Video: Student who asked Chelsea about Monica says he meant no harm
posted at 11:55 am on March 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
All he wanted to do, he says, was give her a chance to talk about mom’s “strength” during the Lewinsky thing, by which he means — what? Her strength in resisting the urge to pack her bags and give up her power as co-president of the United States? Or her strength in not having a nervous breakdown in the media glare of suddenly becoming the world’s most famous jilted woman? I have nothing but sympathy for her vis-a-vis Monicagate but it’s not something I want or need to see on her presidential job application.
Anyone else think the rationale here was cooked up after the fact to justify what was, essentially, a prank question?
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: « Previous 1 2
From my perspective, assertions about the classless nature of the question posed to Chelsea have been following that very model.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 5:30 PM
The whole thing is unnecessarily frustrating. So some people believe this is a fair question to ask of those who would campaign for Hillary. Why does that have to cause such a problem for those of you who disagree?
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Spinning like that, these two are going to make good demoncrats some day.
oakpack on March 26, 2008 at 7:52 PM
You accused me of acting naive. I was not. You accuse me of insulting conservatives. I was not. I ask for explanation of the insult, you avoid telling me even though I directly ask you more than once. As I just said, you tell me not to mince words, then do so yourself. You told me not to act naive, now you’re acting aloof. Put up or shut up.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Ironic that you’re so frustrated that we can’t understand what you claim to know. I’ll spell it out: I don’t just think it was unfair, I think it was inappropriate to put a daughter on the spot in public about her father’s indiscretion. I think the question was irrelevant to the campaign she was stumping for, and even if you could make the weak argument that it was, I think the question could have been asked of ANYONE else in the campaign. I think choosing to ask it of the daughter of anyone else other than Chelsea Clinton would be seen as prying into private family matters, which is reprehensible, and as you yourself admitted, you wouldn’t ask it.
I repeat: If you wouldn’t ask it yourself, but still think it’s appropriate, there is something wrong.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Why is there no clip of the question?
- The Cat
MirCat on March 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Now we’re getting somewhere. Baby steps. We’ll get through this. :)
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said her experience as First Lady is germane to the argument that she should be President. Chelsea has echoed this argument. So her actions and such should be examined and explained. The Lewinsky thing was a big deal, despite the efforts of the MSM and the Clintons to minimize it. It pointed to all sorts of things, from patronage to abuse of power. Indeed, right off the bat on national television Hillary Clinton blamed a right wing smear machine that manufactured a scandal with no bearing in fact. Wondering if her actions and decisions during that time have any bearing on her credibility is a valid line of inquiry, especially since she brought it up to begin with.
Since Chelsea has made the decision to campaign for her mother, she needs to support the case she is making. No one is asking her how she feels about what her father did. If the guy said “Hey, how did the whole Lewinsky thing make you feel” then even that would be crossing the line as irrelevant and is more properly considered “prying into private family matters.” But examining the public reactions and statements of Hillary Clinton in the context of the case she is making for her election is not.
This is where I think the disconnect is. The question was not about her father’s indiscretion. The question was about her mother’s handling of it in the wake of them, something that speaks to her viability as a candidate.
JohnTant on March 27, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2