Video: Chelsea gets the Lewinsky question again

posted at 4:55 pm on March 31, 2008 by Allahpundit

Yeah, look. People shouldn’t be asking for the simple reason that Chelsea hasn’t done anything to warrant the shame of this particular line of attack, but the idea that it’s a “personal” matter when your pops nearly got impeached for it doesn’t quite wash. A polite “no comment” will do nicely.

Exit question: Are people suddenly feeling frisky about this subject because even the left sort of hates Hillary now? There’s no one left, besides her own persona-non-grata supporters, to take the righteously angry line on Chelsea’s behalf here.

Update: Correction — Clinton was impeached, of course. He simply wasn’t removed from office. That’s what I meant.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Is is me or does the pMSNBC reporterette look rather smug and indifferent?

Kini on March 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Second time I notice there is no actual video or audio of the question being asked. Makes me curious.

I stand by my opinion, though, that Chelsea is again in the right on this one. If Chelsea were campaigning for politicians all the time, or running for office, or campaigning or had campaigned for any political candidate other than her mother, I would see it as appropriate. Instead, she IS campaigning for her mother, so I don’t think it is.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Why is she even on the campaign trail? I can’t imagine any demographic she’d focus on.

Niko on March 31, 2008 at 5:00 PM

The more she makes a show of ignoring it, the more often it will be asked.

NeoconNews.com on March 31, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Old news, leave it…even if it were appropriate, who cares? Besides some two bit reporter trying to get a little air time.

right2bright on March 31, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Are people suddenly feeling frisky about this subject because even the left sort of hates Hillary now? There’s no one left, besides her own persona-non-grata supporters, to take the righteously angry line on Chelsea’s behalf here.

I think that’s it, the lefties want her to just throw in the towel, it ain’t happening, and they’re just lashing out at her or anything connected to her, if not to do political damage, then to at least inflict some personal pain.

And yes I agree that its obnoxious to harass Chelsea with this crap, she had nothing to do with the Lewinsky affair.

doubleplusundead on March 31, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Exit question: Are people suddenly feeling frisky about this subject because even the left sort of hates Hillary now? There’s no one left, besides her own persona-non-grata supporters, to take the righteously angry line on Chelsea’s behalf here.

That’s about right. The train is leaving the station and late comers don’t want to get left behind. I would like to see Carville rise up and righteously take the hide off some folks for this kind of stuff. I think there is a mountain of hostility to Hillary and Slick that is going to get unleashed as this thing drags on.

a capella on March 31, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Lord knows that I’m no Clinton fan and that I believe Chelsea is reasonably fair game but, like Allah said that she was a child and was an innocent victim of her father’s whoring around. I’m sure it really hurts her heart and I think it’s in bad taste to put this on her. Now, if you want to ask Bill or Hill, then, by all means…rip away. IMHO

Big John on March 31, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Exactly, Big John.

tree hugging sister on March 31, 2008 at 5:08 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Sorry, I have to disagree. This whole episode (Monica) goes straight to Politics, and Judgement.

Hillary flat out LIED for Bill, to the American people. This is NOT a private matter, this a a public matter.

Now we have an opportunity for Hill and Chelsea to put the record straight, as to what was known and when. This is important, especialy on the heals of Hillarys continuous lieing on the campaign trail lately.

If Chelsea was NOT campaigning for Mom, I’d aggree with you… but she IS campaigning, and is fair game.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM

She should ask Obama to write her one of those non-answer answers that he uses whenever he gets asked a question that he doesn’t want to answer. Then she should tell people that she doesn’t think it’s something that she should be wasting time talking about anymore, because it’s just a distraction.

AZCoyote on March 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Eh, as long as she’s campaigning for the enabler-in-chief, she should be faced with that question. She should be asked about it every single time she speaks until she actually answers.

Darksean on March 31, 2008 at 5:11 PM

They might want to ask her mother if they are really curious about the answer. Politics or not, I think for her it is mostly personal. Yes, I know that it’s very convenient for her to use this ‘out’ instead of speaking to the political (not personal) portion of the question, but I’m really not sure what sort of answer they are looking for.

And I too am unsure why she’s doing stumping for her mom. Considering the ruthless and value neutral methods her parents have and do employ, it’s not surprising she’s not getting the softball touchy-feely questions she was probably expecting. It’s obvious that no one in the Clinton camp expected the press to seriously question anything they say or do….the sniper story tells you that much at least.

Asher on March 31, 2008 at 5:12 PM

People shouldn’t be asking for the simple reason that Chelsea hasn’t done anything to warrant the shame of this particular line of attack

Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. The question goes to Clinton’s credibility since she claimed it was a vast right-wing conspiracy that was to blame, and not her whoring husband. So, it is a perfectly legitimate question and should be answered. A no comment response just enforces the belief that Clinton has no credibility. Real astute analysis there AP.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 PM

If Chelsea was NOT campaigning for Mom, I’d aggree with you… but she IS campaigning, and is fair game.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Respectfully, a campaigner chooses a candidate and campaigns. A daughter doesn’t choose her mother.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 PM

… This is a real shame that Chelsea has to deal with this crap …

Oh, by the way – did you know that many liberals think that the Bush twins should be sent to Iraq where they should face IED’s? And this is the funniest thing ever??

Yeah. I think of that every time someone suggests that this is ‘mean’ and Chelsea shouldn’t have to put up with it.

wise_man on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 PM

If Chelsea were a politician, she could respond by talking for five minutes without ever directly answering the question. The “none of your business” line just makes her look bad. It is a fair question since she is campaigning for Hillary. No one is asking how she personally feels about it, what her reaction was at the time, etc.

B26354 on March 31, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Real astute analysis there AP.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Folks, may sound a bit rich considering the part I took in the last thread like this, but let’s not get crass here.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:15 PM

People shouldn’t be asking for the simple reason that Chelsea hasn’t done anything to warrant the shame of this particular line of attack

“Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. The question goes to Clinton’s credibility since she claimed it was a vast right-wing conspiracy that was to blame, and not her whoring husband. So, it is a perfectly legitimate question and should be answered. A no comment response just enforces the belief that Clinton has no credibility. Real astute analysis there AP.”

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Pretty much, yeah.

wise_man on March 31, 2008 at 5:15 PM

NCSU is a relatively conservative campus compared with the other zoos she has been frequenting. I wouldn’t be shocked is there weren’t some hi-jinx going on here.

Valiant on March 31, 2008 at 5:16 PM

If Chelsea was NOT campaigning for Mom, I’d aggree with you… but she IS campaigning, and is fair game.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Exactly!

Longhorn Six on March 31, 2008 at 5:20 PM

The campaign banner behind Chelsea says Hillblazers. Is Hillary introducing her own clothing line of pantsuits?

txsurveyor on March 31, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Exactly!

No, not exactly. There are a million questions you can think of that would be beyond the pale even if someone’s campaigning. “Your mom’s said she supports the right to choose, Chelsea. Did you screw anyone last night? Just want to check to see if this issue’s relevant.”

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:24 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 PM

She’s activly stumping for Hillary… she’s not just family window dressing, she is out giving speeches.

Interestingly enough? she won’t talk to the press…

You can’t make yourself a public figure, and then expect privacy, it does not work that way.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Eh, as long as she’s campaigning for the enabler-in-chief, she should be faced with that question. She should be asked about it every single time she speaks until she actually answers.

Darksean on March 31, 2008 at 5:11 PM

I agree with you on that completely. Fair game.

To whomever asked what demographic she is pandering campaigning to, it’s young college kids. She had been to 70 college campi, and never heard that question before. It’s now time. When confronted with something, she blamed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” for it. Tells you who’d she’d blame if anything wrong happened while she was pre… presi…. *gags* I can’t even type it.

rightside on March 31, 2008 at 5:26 PM

She’s activly stumping for Hillary… she’s not just family window dressing, she is out giving speeches.

Right. And if the Bush girls went out on the trail for Dubya and lefties started asking them jerky questions about him being an alcoholic and/or cokehead, you guys would be outraged as outraged could be.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

You can’t make yourself a public figure, and then expect privacy, it does not work that way.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:25 PM

That’s kind of a moot point. Her father became president of the United States when she was what…11? 12? She’s already been made a public figure. I’m not trying to argue semantics, understand. I’m trying to emphasize the point that she is not some random college kid who wanted to stump for Hillary. She’s Hillary Clinton’s only daughter. I would assume she loves her mother, and would do whatever she could to support her. This makes the issue grey.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Ding!

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:30 PM

I hate to be an SOB, but what her sleazy middle-aged dad did was using public property and taxpayer money while he was diddling a very young female public servant on our dime.

It’s a very gray area to say that it was as private as something that we private citizens would do in our own not-so Lincolnesque bedrooms.

And so, I feel that Chelsea would be better off being just a private person and not continuing to be a very public martyr for her dysfunctional parents’ insatiable political ambitions.

TexasJew on March 31, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Aww… poor girl. And just what did her family do to deserve such wrath that she is getting now? As rightside and others have mentioned, her mom blamed this all on the ‘vast right wing conspiracy.’ i.e. Republicans. Conservatives. People like us. we were to blame. And now Chelsea gets this question – what – twice? Poor little baby.

Seems like some people here just need to try: Tryphorgetin

Right. And if the Bush girls went out on the trail for Dubya and lefties started asking them jerky questions about him being an alcoholic and/or cokehead, you guys would be outraged as outraged could be.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

As I commented earlier, these people joke about sending the Bush twins to Iraq to face IED’s. In the immortal words of kos ….. Screw Them.

wise_man on March 31, 2008 at 5:33 PM

If oral sex isnt really sex..whats the big deal about answering to it?

malkinmania on March 31, 2008 at 5:34 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Uh, she took a leave of abscence from her job to become a full time PUBLIC part of the Clinton election machine. Before that she was pretty much left alone by the press, and had been for years. She’s out there giving SPEECHS!

SHE, as an adult, made the decision to campaign for Hillary.

She can’t have it both ways… she could be either public, or private (as she was before)… but she apparently wants to have her cake and eat it too…

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:35 PM

I agree that I havent seen the question portrayed. They media just wants to be able to show Chelsea saying it’s none of your business.

Keep asking, and keep showing her ducking the question.

originalpechanga on March 31, 2008 at 5:36 PM

I still think of her as a little kid in the Whitehouse who didn’t pick her Machiavellian parents, but was born into it. There are few situations where I still don’t get the urge to ‘defend the girl’…even if I know they come from a calculation lineage.

And just because the Left acts like a bunch of water buffaloes when it comes to the Bush daughters doesn’t give anyone Carte Blanche to do the same to Chelsea. That sounds like a Democrat viewpoint to me.

Standards and propriety don’t go out the door because someone else acts like a pig.

Asher on March 31, 2008 at 5:41 PM

calculating lineage…*sigh*

it’s hard to avoid doing work and post at the same time when you sit next to your boss….

Asher on March 31, 2008 at 5:42 PM

And just because the Left acts like a bunch of water buffaloes when it comes to the Bush daughters doesn’t give anyone Carte Blanche to do the same to Chelsea. That sounds like a Democrat viewpoint to me.

Standards and propriety don’t go out the door because someone else acts like a pig.

Asher on March 31, 2008 at 5:41 PM

In other words, “don’t stoop to their level”. I personally agree, but I’ve seen some pretty hot debate over this concept.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:42 PM

he question goes to Clinton’s credibility since she claimed it was a vast right-wing conspiracy that was to blame…

Is that what she calls her husband’s “equipment?” Great, now I’ve got a mental image of her going “Oh yes, Bill, give me that vast right-wing conspiracy! Oh yeah!” Thanks a ton.

ErikTheRed on March 31, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Don’t ask Chelsea, she was just a kid at the time, does not anyone think of the children?!

And furthermore, with Hillary and Bill himself jumping eagerly into the spotlight, why not ask them? Why not ask Bill? He’s right there.

Capitana on March 31, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Yeah, look. People shouldn’t be asking for the simple reason that Chelsea hasn’t done anything to warrant the shame of this particular line of attack, but the idea that it’s a “personal” matter when your pops nearly got impeached for it doesn’t quite wash. A polite “no comment” will do nicely.

Seeing I can not hear the question is is impossible to know what is the line of attack and if it deals with pops impeachment then it is possibly about lying. But no matter… I agree a polite “no comment” is in order. Being confrontational begs for more questions.

Wade on March 31, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Right. And if the Bush girls went out on the trail for Dubya and lefties started asking them jerky questions about him being an alcoholic and/or cokehead, you guys would be outraged as outraged could be.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

If the Bush girls were out there stumping for him? IMO they would be fair game as well.

Did a quick search but couldn’t find it… she took a “leave of abscence” from her job to campaign for Hill… anyone know if she is being PAID by Hill’s campaign?

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:49 PM

And just because the Left acts like a bunch of water buffaloes when it comes to the Bush daughters doesn’t give anyone Carte Blanche to do the same to Chelsea. That sounds like a Democrat viewpoint to me.

Standards and propriety don’t go out the door because someone else acts like a pig.

Asher on March 31, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I am not doing this.

No one at HOT AIR is doing this.

No Republicans (as far as I know) are asking her this question. The previous report was it was a “clinton supporter” and maybe that’s true, maybe it isn’t.

Fact is – someone else is ‘acting like a pig.’ And as others have pointed out as well, Chelsea is an active participant in the Clinton campaign, and people asking her questions can do as they see fit. I don’t have to feel upset over this issue because this family has participated in slandering the name of republicans over their own dirty deeds. If Chelsea wanted to avoid this, then there is a very simple solution.

wise_man on March 31, 2008 at 5:50 PM

The campaign banner behind Chelsea says Hillblazers. Is Hillary introducing her own clothing line of pantsuits?

txsurveyor on March 31, 2008 at 5:24 PM

LOL. I love the wit of HotAir commenters.

Red Pill on March 31, 2008 at 5:51 PM

anyone know if she is being PAID by Hill’s campaign?

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:49 PM

We know her healthcare is not.

Wade on March 31, 2008 at 5:55 PM

The campaign banner behind Chelsea says Hillblazers. Is Hillary introducing her own clothing line of pantsuits?

txsurveyor on March 31, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Yes, there is only one style named Febreze.

Wade on March 31, 2008 at 5:57 PM

I don’t know why she is so ashamed and refuses to answer the question.

Her squinty-eyed, finger-waving Daddy told all of us he didn’t do anything wrong,

fogw on March 31, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Right. And if the Bush girls went out on the trail for Dubya and lefties started asking them jerky questions about him being an alcoholic and/or cokehead, you guys would be outraged as outraged could be.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Wow. Comparing apples and oranges really doesn’t help your argument. Besides, its already been done and no one was outraged since that’s the least we could expect from the MSM.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 6:01 PM

If you can’t take the heat then you shouldn’t go on extended vacation from your $200k exploitive wall street job to campaign for your lying parents.

jukin on March 31, 2008 at 6:02 PM

The press is actually doing her a favor because they don’t show you the actual question — they just call it the “Lewinsky question” let us fill in the blank and then show us her response. In that context, her response seems totally appropriate.

However… what was the actual question they asked? The first guy asked if she thought the scandal had hurt her mother’s credibility. She replied, “It’s none of your business.” Huh?! It’s none of his business whether or not the scandal hurt her mother’s credibility? When I saw the full exchange, in context, her answer came off as a weak dodge. They cut the footage to make her look better.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 6:03 PM

I agree that “no comment” w/b great. Also, that she shouldn’t be asked.

But when your daddy is the president, and this happens in the People’s House Office, not the private quarters, while multitasking with a congressman/senator, then it’s certainly not a private matter any more

Finally she corners him alone in “George’s” office. She tells him that she has a crush on him, and he admits that he’s had an eye on her. “In the windowless hallway adjacent to the study, they kissed. Before returning to her desk, [Monica] wrote down her name and telephone number … “.

Then, creeping reality begins to set in. Monica lets Bill fondle her breasts: “She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth. ‘I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area.” While [Bill] continued talking on the phone … she performed oral sex on him. He finished his call, and, a moment later, told [Monica] to stop. In her recollection: ‘I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn’t had that in a long time.’”

Entelechy on March 31, 2008 at 6:06 PM

The Lewinsky thing defines the Clinton presidency. It is a permanent stain on his legacy. Hillary enabled and schilled for him and to this day has not apologized to the American people. It is a legitimate question to ask anyone who may be campaigning for her. The fact that Chelsea just happens to be their daughter should be of no consequence.

JonRoss on March 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

If they asked the twins, “Do you think your father’s past drinking hurts his credibility?” And they answered, “That’s none of your business.” I would have the same exact reaction: that’s a lame answer. How about…

“No, I don’t.” Or, “I’m proud of the way my mother handled herself.” Or… “That’s a question for the pollsters, but I can tell you that I don’t believe it should have an effect.”

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Hillary continues to show a willing suspension of the ability to tell the truth, much the way this episode was handled when it occurred (by both Clintons). This topic very definitely deals with the honesty issue, which is a huge issue with what this couple will be like as President and Presidential-spouse. It is completely fair game.

exhelodrvr on March 31, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Is Hillary introducing her own clothing line of pantsuits?

Yeah. “The Cankles Collection”.

FishFearMe on March 31, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Hillary could defuse this by going to someone, perhaps Mr Limbaugh, and submitting herself to unfiltered questions. Something she has never done. She could beg for forgivness from the American people and also apologize to her daughter for the pain that she inflicted on her because of her own political ambitions and her refusal to dump Bill. This is THEIR problem now, not ours.

JonRoss on March 31, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Isn’t it ironic–She is wanting to get as many people as possible to vote for her Mom. That means getting the public involved. That means trying to convince that public that Mom is capable of handling anything. It always gets me that Rock Stars, Movie Stars and Politicians want to be adored and respected by the public, but they slam the door shut when someone asks the wrong question or asks for an inconvenient autograph.
Essentially, the question is: Can your Mom handle your Dad?

98fromCA on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Allahpundit,
Was there any evidence that Bush used cocaine or drank while President? Unless there was, then your analogy is completely invalid.

exhelodrvr on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Then, creeping reality begins to set in.

Hey Entelechy, was that her nickname for Bill?

fogw on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

The whole country knows about bill and monica, those who want to, understand, those who don’t want to, don’t understand. These questions are just gotcha questions asked to huniliate chelsea. hillary is her mother, she is campaigning out of love and loyalty. We don’t even know if she agrees with all of hillary’s positions. Ask her about health care, the war anything that is pertinent but trying to embarrass her over monica is beating a dead horse.

peacenprosperity on March 31, 2008 at 6:15 PM

She should ask Obama to write her one of those non-answer answers that he uses whenever he gets asked a question that he doesn’t want to answer.

Why ask barry? clinton invented those.

peacenprosperity on March 31, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Allahpundit,
Was there any evidence that Bush used cocaine or drank while President? Unless there was, then your analogy is completely invalid.

exhelodrvr on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Don’t confuse him with the facts.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 6:19 PM

These questions are just gotcha questions asked to huniliate chelsea

Hey, if the questions offends you, get outta politics. But they are legitimate questions that deserve a legitimate answer.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Was there any evidence that Bush used cocaine or drank while President? Unless there was, then your analogy is completely invalid.

exhelodrvr on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

They’re asking about Hillary when she WASN’T president(and hopefully never will be). Therefore, it would be like asking about Bush when he wasn’t president. Careful with the analogies.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM

I stand by my opinion, though, that Chelsea is again in the right on this one. If Chelsea were campaigning for politicians all the time, or running for office, or campaigning or had campaigned for any political candidate other than her mother, I would see it as appropriate. Instead, she IS campaigning for her mother, so I don’t think it is.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I don’t get this opinion. I really don’t.

Chelsea is campaigning for a Presidential candidate. A candidate who was deeply enmeshed in one of the only two times a sitting President was ever impeached.

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is so inextricably intertwined with the Lewinsky mess that it is arguably her defining characteristic. The way she responded to that scandal, the things she said about her political opponents at the time, specific examples of her conduct during that period … these are not just germane to the campaign, they are critical.

Sure there are plenty of other scandals (and arguably positive things, too, if you believe her supporters). But impeachment is historical. Just twice in the history of the nation.

How is that not asked about? Is it because it involved sex – and its her daughter, so we can’t ask it? How about if they ask about lying under oath, perjury charges, and disbarment – without mention Lewinsky or Paula Jones? Does that make it better?

No, I really don’t get it. Not trying to argue. I’m just not sure how someone campaign for a candidate is supposed to be completely protected from answering arguably the biggest question about the candidate’s history.

If Clinton had been impeached for conduct that wasn’t indirectly related to cheating on his wife (and Chelsea’s mother), THEN would it be okay to ask her about how it impacted Hillary – and how Hillary behaved?

Professor Blather on March 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Hey Entelechy, was that her nickname for Bill?

fogw on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

No, fogw. She called him “My wussitude”, because he couldn’t go through with it (much to the French people’s chagrin).

Entelechy on March 31, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Hillary flat out LIED for Bill, to the American people. This is NOT a private matter, this a a public matter.

…….

If Chelsea was NOT campaigning for Mom, I’d aggree with you… but she IS campaigning, and is fair game.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Exactly.

Personally I think the LACK of questions on the subject was downright weird.

Professor Blather on March 31, 2008 at 6:30 PM

No it’s not “personal to her family”. When her father and his overactive libido started screwing around with a young female subordinate employee in a government office and publically lied about it . . . it is was longer just a personal matter.

rplat on March 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Professor Blather on March 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM

I’m not at all saying it shouldn’t be asked about. I’m saying her daughter, an innocent person caught up in the mess through no fault of her own, shouldn’t be asked about it. Bill? Definitely. Hill? Absolutely. Any of her staff or aides? Without doubt. Chelsea? No.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Oh, those pesky university students with nasty questions!
I agree that these questions shouldn’t be asked, but I figure Hilly is thinking: ‘Better her than me’.
Chelsea has been taught well and because of the way she was raised by her Machiavellian ‘parents’ she has the emotional attitude and language of a 13 year old.
I hope no one gives HRC another opportunity to play the ‘victim’, but I have no sympathy for any of them…unless someone confronts Chelsea with DNA evidence that Bubba isn’t her biological dad. I’ll wager that she’s already been ‘briefed’ on this; HRC was very thorough in Chelsea’s brainwashing. Years of therapy couldn’t make a dent in that armor and for that reason, I do feel sorry for Chelsea.

Christine on March 31, 2008 at 6:39 PM

I’m not at all saying it shouldn’t be asked about. I’m saying her daughter, an innocent person caught up in the mess through no fault of her own, shouldn’t be asked about it. Bill? Definitely. Hill? Absolutely. Any of her staff or aides? Without doubt. Chelsea? No.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 6:38 PM

When she crawled into this political donnybrook she became fair game for any issue or event surrounding the candidate she is supporting . . . in this case her mother and her mother’s husband.

rplat on March 31, 2008 at 6:46 PM

I can see good points on both sides of the issue at hand. All I know is that if I were to ask a question like that of Chelsea, my Mama would slap a knot on my head so tall I’d have to tiptoe to scratch it. And she’s 69 years old, 5 foot nothin’. But she’s still my Mama.

FishFearMe on March 31, 2008 at 6:55 PM

Second time I notice there is no actual video or audio of the question being asked. Makes me curious.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:00 PM

All due respect, this is the first relevant argument you have made to the subject matter. Both clips of both incidents leave the questions out. Why? Is is because the “I’m appalled!” answers she gives are so far removed from the actual questions?

Right. And if the Bush girls went out on the trail for Dubya and lefties started asking them jerky questions about him being an alcoholic and/or cokehead, you guys would be outraged as outraged could be.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Did you type that with a straight face? That was the worst kind of rationalization you have spouted so far. Not even close to comparison.

Was there any evidence that Bush used cocaine or drank while President? Unless there was, then your analogy is completely invalid.

exhelodrvr on March 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM

They’re asking about Hillary when she WASN’T president(and hopefully never will be). Therefore, it would be like asking about Bush when he wasn’t president. Careful with the analogies.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Really? I’m aghast that you would waste time to type something like that. It’s amateurish to play tit for tat.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Even if it’s technically “fair game” it’s still tasteless and classless. Same as boo-ing the President when he’s throwing out the first pitch on opening day. It’s up to everyone to raise the level of discourse. If you don’t like the trash from the Left, you have no one to blame but yourselves, if you are going to behave the same way from the Right. It really comes down to how much people insist on being a total a****** to a young woman who had absolutely no control over the actions of her father, and dragging her back through what must have been one of the most painful periods of her life. Shame on you for justifying these types of lowbrow tactics. It’s disgusting.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:10 PM

When the h-e-double-l is Chelsea going to run for President?!?

Or at least do talk radio.

Being blunt and genuine – I swear, the parents sure screwed that up, but she doesn’t.

Also, again – really ugly to bring this up. Frankly, if it comes up again – it’s bullying. You want to yank Chelsea like a doll/robot – just play the video again and again you jerks!

HotAirJosef on March 31, 2008 at 7:10 PM

“period of her life” …oh that was a BAD typo LOL!

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Even if it’s technically “fair game” it’s still tasteless and classless.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:10 PM

What was the question then? You have determined it was tasteless and classless; what were the questions?

Nobody has repeated or have even attempted to quote the question. All this outrage is false and misplaced.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Is MSNBC hiring trans gendered news heads? Whoa!
First Chris Matthews, and now that.

The Clintons sent their daughter out to catch softballs, and the Obama nation will have none of it. This will become a trend, and MSNBC will have Bob the anchor woman show it each time.

Hening on March 31, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Ok geckmoron, fair enough. My argument assumes that she was asked about something having to do with the fact that her father was getting a b*** job in the oval office while her mother was somewhere else in the White House. I think that’s a pretty fair assumption based on the title of this post, but if I am wrong, then we can consider the argument hypothetical.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

She gets Lewinsky question again? Good! I’m glad. Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Chels. Least of all, play the child card.

petefrt on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM

That’s the point I made above. The actual question was whether or not the scandal was hurting her mom’s credibility. In my mind, a fair question. Better asked of Hillary? Yes. But not out of bounds. I think they leave the question out to make you think she was asked about her opinions on the scandal. Then her answer would be spot on… none of your business. But that’s not what she was asked. In context of the actually issue — her mother’s credibility — her answer is a dodge dressed up in feigned indignity. They cut the footage to make her look good.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

The smackdown here on AP has been at quite a high level. Except for MadisonConservative, the analysis is positively insightful. You guys are great.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 7:26 PM

I still think of her as a little kid in the Whitehouse who didn’t pick her Machiavellian parents, but was born into it. There are few situations where I still don’t get the urge to ‘defend the girl’…even if I know they come from a calculation lineage.

And just because the Left acts like a bunch of water buffaloes when it comes to the Bush daughters doesn’t give anyone Carte Blanche to do the same to Chelsea. That sounds like a Democrat viewpoint to me.

Standards and propriety don’t go out the door because someone else acts like a pig.

Asher on March 31, 2008 at 5:41 PM

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM

What about uncles Hugh and Anthony “Big Tony”? Ask her something about those kinfolk…

DfDeportation on March 31, 2008 at 7:30 PM

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

I think you had the exact reaction the press wanted you to have and, hence, why they cut the question. It’s a juicier story if you think someone asked her something inappropriate and she verbally smacked them down. Less so when you find out he was asking about her mother’s credibility.

p.s. If he was telling the truth, the first guy was a Hillary supporter who thought he was tossing her a softball question.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Spollitics, you are splitting hairs. Just referencing the sordid affair to Chelsea is in poor taste IMHO. Go ahead and ask Hillary, Bill, Carville, ANYONE but not Chelsea. It just makes the Right seem desperate that we have to go after the daughter. We have a million ways of making the points, and winning on substantive issues, without engaging in tasteless and low-life tactics. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should. If you want to win in politics it seems you have to pick and choose your tactics carefully. To me this one is a no-brainer. Can you imagine McCain asking Chelsea this question?

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Second time I notice there is no actual video or audio of the question being asked. Makes me curious.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Yup. Like maybe the question was more like, “How can your mother see through the lies of foreign leaders when she can’t tell when her own husband is lying.”

- The Cat

MirCat on March 31, 2008 at 7:34 PM

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

You are an honest person for that response.

Since you seemed to inquire clarification, the initial question was not about the details of Bill’s indiscretion, but of her mom’s credibility when she publically blamed everyone but her husband for the incident.

The second question, as was the first, is (conveniently?) left out again.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

lol. Then I second that (your)notion.

I am so not getting the controversy, especially the misguided outrage from those defending Chelsea on this one.

It’s as if they are choosing to stay in denial of the question and are fabricating the premise of the question just to further their false rhetoric.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:40 PM

I know libs that think that Hillary has great strength due to her handling of the scandal, since Hillary has made it a point to draw attention to her handling of the situation (while avoiding the right wing conspiracy angle). Questions (especially from Dems) regarding this are fair game to Hill’s paid advocates including Chelsea.

Chelsea could easily spin the answer and turn it to her mom’s favor or simply say “no comment”. Instead she loves to demonize a question that many potential voters have on their minds when making the decision.

nottakingsides on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:06 PM

To your first point, don’t belittle my opinion. To your second, don’t be officious. He made an analogy that didn’t fit the comparison. I corrected it. Pointing out inconsistent analogies is neither amateurish nor tit-for-tat. Claiming someone’s opinion is “irrelevant” is.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 31, 2008 at 7:26 PM

It’s no wonder you have no respect for whether the question might or might no be appropriate. You seem to show little respect for those who make fair, inoffensive arguments.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Spollitics, you are splitting hairs. Just referencing the sordid affair to Chelsea is in poor taste IMHO.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:34 PM

She is not a child, she should not be treated as such. But that is beside the point and irrelevant. The question was honest and relevant.

If the need to blame someone for Chelsea being uncomfortable with the question, then lay it thick on her father and Monica.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Geckmoron, I never said the question wasn’t valid. I just don’t think you should ask it of Chelsea. What you gain from putting her on the spot, is trumped by what you lose by looking like an inconsiderate, desperate, a******.
Also, I’m not “outraged”. It’s just my humble opinion that we all should act a little more considerate towards each other and it will reflect back on us positively. Call me old fashioned.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Without knowing the actual questions asked, all opinions on the answers given are absolutely worthless.

News2Use on March 31, 2008 at 7:44 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM

More evidence that you are not capable of analysis. I was agreeing with you on the first point; albeit, I did take the liberty to do a dig on the history of your comments to such. ;)

Please, take a break and re-analyze the question posed to Chelsea. Your sensitivity seems stuck on ludicrous.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Geckmoron, she isn’t a child but she IS a daughter. I’m 44 years old and I wouldn’t want some lout reminding me of the indiscretions of my parents as much as I wouldn’t inflict the same on them. No, lay it thick on yourself for insisting on being an a******. Isn’t the Republican Party the party of personal responsibility?

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Yes, to clarify, quit calling those defending Chelsea “outraged”, while bleating “Boo freaking hoo.” If anything, we’re annoyed. Hyperbole doesn’t make you right.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Geckmoron, I never said the question wasn’t valid. I just don’t think you should ask it of Chelsea. What you gain from putting her on the spot, is trumped by what you lose by looking like an inconsiderate, desperate, a******.
Also, I’m not “outraged”. It’s just my humble opinion that we all should act a little more considerate towards each other and it will reflect back on us positively. Call me old fashioned.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:44 PM

She is on the campaign trail stumping for her mother, trying to convince others why her mom is qualified to be POTUS. The question is relevant and fair.

She is not on a book tour, or a press junket promoting herself. She is out politicking for mom. Can it be stated any clearer?

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:51 PM

More evidence that you are not capable of analysis. I was agreeing with you on the first point; albeit, I did take the liberty to do a dig on the history of your comments to such. ;)

You agreed with one thing I said, and dismissed everything else as “irrelevant”. I’m sorry if I’m not analyzing what you want me to analyze. When the MSM started doing that, I learned not to. I guess birds of a feather…

Please, take a break and re-analyze the question posed to Chelsea. Your sensitivity seems stuck on ludicrous.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:48 PM

And your tone seems stuck on patronizing. Might want to adjust that before you claim others are the ones with emotional investments here.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:51 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:49 PM

When your argument is weak, pull out the hyperbole card. It’s right next to the gender and race card.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:52 PM

Geckomoron,
You are your own case in point. The way you dismiss Madison C with such certitude and arrogance says more about you than what you are actually saying.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:54 PM

You agreed with one thing I said, and dismissed everything else as “irrelevant”. I’m sorry if I’m not analyzing what you want me to analyze. When the MSM started doing that, I learned not to. I guess birds of a feather…

I agreed with your point, not the argument. Really. Take a break.

And your tone seems stuck on patronizing. Might want to adjust that before you claim others are the ones with emotional investments here.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Check that sensitivity meter, you’re turning red.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3