Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Chelsea Clinton Gets Fired Up

By Perry Bacon Jr.
A day after her most pointed remark yet on the campaign trail, Chelsea Clinton will appear at several different fundraising events for her mother in Washington.

The usually soft-spoken Clinton rebuked a student at Butler University in Indianapolis on Tuesday who asked whether her mother's credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Clinton said, getting loud applause from the 200 people in the audience, according to the Associated Press. (Watch a video of the exchange here.)

In Washington, the 28-year-old, who works at a hedge fund in New York but has spent much of the last three months on the campaign trail, will find friendlier audiences.

Clinton will appear with her mother at a fundraiser at a concert hall where supporters must donate $25 to attend, then at an event for bigger donors ($1000 each) at the home of Esther Coopersmith, a Democratic activist who worked in the Carter administration. She is also scheduled to attend a reception without her mother for "Hillblazers," Hillary Clinton's younger supporters.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 26, 2008; 3:00 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gravel Joins the Libertarians
Next: Obama Gets Back to Work

Comments

You're kidding right? Chelsea spews venom on command, just like mom, when she is asked about her mom's CREDIBILITY, diverting the question with "it's none of your business" as if the question were about mom's CREDIBILITY with Bill. Must be an issue under there. Dumb as a rock and poisonous by training. Her best move at this point in her life is to get a job and ignore her parents.

Posted by: DSB | May 9, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

The MSM need to focus on who Chelsea Clinton is. They can start by reporting more about the Hedge Fund that she works for in New York: Avenue Capital Group. This is a company which invests in the distressed debt market and which also happens to be run by folks who have been big financial supporters of her parents. (So much for getting her job on the merits.)

Investors in distressed securities typically must make an assessment not only of the issuer's ability to improve its operations but also whether the restructuring process (which frequently requires court supervision) might benefit one class of securities more than another.

So Avenue Capital profits from downturns in the economy and foreclosures and bankruptcies. There are more than a few hard working men and women in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and beyond who ought to at least know who the Clinton's friends are and how their daughter is getting rich on Wall Street.

Posted by: washingtonpost | April 1, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

It's funny how all these Hillary supporters have deluded themselves into thinking that the Obama and his campaign supporters are the snide, negative ones...

Posted by: Queixada | March 31, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill Clinton raised a very nice and intelligent daughter, which we should all wish we had. What a shame Obama
and his wife are subjecting their daughters
to such hate and racial speeches that come
from their church. If they can do this to their own children think what they have planned for us. I hope to God there is some way to stop this evil person.

Posted by: saw321 | March 30, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

THE CLINTON'S SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE !!!


Yes, I believe that Chelsea Clinton should be asked these kinds of tough questions. Even more so the question pertaining to her mothers lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. As well as her fathers corrupt and profited actions with the so called "War on Drugs" that helped imprison more than 1,153,000 non-violent drug users. Unlawful along with untruthful practices have been such a "norm" with said campaign... the proof of misuse of power for personal gain is endless. But since the Clinton's insist on the spotlight. That consists of getting the first and toughest of question that may not always make for pleasant conversation...
If really prepared for day-one, the Clinton's just wouldn't dodge these kinds of questions. But take the time to face those issues head-on like Obama. Even if mistakes were made, he took the time necessary to address and clarify the issues. Doing so in a open and honest manner which hit allot closer to home. And essentially that's what's most important here. Having these kinds of personal morals or lack thereof can make or break who we are leaders vs followers... Chelsea...

Posted by: vita1383 | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

rlr524,
Do you really expect me or any one else to believe that all of the snide posts have been from republicians, independents, or libertarians? BTW, you've made some ridiculous assumptions about me. However, I got a good laugh from reading your post.

Posted by: math | March 28, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

To all the people who are doing the multiple posting bit: repeating the same lame comments over and over DOESN'T make them any more believable.

Posted by: luise1 | March 28, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

Math- I have yet to see a venomous comment from someone who identified themselves as an Obama supporter? Are you just assuming that to be the case? Could they be Republicans, Independants, Libertarians? Supporters of someone else or nobody at all?

I am not sure who I find to be more smug and intolerable, HRC or her supporters. HRC supporters clearly hate Obama supporters and believe them to be under some sort of mass delusion. Funny, that is exactly what atheists say about the religious. But that is the mindset we are dealing with in HRC's supporters. This is the self-important, old, arrogant, shrill, liberal elite. You feel that HRC is entitled to the nomination and you are indignant that someone is standing in the way. Math, I am sorry your time has passed and young people are asserting themsleves in this campaign. I am sorry that your generation is aging (hey, baby boomers weren't supposed to get old! what about the 60's man??!!). But you need to get off of your high horse. When Obama gets this nomination you are free to take your ball and go home or go play in John Mccain's yard. You will do nothing but confirm all of my assumptions about you.

Posted by: rlr524 | March 27, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

This is the second evening I've followed the posts on this topic. I'm astounded by the staggering number of uncivilized and insulting commments made by Obama supporters. Please take the time to re-read these posts. Compare those who are obviously supportive of Hillary with those who are supportive of Barrack. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is espousing the most venom. Obama supporters, please just re-read your posts. Then read the posts submitted by Hillary supporters. It is really astonishing to see the contrast!

Posted by: math | March 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

About Senator Clinton's "misspeaking" - that is another none-news. As a matter of fact it might have been just self-irony of no importance at all. Whatever you say it´s zero compared to your to your present Presidents monumental and universal lies with respect to the non-exesting nucluer bombs in Irak!

Posted by: royrichard | March 27, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Some Americans are Narrow-minded and prejudiced! This media-show is none-news. By the way - has there been any investigation aimed to map out Obamas private life all the way into the bedroom? I don´t think so. Such a clever fine fellow "loudspeaker" simply has to be innocent concerning all kinds of dirty matters. For sure his Obama-girls in not hided in his cloakroom. Onestly - to me he sounds like a dangerous youth manipulator only. You know absolutely nothing about him. But leave him alone, because that is none of your business.

Posted by: royrichard | March 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Saddle up and grow up Chelsea. Answer the questions or get off the field just like you pappy said. Don't hide from them.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

If she can't answer a simple question then she should get off the trail, the damn rat!!!

Posted by: leonardwatts2 | March 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

JackSmith writes: "Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton."

Hey, man, where were you a year ago??
Hillary was then that vast overwhelming political machine that was annoited by divine right [and Bill Clinton] to be the Democratic candidate and then the runaway winner to be POTUS. But her leadership skills to "hit the ground running" couldn't even manage her own campaign.

No, she was not out manned. She had overwhelming support at first, until her own supporters started deserting her. No, she was not out spent. She had overwhelming money at first, until she mismanaged it all and Obama began raising more money than her vast political insider machine could. But Yes, she was out gunned--by the management, budgeting, campaigning, and organizational skills of Obama.

As her double-digit lead in so many states vanished one-by-one, until now she trails clearly in both the popular vote and the delegate count, you say that Obama's lead is "tenuous and questionable"??? You should be working for Clinton's spin team yourself.

See my 10:13 posting, and try to honestly prove to yourself that any point is wrong. America has had enough of Bush-Cheney and of Clinton-Clinton altogether, those same old same old birds of a feather.

Let lying dogs sleep !!!

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

arlineo--you are correct in that no one is perfect or perfectly honest or anything else obvious like that. Among American voters' most stupid habits [besides not voting at all] is their blind expectation of perfection in their own candidate--or turning a blind eye to their own candidate's blatant imperfections--and the delight in finding any normal human imperfections in the opposing candidate. American voters in this way appear excessively juvenile and immature next to European voters, whom they often make such snide comments about.

That said, when anyone is or wants to be POTUS, there is no zone of privacy. The Clinton family has been outrageously trashed because they are so outrageously morally trashy. As has been shown so many times, everybody in politics lies, but both the Clintons do it with such ease that it's frightening. Whoops--I forgot--Hillary "misspeaks" when she gets something [hilariously and blatant] wrong, but Obama lies, doesn't he?

Remember when the going in the campaign started to get tough [dirty] earlier this year? That's when Hillary said, "Well, now the fun starts." She was in her element, until Obama kept beating her in primary after primary without becomeing like her and Bill.

I am for America first, and neither of these despicable parties. Since a year ago I have wanted an Obama--McCain matchup, and let the American voters then decide. If one wants to trash somebody in politics, go ahead--just give REASONS. A few of the reasons I despise both Clinton-Clinton and Bush-Cheney are laid out in my 10:13 AM posting. I defy anyone to prove any of those reasons incorrect.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Sipooler and Peakload are absolutely correct.

I'm sick of the Clinton bashing, and most especially the Chelsea bashing now taking place.

The Clinton family has been outrageously trashed in the most vulgar and egregious ways ever since their incursion into the world of American politics. I applaud Chelsea's answer to the venomous question regarding her father's sexual indiscretions.

And in regard to Senator Clinton's "misspeaking", may I remind all the Clinton bashers that the numerous documented "misspoken" stories which Ronald Reagan was fond of repeating were deemed an endearing characteristic of this charismatic man.

Can any of you self-righteous individuals say that YOU have never embellished a story? Think about it.


Posted by: arlineo | March 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The cliche "chip off the old block" certainly fits when it comes to Chelsea Clinton. Though the trouble with that is she has two despicable humans to whom she can emulate. The first is a pathological philandering, egotistical liar. The next one isn't much better but instead of philandering her sexuality would seem to be one of just being a little "frigid". Who knows where this "chip" will go with her life but be certain of one thing. As long as she doesn't join the Republican Party she will also enjoy immunity for pretty much anything she says or does! We see that is true when "Bush lies" but "Hillary misspeaks"!!

Posted by: Frank17 | March 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is trying to nail Barack to the wall for sticking by his preacher and friend who made some offensive comments from the pulpit. But she stuck by her man who performed offensive sexual acts behind his desk in the Oval Office. Besides that, he took advantage of many women, with and without their consent, lied about it, was impreached for perjury, and generally disgraced the office of President. Hillary not only condoned Bill's actions, but used their influence to bully and persecute his victims to keep them quiet. Yes, Chelsea, it is our business. Your mom and dad made it our business.

Posted by: jjchamber701937 | March 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I wish supporters on both sides would stop being so snarky. But, to the reader who wrote:

"Reading these posts it is not difficult to understand why Obamites are characterized as no brains, no class and no education people, waiting for the Obscure Prophet to make the miracle so they could get what they haven't earned!"

Check your facts: Obama is getting the higher educated demographic and the Clintons ended up with the less-educated, working class demographic in their column by accident - at the beginning of her campaign strategy, she was the "establishment," big-donor candidate who was supposed to wrap it all up by February. Only Clinton supporters, disappointed (understandably) that their candidate has not prevailed in the popular vote or pledged delegates are belittling Obama supporters in the manner you state.

Why do Democrats have to attack one another? We need to get focused on winning against John McCain in the fall! If another white, pro-war, male gets elected again, both women and african-americans and people of other historically oppressed groups lose...big.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I wish supporters on both sides would stop being so snarky. But, to the reader who wrote:

"Reading these posts it is not difficult to understand why Obamites are characterized as no brains, no class and no education people, waiting for the Obscure Prophet to make the miracle so they could get what they haven't earned!"

Check your facts: Obama is getting the higher educated demographic and the Clintons ended up with the less-educated, working class demographic in their column by accident - at the beginning of her campaign strategy, she was the "establishment," big-donor candidate who was supposed to wrap it all up by February. Only Clinton supporters, disappointed (understandably) that their candidate has not prevailed in the popular vote or pledged delegates are belittling Obama supporters in the manner you state.

Why do Democrats have to attack one another? We need to get focused on winning against John McCain in the fall! If another white, pro-war, male gets elected again, both women and african-americans and people of other historically oppressed groups lose...big.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I wish supporters on both sides would stop being so snarky. But, to the reader who wrote:

"Reading these posts it is not difficult to understand why Obamites are characterized as no brains, no class and no education people, waiting for the Obscure Prophet to make the miracle so they could get what they haven't earned!"

Check your facts: Obama is getting the higher educated demographic and the Clintons ended up with the less-educated, working class demographic in their column by accident - at the beginning of her campaign strategy, she was the "establishment," big-donor candidate who was supposed to wrap it all up by February. Only Clinton supporters, disappointed (understandably) that their candidate has not prevailed in the popular vote or pledged delegates are belittling Obama supporters in the manner you state.

Why do Democrats have to attack one another? We need to get focused on winning against John McCain in the fall! If another white, pro-war, male gets elected again, both women and african-americans and people of other historically oppressed groups lose...big.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I suppose that listening and reading some of the Oblapie Bots tripe is vastly amusuing to their sense of proprietary dogma that anything goes unless of course the questions are asked of their empty suit who responds with the smugness's of a gas vaporous gas cloud. At which time they erupt as a popped pimple would,leaching pus down the open wound all the while claiming indifferece to the visual effects.


GET a LIFE.

Posted by: nightslider | March 27, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

olgaolivia: "THE SEX SCANDAL, VERY PUBLICLY, WAS A PRIVATE AFFAIR BETWEEN TWO ADULTS!

IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!"

Olgaolivia,

Not to stray too far afield from the topic of this thread (Chelsea's response to a question about how the Lewinsky scandal affected her mother's character), but the "sex scandal" was very much a public affair between several parties: Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea, and (once Bill had lied publicly to each and every one of us on camera in January 1998) the American people. It would have been one thing if, as many have suggested, Bill had simply said to that questioning reporter, "I'm not going to answer that question." (In that regard, even Chelsea's "It's none of your business" at least had the virtue of being a more honest response than his.) But no, instead he had to smugly utter that famous ten-word lie: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Insofar as the whole sordid matter reflects on Hillary's character, none of us should forget the Clintons' aggressive efforts to smear Monica as a liar or a deluded stalker before the truth finally came out. If not for that infamous blue dress, most of us to this day would have been forgiven for believing that poor Monica was just some messed-up kid with a huge case of infatuation. Instead, we were able to see firsthand how the Clintons would mercilessly sacrifice truth and decency to cover up their flaws, even if it meant smearing a young intern's reputation for the rest of her life.

That's why the Lewinsky affair is relevant. Not for the sex, but for the disgusting aftermath. It showed us exactly what the Clintons are capable of.

By the way, am I the only one who appreciates the irony that the tenth anniversary of Bill's televised admission that he had a relationship with monica that was "not appropriate" (Aug.17th) falls exactly one week before the start of the Denver convention? Just think, we'll be treated to that whole spectacle all over again while one of its key players will be making her final preparations to try and steal the nomination. That next week will make for some truly spectacular political theater, eh?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Ah, poor little Chelsea--pimped out by her parents, and yet she still has someone ask her an inconvenient question. It's not just a matter of prurience, by the way, although it may be so for some people. During one of Bill Clinton's BJs from Monica, for example, he was actually on the phone with the senator from Alabama discussing the dispensation of troops in Bosnia. If you had a son or daughter in harm's way, would you like the decisions being made about them in this way?

Hillary always says she's been so vetted over the years, and yet she blocks, evades, covers up, hides, or just plain lies about any attempts to "vet" her.

Anyway, all those supporting the next Clinton in the Bush--Clinton--Bush--Clinton line of American aristocracy [the Founders would love that!], should take great cheer at Miss Clinton's moment. After 8 years of Hillary, and then 8 years of Jeb Bush, it will be Chelsea's time to ascend to her birthright and take the reins of power in this great country. This inconvenient moment just helps her prepare for her future.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I think the entire "That's none of your Business" speech, was plagiarized from Bushie! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Not only was Chelsea wrong in her answer(i.e. that it was none of the questioner's business) she and/or the campaign is wrong to shield her from anwering any questions from the Media. I don't believe the question was necessarily a set up! I do think she could actually have hit a home run with the right answer. After all If
"The Clintons" get back to the White House
what will Bill be doing too occupy his time? Its a legitimate question! Also for Chelsea's part she is vigorously campaigning for her Mother which is commendable. She should not be off limits to the Media. She is an Adult who in the scheme of things earns more money than most Americans. Monica was what 6 or 7 years younger that Chelsea is right now when all of that scandal was taking place.By the way where is Monica...How's she doing I wonder?

Posted by: rlhemp | March 27, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

What I am reading here is the obama followers and Clinton haters (obama supporter/repubs) really want to know in detail what Bill did to Monica - they want to know step by step actions so they can get what they want from it.
Chelsea Clinton IS NOT REQUIRED to answer questions of this nature and for any idiot person to ask this question is the type who is looking for his 15 minutes of fame - Wow - daytime talk shows, wow - newspaper headlines, wow - maybe he can get a movie contract or a spot on American Idol.
Chelsea was right in her response. Chelsea is not responsible for what her parents may have or may have not done in her lifetime. It is apparent that as their daughter, she is devoted to both. Its time for you obamamaniacs to let go of this and get on with your lives. If you don't have one, get off the blogs and start volunteering to contribute something to your environment. If you don't like this environment, then move out of the country.
The obamamaniacs have become such cult followers that if obama changed this year from 2008 to 2020, they would immediately start changing their personal paperwork.
Get a life. Start finding something better to do than bash a young lady who is attempting to help her mother.


Posted by: peakload2003 | March 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the question is irrelevant. Hillary's handling of the Lewinsky affair really is no one's business--it is a family matter which should have stayed that way. The "vast right wing" conspiracy that Hillary referred to was the unyielding attempts by the GOP to bring down the Clintons. Nothing was too personal or too sacred. If your spouse cheats on you, and you hear about it, not from that person or someone that you genuinely trust, why would you believe it? Besides, with all that the first family had been through, at the hands of the GOP, why should she have just caved in to their crazy antics. I think she handled it gracefully and with tactic. I think Chelsea did the right thing in telling the so-called Hillary supporter that it was none of his business--it really isn't!

Posted by: slpooler2002 | March 27, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

NO WONDER WE ARE KNOWN ALL OVER THE WORLD AS THE 'UGLY AMERICANS'. LOOK AT YOU!

THE SEX SCANDAL, VERY PUBLICLY, WAS A PRIVATE AFFAIR BETWEEN TWO ADULTS!

IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!

I GUESS WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT HISTORY...THE WANTON KILLING OF MORE YOUNGSTERS IN A WAR THAT HAD AND HAS NO MERIT..

OLGA
AUSTIN, TEXAS

Posted by: olgaolivia | March 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Check this out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27patrick.html?hp

Obama's role model is the reason why Hillary won so easily in Massachusetts. They've seen one Obama, and they don't want another!

Posted by: CPCook | March 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I agree with SusanL and math. Before I just wanted a Dem to be in the White House. After hearing the campaign and knowing more about Obama, I almost feel obligated to vote for McCain. The more I know about Obama (then it was just his limited experience, now I have serious reservations about his judgment, integrity and character in general), the more I feel that the country is better off with McCain, especially given that the Dems will have a stronger control of congress anyway.

BTW, I am not a republican. It is just that it seems that the noisy liberal wing within the Democratic party are insane, and would pass up on Richardson, Dodd, Biden and yes, Clinton. Why can't they get a qualified nominee rather than insisting on Obama for the sake of having a black person for a candidate? If they were able to get Powell instead, then we are talking. But Obama??? I will pass and vote McCain. (As an aside, even Rice is better than Obama)

Posted by: CPCook | March 27, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree with SusanL and math. Before I just wanted a Dem to be in the White House. After hearing the campaign and knowing more about Obama, I almost feel obligated to vote for McCain. The more I know about Obama (then it was just his limited experience, now I have serious reservations about his judgment, integrity and character in general), the more I feel that the country is better off with McCain, especially given that the Dems will have a stronger control of congress anyway.

BTW, I am not a republican. It is just that it seems that the noisy liberal wing within the Democratic party are insane, and would pass up on Richardson, Dodd, Biden and yet Clinton. Why can't they get a qualified nominee rather than insisting on Obama for the sake of having a black person for a candidate? If they were able to get Powell instead, then we are talking. But Obama??? I will pass and vote McCain. (As an aside, even Rice is better than Obama)

Posted by: CPCook | March 27, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Why don't they just put a tape recording up there of Hillary's favorite speeches.If Chelsea wants to in the ball game she better answer ALL the questions. Like Bill said, if you play football expect to be tackled. Then this should apply to Chelsea too.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 27, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

For all the Hillary supporters, I would presume you must also be a supporter of President Bush-Cheney. I despise Bush-Cheney, and I despise Hillary for very much the same reasons. Notice I said REASONS, not gut reactions of because she is a woman or anything stupid like that. Millions of us (especially Independents)oppose Hillary because she is unfit to be president. If you think about it, she has the same characteristics for which millions of us also reject President Bush and Cheney.


Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary is a viciously polarizing and divisive person, to citizens from both political parties as well as independents. With Hillary, we have the same old deep and nasty politicized divisions in America, at a time when we need a unifying leader who can work with both parties.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary has a proven record of secrecy, lies, and prevarications. With Hillary, we have the same old government of hidden agendas, secret policies, and outright deceit.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hilary has proved that she views politics itself not as a matter of compromise and necessary (if at times unhappy) cooperation, but as a constant battle against "vast political conspiracies." With Hillary, we have the same old spittle that any rational criticism of her is a personal attack whose argument is therefore not even worth consideration.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary is incapable of working with anyone who offers criticism of her policies or positions, no matter how sincere. With Hillary, we have the same old "my way or the highway" mentality that has constipated the executive and legislative progress for too long now. As Bush-Cheney claim that anyone who rationally opposes them is anti-American and unpatriotic, so Clinton-Clinton claim that anyone who rationally opposes them is unreal, ignorant, or simply misogynistic.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary is truly a master at recklessly spending other people's money. With Hillary, we have the same old fiscal policies and the bankrupting American debt without control and without end, which will never be resolved with her taxpayers-can-pay-for-it-all policies, no more than with Bush-Cheney's tax-cuts-now-and-let-future-generations-pay-for-it-all policies.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary is totally in the pockets of Corporate America, lobbyists, and special interest groups. With Hillary, we have the same old "No CEO Left Behind" policies, paid for by the money of the American taxpayers and the blood of American soldiers.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary [like Bill] has such an unethical character that even many of those who support her have shown that she is not trustworthy. At a time when both the president and the Congress have totally lost the trust of the American people, with Hillary we have the same old inability to believe in what she says or trust in what she does.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary [like Bill] has consistently shown an imperious disregard for the rule of law, never concerned about bending it, reinterpreting it, or disregarding it altogether if it does not suit their own personal needs. As Bush has shown, for example, with his "signing statements," with Hillary, we have the same old disdain for law whenever she can get around it, and sometimes even when she can't.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary [like Giuliani did] uses the despicable "politics of fear" in attempting to gain support from the American voters. With Hillary, we have the same old presentation of things and people that we must be afraid of, the promise that only she can save us, and the imperative that We the People must shut up and just trust her to do what is best for us.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary's use of a planted audience and controlled questions from selected questioners in public appearances makes a farce of honest reporting and the free and open "conversation" that she said her campaign [as he said his presidency] would be about. With Hillary, we have the same old staged and choreographed presentations of public appearances, controlled in advance so that significant and challenging questions will never have to be answered, so that inconvenient truths will never have to be discussed.

Ø Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary absolutely refuses to genuinely admit that she is or ever was wrong about anything in any way. With Hillary, we have the same old mentality of arrogant superiority, so that even what experience she has is rendered useless for she never learns from her experiences.

Hillary's claim of experience is even phonier than she is. Actually, there is little "job training" available for killer job of being president. Obvious, political knowledge and political experience are important to some degree, but it cannot be quantified. The most crucial qualifications for being our president are the quality of one's intelligence (beyond mere political cunning) and the quality of one's character--something we used to value highly and used to call "virtue." These two qualifications are those espoused by the Founders themselves. Hillary's White House days as first lady were not a qualifying experience to be president. For those who can remember and think, they were eight years of proof for why she should not be.

It is an classic example of Clintonesque deceit that she can even mention the word "change" in reference to herself. Hillary is above all the same old, and even samer older. Her gender is irrelevant in regard to this point. America deserves much better.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

For the Obamanut Kool-Aid drinkers, here is an omen of the future under an Obama presidency:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27patrick.html?hp

Obama's role model is the reason why Hillary won so easily in Massachusetts. They've seen one Obama, and they don't want another!

Posted by: gutterdandy | March 27, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

REALLY GREAT REPARTEE!. EVEN BARNEY FIFE COULD DO BETTER THAN THAT. SOME ASS-ET.

Posted by: tlar1000a | March 27, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for some of you; your so ignorant, and only get on here to show your butts; and most of you probably don't even vote, or even have any idea what is going on in this world; I truly feel sorry for you! your here to get attention. and Chelsea well the one that wrote this>>>
Chelsea dodged the Lewinsky question, I don't think she did. "I don't think that is any of your business" is an answer. It may not be the one you want, but it is an answer.>>> God Bless you for writing that. Chelsea was a child like a lot of you!! when this all happened; so why bring it up now, LET THE PAST BE THE PAST! OH AND I AM WALKINTALLFORHILLARY. I am sure I will get smart alec remarks but who cares it just shows your ignorance and shows your age! so GOD BLESS AMERICA! HILLARY 110%

Posted by: skeeterdan | March 27, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Some of you Obama supporters are about as shallow and classless as your candidate. Chelsea is an intelligent young woman. You ought to be questioning the lies of YOUR candidate and what he knows. The journalists covering this race tell me he is an empty suit. Other say he could be a real menace. And still others say, and Obama supporters won't like this, Hillary is smarter and more prepared. Get out of your Obama-induced coma. America is still red. Obama has no chance in November. And let's hope that is true for the sake of this nation. By the way, what's happen to his classless wife? They sure took her off stage!!!!

Posted by: afellow1 | March 27, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Some of you Obama supporters are about as shallow and classless as your candidate. Chelsea is an intelligent young woman. You ought to be questioning the lies of YOUR candidate and what he knows. The journalists covering this race tell me he is an empty suit. Other say he could be a real menace. And still others say, and Obama supporters won't like this, Hillary is smarter and more prepared. Get out of your Obama-induced coma. America is still red. Obama has no chance in November. And let's hope that is true for the sake of this nation. By the way, what's happen to his classless wife? They sure took her off stage!!!!

Posted by: afellow1 | March 27, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Some of you Obama supporters are about as shallow and classless as your candidate. Chelsea is an intelligent young woman. You ought to be questioning the lies of YOUR candidate and what he knows. The journalists covering this race tell me he is an empty suit. Other say he could be a real menace. And still others say, and Obama supporters won't like this, Hillary is smarter and more prepared. Get out of your Obama-induced coma. America is still red. Obama has no chance in November. And let's hope that is true for the sake of this nation. By the way, what's happen to his classless wife? They sure took her off stage!!!!

Posted by: afellow1 | March 27, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

People are so hypocritical when they say this election should just be about the issues. If people REALLY felt that way, we wouldn't be having all this back and forth about Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea's events are the BEST for sticking strictly to the issues. The media are critical that she doesn't give interviews. This isn't about her; it's about her mother's policies and positions and she is representing those when she makes these appearances. I commend her for making this a campaign that is about the issues without unnecessary distractions.

I also think the media's position that Chelsea should be doing interviews is absurd. Just because she is campaigning for her mom, she does not owe the media an interview. She spends time at these events taking question after question. She has made it clear that beyond representing her mother's policies, she has nothing else to say. Why is that so hard for the media to understand? I saw the piece where a member of the media said the media was essentially "rolling over" and acquiesing to Chelsea's not wanting to be interviewed. I'd like to see how they are going to interview somebody who doesn't want to be interviewed. Go ahead, ask a question and the response will be silence. That's her perogative. She doesn't owe the media an interview. She's chosen to work for her mother, not for the media. If the media wants to interview a candidate's daughter and Chelsea says no, let them go find one of McCain's adult daughters and interview her.

And to everyone who thinks Chelsea dodged the Lewinsky question, I don't think she did. "I don't think that is any of your business" is an answer. It may not be the one you want, but it is an answer.

Posted by: MDan543527 | March 27, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

The person to ask anything about Monica is Bill not Hillary or Chelsea.

Posted by: yd9825 | March 27, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

You are all missing the point. The real telling feature of Chelsea's answer was not in her words, but the nodding of her head after she responded. Now that's heredity. Are pants suits next?

Posted by: dwnyc | March 27, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Biraq Hussein Osama has his Kool-Aid drinking acolytes combing the message boards today!

Posted by: gutterdandy | March 27, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Good for Chelsea! On the seventy campuses she's already covered she's met students intelligent enough not to bring up the Monica Lewinsky affair and then she arrives at one now where someone tries to get clever because they have an audience.
Instead of asking a painful question about Chelsea's mother go and rake up with you own mothers some pain and hurt that they has experienced: perhaps you'll then see why that was a stupid question to ask.

Posted by: Couzensjanet | March 27, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

candidates,together with their families have no privacy right.Human laws should be sorry for that.

Posted by: alexandershen8 | March 27, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Please wake up America, chlesea,just another chip of the old block. bill, what goes around comes around. When it comes that time, when we must close our eyes for that last time. Without repentance, there will be a terrible price the clintens, will need to pay. You can fuel some of the people some of the time. You will not fuel all the people, all the time. America, MORALITY, is everything. This is one standard, the clintens lack!!!

Posted by: jtv140 | March 27, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Where do draft dodging gutless Republican cowards like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush get off questioning someone else's patriotism? They never went to war, but they'd send someone else's kid there and then call soeone unpatriotic.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 27, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

Xiape,
Usually lengthy responses don't necessarily translate into to serious dialogue. However, in this case I make an exception. I'm glad that you have researched Obama's record. That process definitely advances the public dialogue. A vote for Nader simply throws your vote away. Please keep an open mind. I'm not sure what you mean by "spoiled brat"... but it sounds a lot like some of the Obama zealots posting on this site.

Posted by: math | March 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton began her negative campaign way before Iowa and she is continuing to this day with her lies and deceptions. She won't hesitate to cross any line for more money and more power, even if this means crossing her own party.

Hillary understands very well that she will not win the nomination and she is playing for 2012 by making sure that the democrats will lose in 2008. Insiders in her campaign admit that the chances for her to win the nomination are slim to none: see the articles

CLINTON'S CHANCES VIRTUALLY NIL...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=301838

STORY BEHIND THE STORY: THE CLINTON MYTH

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Let's hope that the superdelegates will put an end to the campaign of this kamikaze who believes in ressurection; after all, she is supposed to be Jesus or one of his associates if Bill Richardson is Judas.

Vote Obama or McCain rather than for this power and money driven heartless #$@%! who wears faith and patriotism on her sleeves.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Rambo... maybe she was getting ready for the "mother of all battles" as she deludes herself into thinking she will be going against McCain...

"Weeellll at least I wasnt captured..."

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Good Point? With her experince as commando on the tarmac in Bosnia why isnt she at least serving in the armed forces?
What stops her signing up?

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Good Point? With her experince as commando on the tarmac in Bosnia why isnt she at least serving in the armed forces?
What stops her signing up?

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?


SERIOUS QUESTION

Her mother voted for the war..

People like the Clintons vote for war, but expect other parents' children to fight in them (die in them)

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ ???

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 26, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

SusanL and math (mostly to SusanL):

Frankly, I'm insulted by your name-calling, seemingly a fond tactic of the Clinton supporters. Furthermore, I am even more convinced now that Hillary, if denied what she sees as her birthright, her ascension to the presidency, will employ a "scorched earth" policy on the Democratic Party to split the party and try to take voters either away from the race or to McCain, which is nothing more than the behavior of a petulant, spoiled child who gets the Range Rover instead of the Ferrari for her 16th birthday, even though daddy can afford both. Honestly, nothing could be worse for the country than to divide the Democratic Party at such an important juncture in our political history, but that seems to be exactly what Hillary is willing to do if she doesn't win this primary, and it looks more and more like there is just no way for her to overcome Obama's lead, which further leads me to suspect that her intentions in running for this office are purely selfish because she is obviously not considering what is best for America, as you are not.

Seriously, you couldn't think of something more intelligent to say as a response to this issue?

In any event, if you had paid attention, you would also realize that the gentleman who asked the question is a supporter of Hillary (or maybe he "was" a supporter after switching sides post-Chelsea). His question wasn't about Lewisnky; he asked, "Critics of your mother have stated that her credibility was hurt by the way SHE handled the Lewinsky issue--can you speak to that and tell us how your mom remains a strong candidate in the face of that criticism?"

The question was posed as 'here's what your mother's detractors are saying; what say you,' a perfectly valid line of questioning. Furthermore, it is our business if we as voters feel that someone running for the highest office in the land has lost some credibility because of the way in which she's acted in the past, though you really don't have to look far to find lacking credibility in the Clinton Campaign--Bosniagate anyone? (BTW, I normally hate adding the 'gate' moniker to anything, but I really couldn't resist here."

If you want to see vitriol, why don't you take a look at what some Hillary supporters are saying in response to very polite discussions on blogs where Obama is favored and his supporters are prevalent. For instance, on the Washington Post and other sites, there is a person who goes by the handle 'svreader' that takes shots at Obama supporters without any regard for the facts, the question at hand, or the issues under discussion. Personally, I find that reprehensible, and I will go to great lengths to stay above that kind of idiotic ad-hominem politicking.

To you, however, I would say that you should search your heart. If you honestly can't vote for a Democrat when you've voted for such clunkers as Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis (if you're honest about voting for a Democrat in every election since 1972), even if that Democrat is not your girl Hillary, then I really must say that you sound like a real sore loser. I mean, what you're saying, in essence, is that if Hillary doesn't win the nomination, you're going to "take your ball and go to the other team." You're not even going to just take your ball and go home, which would be viewed as a sore-loser tactic anyway. Instead, you're going to be a traitor to your party and actually cast a vote for a guy whom you know will be extremely bad for our country, all because you couldn't cast your vote for Hillary, regardless of whether or not she loses "fair and square."

Is that really where this campaign has brought us? Is this really what Hillary has done to our Democratic Party, and if so is that really the kind of person we want representing us? Personally, I'm a bit flummoxed by your disgust for Obama when you obviously haven't taken the time to research his actual record or to get to know the man whatsoever. He's not that kind of politician, and he's not stooping to the kind of Karl Rove-like tactics that Hillary is using to try to win this nomination "at all costs." Indeed, I'm afraid that after seeing remarks like yours the "cost" of this primary, whether Hillary or Obama emerges as the eventual nominee, is going to be quite high, so high that we just might lose the White House anyway, making this country a much less desirable place to be for the average Joe just trying to make ends meet.

I really am sorry if you have had some unsavory run-ins with other Obama supporters, but I can assure you that 'this' Obama supporter is neither unintelligent nor a venomous fiend who will stop at nothing to see his candidate elected, including threatening to vote for the other side if he doesn't get the nomination. No, regardless of what happens, I'm going to vote in November, and I'm going to vote for the person who I feel is best suited to the job. More and more, however, I'm beginning to wonder if that won't be Ralph Nader, provided that he can get on the ballot in all 50 states. Certainly I would rather see Obama as the nominee because I believe that his progressive politics are what's right for America at this juncture in our history--we need to do something to right this ship of state and bring this country to a proper bearing, both in terms of a domestic economic and health care policy and of an international image makeover. Still, if I can't have that, I'll take what's closest to it, even if that happens to be Hillary, though I believe her to be a liar and a conjurer who will say and do anything to win over voters as the campaign becomes obviously more and more out of her reach.

To be honest, if she is handed the nomination at the Convention by the vote of some Party insiders should Obama still hold a lead in states won, in popular votes, and in pledged delegates, I think that most intelligent people will see that as an affront to the American electorate and a power-play by monied special interests and Washington insiders. I'm rather surprised that a long-time Democrat like yourself wouldn't see that. It truly seems that Hillary is entirely selfish, that she feels as though this nomination is owed to her, even though a strong majority of voters seem to feel differently.

I do hope that this is intelligent enough for you. I mean, I tried not to use too many big words or anything, but I also tried to be reasonable, which should be a sign of intelligence despite the lack of obtuse vocabulary.

I'm an Obama supporter who just wants what's best for America. I'll vote my heart, and I'll try to vote my conscience, though I may not be able to reconcile both. I just hope that both can be aligned for the same candidate because I really want to see the Republicans tossed out on their ear in November, at long last. I've just suffered too long for this to fail now because of the spiteful, untruthful, mud-slinging, petulant campaign tactics of a long-time Washington elitist like Hillary, to be sure; which in the end means that I might even have to vote for her, though my conscience tells me that it would be a mistake. My heart would just tell me that I have to vote for a democrat, come hell or high water, especially in a McCain stronghold--I live in his home state!

I just pray that this whole fiasco ends before your kind of "spoiled brat" sentiment becomes commonplace in supporters of both sides, leaving the Democratic Party weak and defenseless in November, bereft of a complete base and lacking any moral center.

Posted by: xiape | March 26, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

How is the question inappropriate?

In the first place, there's the question of whether Hillary (apologies for using first names, but there are multiple Clintons involved) was making a cold calculation of future payback in standing by Bill, instead of being a loving wife. Why isn't that a question of credibility?

Second, she's selling herself as already having 8 years of experience as being next to the president. If Bill was hiding something like this from her, how close was she to everything else going on? This is also a credibility question.

For Chelsea to denigrate the questioner instead of answering the question was an attack, not a response.

Posted by: rick5 | March 26, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

So Barack will pick up 72% of the Hillary supportes... Mmmm not bad. How many Hillary supporters were Republicans anyway....
fact....
82% of all statsics are made up!!

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

The question was obviously asked to provoke controvesy, not to gain information. If all of the nasty comments about the Clintons are being filed by Obama supporters, they should not be too surprised to learn, as Gallup reports, that 28% of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain.
The Obama supporters have been so vicious in attacking the Clintons that they should be happy to bask in their minority share of the voters.

Posted by: ramster1 | March 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Nick.Hardy,
Fortunately, we live in a society where you can express yourself with freedom. That is the same society that allows Obama's pastor to express his same outrageous positions. I won't expound on them because I believe our readers are already aware of them. I can only imagine what that Hillary haters would say if she ever sat for one sermon with such venom espoused! The fact that Obama sat for 20 YEARS to hear such @#$%^ defies reason. Why do we not hear discussions about this?? Why is the Washingto Post devoting so much time to one question asked to a candidate's daughter, anwered correctly in my view? Why not be pressing the question to Obama about the issue of his being "beyond" race? I shudder to think how his children have been influenced by such rhetoric. Or does Barrack talk to them after church and say...well, we don't believe what Pastor Wright preached?

Posted by: math | March 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Look, I have Nothing against Chelsea(Yet).

Just her Parents!

Heck, I could even entertain the thought of Asking said Parents:

Mom! Dad! What do you think? RAT/ Chelsea '12?! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 26, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

i sense some Sniper fire, maybe I misspoke...

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I am not an Obama person.... I am for the Clintons. I think its time that we put the PARTY back in the whitehouse. Them Clintons heck they sure knwo how to Party.

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Mostly the posts on this topic have been stupid and uninformed. I don't know why I have contined to read them, except to see how "far out there" some are. As far as I am concerned, not much has been done to advance the debate. Perhaps we will see more intelligent discussion at a later date. So far, the Obama posts have been shallow, juvenile, just plain silly, or at the end just disgusting. I expect more from the Washington Post.

Posted by: math | March 26, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Most of the "comments" answers are so disgusting I just hope you are not Democrats. If you are I might be in the wrong party.

What kind of person would ask something like that about somebody's parents and Chelsea was right not to get into it. If the only thing you care about someone else's sex life, specially like this that was discussed in the last 10 years, you should get a life on your own.

Posted by: evelyn3091 | March 26, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Good for Chelsea! The questioner had a right to ask his question and Chelsea had a right to answer it any way she wanted to. What's the big deal?

Some of the posters on this blog are rude and not very bright - really rather annoying, saying things like - why are the Clintons dragging their daughter into the campaign... Well did you ever wonder the same thing when McCain's wife or Michelle Obama makes speeches, or when Elizabeth Edwards went on the campaign trail for John? Talk about picking on the Clintons - sometimes it is valid, other times it's just plain stupid.

Posted by: jbleenyc | March 26, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm appalled that the Washington Post has allowed the comments from Nick.Hardy. His remarks are disgusting. BTW, what purpose do they serve?

Posted by: math | March 26, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Anyone see how she was holding the microphone? It is caleld the Lewinsky grip....

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

They should have asked if mom has shown here how to wash a dress? And has she ever thought of being a whitehouse intern?
Apparently they have a bit of fun and really love their bossess...

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

They should have asked if mom has shown here how to wash a dress? And has she ever thought of being a whitehouse intern?
Apparently they have a bit of fun and really love their bossess...

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Kid asked a legitimate question that was actually a softball to make HRC look good.

Chelsea heard the word "Lewinsky" and stopped listening to what was actually said, and then gave a non-responsive answer that made both Chelsea and HRC look bad.

Stop the victimhood. It's unappealing.

Posted by: Charlene-K | March 26, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

The student should have asked about her underwear. Then, like her pa, she could have answered.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 26, 2008 03:21 PM

Thong or granny panties?

Actually, I'd like to hear Huma answer that question...maybe Shrillary would know, too?

Posted by: flarrfan | March 26, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

SusanL,
I share your view completely. I was also open to an Obama nominee, but have been completely turned off by the zealots in his campaign. The criticism that he is all words and not action, along with the rabid reaction from anyone on his side to any perceived weaknesses, makes me feel that if he is the nominee many democrats will turn to McCain. This pains me enormously because of all the damage the republicians have done to our country. This could have been all avoided had Obama just waited a bit longer. But, of course, Obama injected race into that position by saying "we would still be in the back of the bus" had we waited. Now, unfortunately, he may be giving the election to a republician for another four years. It's a crying shame that we are talking about one question asked of a president's child and not of the other important issues.

Posted by: math | March 26, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

That IS everyones business Chelsea. In case you haven't been told, your father lied under oath, lied to the world, lied to you and your mom. Your mom has now been caught lying herself. The context of the question was perfectly relevant.
Hey it wasnt like someone asked if you beleived in the ten commandments or would like to marry a man who behaved in this way?

Posted by: Nick.Hardy | March 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jake D,
I will not respond to you again but I am talking about something entirely different. You just don't get it! I am not going to explain any further. It was an inappropiate question that was answered appropiately and with very good taste (by Chelsea). I do not care what anyone else says about my comment. I have a right to my opinion. Have a good day.

Posted by: pamelaowe | March 26, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

First I will respond to Chelsea's comment by commending her on the way she handled an inappropriate question. She obviously is self assured enough to know that the question was out of line and irrelevant.

Secondly though, I continue to be shocked at the rudeness of Obama's followers. His followers like those that have posted comments here and to all the other sites and blogs I've seen are the reason why many Democrats will either not vote or vote for McCain in the general if Obama is the nominee. I will not vote for him and I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1972.

I'm sure if an Obama follower bothers to comment on what I've said it will be with the same moronic language displayed in most of the other posts.

Posted by: SusanL | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

First I will respond to Chelsea's comment by commending her on the way she handled an inappropriate question. She obviously is self assured enough to know that the question was out of line and irrelevant.

Secondly though, I continue to be shocked at the rudeness of Obama's followers. His followers like those that have posted comments here and to all the other sites and blogs I've seen are the reason why many Democrats will either not vote or vote for McCain in the general if Obama is the nominee. I will not vote for him and I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1972.

I'm sure if an Obama follower bothers to comment on what I've said it will be with the same moronic language displayed in most of the other posts.

Posted by: SusanL | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

First I will respond to Chelsea's comment by commending her on the way she handled an inappropriate question. She obviously is self assured enough to know that the question was out of line and irrelevant.

Secondly though, I continue to be shocked at the rudeness of Obama's followers. His followers like those that have posted comments here and to all the other sites and blogs I've seen are the reason why many Democrats will either not vote or vote for McCain in the general if Obama is the nominee. I will not vote for him and I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1972.

I'm sure if an Obama follower bothers to comment on what I've said it will be with the same moronic language displayed in most of the other posts.

Posted by: SusanL | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

what is distasteful is the lewinsky scandle!!

Posted by: melissawoodsnp | March 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Can we get her tax returns too?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton is a 28 year old millionaire, who requires everybody on the planet to kiss her ugly dancer's feet. She showed no class when she shunned the little girl from Schoolastic, no class with the Shuster thing, and no class here. It's part of a disturbing pattern.

Posted by: citizenchick | March 26, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

If the Clintons are reelected to a third term, will Hillary "stand by her man" when she is wearing the pantsuits in the oval office and Bill is at it again with his cigars? First Husband Willie is going to get mighty bored and no telling what buttons he will play with when she's not watching him.

I thought it was a legitimate question as to what kind of wife would not know that her husband has been philandering around on her for over 20 years? She said it was all part of "the vast right wing conspiracy." What type of judgement does that show? Just like the imagined sniper bullets whizzing over her head in Bosnia. Please: no more Clinton drama in our White House at 3 AM or at any other time of day

Posted by: Luke2 | March 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

As you may, or may not, know -- the recent document production shows that she was IN THE WHITE HOUSE during many of the Lewinsky contacts, so we want to know "What did she know, and when did she know it?" -- how do you suggest that be "addressed appropriately"?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

pamelaowe:

Please explain why these are not relevant questions:

1) Did Hillary know the TRUTH when she cried "vast right wing conspiracy"?

2) Did Hillary know the TRUTH when Bill perjured himself?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea's response to that person who would ask an inappropiate and distasteful question about the Lewinsky scandal, was superb! I was so very proud of her. What does the Lewinsky scandal have to do with her campaigning for Hillary? Nothing! She went through alot with the scandal and should not be subjected or reminded of it. It was distasteful and needed to be addressed appropriately. And Chelsea did that. She put that person in his place.
You go girl!

Posted by: pamelaowe | March 26, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

if chelsea is old enough to campaign she is old enough to answer questions from the media. why the media has not jumped all over this baffles me. she should take questions from the media or go back to NYC and her hedge fund job!!! why is she so special....oh wait the rules don't apply to the clintons!!!

Posted by: melissawoodsnp | March 26, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

batmangreg:

No "irony" from my point of view (admittedly, a bit old fashioned since I think women should not be allowed on the front lines in the first place ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Here's the problem with the U.S. war effort...
Chelsea Clinton is dodging questions on the campaign trail.
Jenna Bush will be dodging rice outside the wedding chapel.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry of England (third in line for the Crown) was dodging bullets while voluntarily serving in Afghanistan.
See the irony here?

Posted by: batmangreg | March 26, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

WWW:

It's not that she failed to divorce Bill -- I can understand "forgiveness" in that situation -- it has always been the two classic questions: what did she know / when did she know it? Did she know the TRUTH when she cried "vast right wing conspiracy"? Dis she know the TRUTH when Bill perjured himself? Those questions raise the serious credibility issues.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's the Butler U. kid being interviewed about his question, his politics and his motives. You decide if you think he's sincere in his support of Hillary. Seems genuine enough to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jviEbMViONc

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The only reason the whole Monica mess hasn't reared its ugly head in a major way yet is that Obama is too honorable to sink to that level and the GOP wants Hillary to win so they're holding fire till after Denver. Anyone who thinks that feigning shock and acting indignant will deter the tidal wave if Hillary were to be nominated is living in a dream world. I recall reading an interview with a Republican oppo researcher who had several filing cabinets full of anti-Hillary material and was just waiting in the wings to start using it. But when asked about the extent of his anti-Obama material, he just shrugged and explained that they'd had years to accumulate the Clinton materials and were really hoping she was the eventual nominee. That was right before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th, so I'm sure they're ramping up their efforts on the Obama front by now. But it's no secret that a Hillary candidacy would carry more baggage than a fleet of 747s.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Attention: Ms. Chelsea Clinton

Dear Ms. Clinton:

I beg to differ with your defensive, absurd, contemptuous, convenient, and ridiculous response to the individual at Butler University in Indianapolis on Tuesday 25th of March, during a Campaign appearance for your mother, Senator Hillary Clinton. Such a statement was not surprising of you to offer of course, but nonetheless sad, as another example of the spin proffered to steer one away from the core matter, especially, when it concerns lies and genuine questions of moral authority. I am forever amazed by your family's inability to face the simple truths about yourselves, and have long ago arrived at the conclusion that you all must reside in Disneyland. You are presently apart of a highly organized Political Team, not, a Private firm advancing a new product line, though I am certain many find that line quite blurred these days. You are working to advance your mother's ascendancy to the Presidency of the United States, and therefore a Political and very Public persona. You cannot nor should you, have it both ways. Were you really unprepared for such a question? Did your parents ask you to participate without any guidance whatsoever? Or, were you yourself not paying attention to their advisors and handlers? Or worse, did all of the aforementioned advise you to play the "victim" card, as your mother did throughout the Lewinsky affair?

It was a perfectly legitimate question, and one which has been puzzling much of the thinking American citizenry since your father involved himself with Ms. Lewinsky about which he subsequently lied three (3) separate times to this same citizenry for which he faced Impeachment. If, you think this will be the last time this severe credibility issue is raised between now and the Democratic Convention, and should your mother survive the Primary process, and become your party's nominee, through the November election, you are incredibly naïve. If, the matter is of such a personal nature to you, as was suggested by your silly statement, it is perhaps, better that you distance yourself from such Campaign appearances and revert back to being the private citizen you are and remain, at-home.

I for one, am sick-to-death of Presidential children provided a soapbox for their views when they have accomplished little else but being born to a set of particular parents. I can now add you to the list of Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg and Michael and Ron Regan, Jr., whose opinions about anything mean absolutely nothing to me. But I digress. The fact of the matter is, your mother, due to the fact, regardless of the reason with which she deluded herself, failed to divorce your father, raises serious credibility issues within the minds of the thinking electorate. Especially, as your mother has been a leading advocate where the empowerment of women has been concerned all of her adult life. How many more issues facing the United States will she waffle upon and "justify" to the grave disservice of our country? So, yes, it is very much our business.

Your response was typical of those seeking public office who wish to portray themselves in a perceived reality which has nothing to do with the genuine reality of their lives. Your father, it can't be overstressed decimated the quality of character previous to his tenure once required of those seeking the Presidency of the United States. Now, mediocrity is acceptable.

Let us not forget David Geffen's estimation of both your parents as out-and-out liars citing the ease with which they lie, which clearly, by your comment, you remain committed to such lies, as well, which speaks volumes about your parents and their impact upon you as an individual.

It is these lies combined with your family's wishing to have it every which way so long as they win, which makes Senator Obama seemingly so attractive to the general American citizenry, yet, many are also aware he is "hiding something", as well, but many hope not.

To your mother's credit, I will say this, when I have viewed her in debate with Senator Obama, as much as I despise her and what she and your father represent, Senator Clinton is a "wow", in that I have long been impressed by her breadth of knowledge and ability to articulate her view. In each debate I viewed she trounced Senator Obama with her intelligence and skill, totally calling into question the very sentiments Ms. Ferraro uttered recently. But, then she offers-up the Bosnia "Redux" along with a far too latent response to that appalling "Wrightgate" and your "it's none of your business" comment and she's back to square one with the public. This is more hilarious than it should be, what with what's at stake...the revitalization of the United States!

I am definitely not an Obama, McCain, or Clinton supporter, and while I am a Conservative, I am offended by the current crop of Presidential Candidates and still find it untoward that these three (3) out of a pool of more than 300 million people, are the best we can do.

Please, return to Manhattan and assist with the re-building of our country, your mother can do just as well without your presence on the Campaign Trail.

WWW

Posted by: worldwithinworld | March 26, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"A lot of these nasty, snide responses betray why many Clinton supporters are not voting for Obama--now or in the general."

The question was asked by a Hillary supporter. Not by an Obama backer.

Why are you so offended by anyone questioning the integrity of your candidate when it is obvious that many Clinton supporters have been "throwing the kitchen sink" at Barack for months?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Get over yourself. You sound as self righteous as your candidate Hillary. If you want to vote to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, and to ignore the economic plight of millions of Americans, be my guest. I suspect your motives are not about making the needed changes that we can believe in.

Please no more Clinton drama in the White House. Will Hillary "stand by her man," when she is wearing the pantsuit in the oval office and he is caught fooling around again as First Husband? Hopefully the call at 3 AM will not be about Bill.

Posted by: Luke2 | March 26, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I doubt he used those exact words. Has anyone else heard the audio / seen video of the actual question?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Hillary supporters, but it was one of your own who asked Chelsea the question that she couldn't answer:

Chelsea Clinton Startled by Monica Query
AP
Posted: 2008-03-26 13:13:41
Filed Under: Hillary Clinton
INDIANAPOLIS (March 26) - The college student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal said Wednesday he's a Clinton supporter who was trying to get her to show "what makes Hillary so strong."


Evan Strange, a Butler University student who works on the school's newspaper, The Butler Collegian, said he had asked Chelsea Clinton her opinion "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president."

It wasn't clear what aspect of the former first lady's actions he was referring to. Before she was fully aware of President Bill Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, Hillary Rodham Clinton said allegations about her husband and the White House intern were manufactured by a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Strange's question at Chelsea Clinton's appearance Tuesday at the school brought a stinging rebuke from Clinton's daughter. "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Chelsea Clinton said during the campaign visit for her mother.

"I'm a supporter of Hillary. I love Hillary," Strange said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." He said he asked the question because his friends "always bring up that scandal. It's not something I asked to cause trouble but to show those people what makes Hillary so strong."

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Answers about Hillary Clinton's credibility is PRECISELY the American voters' business.

And if she's going to keep on promoting her mom, Chelsea better get used to questions like this and come up with BETTER ANSWERS. These questions are going to be asked more and even MORE should mommie dearest manage to steal the nomination. (Just ask any Republican.)

Chelsea's only just postponed the real test this time around. And, in my opinion, she flunked.

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 26, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

People will not vote for Hillary NOT because she's a woman; it's because she is Hillary Clinton - part of a corrupt, self-centered family that reeks with contempt for the good there is in this world.
If you think the issue is because she is a woman, then you are a blind bigot.
There are many a good woman to vote for. With Hill you get Bill: two crooks.

This is not a gender issue; it is an honesty and integrity issue. Topics that Billary know nothing off.

Posted by: charlie | March 26, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: MARKM2 | March 26, 2008 05:29 PM - If "supporting the troops" means sending 4,000+ to their death, ........I'm all for Chelsea's approach. Loathing doesn't kill.

Posted by: sismjs | March 26, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Fedworker
No person seeking a job on their own merits should be asked questions about their parents or spouse's personal life unless it has a direct bearing to the job. It's a totally different situation when you volunteer to act as a character witness or spokesperson for one of your parents and try to act shocked when someone asks about a questionable aspect of your parent's character. Something else that has bugged me is Chelsea's refusal to speak to the media; is it something she picked up from her parents? Speaking to the press is part of being on the campaign trail; nobody forced Chelsea on the campaign trail and ever since Chelsea first entered the White House the press has been respectful of her parent's request to let her live a private life, but now that she has stepped on the public stage, she can't get mad when the cameras and microphones are stuck in her face.

Posted by: oorfenegro | March 26, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Since bloggers are making ridiculous and brain dead blog entries, here is one for you Obomatics:

OBAMA IS LYING MORON WITH NOT BACKBONE TO STAND UP TO A RACIST BIGOT CALLED REVEREND WRIGHT WHO HAD TO CANCEL ALL HIS PUBLIC SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS TO GET HIS PUPIL ELECTED.

Yes, I know I am yelling.

Start chewing on this and start spewing OBOMATICS!

Posted by: pramanathan | March 26, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: robanngold1991 - what does your post have to do with Chelsea?

Posted by: sismjs | March 26, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Till you experience the same pain, humiliation and betrayal by the most important man in your life, (father) all in full view of a country, don't judge. My father did the same thing to my mother and yes, our whole town knew. It was all public and ugly. The other young woman, at his job, etc. And once again I stress, till you are in Chelsea's shoes, till you have watched your mother cry, people point and strangers whisper, you know nothing. How easy it must be to sit at your little computers and portray her as anything but what she is, first and foremost, a daughter. Where she's concerned, it was private. It wasn't a President and First-Lady it was "dad" and "mom" and to pry in to those private moments between parents and children is not only "none of our business" but it's irrelevant to the campaign.

So, I guess this means we get to ask little Meghan about her mommy stealing drugs from her foundation, getting high and becoming an addict and just how that will make Daddy McCain a better President. Isn't she on Daddy's campaign? Or Obama's kids? I see he parades them out, maybe we should ask them about daddy using cocaine? Come on people, this has absolutely NO RELEVENCE. Leave the kids alone. Go Chelsea.

Posted by: sismjs | March 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

BB wrote "So, RAT, then is it fair for Meghan McCain to be giving speeches? The Romney boys to be involved in Dad's campaign?"

According to Mitt Romney, the involvement of his sons in his campaign was their way of serving their country!

Posted by: MatthewM1 | March 26, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Somebody should ask Chelsea if money from China has started to flow in yet for Hillary as it did for Bill Clinton. Then ask Hillary if she will turn over more military equipment to the Department of commerse so China can get there hands on more of our secrets. Drudge Report today: China wants Hillary. Bill Clinton disliked the military, Hillary HATES the military. 911's Bill Clinton's Fault. His lack of in action and appeasment put ben laden on a five year plan to attack America. The Clintons should hang there heads in shame.

Posted by: robanngold1991 | March 26, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton is a nice, decent and good person. As Americans we can be proud of her.
Bill and Hillary raise her right. At this time when so many children from rich and famous parent are problems, you can thank the Clintons for given us a good role model child.

Posted by: almaevangelista | March 26, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton is a nice, decent and good person. As Americans we can be proud of her.
Bill and Hillary raise her right. At this time when so many children from rich and famous parent are problems, you can thank the Clintons for given us a good role model child.

Posted by: almaevangelista | March 26, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton is a nice, decent and good person. As Americans we can be proud of her.
Bill and Hillary raise her right. At this time when so many children from rich and famous parent are problems, you can thank the Clintons for given us a good role model child.

Posted by: almaevangelista | March 26, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

HATERS!!! What does Bill have to do with Hillary running for president??? Whatever they do in there personal time does not reflect on the way our country is runned!!! She is the right WOMAN for the job!! It funny how men are scared of a women being president and for the women questioning her, its sad that you gals give it a second thought.. she is openning the doors to women power!! and remember it takes a Clinton to clean up a Bush mess!!!! and oh boy did he make a big one! People why would we want a president with anything in his roots related to what we are in war with??? I just don't get it!! Why do we want our country to be controlled by someone who has the same or even slightly simular to the main cause of 9/11!!! as far as McCain, he is republican need I say more just like Bush... we need to fix up the country not make it worse... HILLARY all the way, she has the experience, knowledge and success that we AMERICANS need!!!!!
VOTE HILLARY!!!!!

Posted by: cathygcandles | March 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

What was the guy's actual question?

Posted by: awiseman1 | March 26, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea's answer is as good as Bush Sr.'s answer.

From Wikipedia:

Jennifer Fitzgerald ... had a long-term affair with President George H.W. Bush from the time he was United States ambassador to China which continued while he was Vice President and then President.

CNN's Mary Tillotson asked Bush [about the affair]. "I'm not going to take any sleazy questions like that from CNN," he responded, visibly agitated. Later Marlin Fitzwater, his press secretary, told other White House reporters that Tillotson would never work there again.

Posted by: tjordan555 | March 26, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Obamiacs, please keep carrying yourself like crude, sexist, immature, hateful, triple a-holes.. All you'll succeed in doing is to turn more people off to the Obama camp. Let's make it a virtual sweep of big state losses!

Posted by: sundowner1 | March 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton said she's sorry for the mistaken story of dodging bullets in Bosnia, but does she know that there are people (snipers) taking cheap shots at her family herein on the 26th of March, 2008?

Posted by: scooterlibre | March 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Haven't you seen the interview of college students where Hillary held her initial campaign speeches and qa sessions?

Students told news reporters that Hillary's campaign staff gave pre-printed questions to ask Hillary during the q/a session, and the unsuspecting students fell for it. I am not making this up.

Now Hillary sniper-fire Clinton might be trying to change the subject from her Bosnia lies. She is trying to get the sympathy votes.

Hillary and her camp is trying to divert attention from her sniper-fire Bosnian trip.

She is a liar.
No liars for president.
No crooks for president.
No more pity votes.
No more sympathy votes.
Release your tax return.
Let us see your land dealings.
Let us see your sources of income.
Let us see who you paid to murder Vince Forster.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

It was tasteless to confront Chelsea with a question regarding her idiot parents. However, my sympathy for her is limited by the fact that Chelsea, as "first spawn", once insulted a U.S. Marine with her crude " I loathe the military" insult that the media (typically) has conveniently forgotten...but as the father of a soldier I have not. The spawn learned to hate the US military somewhere, and I suspect it was Hillary (Bill being terminally stupid).

Posted by: MARKM2 | March 26, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

For goodness sakes, will you all grow up? The question was way out of line, and I say good for the daughter saying what she did. It seems that those for Obama are doing exactly what they trash the Clinton campaign for. Do you not see the double standard? Believe me, you are hurting your cause and your candidate! I am a Clinton supporter, but until lately I could have supported Obama if he turned out to be the nominee. Now there is no way I can support him, and much of it is because of the child-like behaviors of many of his supporters.

Posted by: math | March 26, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

A lot of these nasty, snide responses betray why many Clinton supporters are not voting for Obama--now or in the general. Because the repeated claims of "hope" and "change" and a "new politics w/out personal attacks" etc, etc, are really a total sham. What's astonished me during the primaries is how much the far left sounds exactly like the far right. Amazing hypocrisy some of us are disgusted by and want nothing to do with.

Posted by: jabeles | March 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

At first, Evan Strange's question offended me. I really couldn't believe he asked it. It seemed to exploit a sensitive issue. Then I found his explanation online at http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8072484#poll69843. I have to admit, I have discussed this same issue with my friends and family. Can Hillary be an effective leader with a philandering husband? Does it make her a good role model to young women? I don't have the answers, but I certainly do have questions about this issue and how it could affect her ability to lead our nation.

Posted by: nope555 | March 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Pimped-out, indeed. Sad!

Posted by: Enlightened1 | March 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Reading these posts it is not difficult to understand why Obamites are characterized as no brains, no class and no education people, waiting for the Obscure Prophet to make the miracle so they could get what they haven't earned!

Don't bother to comment, I'm already out of here!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

If you go to a job interview, which is what her mother is trying to get, and you are asked about this type of question what is your reaction? Tell me how would you answer!

Posted by: ckewu | March 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Part of me wants to feel sorry for her, she seems like a nice person. On the other hand she chooses to be in the public eye campaigning for her mother so she better get used to it. You can't have it both ways either you stay in the shadows or if you come out in the spotlight get used to being burned. Suck up and deal.

Posted by: dadofkyra | March 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS ANYONE WASTING THEIR TIME EVEN DISCUSSING THIS POINT? OF COURSE CHELSEA WILL TOE THE LINE AND SPEAK WELL OF WONDERFUL DADDY AND MOMMY. WHAT ELSE WOULD ONE EXPECT? NO ONE SERIOUSLY EXPECTS HER TO GIVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO ANYTHING WHEN HER PARENTS HAVE NEVER DONE SO. THE WORLD IS FALLING APART, AND NOW CHELSEA CLINTON IS SUDDENLY RELEVANT? OY!

Posted by: grumpiestoldman | March 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

The question asked was about Clinton's CREDIBILITY, it wasn't a request for lurid details about ML's favors to the Pres. So essentially the Klinton Kid is saying that her mom's credibility is none of our business. Fine. If she doesn't want her credibility, or lack of it, to be exposed, she shld step down from the race. Maybe she should anyway. The KK sure should have handled the situation a lot better, but maybe she couldn't; maybe she's a loudmouth like her mama.

Posted by: ziploxx | March 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Just because you are doing a talk for your mother does not excuse someone in the audience to be rude or, at least, indiscreet. What is the point in asking the question? By the way, I doubt very much the person that asked the question was supporting Hillary. The person was an college educated young male. Doesn't pass the smell test!

Posted by: ckewu | March 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The question asked was about Clinton's CREDIBILITY, it wasn't a request for lurid details about ML's favors to the Pres. So essentially the Klinton Kid is saying that her mother's credibility is none of our business. Fine. If she doesn't want her credibility, or lack of it, to be exposed, she shld step down from the race. Maybe she should anyway.

Posted by: ziploxx | March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

How many of the commenters stating that it was a "fair" question would like to be denied a job or have their own credibility judged as inferior if their spouse had an affair? How many of these commenters have had affairs where their spouse suffered the consequences, or vice versa? How many of these commenters would like to have their children questioned by anyone about their parents' marital problems? Do any of these commenters who have or had spouses who had an affair think THEIR OWN credibility should suffer because their spouse went outside the bounds of marriage? Do you really want to have your own worth as a person be judged and assessed by the mistakes your spouse makes?

Posted by: Fedworker | March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Let it go, people. Do unto others...

Posted by: thinktank | March 26, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Watching Chelsea's answer irritated me. Instead of politely declining to answer the question (if she so chooses), she used a long snide preamble before making her point. This 28-yr old woman was obviously not only defending her own 'personal life' but also trying to belittle the student questioner (who claims to be pro-Hillary). Maybe a better question is: "Should an impeached administration be re-elected to The White House?"

Posted by: batmangreg | March 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton Gets Fired Up?
How's this for a headline:
Chelsea Clinton Dodges Question
Like Bullets in Bosnia

Posted by: NobCity | March 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

had someone brought up the behavior of her father while chelsea was walking down the street i think it would be outrageous, but chelsea has chosen to represent her mother in a political campaign and therefore has to expect to be available for such questions as may come up. as to whose business bill's behavior is i have to say it's the business of those who supported bill and were let down by his behavior which rendered him ineffective. now that hill and hill are running for president i think it's fair to inquire of bill's behavior because how can we tell that he won't do something and torpedo another presidency, after all he never apologized for having unsex in the oval office with white house interns. i think hillary should make a statement as to how she plans to protect her presidency from bill's behavior. also if bill didn't want his daughter to be subject to such questioning, well maybe he should have thought of that first.

Posted by: saintpeterii | March 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the student wasn't asking about her parents sex lives. Hillary claimed that the Lewinsky situation was not true, and that it was a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" obviously this was not true as the PResident later admitted to the affair. Considering her recent falsehoods on the Bosnia story it was a legitimate question. Chelsea could have handled it much better.

Posted by: cambel1 | March 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I have not seen the video -- what was the exact question -- this is the best recap I have found on line:

Evan Strange tells CBS that he was simply trying to give Chelsea Clinton a chance to show people "what makes Hillary so strong" during Chelsea's appearance on the school's Indiana's campus yesterday.

Strange asked Clinton her opinion of criticism that the way her mother handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness for the Democrat during her presidential campaign.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I've read, as many of us probably have, that the student that asked Ms Clinton the question is a Hillary supported who was giving her a chance to speak to her mother's strength.

Given Ms. Clinton's answer, it would seem that she didn't really 'hear' the question at all - it sounds like she'd practiced being indignant at any mention of the name Lewinsky.

CC

Posted by: carlc | March 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I thought Chelsea's answer was funny! and typical Clinton behavior...can't tell the truth? Put the opponent the blame on the opponent or Q&A attendees in this case?

It was a legitimate question - but it should have been asked more diplomatically. But thats what you get when your almost 30 doing the college tour!

Posted by: ymaxoneil | March 26, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Hearing the video of the question asked of Chelsea makes her look really bad. Her response was defensive and testy. Chelsea could have done her mom a world of good by answering the question with glowing remarks of her mom's strength of character and etc. But noooooo! Her response "I do not think that is any of your business" is disappointing but expected of a Clinton.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Well if you checked her speeches at the colleges Chelesa was telling the same LIE BUT, I guess Mispoken runs in the family.

Posted by: campdianne | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Well if you checked her speeches at the colleges Chelesa was telling the same LIE BUT, I guess Mispoken runs in the family.

Posted by: campdianne | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand. She's a grown up now and she's okay to stump for her mom and take softball questions all day. But when someone asks her a legitimate question regarding the Lewinsky matter, she says "none of your business?" How utterly convenient.

Let's get real here. Senator Clinton is Senator Clinton in part because she played the "innocent victim" card during the lewinsky scandal and stood by her man. We were led to believe she was clueless about her husband's bimbo scandals despite the fact that this was one of many (Jen Flowers for one, and then there was that lady who the state troopers claimed went to a hotel room with then gov. Clinton...)Yet the recently released itineraries demonstrate that she was home when Slick Willie was getting Little Willie "serviced".

My house isn't as big as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but if there was some bimbo alone in a room with me in my house, my wife would darn well be aware of what's going on.

So if Clinton knew about Lewinsky, it brings her character and morals into question. When something as personal as one's religion is considered fair game, this clearly is a question that also deserved an answer. Chelsea's non answer was typical of what's turned so many people off about the Clintons.

Posted by: nwrepresent1 | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Miss Chelsea is testy like her mommy, huh?
Billary has probably trained her to run against one or both of the Bush twins 20 years from now!
And then we will have the Revenge of the Obama Daughters!
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Chelsea Clinton/ Jena/Barbara Bush/ Malia/Sasha Obama ...
It will never end!!!!!!!

Posted by: degete | March 26, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

So, RAT, then is it fair for Meghan McCain to be giving speeches? The Romney boys to be involved in Dad's campaign?

Ah, marching to the beat of a double standard.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I understand someone asked her about her
mother's latest whopper (the sniper fire fairtale)

this morning and that she gave a really evasive answer that no one could
stomach.

She's a Clinton, all right A double dose.

Posted by: whistling | March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I understand someone asked her about her
mother's latest whopper (the sniper fire fairtale)

this morning and that she gave a really evasive answer that no one could
stomach.

She's a Clinton, all right A double dose.

Posted by: whistling | March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I always liked Chelsea, because I thought she was nothing like her parents... Don't prove me wrong, Chelsea!

Posted by: scharb | March 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, edbyronadams -- it seemed like a good question to me -- assuming the questioner was an American voter, how exactly is "Was her credibility hurt during the Lewinsky scandal?" none of our business?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Why has Billary coerced their lovely Daughter into all this?

She is not running for any office, has no Political experience(Office), and is too sweet to be getting attacked by some snide Rat such as myself.

For now! ;~)

Or, are they MORE, than just the Democrats?

Maybe, THEY, ARE; The....... ! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The student should have asked about her underwear. Then, like her pa, she could have answered.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company