Video: Student who asked Chelsea about Monica says he meant no harm
posted at 11:55 am on March 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
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?
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 Next »
your 15 minutes of fame starts right now.
lorien1973 on March 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Chelsea is a rude, spoiled brat twinkie.
L
letget on March 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM
No. Your question seems more of a rationalization for your original post on this incident.
geckomon on March 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Whatever. You want to ask a question framed around that incident? Ask someone other than Chelsea, and have some freakin’ class.
You’re excused from that request, since you, like many others here, it seems, couldn’t get any class if you paid for it.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Yeah, how so? The kid can’t even explain what his question was about.
Allahpundit on March 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Hey dude, how’s it feel to be in the same league with a ten-year old reporter from a grade school newspaper who pretty much got the same “none of your business” treatment from Chelsea? At least she didn’t tell you she thought you were cute.
pilamaye on March 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
As much as I don’t like the Hill, this question to her daughter was completely inappropriate. My uncle cheated on my aunt and I would never ever ask my cousins about it. There are lots of other questions to ask a child of a Presidential candidate but said child about her father’s dalliances is just plain classless.
mjk on March 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I don’t think it was a rationalization for a prank question. Historically, Hillary Clinton’s image has brightened when she is seen as the cuckold.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I knew it!
It was some stupid liberal pseudo-male trying to be funny. Now he’s afraid of offending the Clintons, for whom he is in the tank, so he has to backpedal with some BS about “strength.”
Conservative men don’t ask questions like that. We’re not women.
emailnuevo on March 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I really don’t. The part of him saying he’s asked about the scandal frequently as a Clinton supporter rings very true to me. In my mind, it is something that makes her less credible as a candidate for the White House.
Since campaigning, she’s done nothing to even try to convince anyone that the opposite could be true.
Plus, if it was a prank, there’s no harm in him either admitting it (and gaining an audience full of people who hate Clinton) or not going on a national television show to lie. The fact that he wanted to explain his side suggests to me that he didn’t intend to offend anyone.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I think the kid is an Obamabot
windansea on March 26, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Tell that to all those conservatives here defending the question.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM
If you are out there selling your mother as the leader of the free world, everything is our business. You mean nobody ever thought that this question would come up?
CC missed an opportunity to shine (again).
I think this kid was sincere. It was a fair question.
Hening on March 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Heh. And true, very true. Conservative men I know would ask tougher questions about foreign policy experience or that whole Bosnia thing.
mjk on March 26, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Maybe I should have put, “Conservative men, as opposed to men who are conservative,…” The question was stupid and appropriate for perhaps the girls’ room at the local high school. But to know that a guy asked the question is sad – for his parents, that is.
For the rest of us, it’s just evidence for the argument “Democrat men are only incidentally men.”
emailnuevo on March 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I’m not a man, but I wouldn’t have asked the question either. I think it’s a fair question to ask, but it’s not one I would have asked.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM
“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.”
Sympathy for the devil and her ‘daughter’, (trained seal)? Chelsea gets one difficult question and the pity party comes out in full gear? This just proves that it wasn’t inappropriate, it allows HRC to play her Ace up her sleeve: Victimhood.
I wouldn’t have done a better job tho, I would have asked Chelsea if she remembers being brainwashed (to the truth about her ‘father’) during dinner and whether she misses her biological dad since he died in jail….However, this would make the Clintoon handiwipes swoon with exquisite sympathy.
When are we gonna get a real conservative dishin’ the news here. Ed is all by himself.
Christine on March 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
But wait, wasn’t that part and parcel of her campaign strategy, i.e. a woman fighting against all odds, never throwing in the towel?
Hillary wrote in her big book that she’s, like, totally over it. If that’s true, why Chelsea’s reaction? Didn’t she get mom’s memo that it’s totally cool ‘n stuff what her daddy did?
Niko on March 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Of course. Smiling dork asking a dork question now basking in dork limelight, and giggling with his friends about it again tonight.
Dusty on March 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
That boggles my mind. If it’s a fair question, why wouldn’t you ask it?
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Chelsea was the one who was there. Chelsea has chosen to join this campaign. I have no doubt it was an awful moment for her, and I have no problem with her not answering it, but let’s not pretend she was just minding her own business and somebody started yelling about cigars and blue dresses.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I think it was a Hillary plant sent to generate sympathy. Chelsea is an adult, campaigning for her mommy. She is capable of answering the question better than she did. It IS our business if mommy wants to be president.
dish on March 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Then just read Ed’s posts and stay out of my comment threads. Good enough?
Allahpundit on March 26, 2008 at 12:25 PM
AP- Thanks for this post. It needed to be said!
Pam on March 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I think that it is freaking fair to ask a used car salesman any and everything about the car you are about to buy…
Oh wow! I just made an allusion or something. But honestly, she put herself out sell her Mom as able to do the most powerful job in the world, she should be able to be asked anything. We didn’t put her on the stump, she did that to herself.
rgranger on March 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Whoops, meant to add that Chelsea’s response seemed scripted. Or maybe she really is that plastic…
dish on March 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I wouldn’t have asked the question, either. However, for the reasons Jim Treacher mentions above, the campaign should have prepared Chelsea for the possibility of this question being asked.
And yeah, the guy’s rationale for the question is pure spin.
Slublog on March 26, 2008 at 12:27 PM
So you’d have no problem with a reporter asking the Bush twins about their dad’s former alcoholism?
Dirty laundry mania!
Slublog on March 26, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Ding.
Next, please?
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Manners and good taste prevent me from fully replying to you. For now, I will only comment that you might be a Republican, but you’re no conservative.
emailnuevo on March 26, 2008 at 12:32 PM
IF Bush’s actions vis a vis the alcoholism resulted in a highly public trial after repeated lies and IF Bush abused his office and subordinates to enable himself to indulge and IF Bush leaned on others to cover up for him and IF the Bush twins are actively campaigning for their father then ask away.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM
When she joined the fray she opened herself to all the crap that associated with her family. The question was legitimate and if Chelsea did not want to answer, she could have just said “I will not answer questions on that subject” and had some freakin’ class. But then again, she is a Clinton.
Wade on March 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM
No, Slublog…I’m not a Bush fan and don’t think that the Bush twins should be protected either…Instead of knee-jerking, please understand what I said: the press needs to stay away from such questions because it puts the Clintoons in a victim role. Since I’m not a reporter, I have dream questions that I wouldn’t be allowed to ask and the answers are not important. I’m sick to death of the Clintoons and everyone who plays right into their game in an effort to be nice and fair. With this attitude, we have lost the WOT and the Republic.
Sorry AP, I have the right to speak my mind too.
Christine on March 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Did not happen on the taxpayer’s dime.
Wade on March 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I was responding more to this nonsense:
However, I wouldn’t have asked Chelsea that question, because it’s kind of classless and more importantly, the answer is going to be essentially meaningless. No daughter’s going to bash her dad on the campaign trail.
Slublog on March 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM
As an aside, I see some people who think the question is out of bounds have no problem with maligning the conservatism of those who have a good faith argument that the question was fair.
To me that’s a bit of a dichotomy. And insulting someone as not a real conservative based on this needlessly ad hominem and is closer to being out of bounds than the subject of the thread.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM
My apologies…I didn’t catch your meaning.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Indeed you do, but not on a private site and not if you’re going to resort to dopey insults about who’s a real conservative and who isn’t. Either stick to the post in question or stay out of my threads.
Allahpundit on March 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM
In public, yes. This is not a public site. You have no more right to speak your mind here than you do in a stranger’s house.
People who don’t know their rights are one of the biggest problems in this country. Don’t be part of the problem.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I think the kid asking the question just wanted a bit of attention, and got it!
4shoes on March 26, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Maybe I can give you an example. I also believe it is fair to ask Chelsea about the trip she took with her mom and ask why Hillary thought it important to lie about that trip.
However, I wouldn’t ask that question for the same reason I wouldn’t ask about the Monica scandal.
That’s just my personality.
If I’m drinking, or talking with a friend, I’ll get into uncomfortable topics, but I’m very sober and can’t call any Clinton a friend.
I wouldn’t, but I don’t think that’s a good analogy. Unless I’m mistaken, Bush was an alcoholic before the Bush twins were born.
They would know as much about it as I know about my father’s drug use as a teen. I know he used some drugs. I know he doesn’t use any now. I likely haven’t been told the whole truth, but it’s not an issue that has ever had any effect on my life whatsoever.
On top of that, as others have said, Bush’s alcoholism didn’t cause quite the toll on this country’s that Bill’s affair did.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Thanks…i didn’t realize that i wasn’t allowed to use free speech.
Christine on March 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I THINK THE QUESTION WAS UNCALLED FOR AND IN REALLY BAD TASTE. THE REASON THE KID GAVE WAS MIGHTY LAME AS WELL.
That whole episode was a disgrace, and dredging it up accomplishes nothing but embarassment for Chelsea. If I were her, my response might have been a little stronger.
saiga on March 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM
What if the question had been – what do you think of the right wing smear machine that used Ken Starr to persecute your father over a private matter and who are now trying to use it against your mother?
aikidoka on March 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Well, the not so slight difference being that Bush is a former alcoholic, whereas Hillary is still married to the same man that cheated on her in the Oval Office.
One could say that Hillary is addicted to power.
(And thanks for bringing up that topic. Helps to clarify a few things about the difference between redemption and relativism.)
Niko on March 26, 2008 at 1:29 PM
man with black hat: Obligatory “Chelsea Moment”
Now, if Daddy were a private citizen in this context, she would be right. But Daddy was a public servant and on the job during the incident(s) in question. That makes it everybody’s business. I should know, because I’m a public servant. if you’re an American citizen reading this right now, that makes MY public conduct while on the job YOUR business.
And I’m not even elected. Do you think it applies any less to someone who is???
It would more appropriate to say, “The incident in question concerns a public official while performing the duties of their office. I was only a child at the time. The question therefore becomes a family matter, for which I choose not to comment publicly.” Meanwhile, all the brain-dead people in the crowd cheered her on — perhaps not so much for her parents, as for the little girl caught in the middle.
Then again, Chelsea is a big girl now, and it’s a whole new ball game…
manwithblackhat on March 26, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Proof positive that no matter how much money is thrown at a kid, you can’t change him from being born a turd.
sheesh on March 26, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Want some cheese with that whine? Dork.
Enrique on March 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Alright, let’s correct this right now. First, freedom of speech means that the government isn’t going to storm your house or throw you in hail because you say things they don’t like.
Second, you aren’t on a public site, and whatever the moderators say, goes. So if AP was feeling froggy, he could ban you right now, without ever offending your precious little freedom of speech.
Third, the last refuge of the losing half of debate is ad hominem insinuations, i.e., “You don’t respect my rights!”
emailnuevo on March 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM
That should be “e.g.,” not “i.e.”
emailnuevo on March 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM
That’s it, off to Gitmo with you.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Yeah…. This dude wanted to play “gotcha” and he got it handed to him on national TV and he’s trying to save face.
Walk into a bar or restaurant and start talking trash about the bartender or chef and see how long it take you get thrown out…. Free speech isn’t free from consequences.
liquidflorian on March 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Exactly! Jim nails the substance of this debate right there. Kudos.
Nineball on March 26, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Now you do. You don’t own the bandwidth on this non-public site. Read Hotair’s terms and conditions. If free speech is what you want, move to San Francisco or Berkeley.
RMCS_USN on March 26, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Tzetzes on March 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Now, c’mon. Don’t use the “free speech” thing here.
If you really don’t understand the difference between free speech in public and “free speech” on a website that someone owns, pays for, and has control of the content posted on said website, at this point in your life, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I often disagree with AP, and I have found his approach to things, well, let’s just say “less to my liking”, I realize he is the moderator here and if I don’t like it, no one is forcing me to come to this site. I can post here because they have granted me the “privilege” to post here. It isn’t a “right”.
Nineball on March 26, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Some of you people are killing me with your concern for precious Chelsea’s feelings. Nevermind that she was CAMPAIGNING for her mom. Nevermind that character matters. You all seem to think that precious Chelsea should be given a pass on an issue totally caused by her dad and totally supported by her mom. Fair game IMO since this was a public event. Also fair was the answer that precious Chelsea gave.
That being said where the hell were you people the last eight years? Did you show equal outrage when the Bush girls were ambushed for underage drinking and the press reacted as if 1) it was a rare day that college students drink illegally and 2) that they must be drunks because they were in a bar? Where the hell were you people when John Kerry used Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation as a talking point during the 2004 debates.
IT’S PRETTY HYPOCRITICAL OF YOU PEOPLE TO BE OFFENDED OVER PRECIOUS CHELSEA’S SLIGHT EMBARRASSMENT NOW!
highhopes on March 26, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I don’t have a reply. I just did this because everyone else is.
By the way, our little Chelsea is now, uh, 29 years old, I think. That means she could be eligible to run for president in 2016.
Still wanna go easy on her???
manwithblackhat on March 26, 2008 at 2:19 PM
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Dichotomy:
Saying the questioning of Clinton on this is out of bounds (doubtful) and then questioning the conservative credentials of the person asking (definitely out of bounds) is certainly contradictory.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Bah…damn tags.
Yes.
Seething.
Your claims are in pieces, so please shed light on the hypocrisy here, other than the hypocrisy of those who decried the same kind of comments made by lefties who stuck up for the two examples you listed, and are now showing the exact same kind of low-brow cheap-shot classlessness.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:22 PM
You are. Meaning you have the right to open your own blog and regulate it as you please.
Tzetzes on March 26, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Inconceivable!
I know I’m not who you’re talking to, but I imagine that the people who are feeling for Ms. Clinton are the same people who felt for Mary Cheney and the Bush twins. There’s no reason to believe that they didn’t care for them as well.
On the topic of the Bush twins’ drinking… Apparently one time they went to a Mexican restaurant near where I live, and the waitress recognized one of them but not the other. And instead of just refusing to serve her alcohol, she called the cops.
From what I understand (I know someone who knows the waitress), she didn’t do it to be malicious. She just freaked out when she realized that she was about to serve one of the president’s daughters an alcoholic beverage underage.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I like your response the best!
emailnuevo on March 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Dichotomy is the division. It can be a division between two contradictory things, but it is not the contradiction. It’s not the relation between the two things but their border.
Your point was a fine one. You meant to say that it was paradoxical or, better yet (as paradoxes can turn out to be true), self-contradictory or hypocritical how people were responding, or that they were employing a double standard.
Tzetzes on March 26, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Evan Strange! what a name… >:}
Chakra Hammer on March 26, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Given that Chelsea is actively campaigning for her mother, and given that she’s 28 years old and possessed of free will, and given that she is putting forth her mother’s experiences as support for her candidacy, the question is not a classless, lowbrow cheap shot merely because you say it is.
If the question were more along the lines of “Hey, Chelly…did you watch things go down…?” then I’d agree with you. But from what I’ve heard the question was phrased respectfully and was germane to the case being put forth in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Oh, as for the actual video, I was simply struck by how much this kid blinks! Usually not a body-language supertitle for veracity.
Tzetzes on March 26, 2008 at 2:36 PM
He probably could have phrased it better. I imagine she would have answered it if he’d said:
“What do you say to those who would argue that the Monica scandal harmed your mother’s reputation?”
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Still a clueless, classless asshole.
funky chicken on March 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM
language language..
Chakra Hammer on March 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I would have asked, “Is it true that protein gets out protein stains?” But then, I’m a bit of a silly goose.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I hadn’t known you were the editor. :)
“Hypocrisy” is too loaded for what I was trying to say. I did, I believe, say there is a dichotomy between complaining about the Lewinsky question and insulting the conservatism of someone because he has a defensible argument in favor or asking it.
There is also likely a word for telling me what I meant to say when I actually know what I meant to say and I had written it. Presumption, or maybe hubris. :)
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM
sigh. somebody always says it better than me.
funky chicken on March 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM
So he basically has to be Johnny Knoxville or Ashton Kutcher for you to begin to question the appropriateness.
Good to know where your scale is. Most conservatives are a little more discriminating than that.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Is that necessary? While talking about conservative desire to stay classy and clean, why would you go and insult other conservatives? Do you believe it doesn’t hurt your argument?
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Most conservatives limit themselves to the debate instead of descending into the ad hom. As you don’t know me, your opinions on my conservatism are meaningless, and useless as a rebuttal.
I follow your logic chain after your assertion that the question is out of bounds. I even agree with it. But I do not agree that the question was out of bounds and so far arguments to try and persuade otherwise are resembling intellectual bullying…another less-than-conservative trait.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Um…where was the insult? I just said conservatives are more discriminating than to think that only the antics of two well-known public clowns would be considered inappropriate.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM
You just admitted that you would only find it inappropriate if someone asked Chelsea if she watched her father have sex with a woman other than her mother.
If that’s your beginning threshold for crossing the line, what more can I say?
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I apologize AP, I went too far…I just saw red when i read that line. “I have nothing but sympathy for her vis-a-vis Monicagate”…
Sympathy does no one any good, besides, HRC is no victim, just ask Dick Morris or anyone who knows about Bill and Hill’s arrangement. I used to be sympathetic to Chelsea’s position, but she’s an adult now and fully aware of what she’s involved with.
The more I read and think about this, it seems as though it was a set-up (or a lucky break) to take the focus away from her ‘mis-statement’ about being under fire in Bosnia. It does strengthen her only strong suit: the ‘wronged woman’ and fits into her ‘stop at nothing’ tactics.
Christine on March 26, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Ah, we all edit one another here at MutualBackscratching.com! I’m glad to see from your smiley-faces though that you take it in the friendly and good-natured spirit I mean it! (Certainly it’s hard to quote The Princess Bride with much malevolence.)
To pick this nit one more time, I still don’t think dichotomy is the word you’re looking for, as people clearly do do both the things you mention (“complain…insult”), so the two are not exclusive.
Is “convenient double standard” acceptable?
Tzetzes on March 26, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Please, don’t play naive here. There’s no reason for it.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Actually, I said that if I thought the question was inappropriate I’d agree with you, and I gave an example as to an inappropriate question (IOW a genuine lowbrow, classless cheap shot….). But the question asked was not inappropriate, low brow, classless, nor a cheap shot…regardless of your bullying attempts here in asserting that it is.
Your ad hom speaks for itself.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I’ll ask my barber and part time English teacher…Hector Malaprop. :)
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 3:01 PM
With that wronged innocence combined with abysmal stupidity and extremely rapid backpedaling, the guy is probably a plant from the Obama campaign.
NahnCee on March 26, 2008 at 3:04 PM
oops, you forgot, long before before being a president, and before his children were aware, he didn’t have a problem with alcohol. So the answer would be, “ask someone who knows”.
Tell me, you rode the pine on the debate team…
right2bright on March 26, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Please, don’t claim that I’m saying something that I’m not. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.
Bullying? I’m calling a question classless, as well as those who defend it classless, and those who agree with me are essentially told off about our “precious Chelsea”, while being cried at about free speech…and what I am doing is bullying?
I have my opinion, you have yours. I could call this bullying of Chelsea Clinton, but that’s schoolyard. When you tell me it takes…
…for you to consider whether a question was inappropriate, and then you call me a bully for pointing that out, I finish. You’re playing the same kind of victim game Hillary would in an instant. This wasn’t Hillary, it was her daughter. The question was inappropriate, and she acted accordingly towards it. Anyone here who was shocked about the Bush twins getting hassled for their drinking or Kerry bringing up Cheney’s daughter, and now defends this, is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Feel free, however, to demand that either of those situations perfectly mirror this one in order for you to justify it to yourself.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Who is traveling around the country representing Hillary. It’s not like she just happened to be there and a microphone fell into her hand.
Did the Bush twins campaign for their dad? I’m not saying they did or didn’t; I honestly don’t remember. If they did, and somebody asked them about it in that context, I’d say it would be fair game. It would be up to the questioner to explain how it was relevant, of course.
Not sure what Kerry bringing up Cheney’s daughter has to do with it, though. Did Cheney lie about her under oath?
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Fine. So you honestly have no idea how what you wrote can be construed as an insult. I’ll just have to get out of the conversation then as it leaves me with no common ground on which to communicate with you.
They did in 2004. I don’t recall anyone asking them about it, but I wouldn’t have cared if they were asked.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Sure, I believe him.
Johan Klaus on March 26, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Awright, so we simply have two camps.
One who thinks it’s all right to prod politician’s children to give up dirt on their parents.
One who doesn’t.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Was it the word discriminating? Sorry if I use the actual definition rather than shudder away from the word in PC horror.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Were you under the impression that this kid broke into Chelsea’s house and demanded answers? He asked a question at a campaign stop about the candidate’s response to one of the biggest crises in her career. (And let’s not pretend it hasn’t been a career.)
If Hillary wants to bring up her experience as First Lady to convince me I should vote for her, she and her campaign should be prepared to deal with questions about… her experience as First Lady! The Lewinski debacle was a big part of it, whether she likes it or not. And it’s not going away. If she doesn’t want her daughter dealing with questions about it, send her home.
Jim Treacher on March 26, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Read upthread and check what I was actually responding to.
Here’s a helpful link.
Slublog on March 26, 2008 at 3:47 PM
A fine rant, but not persuasive.
Your assertion is that the question was an example of “low-brow cheap-shot classlessness.” To support that opinion, somehow it’s supposed to be a argument that if you don’t you aren’t conservative. Well, “not conservative” is not a synonym for “does not agree with me.”
I know you’re calling the question classless. But I don’t think the question asked was classless or out of bounds at all. If I thought it was than I’d probably agree with you. But instead of trying to point out how it is, you instead decide to toss around invective in an attempt to bully your point across instead of advocating for it. I think that does your opinion a disservice. Your repeated mischaracterizations of my very plainly written posts are just icing on the dysfunctional cake.
Second, I have not called anyone who disagrees with me a Chelsea Lover or any other insult. So you can retire that strawman with regards to your response to me.
Third, you bring up AGAIN Mary Cheney and the Bush Twins (and wouldn’t that be a great name for a cover band…?). But as has also been explored, the comparison is inept at best. It is not hypocrisy to cringe at Elizabeth Edwards saying the Cheneys are ashamed of Mary. Similarly, it is not out of bounds to ask a campaigner about Hillary Clinton’s handling of the Lewinsky affair, particularly when it was the subject of her book.
Then to top it all off, anyone who dares question your assertion (which is all that supports your opinion…is that it’s your opinion) is smeared as less than conservative in your book. And this is supposed to be a sober conservative argument?
This reminds me of a blog post I read that I thought was pretty good:
Who wrote that? Oh, yeah.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Well, there is this post earlier in the thread:
The Cheesehead protests too much, methinks.
JohnTant on March 26, 2008 at 4:01 PM
No, and you’re only convincing me that discussing this with you is really a bad idea.
That’s exactly my point as well. It isn’t as though the question isn’t relevant.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 4:49 PM
It’s really a shame that people who agree on so much will resort to insults so quickly over something rather small.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM
So you get finished telling me not to mince words, and now you pull this “If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you” crap?
You’re only convincing me that you’re more of a hypocrite than I’ve already stated.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I’ve been trying to explain it to you over and over again. I’m a decent writer. It’s what I got my degree in and something I do for a living, but I don’t believe I’m a decent enough writer to explain my point any better than I have.
But since you still have a heart for this, how am I a hypocrite? I’d love to know.
Esthier on March 26, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »