t cut out the hyperbole, he can f*** off. You should feel free to do so as well.
Isn’t this ad hominem, Johnny Boy? If so, how come it sounds a lot like what you’ve said?
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 9:41 PM
You almost made me spit out my drink with that one. Bastard. :P
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Have another one, sounds like you’re on a roll.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Cute. Enjoy.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Will do.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Well, that’s persuasive.
What ad hom? In response to wondering what makes the question inappropriate, I get insults as to my conservatism. Pointing out the inconsistencies of your arguments is not ad hom. Pointing out that you have not supported your opinion is not ad hom. Pointing out that you are using bully tactics is similarly not ad hom. And pointing out that Chelsea Clinton is an adult and is responsible for her own decision making is not hyperbole.
Saying, on the other hand, that she is under duress from a power couple who will do whatever it takes to win, which extends to bullying their only child into campaigning for her mother more neatly fits into hyperbole than anything I’ve said on the subject. Feigning exasperation and saying you quit on the subject is another point. :)
I’m sensing a fair bit of misplaced frustration on your part on this topic. Instead of making salient points, now you’re calling me a troll. Simply put, you failed to make a case that the question was out of bounds. We’re left with your opinion that it is, which is fine as far as it goes. The thing is…it doesn’t go all that far. As much as you want to insult, we’re still left with the fact that your entire argument rests upon your subjective opinion of something that you haven’t supported. I’m having a hard time seeing how that’s supposed to be persuasive.
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 8:31 AM
I wonder if this means Michelle Malkin’s conservative creds are now open to doubt?
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 AM
He disagreed with you. In your mind that makes him a pr*ck. Nice.
Your attempts to bully people who disagree with you are facts.
I’m not one of the ones running around this blog telling people what they can and cannot post, what they can and cannot ask, and what they can and cannot think. That’s you and your pals, cupcake.
Blake on March 27, 2008 at 8:46 AM
If I was esther, I would tell you to take that sh*t covered stick out of your a$$ and shove it in your mouth. If I was madisonconservative, I would call you a pri*ck and tell you to f*ck off. But, I’m not, so I’ll just say, Bye!
Blake on March 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM
No. He stated clearly that he gives me no respect, when I was paying it to him. For that, he is a prick. Normal conversation, regardless of difference of opinions, starts with respect on both sides. It may degrade as the conservation continues, of course, but ours had barely started. Nice job of reporting half the facts, though. You should work for Associated Press.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Well, of course not. Anyone who is a noted conservative, regardless of what they say or think, should NEVER be questioned on their conservatism. Even if two conservatives virulently disagree on everything, obviously they’re both conservatives.
Not every conservative is going to be conservative on an issue, and in the points I’ve made, I don’t believe the anti-Chelsea view is the conservative one. I didn’t believe keeping Elian Gonzalez here as opposed to giving him back to his father was conservative, but plenty of others did. I didn’t believe giving amnesty was conservative, but plenty of others, including presidential candidates, claimed it was so.
So, if you’re going to get bent out of shape that I claim that a view is not the view of conservatives, you better give up discussion of politics. If all you can do is respond with “that’s ad hominem”, I’ll be glad to, as I’ve offered to others, to misspell something so you can win the argument on that point. After that, I’ll offer up an easy target to call me a Nazi, so you can invoke Godwin and get this one all wrapped up.
You’re right, though. If Michelle says it, it must be so. Just ignore Allah’s, or most of the first page’s, or most of the thread’s single posters’, or anyone else’s view, and let’s instead take the view backed up by so many classy conservatives (and I’m not debating that they are conservatives):
Blake on March 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Akzed on March 25, 2008 at 10:55 PM
madmonkphotog on March 26, 2008 at 8:42 AM
rplat on March 26, 2008 at 9:09 AM
HunnyWaggin on March 26, 2008 at 9:24 AM
You know…after reading those and the cheap comments, I’m not even looking for the worst ones. I’m just going to let Crooks and Liars, or Kos, or some other blog grab those convenient tidbits and link to them, just like they’ve done before when conservatives who happen to also be crass morons post here.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Geez folks. You’ve all missed the point and gotten into an argument that has nothing to do with the question that was asked. She wasn’t asked to speak about the affair or her Dad, she was asked whether or not the way her MOM handled it makes her more or less credible. It was actually a good opportunity, but she blew it and I don’t think she even understood the question. She just heard “Monica” and freaked out. Her answer gives the impression that it was an inappropriate question, but it was a fair one given the fact that they lived in the WHITE HOUSE during the period in question, and it was the primary reason that Hillary was elected to the US Senate.
Get a hold of yourselves. Take a deep breath and try not to act like a bunch of libs.
pecan pie on March 27, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Madison, I’m not bent out of shape (Have I told anyone to eff off….?). I am, however, drawing attention to a rebuttal that more neatly fits the out-of-bounds complaint than what Chelsea Clinton heard the other day. The point here is not what you consider “conservative,” but rather that you are using it as a substitute for a substantive argument.
Second, I’ve made a number of points, so much so that your argument that “all I can do” is say Ad Hom makes no sense. A law school prof once told me that being able to argue both sides of an argument is evidence of critical thinking, and I think I’ve certainly allowed that I have a fair degree of sympathy for your view. What I have also said, however, is that while your logic chain is fine with the assumption that the question is out of bounds, it also rests precariously upon that assumption. My argument is that you are stealing a base by making your assumption, and my conservatism has nothing to do with that argument.
In another thread you supported someone who said conservatives don’t ask such things, and you have backed up that opinion with subsequent statements, including at least one directed at me. But once again, “not conservative” is not synonymous with “does not agree with me.” And in response to a question as to why the question is inappropriate, saying someone isn’t conservative is an ad hominem attack. My point here is that if you want to support your opinion, support it instead of trying to cloak yourself in the veil of conservatism.
I never brought up conservative creds. I recognize that there are good faith beliefs on both sides of this issue and that conservatism is irrelevant to those beliefs. I also recognize that there are crass comments (again, coming from both sides of the aisle here…), but just because someone makes a crass comment does not mean the Lewinsky question is crass. It means someone here posted a crass comment.
Look, the flame war is getting old. If your opinion is just that, then fine. But the mere fact that something is your opinion does not make it an automatic stipulation.
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Oh…and just so you realize the folly of pretending your words weren’t as hyperbolic as they were…
When you can quit playing dumb, we can continue.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Why don’t you post exactly what I responded with. Never mind, I’ll save you the trouble:
I don’t see my questioning their conservatism anywhere. Oh well. Just because I don’t see it anywhere doesn’t mean I didn’t say it, right?
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Certainly not hyperbole, in that your very argument is that:
Suggesting that two parents are forcing their daughter to do something against her will is hyperbolic, as well as insulting.
Then what exactly did you mean?
Ditto. The premise here is flawed as well, because it assumes something that is at the heart of the dispute.
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM
The voice of reason.
As I’m getting tired of treading the same ground, and I assume The Cheese is as well, I’m happy to agree to disagree. Little else is being accomplished by arguing over opinion.
Truce?
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Exactly what I said. This is a conservative web site, so I assume those defending both sides of the issue are conservatives. Therefore, I was challenging his view that conservatives would not argue your side.
You suggested guns were to her head, directly implying use of violence as pressure. I said no such thing.
Fact: Parents often put emotional pressure on their children at all levels to do things they may not want to do. This is backed up by most people’s experience.
Fact: Some parents are bad people. Ditto.
Fact: The Clintons are very coercive, convincing, vindictive people. They are criminals, and books such as Dereliction of Duty by Buzz Paterson confirm what has been attested to by many who worked with them.
Fact: The Clintons have very ambitious political aspirations. Hello: Both wanted to be president, one has, and one may be on the way.
My hypothesis based on this: The Clintons are likely to be bad enough people to put their political aspirations above their daughter’s wishes, to such a point that they would put more pressure than an average parent would on her.
This in no way indicates violence of any kind. Only you and Esthier have made that conclusion. That’s fine for you to do, but don’t lay that one on me.
As I said, when you can quit playing dumb, we can continue.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Then what to make of this:
As for the remainder of your post, I think your argument that referencing and satirizing your hyperbole makes me guilty of it fails on a number of levels. If you really want to argue that I was being serious in suggesting that Chelsea Clinton had guns to her head, then I can’t stop you…but I also don’t have to play. :)
Guess not. :(
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM
How many times do I have to tell people on here that I mean exactly what I say? I don’t believe the conservative view on this would be that prying into family matters for the sake of political inquiry. I’m saying most of the conservatives I’ve mentioned this to agree with me. I’m not saying those people that disagree aren’t conservatives. Can you distinguish those two or not?
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I guess the lynchpin of my argument rests on giving Chelsea the benefit of the doubt before judging her motives. As she’s pursued no office, and publicly supported no candidate that wasn’t a family member, I intend to do so. When she pushes for Gore in 2012, I’ll join the fray, make no mistake. However, I’ll still treat the people who rip on her looks no better than what the neighbor’s terrier leaves on the front lawn.
So, admittedly, that is basing on something totally unverifiable, and only provable wrong. Therefore, agreeing to disagree would probably be advantageous.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Fair enough.
Next beer is on me, mate.
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM
I’ll spring for some cheese curds.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Oh, and Blake? You can still f*** off.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Thank you for once again providing proof of what a hypocrite you really are, cheesehead.
Blake on March 27, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »