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

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

Muslims rioting is outrage. People disagreeing with the legitimacy of asking someone a question in public is not. It is hyperbole, and dismissing what someone says as “irrelevant” just because you disagree with it on the basis of opinion is the height of a weak argument.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:55 PM

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:34 PM

First off, this isn’t “us.” It’s not the Right who asked her. It was a college kid at a school event who says he is a Hillary supporter. Chelsea doesn’t talk to the press.

She was asked about whether or not the way Hillary handled the scandal was hurting her credibility. This includes they way she handled his impeachment and the “right wing consipracy.” When Clinton went after al Qaeda the press accused him of “wagging the dog” to take away focus from the scandal and he lost public support for taking them on. Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and when Clinton bombed him they accused him of “wagging the dog.” It had some pretty far reaching consequences for a “private matter.” I agree that I would rather see this question asked of Hillary and not Chelsea and it’s kind of cheap to ask Chelsea when no one is really asking Hillary about how she fought that fight. My main beef is that her answer didn’t really flow from the question. It was like she had a pre-arranged response worked out if someone ever asked her about the Lewinsky scandal and the moment she heard the name she went into her response without realizing that it was about her mother’s credibility. Her reponse seems odd when in context which is why I think they cut the question out (which has been my main point in this thread.)

p.s. If you don’t know, Wag the Dog was a movie about a PResident who goes to war with Albania to take focus off of a sex scandal. As evidence that life can be really weird sometimes, it came out around the time of the Lewinsky scandal.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 7:57 PM

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

Yeah, I admit I may need to tone it down via your pointing it out.

My excuse, if allowed this once: there is a history with this subject and another thread and I’m kinda losing my patience. I hold him to higher standards and I’m more frustrated with his “squishyness” at the moment.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:58 PM

I hold him to higher standards and I’m more frustrated with his “squishyness” at the moment.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 7:58 PM

In other words, you’re frustrated that I disagree with you. That will happen from time to time. If you act like this every time it happens, I’ll happily ignore you from now on to avoid wasting my time.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:00 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Dude, your argument hinges on false pretenses. Thats the point multiple people are trying to get you to see. Your argument does not exist because your premise is imaginary. The question asked does not reflect your protest.

At best, you are distracting from the real subject of the question which is credibility and not the artificial one you are fabricating; the sordid details of her fathers affair.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Chelsea is “trying out” this politics gig…I say keep the pressure on her…If she, like her mother, becomes intoxicated with the power and the adoring crowds then we’ll be dealing with her forever.

Nozzle on March 31, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Conspiracy Alert: Could it be that these are plant questions…designed to elicit sympathy for Chelsea and therefore Shrillary?

Yes the question is legitimate. How about this one….. Young Ms. Clinton….do you think you would stand by your husband if he behaved as badly as big Bill?

Dpet on March 31, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Spolitics, I saw the movie and I see your points and I don’t disagree with them. Yes, she could have answered the question differently but I still think the reference is in poor taste. I fear that now that she is dodging someone is really going to try and embarrass her, and it’s going to get ugly. Hopefully not. I like to think that we live in a country in which we have general reverence for the sons and daughters of our leaders, even if we didn’t like parents. I obviously don’t know Chelsea personally, but I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was a good kid, and now a respectable young woman.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Dpet on March 31, 2008 at 8:04 PM

As I said earlier, the guy who asked it the first time said he was trying to toss her a softball. He was expecting her to use it to illustrate her mom’s strength. Of course, maybe he’s lying.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 8:07 PM

In other words, you’re frustrated that I disagree with you. That will happen from time to time. If you act like this every time it happens, I’ll happily ignore you from now on to avoid wasting my time.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:00 PM

See, another instance where you assume an answer and then go with it as truth. Dude. Stop.

I am frustrated that you can’t seem to honestly access and address the initial question. A question that doesn’t quantify your entire argument. It’s that simple.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:07 PM

And by access I meant assess. But, in some weird way, I mean access too! lol.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:09 PM

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Since you claim to hold me to higher standards, I would expect you to be well aware I have every interest in seeing Hillary not be in charge of the White House, nor a House of Congress, Governor’s House, Carpet House, International House of Pancakes, Barbie House or even a House of Ill Repute. I don’t think anyone here disagrees on her credibility, so putting forth the idea that we’re arguing over that is silly.

The point at issue is whether the question being asked should be asked of Chelsea or not. I’ve been trying to get multiple people to see that I think the question is legitimate if asked of 5,999,999,999 people in this world, and not appropriate to ask of one…single…person…based on the situation she is in. You refer to her as a stumper for Hillary Clinton. I refer to her as Hillary Clinton’s daughter. They’re both right, and they both have their own slants. One legitimizes the question, one makes it personal. As I’ve stated more times than I care to count, I am stating my opinion. You’re criticizing my arguments as if this is a cut-and-dried answerable query, and it’s not. Multiple people have acknowledged both sides.

The only problem here is those who are insulting the other side, or their arguments, or carrying their opinion as fact rather than as opinion.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:10 PM

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:06 PM

I get your point. Even if it was an acceptable question the first time, now that people have seen her reaction it’s just a “gotcha” question. It’s kind of like when Edwards demurred when asked if he’d support Hillary if she got the nomination and then the press asked him the question repeatedly until he said he would. Once they know you don’t want to answer, they go for the throat.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 8:11 PM

I am frustrated that you can’t seem to honestly access and address the initial question.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:07 PM

…and then you call me dishonest, and we’re done. Get off your high horse, because that horse is lame.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:12 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:12 PM

And this progresses your point how?

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:14 PM

It doesn’t matter if the question was more in the spirit this or that. In any case, it is connected to a painful event for Chelsea, one that she had ZERO control over, and given all the other questions you could ask her, why not spare her the shame, when you aren’t scoring any substantial political points by leaving it in? Ok, I’ve made my points. Thanks for reading.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:16 PM

…and then you call me dishonest, and we’re done. Get off your high horse, because that horse is lame.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:12 PM

You can’t help yourself from being offended. Stating the dishonesty in your assessment is pointing out the flaw in your argument, a tool in which to make a case. It’s not an insult to your character. Quit being so sensitive.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:18 PM

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Yeah, it’s kind of following the stencil from last time.

1st: I don’t think they should have asked Chelsea that.
2nd: Look at all the fake outrage! Boo freakin hoo! Cry me a river!
1st: Huh?
2nd: Your argument sucks.

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:20 PM

It doesn’t matter if the question was more in the spirit this or that.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Yes it does. The whole debate hinges on the intent of the question. Even when the inquirer turned out to be a Hillary supporter, those who protested initially, refused to concede their outrage. They rationalized it by creating a conspiracy.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:23 PM

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Hmm. Not entirely a truthful summary. Actually not even close. Well, if fiction you want, fiction you see.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:25 PM

No mercy for her, so long as she continues to place herself in public situations making public pronouncements regarding someone’s credibility regarding their qualifications to be President.

She could retreat back into private life and I’d be just fine with saying she shouldn’t be asked that question.

However, cake /= eat

James on March 31, 2008 at 8:25 PM

No it doesn’t. I don’t care who asked the question, in what spirit, for what purpose. If you reference Monica Lewinsky to Chelsea Clinton, then you have crossed a certain line of decency, in my humble opinion. You don’t even have to ask a question. Of course, as you can tell by my moniker, I decry the crumbling of basic manners in our society.. Some of you don’t care that much.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:34 PM

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Do you think it would have been okay if he asked her if the impeachment hurt her mother’s credibility?

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 8:41 PM

No it doesn’t. I don’t care who asked the question, in what spirit, for what purpose. If you reference Monica Lewinsky to Chelsea Clinton, then you have crossed a certain line of decency, in my humble opinion. You don’t even have to ask a question. Of course, as you can tell by my moniker, I decry the crumbling of basic manners in our society.. Some of you don’t care that much.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:34 PM

By your standards, we cease to converse for you refuse to see the question for what it is, and rather for what you want it to be.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:43 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

I was going to keep quiet about this but have read all these comments and have had enough. Look, even by the standards of a “campaigner” IMO the question is out of bounds.

No one goes around asking Michelle Obama if Obama’s past admitted coke use rendered his brain unfit for a President’s. Do they?

The question itself, even if it’s “about Hillary lying” (and yes, I think it is) has as its subject matter Chelsea’s dad doing someting illegal and BTW no doubt very personavery painful for her and her family, over which she had no control.

If you just want to address Hillary’s honesty there are PLENTY of things to ask Chelsea about without going the salacious Monica route.

We have more decency than the leftists who want Jenna and Barbara waterboarded. We’re better than that. Aren’t we? Lay off the (yes, 28 year old) girl already. My two cents.

inviolet on March 31, 2008 at 8:44 PM

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 8:41 PM

I’m curious how this gets spun as offensive. Another great point.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:45 PM

personavery = personally. Whaaa… :) ?

inviolet on March 31, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Spolitics, yes that would have been better. Again, I’m going on the assumption that the headline of this post is basically accurate: that Lewinsky was referenced more specifically. If I’m right about that, and Geckomon can’t see how that might be a painful reference to Chelsea, well, then there’s not much I can say.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM

The saddest thing is that Chelsea has not been prepared properly to answer such a question. All she needs is to speak her heart, to say that her father, who she loves beyond measure (because she probably does) behaved abominably in that “Lewinsky” thing, but she thinks her mother (who she also loves beyond measure) was heroic in that she chose to hold the family together…in spite of the public embarrassment.

Now, no matter that this was all because of Hillary’s “being owed,” for all the years of his serial adulteries.

A daughter of an adulterous father still loves him, as strange as that may seem, particularly if the mother keeps the family intact. While it’s fair to ask Chelsea this question, I fault the Clinton parents for not allowing their daughter to know and speak her heart on this issue. It would shut it all down. I’d like to hear Chelsea saying: “What do you want from me? I have two parents I adore and you are asking me to take sides??? Yep, my dad was 100% wrong in what he did, and there were consequences, but I still love him. My mom was, in my book, 100% faithful to our family in spite of his failings, and I love her. Do I think she will make a great President? Yup, she is a strong, focused woman who can do wonders for this country.”

Not that I think this by a long shot, but I really do think that there are much better answers than this is private or it’s none of your beeswax. I feel a little sorry for Chelsea and her inability to speak her truth out loud.

marybel on March 31, 2008 at 9:00 PM

There’s no one left, besides her own persona-non-grata supporters, to take the righteously angry line on Chelsea’s behalf here.

Good grief, it took long enough to break through this PC BS. At last! The Little One, the Chelsea-Mini-Me is accountable like any other adult campaign operative.

petefrt on March 31, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Geckomon can’t see how that might be a painful reference to Chelsea, well, then there’s not much I can say.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM

The headline is misleading. If you accept Spolitic’s edited question, then you are also agreeing to my assessment, because that was the original question.

The fact that you took AP’s headline as truth speaks more to how he mislead you as to what the question was and to which I had been trying to point out this whole time.

The disagreement with the question is not based on the question, but on the presumption of what it might have been. Have you seen a clip that also depicts the question and not just Chelsea’s answer?

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 8:45 PM

I think I get what people are saying. Ultimately, the question could have been asked without dropping Lewinsky’s name, but still have addressed the same point. So I think people feel that mentioning Lewinsky makes it a cheap shot. But… it was a college kid (not a seasoned reporter) — and Hillary supporter — who asked the question. It may have been improperly asked, but I also think she used the mention of Lewinsky as a route to dodge the real issue — the way Hillary handled the scandal.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 9:04 PM

I have stated on the original post that if she just had stated “no comment”, then that would have been acceptable. However, she took it to another level by saying “non-ya” as if she was being asked a question outside of the forum she herself agreed to participate in.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 9:05 PM

If you want to hear the student explain himself, here’s an interview.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 9:04 PM

Exactly. I can’t, for time constraints, repeat everything that I have posted on this subject, however, the gist of my argument rest on the question primarily.

The question referenced the Lewinsky incident, true. In another venue, wholly inappropriate. However in context of the question, very legitimate– which some detractors could not get past.

Once again, the question was not lewd, offensive, graphic, nor personal. It referenced an incident that the whole country had to experienced as well (this was our president at the time) and is very relevant as to how Hillary handles herself in office and in public.

The question posed to Chelsea asked her opinion of her mom’s credibility in the situation stated, Chelsea being someone who is trying to sell us Hillary’s credibility as the POTUS.

Chelsea was not peddling an album, book or movie; she is promoting her mom as POTUS and should not retort such questions as to her mom’s qualifications as “none of your business.”

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Since Chelsea is going to have to deal with this question for the “rest of her life,” I wish that she could just “give it a real go,” rather than dodge the question. “No comment” is not acceptable, it’s horribly insufficient for a self aware, confident 28 year old participating in a campaign. For crying out loud, Chelsea just must be clueless about what to say. It’s not rocket science, it’s just telling it like it is.

marybel on March 31, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Hey, I’m no Hillary lover, to say the least (and that is downplaying my animosity towards the Clinton’s quite a bit) – bit I really don’t think this is an appropriate line of questioning.

These asshats don’t ask it of anyone else stumping for or working for Hillary – and they don’t ask Hillary or Bill about it, either. No, these asshats (an appropriate and entertaining word) bravely ask Chelsea, alone.

Midas on March 31, 2008 at 9:35 PM

Hey, I’m no Hillary lover, to say the least (and that is downplaying my animosity towards the Clinton’s quite a bit) – bit I really don’t think this is an appropriate line of questioning.

These a$$hats don’t ask it of anyone else stumping for or working for Hillary – and they don’t ask Hillary or Bill about it, either. No, these a$$hats (an appropriate and entertaining word) bravely ask Chelsea, alone.

Midas on March 31, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Chelsea was not peddling an album, book or movie; she is promoting her mom as POTUS and should not retort such questions as to her mom’s qualifications as “none of your business.”

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Exactly.

petefrt on March 31, 2008 at 9:46 PM

she is promoting her mom as POTUS and should not retort such questions as to her mom’s qualifications as “none of your business.”

Oh, BS. She is being asked the question in order to embarrass her in the least and cause her to make a moral judgement about her parents at most. There is nothing gained by asking her about monica lewinsky. Ask her about the fbi files, ask her about travelgate, ask her about hillary care. Humiliating her is no honorable accomplishment.

peacenprosperity on March 31, 2008 at 9:53 PM

peacenprosperity on March 31, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Reactionary sans research.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Midas on March 31, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Oh really? What changes by making this point? Besides, the facts of the case beg to differ from your description of what happened.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:24 PM

There is nothing gained by asking her about monica lewinsky. Ask her about the fbi files, ask her about travelgate, ask her about hillary care. Humiliating her is no honorable accomplishment.

peacenprosperity on March 31, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Incredible. You presume to know what was asked, and then you continue with your misconception as if it was the truth. If the question was asking her to relive the Lewinsky moment as it pertains to the details of the incident, you have a point. However, this is not the case.

Why do those who are defending Chelsea continue to create a scenario that didn’t happen? Is it because on face value, your arguments don’t coincide with what was really asked?

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:29 PM

she is promoting her mom as POTUS and should not retort such questions as to her mom’s qualifications as “none of your business.”

If Chelsea was asked about her mother’s propensity for lying about events and got the “none of your business” response, then she is fair game. Not the cheap shot questions

belad on March 31, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Not the cheap shot questions

belad on March 31, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Again, what was the question then? Do you know? Or are you stuck on the name Lewinsky.

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:38 PM

If you allow me to stray for a minute, it seems some people think the Lewinsky scandal was just about sex and therefore, any mention of it is inappropriate. Given our war against both al Qaeda and Iraq, I tend to see it as something that undermined our foreign policy and national security. From Wikipedia (not the best source, of course, but the easiest):

Some critics of the Clinton administration expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox [when we bomed Iraq in 1998]. The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign. A few months earlier, similar criticism was leveled during Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, on August 20. The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship.

True, Hillary’s running not Bill. But isn’t she the one touting her experience based on being first lady? Isn’t she the one that blamed Bill’s mess on a vast right wing conspiracy? Agreed Hillary should get the question not Chelsea or any other surrogate. But to say it’s none of our business…? Come on.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Again, spot on.

Let me digress just a bit but still on point, if you please:

Look, I don’t think it should be a sin, just for saying “Jehovah”.
[Everyone gasps]

Life of Brian (1979)

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:56 PM

geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Nice.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM

Monica and Slick were in the Oral Office boinking etc. on company time, on company furniture/carpet in a national landmark so it IS the nation’s business. So was Slick’s crass finger pointing denial. To bad a docent couldn’t have been assigned to spray them both with cold water, as necessary.

Speaking of company time… Chelsea seems to be on extended vacation from her alleged financial firm, er, job. I’d ask her what she does to get those paychecks or are those purely complimentary in the fashion of her Stanford degree apparently earned via visitor’s pass? Let’s see some of Chelsea’s actual term papers and thesis papers to see just how legit her highbrow attitude genuinely is.

viking01 on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Let’s say I’m an adult of oh, 43 years of age*

Let’s just pretend that my father was once the President.

LET US JUST HYPOTHESIZE that maybe he, my father, did something immoral and possibly illegal when I was a child, and he was POTUS.

Can we agree that MAYBE if I were asked, as a 43 year old, what I thought about my POTUS dad’s improprieties, I might not answer?

That said, she’s no longer a child (*as I am no longer a child), and needs no sheltering.

Ugly on March 31, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Good thing the MSNBC news reader let us know Chelsea doesn’t have to answer the question. Nothing like context for the tough to understand news.

snaggletoothie on March 31, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Is it because on face value, your arguments don’t coincide with what was really asked?

There are a thousand questions that can be asked about hillary’s actions without having to humiliate her daughter about lewinsky. chelsea is seen as an easy target. That’s the only purpose of asking lewinsky questions. None of her other supporters are being asked lewinsky questions. Her husband isn’t being asked lewinsky questions. hillary is not being asked lewinsky questions. hillary was shady before lewinsky and shady after lewinsky. If people like you can only think of questions that have to do with that and can only ask her daughter then you are the uninformed and cowardly.

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 10:40 PM

So your contention is that teenaged chelsea said to dad at breakfast, “So did we bomb irag to diffuse the lewinsky scandal?” And bill gave her an answer that you feel she now needs to reveal?

Right. Now I’m clear on it.

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Coward huh? Your premise is lacking. Not even to point. Total fabrication. The question was not about the affair but about her mother’s credibility when she handled or non-handled it in public.

But the truth means you have to abandon your argument, and you can’t seem to get past that.

Coward, huh? Classy.

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 10:40 PM
geckomon on March 31, 2008 at 10:56 PM

So the decision whether or not you guys will vote for hillary rests on hearing from chelsea about her mothers behavior during the one particular scandal that probably caused chelsea the most pain and humiliation. The fact her mother is a marxist, likely corrupt and has been caught lying in multiple situations isn’t enough?

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:13 AM

So the decision whether or not you guys will vote for hillary rests on hearing from chelsea about her mothers behavior during the one particular scandal that probably caused chelsea the most pain and humiliation. The fact her mother is a marxist, likely corrupt and has been caught lying in multiple situations isn’t enough?

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:13 AM

Your fiction writing mind sure is busy. Delusional to boot. You gleaned all that from where?

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Coward, huh? Classy.

Well you have the logic of a liberal and don’t make much sense but I thought that might be too harsh.

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Well you have the logic of a liberal and don’t make much sense but I thought that might be too harsh.

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Prove it. Cite it. Explain away. A liberal dismisses all facts and reacts according to emotion. The arguments dismissing the question are full of emoting. Where is it that I am acting liberal?

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 12:23 AM

Asking a daughter to comment on a fellatio done to her father is simply a sexual perversion.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Asking a daughter to comment on a fellatio done to her father is simply a sexual perversion.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Whoah! Who asked that question? Come back to the facts.

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 12:51 AM

Poor girl! Perhaps she should divorce her parents!

miron on April 1, 2008 at 12:52 AM

peacenprosperity on April 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM

My contention is that one of her mom’s own supporters felt the need to ask her about how her mom handled the scandal and Chelsea, who was there as a representative of her mother said, “it’s none of your business whether or not the way my mom handled it is affecting her credibility.” And she said with acide on her tongue.

For some reason you seem incapable of grasping the fact that her own supporter asked her the question or that the question was about how her mom handled the scandal. They asked Chelsea because she was there to speak on behalf of her mother, to ask for their vote.

You assume the only reason the guy asked the question was to embarass her even though the guy explains (in the link I provided) that he asked that question because all of his friends questioned his support for Hillary because of the way she handled the scandal, that it showed she wasn’t strong enough to be President and he wanted to give Chelsea — the person there to talk about her mother’s campaign — a chance to counter that argument. Did you watch the link? Or, as Michelle Obama would say, are you too comfortable in your ignorance?

More importantly… do you know anything about Hillary’s behavior during the scandal and why it’s relevent to someone considering whether or not she should hold our country’s highest office?

Hillary Clinton is basing her campaign on being ready on day one to answer the phone in a crisis. She faced a crisis in 1998 and you’re saying it’s off limits? It undermined the effort against al Qaeda but it’s off limits? It undermined the effort to have the weapons inspectors put back into Iraq, but it’s off limits? It’s probably the defining issue of his Presidency.

Lastly, if she’s so humiliated about the way her father behaved in the White House, why is she asking us to send him back there?

Spolitics on April 1, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Since Chelsea is going to have to deal with this question for the “rest of her life,” I wish that she could just “give it a real go,” rather than dodge the question.

Oh my word, the very idea! I feel faint. [succumbs to the vapors]

Jim Treacher on April 1, 2008 at 3:42 AM

Pops DID get impeached for lying under oath – he just wasnt convicted.

abcurtis on April 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM

I have read some very convoluted arguments in these comments. Does anyone have the right to ask her the question? Absolutely! Does she have the right to refuse to answer the question or feel it is a personal matter? Absolutely!! If she answered the question would it change the way you would vote? God I hope not. If you don’t have enough information about Hillary and her views to cast an informed vote, then you probably shouldn’t cast a vote.

insideout on April 1, 2008 at 7:45 AM

She’s finding out that “if you repeat the lie enough, eventually people will believe it”…just doesn’t work with some people. I say FORGE ON! ask whatever you want! Hell…if you can ask “Boxers or briefs”, you surely can ask legitimate questions…no?…well….maybe not, sometimes i forget where when i live.

HunnyWaggin on April 1, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Can’t this little hectoring nag go back to the $400K a year job her daddy got her and STFU?

NoDonkey on April 1, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Awwwwwwwwwww Poor widdle girl being picked on?

It’s amazing she REALLY believes she’s entitled to be “left-alone”. Typlical Clinton ” I’m better than you ” attitude.

tx2654 on April 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Even if it was an acceptable question the first time, now that people have seen her reaction it’s just a “gotcha” question.

Spolitics on March 31, 2008 at 8:11 PM

That’s how I feel about this instance, but I’m annoyed that the question is again left out of the video. Why is that?

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 8:20 PM

I tried to have an honest discussion with you. It ended with you calling me a hypocrite. I’m not even convinced you ever bothered to read my explanation.

Spolitics, yes that would have been better. Again, I’m going on the assumption that the headline of this post is basically accurate: that Lewinsky was referenced more specifically. If I’m right about that, and Geckomon can’t see how that might be a painful reference to Chelsea, well, then there’s not much I can say.

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM

I don’t understand. Wouldn’t it also be painful for Chelsea to remember the time when her father was impeached? Wasn’t it all painful?

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

Allah, this question was asked on one of the other threads. Those who were defending the question as legitimate had no problem with your scenario.

Though they are entirely different scenarios. Bush’s coke use was before the twins were even born. They likely know as much about it as I do about my grandfather’s service in WWII. And considering that Hillary is calling her time as First Lady “experience” it’s directly relevant to her campaign.

Would anyone have a problem if the person had asked “What do you say to those who would claim that your father’s affair has harmed your mother’s credibility?”

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Ok geckmoron, fair enough …

pleaseandthankyou on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Emphasis mine. It’s a shame I didn’t catch that. I would never have engaged you in what I thought was an honest conversation. A**wipe.

Geckmoron, I never said the question wasn’t valid.
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

2nd time. The “considerate act” is laughable.

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

3rd time. With more false integrity to boot.

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

4th time. Again with no provocation from me.

pleaseandthankyou is a fraud. You are a hack, you’ve earned no respect from me.

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Bravo!

Except, I fear you confuse them with facts and logic.

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Hill? Absolutely.

MadisonConservative on March 31, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Here’s what I don’t get. If the question is inappropriate to ask of Chelsea, how does it become appropriate when asked of Hillary?

Are you trying to argue that Hillary isn’t innocent in the affair? Did she pick Monica up at a bar and bring her home to Bill?

The best we have is stories saying she knew about the affairs, so what if stories come out saying that Chelsea knew does she then become fair game on this question?

Seriously, if anyone’s humiliated by this scandal, it’s Hillary. Even if she never loved Bill, which wouldn’t surprise me. It was a humiliating experience for it to come out that her husband was sleeping with an intern just a few years older than her own daughter.

How is it any less crass to ask Hillary about the affair?

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM

If it was so personal to her family, why didn’t Clinton just resign rather than drag this country through a very public Constitutional crisis?

pecan pie on April 1, 2008 at 10:59 AM

There is far more to the Lewinsky matter than Slick getting pleasured. If Chelsea wants to be the parent’s campaign shill she should expect unpleasant revisits to her parent’s tawdry choices. If Chelsea wants to hawk for her parents she should expect to hear about their sleazier side now and then. If not, her obviously phony patronage job in NYC awaits her prompt return.

The typical Leftist dodge remains that the Lewinsky matter is only about sex. Hardly. Not only was Slick exploiting a subordinate employee (and given a pass by the fraud called N.O.W.) he was impeached and eventually disbarred for obstruction of justice against Paula Jones. Slick also sent the missiles into Sudan on the day Lewinsky was set to testify. His finger pointing denial illustrated his contempt his Democrat dupe following… and they still love him for it. Apparently, so does Hillary.

Since angry Hillary is running for president it’s a fair question as to her judgment regarding her wayward hubby. Hillary was too willing to blame a vast conspiracy for Slick’s misdeeds. That calls into question her mental balance not to mention a willingness to be her husband’s doormat. Should she be Putin’s doormat too if challenged on substantial foreign policy matters? Even lackeys at the AP and Reuters could only sugar coat that for so long. Who are they going to blame for bored Bubba chasing skirts of the White House help the next time? Ken Starr? The Secret Service?

Remember during the 1992 campaign when “60 Minutes” DNC hack Steve Roberts did the famous Clinton “I’m a changed man” campaign advertisement presented as a Ratheresque news program? Hillary was nodding her head like a bobble head doll. That’s my Bill he’s over all that now. If Hillary was Bill’s useful sap in 1992 and remained Bill’s useful sap in 1997 yet still remains tolerant of being Bill’s useful sap in 2008? Her unwillingness to hold her trashy husband to task for the Lewinsky matter is relevant to her inability to lead by drawing the line. That is central to why she is unqualified to run a snowball stand in winter much less be president of a nation. Again, if Chelsea wants to be their peddler she shouldn’t be surprised if her trashy father’s mud gets rubbed off upon her as readily as Slick did so upon her poorly repackaged trashy mother.

viking01 on April 1, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Bravo!

geckomon on April 1, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Shocka.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM

I didn’t have time to read all the comments, so maybe this has been addressed. In her little talk, Chelsea said that world will be much happier when President Bush is gone, implying that he has been a bad president. If she’s going to go down that road (as opposed to explaining why her mother will be a good president), then she deserves to have Monica, Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, and all the rest thrown in her face.

Kafir on April 1, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Here’s what I don’t get. If the question is inappropriate to ask of Chelsea, how does it become appropriate when asked of Hillary?

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Easy: Hillary directly reacted to the situation by taking the political offensive. She capitalized on the opportunity. She took the debacle and manipulated it for her own means, as her husband did. They are both in the wrong for it, and should both be questioned about their actions.

Chelsea had nothing to do with it. Period.

And to refer to an earlier post, the idea that “the whole country experienced it” is absurd if you’re saying they experienced it the same way Chelsea did. The whole country wasn’t living in the White House, they weren’t the whole country’s parents, and once 2001 came, the whole country didn’t have to go on dealing with it.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:27 AM

In her little talk, Chelsea said that world will be much happier when President Bush is gone, implying that he has been a bad president. If she’s going to go down that road…

Kafir on April 1, 2008 at 11:25 AM

How dare she say her opinion on Bush.

Now, if she had said she liked Bush, no one would have said a word, except perhaps a few more cracks about her because of who her parents are.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:28 AM

And to refer to an earlier post, the idea that “the whole country experienced it” is absurd if you’re saying they experienced it the same way Chelsea did.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:27 AM

I never said that. You seem to do that a lot with me.

Besides, the exact same can be said of Hillary. No one experienced the situation the same way Hillary did.

And yes, she capitalized on it, but what does that have to do with the scandal itself? Isn’t that more about how she reacted to the scandal? So wouldn’t a question about the scandal (as a opposed to her reaction to the scandal) still be inappropriate according to your own guidelines?

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM

I never said that. You seem to do that a lot with me.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Never said you did. Said it was an earlier post.

You always seem to derive things I didn’t say out of what I do say. Don’t start that up again. Read what I say, or don’t respond.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM

You always seem to derive things I didn’t say out of what I do say. Don’t start that up again. Read what I say, or don’t respond.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Seriously, pot… kettle…

You think it’s OK to ask Hillary about her husband’s blow job. Would you ask her? Because otherwise, you’re a hypocrite.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:42 AM

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 11:28 AM

All I’m saying is Matthew 7:3

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own [or your father’s] eye?

AP says she doesn’t deserve to have this question put to her. I say she does if she gets into Good President/Bad President discussions, especially if those discussions center on character or the reputation of the president.
Chelsea: The world will breathe a sigh of relief when Bush leaves office.
Me: You mean like fat female interns did when your father left?

Kafir on April 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

You think it’s OK to ask Hillary about her husband’s blow job. Would you ask her? Because otherwise, you’re a hypocrite.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Now YOU’RE simplifying the question. It was whether her reaction to the situation would affect her credibility. Asking that kind of thing to Chelsea is asking her to make a pretty personal judgment, being in the position she is as her daughter.

Asking Hillary herself? I absolutely would. She made statements about the right wing conspiracy, so obviously she had her mind made up on she was going to tackle the problem. I’d have no problem asking it.

Then again, I’d have no problem asking any question I think is appropriate. Some people wouldn’t ask it, but they think it’s still okay. I see more hypocrisy in the latter, if you want to get into that.

I say she does if she gets into Good President/Bad President discussions, especially if those discussions center on character or the reputation of the president.

Kafir on April 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

If Bush were running for re-election, I would agree with you. However, he can’t. He’s leaving, and there is no argument about that. She’s offering her opinion on what is going to happen. If you’re saying she should be hassled over her father’s lechery because she voices an opinion on an inevitable event, that’s up to you. I don’t agree.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM

I see more hypocrisy in the latter, if you want to get into that.

We already did, but every time I explain my position, you’re no where to be found.

But seriously, your opinion on the subject is no different from the opinion of those who think you have to fight in the war to support it. “If you think the war’s such a good idea, why aren’t you enlisted?”

If you can accept that it’s possible to support something without doing it yourself, then you can accept that I wouldn’t ask a question even though I believe it to be an appropriate one.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM

But seriously, your opinion on the subject is no different from the opinion of those who think you have to fight in the war to support it. “If you think the war’s such a good idea, why aren’t you enlisted?”

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Yes, because risking being blown up by an IED is just like asking someone a tough question. Proportion, please.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM

What exactly was the question? What about the Lewinski scandal?
Regardless, if Billy Jeff were running this would be fair game but he isn’t, Monica’s ex-boyfriends wife is.

Buttercup on April 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM

For what it’s worth, Rush was just on while I went to lunch and he also said that Chelsea wasn’t the one to ask, regardless of her age, and that people should be pushing B+H on the point.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Right, because we all follow lock-step with Rush on whatever he says.

Yes, because risking being blown up by an IED is just like asking someone a tough question. Proportion, please.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM

What does the proportion have to do with anything? Either it’s acceptable to support something you wouldn’t do yourself or it isn’t.

Either proponents of the death penalty needs to pull the switch themselves, or they don’t.
Either pro-abortionists must have one themselves first, or they don’t.
Either only mother’s who’ve lost a son/daughter in this war get a chance to be heard, or their voice is only one of many.

If you accept that someone must do something they believe is acceptable in order to have that belief, then why should it stop at a stupid question? If I’m a hypocrite because of a stupid question that offended maybe three people, then you’re one for supporting a war in which 4,000 men and women have died while you did nothing.

You don’t get out of it because you’re afraid of dying while I’m only afraid of offending someone to his/her face.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 3:56 PM

If you really believe asking a question is comparable to going into a battlefield, having an abortion, or pulling the switch on the electric chair, I don’t think it’s really worth trying to discuss this issue rationally with you. Oh…

Right, because we all follow lock-step with Rush on whatever he says.

People invoked Michelle’s opinion. Is it okay if I inject the view of another major pundit?

Apparently not without recriminations.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM

If you really believe asking a question is comparable to going into a battlefield, having an abortion, or pulling the switch on the electric chair, I don’t think it’s really worth trying to discuss this issue rationally with you. Oh…

I’m not comparing them. I never once said that they are the same.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM

What does the proportion have to do with anything? Either it’s acceptable to support something you wouldn’t do yourself or it isn’t.

Your statement implies that you see no difference.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM

I agree that Chelsea shouldn’t be asked about stuff that happened to her dad in his old office, assuming she isn’t going around the country trying to help her mom move into it.

Jim Treacher on April 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Your statement implies that you see no difference.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM

No, it doesn’t. It states directly that I see no difference in those who would comment that one must do the thing one finds appropriate in order to feel that it is appropriate.

I’m an individual. Just because I wouldn’t do something myself, it does not mean that the thing I wouldn’t do is inappropriate.

I wouldn’t eat snails or most seafood. I wouldn’t become a vegetarian. I wouldn’t and usually don’t (baring rare exceptions) carry a purse. I wouldn’t try out for American Idol. I wouldn’t finish reading Moby Dick. I started it and hated it. And I wouldn’t go to a politician’s rally, let alone a Clinton rally.

However, just because I wouldn’t do those things, it doesn’t mean that I find those things to be inappropriate. It simply means exactly what I’ve stated. I wouldn’t do those things.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Jim Treacher on April 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM

And presumably her father as well.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 5:34 PM

I wouldn’t eat snails or most seafood. I wouldn’t become a vegetarian. I wouldn’t and usually don’t (baring rare exceptions) carry a purse. I wouldn’t try out for American Idol. I wouldn’t finish reading Moby Dick.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Wow. Just wow.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Wow. Just wow.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Forget it. Apparently everything you wouldn’t do but support is fine, but I’m just an @sshole.

I won’t make the mistake again of thinking I can discuss anything with you. This is exactly why I said I wouldn’t bother talking to you about this exact thing before.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Yep. Eating snails, asking questions of a politician, and pulling the switch on the electric chair, all comparable. Glad to see you stayed on track.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM

So it’s just Madison residents in general, then.

Jim Treacher on April 1, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Hm? Ah, backhanded attacks. I see you have nothing better.

MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Nothing worth wasting.

Jim Treacher on April 1, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3