Hence, I could see all fairness in asking it of Hillary, but not her daughter.

Her daughter who is campaigning for her.

By that same logic, I wouldn’t ask anything but a softball question.

Just to beat this point down (since you claim I dodged it earlier on the other thread even though I’ve been giving this explanation all along), I wouldn’t ask a single difficult or uncomfortable question of any politician. I don’t even see the need really.

I like it that some journalists ask tough questions of politicians, but even then, the person answering usually either dodges the question or just lies. So what’s the point? If I want to know the truth, I’ll just research on my own.

But again, this has nothing to do with the validity of the question being asked. It’s just about my personality, one that I’m glad most journalists don’t share. Those who do likely suck at their job.

Hence, I could see all fairness in asking it of Hillary, but not her daughter.

MadisonConservative on March 28, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Fine, if that’s how you feel, but what I’m trying to explain (though obviously failing) is that I wouldn’t even ask her mother.

I also wouldn’t ask McCain about amnesty or Obama about his racist pastor. That’s just who I am. It has nothing to do with the question being asked.

I called you a hypocrite because you said that the question was fair, but you wouldn’t ask it. As I’ve said before, if there’s nothing wrong with the question, why wouldn’t you ask it?

MadisonConservative on March 28, 2008 at 10:30 AM

I explained that. I personally wouldn’t ask an uncomfortable question of someone unless the person is a friend of mine or I’m drunk.

As I said, I’m perfectly sober and no Clinton can be called my friend.

As I said, I also wouldn’t have asked Chelsea about her trip “under sniper fire,” but surely that one would be a fair question since she was on the trip herself.

JohnTant on March 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I guess it just depends on your experience. I’ve known parents who were simply master guilt-trippers, and others who just plain pouted until their children did what they wanted. My parents are, thankfully, neither, but it certainly made me appreciate them.

think we need to all watch The Godfather and understand this a little better.

MadisonConservative on March 28, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Heh.

Speaking for myself, as a son I cannot imagine my parents bringing great pressure down for me to campaign for them against my wishes. It’s just outside of my perspective. I know this is going to sound self-serving, but I was raised to believe that while blood is thicker than water, respect must also be earned. If my father were caught schtupping an intern in our house and committed perjury about it while misusing his position to cover up the entire thing, I honestly can’t imagine him or my mother assuming that I’d be a part of any of it. Plus, ewww.

Anyway, my father would probably tell me that he wanted to run for office and that my support would mean a lot to him. But if I said I didn’t want to campaign overtly I’m pretty sure he’d respect that.

As a father, I similarly cannot imagine myself using my children as pawns to portray a particular image so as to secure my career.

Lastly, I think support comes in many flavors. I can certainly support my family in doing something without necessarily agreeing with it. But I think that support will tend to be behind the scenes, not actively campaigning and acting as a surrogate.

…for some reason you called me a hypocrite because of it.

I called you a hypocrite because you said that the question was fair, but you wouldn’t ask it. As I’ve said before, if there’s nothing wrong with the question, why wouldn’t you ask it?

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.

Which is why I decided this wasn’t something we could continue discussing, but for some reason you called me a hypocrite because of it.

Blake on March 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Yeah, I wouldn’t have gone that far. The image of excrimite in a person’s mouth is just a bit much, especially after coworkers showed be “tub girl.” The Internet can be very disgusting.

But still, it’s nice to see that you can have a sense of humor.

One other thing. If we’re to excuse Chelsea Clinton from campaigning for her mother because it’s out of family loyalty, then why should anyone take anything she says seriously? If she’s out there because Hillary Clinton is her mother, and not because she made her decision that Hillary is the best person for the job, then she’s being insincere in making her case. Isn’t excusing Chelsea’s campaigning as motiviated by family loyalty to dismiss everything she says as motivated by something other than her own 28-year-old opinions?

JohnTant on March 28, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Yes, but that happens all the time. Family loyalty is important to many people. I don’t take Chelsea’s word seriously because I know she would stand up for her mother just as I would stand up for mine. I love my mother, and I’m sure she loves hers as well, and often we let that connection color our judgment. That’s not a criticism of anyone’s will, mind you, just a confirmation of, essentially, a conflict of interest. However, there it is, and it will always be there.

Imagine your father or mother were running for office, and you perhaps thought someone else would be better. Could you really bring yourself to tell them that? Sure, some people can. Others can’t. Depends on the relationship you have with them. It’s not always an easy thing. I don’t know what Chelsea is thinking, whether she really believes Hillary deserves to be president or not, but if she doesn’t, maybe she just loves her too much to turn her down.

I think we need to all watch The Godfather and understand this a little better.

One other thing. If we’re to excuse Chelsea Clinton from campaigning for her mother because it’s out of family loyalty, then why should anyone take anything she says seriously? If she’s out there because Hillary Clinton is her mother, and not because she made her decision that Hillary is the best person for the job, then she’s being insincere in making her case. Isn’t excusing Chelsea’s campaigning as motiviated by family loyalty to dismiss everything she says as motivated by something other than her own 28-year-old opinions?

I also support her refusing to answer a very personal question about her mother and father. As long as she does it politely. She really has no particular right to be outraged, though. You’d have to expect this sort of thing in politics. As any one of the Clintons and all on their campaign staff surely know.

Which is why I suspect this was a planted question, to let Chelsea express outrage at an inappropriate question. She did pretty well with that, and she’s now less likely to be asked the question.

If I’m wrong, then I may just be paranoid. If I’m right, we’re being a little silly to get tied up in knots over the issue.

Oh, and Blake? You can still f*** off.

Madison, I’ve had enough of your belligerence. Knock it off with the profanity, asterisked or otherwise. I’m not going to warn you again.

Bill and Hill must have conceived her at Woodstock.

Help me out here, she’s an accident right? The chick has hair on her tongue.

Oh, and Blake? You can still f*** off.

Thank you for once again providing proof of what a hypocrite you really are, cheesehead.

JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM

I’ll spring for some cheese curds.

MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Fair enough.

Next beer is on me, mate.

JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 9:43 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.

Then what to make of this:

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?