Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Chelsea Draws Fire, Profanity

Anne E. Kornblut's article on Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign for the presidency has produced several inappropriate, foul-mouthed comments that make it difficult to defend our policy of not prescreening reader views before they find their way on the site.

Kornblut writes that "In light of a string of setbacks for her mother's campaign, including impolitic remarks by her father, Chelsea is arguably the most seamless part of the struggling Clinton operation." Some of our commenters ask why this is news, others answer that question, and some debate her value to the campaign.

There is no question that the Clintons generate strong responses and reactions, both positive and negative. Fair enough. But there have been a number of just plain hateful and otherwise totally inappropriate comments. I have asked they be removed and, at this writing, they have been.

washingtonpost.com does not review comments before they go live and lets those who comment use screen names. Most of the time this policy works pretty well, although there are almost always nongermane comments and a few inappropriate ones, which other commenters notice and correct or deride as part of an often entertaining, self-policing enterprise. I have defended it to my old-school, print-raised contemporaries. But there was no defense for some of the comments on this article this morning.

Now to the substantive comments about the article itself, of which there are many.

CA_Webb was one of several who asked, "Washington Post, please explain why this is news? Hillary not Chelsea or Bill Clinton is running for President... please do not waste space on these National Enquirer type articles!"

hallihunt said, "...Perhaps this may not be a main stream article, but then, why are so many of you pleased and readily reading and commenting when a negative article is published about Chelsea?..."

democrat4ever wrote, "Whatever you may think of the Clintons, you have to give them credit for producing one hell of a daughter. Chelsea appears to combine some of the best traits of both her parents: she's smart, poised, funny, a policy wonk, capable of learning complex information quickly and understands how to adjust her strategy so she becomes better each time she's on the road. Amazing for one so young..."

camasca said, "I've seen her speak. She is at ease, and has command of the issues. Very intelligent. Stamina to campaign. A blend of both mother and father of course, she appears to have to the DNA to run for office....If she ever wanted to."

farfalle44 wrote:
Nice article... Nice photos of Chelsea too-like her parents, she is making very good money for her age-way into the 6 figures, I understand, but with her connections, academics and poise, who knows? Maybe Chelsea herself will be running for President someday!"

coldcomfort said, "Chelsea's right, her mother might well make an even better President than her father. Even Hillary's enemies have long admitted that no one in Senate committee meetings is better prepared or knowledgeabe than Hillary."

jonathanR wrote, "Chelsea is just another tool i the Clinton arsenal and attempt to win the white house. anyone who thinks her speeches and comments are unscripted probably still believes Hillary's story about Bosnia"

majorteddy said, "The sooner the Clintons are out of politics, AND the Bushes, the better off the nation will be.I am sick of all of them, and Ronald Reagan..."

treetopflyer wrote, "Lewinsky tied up the Clinton administration and the rest of America for an entire year. That makes it everyone's business. Now Chelsea, on her own, has brought it up. That makes it everyone's business... She's a 28 year-old adult now, so the press need not take marching orders from them. MSM, fire away."

winoohno, commenting on the headline which said that Chelsea had found her voice, a construction not used in the article itself, wrote, "... Clinton has declined interviews; only a few authorized insiders are allowed to talk about her... If she has indeed "found her voice, then she should use it to address the media."

The last word goes to ChooseBestCandidate, who wrote early this morning before some comments were removed that, "i see a trend of unwarranted nastiness here, and it is shameful. and we wonder why 6 girls have no problem with beating one girl to post it on youTube?..."

All comments on the Chelsea Clinton article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  April 10, 2008; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Readers Don't Buy Card Abuse
Next: The Bitterness Lingers

Comments

Chelsea should be vacationing in Bermuda, lest she become known as just another part of the polarizing team of manipulating, money-laundering thugs who have reared her.

Her parents are manipulating even her - for the youth vote. Shame on both of them.

Her best move would be to take a desk at a Brazilian fashion magazine and hide forever.

Posted by: ScottyB | May 8, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

ajocntg rekfs jpquxdof fjelpb ocuygev cshxrmey fxqrei http://www.krfqotaij.fktrvqb.com

Posted by: cfvsla dbfejhs | May 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

nzwag fcmhik tzkd bmnu dyqnkbrt xtoqcv ibpr

Posted by: qlgmicowa pmrs | May 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I think we have to have a debate on what a lie is. It is not a simple black and white thing. If an answer to a question is damaging to others in a personal way, I don't believe we need to respond. If we do, diplomats, lawyers, and politicians have ways of responding.

Some lies involve exaggeration, poor memory, and incorrect sources. Some lies are big some small. Some devastating some comforting.

When a lie is told to a court or authority
it becomes a criminal offense. It should be the responsibility of the authority not to do damage by asking irrelevant damaging questions for political gain.

Being able to lie convincingly at the right time is an asset to a politician or a poker player.

If you asked a Jew what his religion was in 1938 what would he say?

Most of the lies told by the Clinton's were in response to private matters. The public seems only to want to know about the scandal stuff.

Posted by: sam y | April 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The people that would use profanity and fire in discussing Chelsea Clinton say much more about themselves than they say about Chelsea.

Clearly the Clinton's managed to bring up a bright and articulate daughter who seems to have avoided the pitfalls of growing up in the limelight.

Whether you agree with the candidates or not- children will campaign for their parents and should be treated with respect. Chelsea is not repsonsible for her father's behaviour and Obama's kids won't be responsible for their father taking them to hear the Rev. Wright for their whole lives.

If you don't think children add to the campaign then don't listen to them but don't denegrate them either. Many people in our country tend to judge people by their families including their children.

By that measure the Clinton's are pretty good compared to some of our previous occupants of the White House.

Posted by: peterdc | April 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I am always amazed by how few members of the media actually believe in free speech. Only "appropriate" comments need apply -- and we, the elite defenders of the press will decide what is and IS NOT appropriate. This is not at all the vision of our founders, nor the nature of free speech and press in the early days of our republic.

Posted by: Richard Corcoran | April 14, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Rick Burroughs writes: Lewinsky and Bill made a mistake, there is no way Chelsea can explain why nor should she have too. No decent person would ever ask the children about affairs of their parents.

Of course, Chelsea Clinton can't answer why her father likes to debauch young women or disrespect women in general however, that was not the question she was asked. About her mother's handling of the affair. You understand like how does this woman who wants to be the president handle crisises, disappointment etc. and that is a question that could and should have been answered. And for those of you protecting 'young' Chelsea how about even younger Monica?


Posted by: james d granata | April 13, 2008 1:13 PM


--0--

What are sad, bitter people like you going to do for amusement when the Clintons fnally retire from the news?

Posted by: DFC | April 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Rick Burroughs writes: Lewinsky and Bill made a mistake, there is no way Chelsea can explain why nor should she have too. No decent person would ever ask the children about affairs of their parents.

Of course, Chelsea Clinton can't answer why her father likes to debauch young women or disrespect women in general however, that was not the question she was asked. About her mother's handling of the affair. You understand like how does this woman who wants to be the president handle crisises, disappointment etc. and that is a question that could and should have been answered. And for those of you protecting 'young' Chelsea how about even younger Monica?

Posted by: james d granata | April 13, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

democrat4ever wrote, "Whatever you may think of the Clintons, you have to give them credit for producing one hell of a daughter. Chelsea appears to combine some of the best traits of both her parents: she's smart, poised, funny, a policy wonk, capable of learning complex information quickly and understands how to adjust her strategy so she becomes better each time she's on the road. Amazing for one so young..."

The only accurate or remotely so statement you make is 'Chelsea appears'

If you don't know the Clintons personally how can you claim to know anything about the daughter? and what if the best traits she's picked up from her parents include performing and lying (for that's what they do best)? How can you possibly know how quickly she assimilates new information. And while 28 is not old it is surly not young when you consider people have families, graduate degrees and some run their own businesses by the time they are near 30. You assume a lot and you know what happens when we assume?

Posted by: james d granata | April 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

if the general public believes it is okay to to question Chelsea Clinton about her dad's affair with Monica Lewinsky, then it is equally fair to question Caroline Kennedy about her father's affair(s) as she campaigns for Obama; likewise it is fair to ask similar questions of any candidates' child who campaigns on behalf of their parent. It's all soooo American

Posted by: Tess | April 13, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

i'm so ashamed and proud @ the same time What a paradox our country is becoming and is going through. As I have been studying the blogs from many sources and trying to detect gender from the context, I found that more men support Hillary than women do. I think this tells us a lot about our society. If you can just take a step back and think about what you are writing.
80% of the men write logically 20% emotionally. 56% of the women write emotionally while about 30%write logically an 14% are torn yet either overly excited or confused.
You may say how i could tell this is boggus. well maybe. But first of all women's blogs are easily detectable. ofcourse there are less than 1% who purposly try to confuse their gender ID. For better or for for worse at least I took the time to study this because I care about what is happening to our country.
I tried to tacle the race difference it was harder but nonetheless visible. I found AA men like white men are not as harsh on Hillary and the hillary AA supporter are older looking from the experience they write about they go from 40 + to 60+ Younger AA are plain rude and could not tell if they were male or female because younger crowd have a new unisex language now like one size fits all. and they can be explosive at times.As I said earlier the race study is not conclusive and I'm still at it.Anyway this is notthe firsttime that I'm proud of the men of this country Hillary need to have more of them to come down from Mars to win this thing.

Posted by: lsye101 | April 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Students who have questioned Chelsea Clinton about her mother's reaction to the Monica Lewinski affair ought to be commended. Young voters need to be informed about Hillary Clinton's past to properly assess her character and qualifications for the high office she seeks.

Hillary's reaction to her husband's compulsive womanizing was not to rebuke him or distance herself from it, but to retain a private detective to dig up dirt on the women involved. Hardly what one would expect from someone of presidential stature.

Then there's the lying about the pregnant woman refused treatment in an Ohio hospital, the lying about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, the lying about her brokering the peace in Northern Ireland; the lying about her economic expertise, the lying about her Congressional record (of the 20 bills she managed to get passed in her eight years in the Senate, 16 were non-consequential stuff like naming post offices and courthouses, recognizing individuals and congratulating lacrosse teams.)

Then, going back to her earlier life, there's her flunking of the DC bar exam and keeping it secret for 30 years; the Travelgate, Pardongate, Chinagate, Whitewatergate, Cattle-futuresgate; the punitive IRS audits of Clinton critics; the verbal abuse of staff members and betrayal of colleagues; the using of uniformed Marines as waiters; the 50+ violent and sudden deaths during the Clinton reign. All this well-documented information can be had at a click of button on the Internet.

The no-holds-barred rules of engagement advocated by Hillary's de facto running mate, Husband Bill, should apply to daughter Chelsea as well.

"If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn't put the pads on."

The Clinton duo cannot go on "pimping" their daughter (MSNBC's David Shuster was right) and expect everybody to treat her with kid gloves.

Carlos Navarro
Davidson, NC

Posted by: Carlos Navarro | April 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Ehkzu, what you say about hate addicts is the sad truth. Londoners jokingly call the UK tabloid, The Daily Mail, which has a huge circulation - "The Daily Hate Mail". [And the English seem so nice!] Indeed, its main editor once said in an interview that what readers want from their paper, which they try to oblige them with, "is something new each day to hate".

Posted by: jhbyer | April 12, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

I prefer making comments on the Washington Post site primarily *because* my comment goes directly online, rather than being prescreened by a moderator.

Having said that, I think it is ALSO essential that the WP do what most good Internet discussion sites have been doing for years: employ moderators 24/7 who will delete immediately (after posting, that is) comments that cross whatever line is established in advance by the editors. That line, of course, should presented to readers in advance in the form of an "acceptable standards" statement.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Washington Post editors!! The Internet is real, and it is becoming the medium of choice for increasing numbers of consumers. Newspapers in print are dieing, but newspapers on the Internet are profitable and vibrant. Embrace the Internet, and make this form of public comment work for you. It's not hard, and the expense is far less than expenses associated with printing and distribution.

Thanks for listening -- and thank you for allowing comments on the WP discussion areas to be posted immediately. That policy has made me a loyal WP reader.

Posted by: Ned | April 12, 2008 3:44 AM | Report abuse

I am pleased that you removed the inappropriate comments. Perhaps you might consider some screening of user comments on a spot check basis.

Posted by: Chesterfield1 | April 11, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

You don't necessarily have to screen postings beforehand, and I hope you don't ban noms de Web. But you should certainly blip outright slander and vicious diatribes of the sort I see here all too often. I keep wanting to say to such posters "You kiss your momma with that mouth?"

And as some other posters have hinted, I've seen some unhinged sorts simply flood a thread with one long posting after another, none even relevant to the site's topic.

I remember on a NYTimes forum (since closed) one far-left poster started cutting and pasting the lyrics to some political song over and over and over after someone criticized her for spamming the forum. It got downright bizarre.

And another guy kept posting the name, address, license plate number and phone number of some woman he had it in for, and did so in one forum after another, over and over. The guy was obviously a psycho. You'd have to be nuts NOT to deny nutcases like this a forum for their obsessions, up to and including blocking them.

My wife's on a forum for people with a certain medical condition, and one poster got banned for constantly posting pitches for an herbal "cure" she was selling.

This is the WaPo's website, and the WaPo has every right to require more or less civil discourse on it. If anybody doesn't like it they're free to set up their own Website, aren't they?

----------------------

As for Chelsea Clinton--I'm kind of dumbfounded by the vileness of some posters' messages. I've concluded that some people have become addicted to hate. It's a kind of high for them to send out this stuff. It's what a shrink would call "negative intimacy." Such people are terrified of normal human relationships because there you have to make yourself vulnerable to another person. They're too scared to risk that, but they want relationships, as do we all. So by hating with a blind fury they get a sense of relationship that risks nothing. Of course it's unsatisfactory, but it beats nothing in their minds.

These people go through life dealing out distress to everyone they touch. They're both pitable and dangerous. Most would probably do everyone a favor by going for a Darwin Award.

Chelsea Clinton herself probably has gotten a leg up by being a Clinton. But her command of intricate policy issues and rapidly growing aplomb in public forums are undeniable--this lady is really intelligent.

And I'm not saying this because I favor her mother. I don't, actually.

But even though I despise Bush the 2nd, I'm impressed by the career path his daughter Jenna is taking. She's obviously a good, genuine person, and her life reflects well on her parents, despite Bush II being one of the worst presidents in American history.

Amazing that ideologues (left AND right) become so flooded with hate that they can't give the devil his due. Or accord earned respect to the daughter of someone they dislike.

Hate junkies...

Posted by: Ehkzu | April 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear Major Teddy--

Is it true that only sound you hear duing sex is...'Daddy, please don't...?'

Posted by: lupo | April 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Who is the judge to say that a comment is inappropriate? Seriously, people say lots of mean things about our current president, and they will say lots of mean things about our next president. Stop whining about it. People continue to say mean things about Monica, you don't hear her sniveling, do you?

Posted by: CC | April 11, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Anne Kornblut's conclusions regarding Chelsea's impact on her mother's campaign lack substantive data.

Indeed, Kornblut's article reads like a rave of a starry-eyed groupie.

Posted by: C. G. of Houston, TX | April 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is ugly AND old.

Think about, she's almost 30 and she's still acting like as 12 yr. old virgin.

Posted by: Arth | April 10, 2008 8:47 PM

This is an example of hatred and stupidity I was referring...you sometime wonder about the thought process behind it. These are the kind of people who elect our leaders.
---------------------------------------
I agree. However, you are being overly generous in assuming there was real thought behind that posting. And yes, such people vote. That's truly scary.

Posted by: rmpatera | April 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Some "citizen-contributors" seem to have nothing to offer but viciousness. You don't have to turn your cyberspace address over to them.

Posted by: Tim McGarry | April 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The real problem with Kornblut is that she's the type of journalist who doesn't check if there is more than one hospital in Ohio. Sloppy, just damned sloppy. Possibly sloppy by design, or maybe just through laziness, but it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Some guy using a fake name | April 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea is ugly AND old.

Think about, she's almost 30 and she's still acting like as 12 yr. old virgin.

Posted by: Arth | April 10, 2008 8:47 PM

This is an example of hatred and stupidity I was referring...you sometime wonder about the thought process behind it. These are the kind of people who elect our leaders.

Posted by: Kevin99999 | April 11, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

It's always an eye-opener to see people stating with absolute certitude and rectitude that if they want to censor something on an Internet blog, they have a totally objective standard by which to judge what stays and goes. It's not that some comment just disagrees with their opinion. Oh, no. The comment is too repetitious, too strident, too something that makes it unfit.

Aside from eliminating outright profanity, vulgarity, and personal slander, there is no objective standard by which the WAPO can decide what to censor.

The Washington Post already practices censorship on its On Faith blog. Several of my offerings that were totally free of profanity or personal attacks have disappeared into a big black hole under the transparent lie that the forum's owner (or some such) was holding it for review. The issue of censorship is really a sub-set of much larger issues facing the WAPO. I could go on at length, but a prior poster has eloquently stated my case for why the Washington Post web site shows a once proud institution in a state of journalistic free fall. Jacob Thomas' comments deserve repeating, they hit so many nails so squarely on the head:

"How staggering, another editorial misstep for a former great in the world of internet news...This touch-and-go, "delete what we feel like" nonsense reflects a deeper problem at the Post - namely that it doesn't know how or where it fits in to an internet-driven news world.

Your decision to retroactively limit comments shreds your credibility as an open forum and will continue to drive citizen-contributors away toward news outlets that are either more transparent in their editorial decisions or less conflicted about what's 'fit to print...' your print and online editions need to get their stories straight and decide what kind of publication the Post will become. You've already lost so much, it doesn't seem there's much left to bleed."

Posted by: Jacob Thomas | April 10, 2008 11:16 AM

Posted by: GeorgiaSon | April 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

You say: Anne E. Kornblut's article ... has produced several inappropriate ... comments that make it difficult to defend our policy of not prescreening reader views before they find their way on the site.

How are the comments inappropriate? This is a strong and dogmatic claim that is not supported by good argument on your part. Does that mean that you should be heard or that the Post should stop your trite articles from being published?

I like the idea of allowing everyone to have their say. I am agin having you as the font of wisdom who decides who should, or should not, be heard.

Given your unimpressive record, you would do all of us a favour if your comments had a little bit of depth. So often they are drivel.

If you keep this nonsense up I will have to ask the WAPO Board to censor you. Please go home and think about what I have said or I will have to takeaway your comic books.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

I think the WP Online should start screening comments. The level of discourse in any open comment section devoted to politics on this site is abysmal. It is embarrassing, offensive, and completely unilluminating.

No sort of open forum should be without any sort of standard. Christ, no *private* forum should have standards so low as to permit the sort of comments I read regularly on your site.

Please, please, for your own sake, require people to work, just a little, and show just the slightest bit of good faith, before you grant them access to a public forum with your name on the banner.

Posted by: Jon Myers | April 11, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

After reading most of these comments,I can see why this country is going down. You all sound like brainwashed addicts. You can tell who watches Faux News to get there facts(lol). They have Hillary built-up like the devil incarnate,yet reagan and boy bush are heroes. ??????????????????
Hillary or Obama,either one,doesn't matter,as long as the Dems can take full control and fix the repubs mess, again.

Posted by: jime | April 11, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

John wrote at 10:52
"I dislike the big, repetitive cut and pasted posts more than the abusive stuff anyway. It might be useful to limit the length."

Amen to that.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | April 11, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Ann Brown Wrote: "Chelsea Clinton has conducted herself so well over the years (unlike kids of many past presidential families, especially the George/Jeb Bush kids)."

Excuse me Ms. Brown, but your insult of the Bush children is off-base.

Jenna Bush was indeed a happy-go-lucky college student. However, after graduating from college, Jenna Bush took a position as a teacher at a charter school in Washington D.C. Jenna later took a leave of absence from teaching to complete an internship with UNICEF.

Jenna served her internship at a shelter in Panama. Jenna chose Latin America because many of her students emigrated from there. During her time there, Jenna met an incredible young mother (17 years old) named Ana. Ana became infected with HIV at age 10--a result of the sexual abuse at the hands of her grandmother's boyfriend.

Upon completing her internship, Jenna returned to her teaching position at the charter school. Jenna also wrote a book about Ana; Jenna donates all of the proceeds of the book to UNICEF.

By contrast, Chelsea Clinton went from college to McKinsey & Company, a private for profit business management consulting firm. Chelsea had no experience in business management and no MBA; yet, Chelsea was given a 6 figure salary. Chelsea left McKinsey in 2006 for Avenue Capital, a hedge fund specializing in distressed debt market--they make their money off of businesses on the brink of bankruptcy. (When there is blood in the water, the sharks quickly circle to see if they can make a kill.)

Chelsea serves on the board of the School of American Ballet, and she has served as a co-chair for a fund raising event for her father's foundation.

As the daughter of a sitting president, Jenna Bush could have exploited her father's connections to land an unearned Wall Street job with a 6 figure income. Instead, of going the fast-money-for-me route that Chelsea took--and continues on--Jenna took the path of humanity.

Posted by: C. G. of Houston, TX | April 11, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

I just want to clarify my earlier comment: I'm all for harsh words, exuberant attacks, hightened language, creative put downs.

I'm not for censoring angry speech or even irrational speech. And I'm one of those liberals who hates political correctness. And I'm not particularly interested in politiness, either.

However, profanity, "hate" speech (racial epithets and stereotypes), irrational ranting, and extreme vulgarity prevent people from using their working hard at writing something creative and thoughtful.

It's about the difference between reading articulate, interesting arguments and boring ventilations and explosions.

No one is interested in being run into by the blogging equivalent of a road rager.

So I think a cautious form of censorship that just weeds out outraged banality and hatefilled hackneyed insults would improve this site.

By all means, fire away on issues, on character, on whatever. I know lots of you still want to whinney about the sorts of things people like Sean Hannity find interesting, like Rev. Wright. I say go for it. People will see you for what you are. But just do it in some way that is interesting to read and isn't just the sort of thing you read on a mensroom stall.
That's all I ask.

Posted by: Christopher | April 11, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Doug Feaver , I guess if you are politicians that lie and cheat and are secretive and you have destroyed people who in a free society have questioned you or who have witnessed that you have been less than honest,if you really love your little girl(?28 years old), and you don't want to tarnish her, you should not let her be associated with you.Don't let her hang around with the kind of people that you are.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 11, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

PHX===I am not afraid of smart women. I am afraid of dishonest, powercrazed people of any sex that will do anything to get elected and believe the laws and contraints of decency are for someone else. One more thing , not all of these comments on here against Hillary are from Obama supporters, many are from Republicans.Yes , they really DO hate her.And the Clinton supporters have some nasty mouths themselves,especially the undocumented smears.Just because somebody prints something somewhere in some trash rag does not make it true, and that has raised the feelings level higher and the Clinton camp on these sites has been pretty nasty at this. If they get some back they shouldn't complain.I worked in Ohio for Obama for nine days making calls in a suburb with a lot of names ending in -ak ,-ek, and -ic. The phone numbers were registered Democratic voters, mostly women in their 50's.I never heard such nasty talk from soldiers or sailors.And it was hard to believe after I made these calss that the women I talked to were voters from a party that had professed for 40 years to be fighting for equal rights and an end to discrimination.

Posted by: major teddy | April 11, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

it is only appropriate that you control what may be said against Chelsea, as her message is scripted, the questioners are for the most part preselected, the audiences are not those that might be hostile and the press may not ask questions. This sounds like some election in a dictatorship. "You may only say positive things about el presidente." There is no excuse or need for profane language, and I did not see it, even though I visit most of the sites of the political articles regularly. Bawdy, yes,some comments, crude, maybe, racist, yes,Rarely have I seen profanity.I visited this site and read most of the comments and did not see it. Are you sure you are not being overprotective of someone who doesn't deserve it.

Posted by: majorteddy=== | April 10, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I hope WAPO doesn't start screening comments. NYT does that. Sometimes it takes hours for one to appear. Sometimes they don't appear at all. And I'm not talking about abusive stuff either. I like the immediacy of WAPO's blogs very much. If you could screen in near real time that might be OK. Put an intern on it or something. I dislike the big, repetitive cut and pasted posts more than the abusive stuff anyway. It might be useful to limit the length.

Posted by: John | April 10, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Feaver,

I completely agree that many of the comments were extremely offensive.

Many people seem not to understand that hate speech, profanity and SHOUTING are not only destructive of civil discourse, but they're also really, really boring.

I have been reading WaPo blogs less and less lately. What began to turn me off was the incredibly racist things said about Barack Obama.

Maybe screening wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Censoring out hateful, nasty speech, and other forms of boring, shallow venting would improve the space for all people who wish to engage in honest, spiritted conversation about these issues.

I'm all for being challenged by Clinton or McCain supporters on the issues, please don't get me wrong.

Posted by: Christopher | April 10, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

when it comes to the Clintons they have it all, well except perhaps for one thing...

The truth!!

is that important though?

Posted by: nick | April 10, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Washington Post for taking action on this. And thank you for explaining why.

Posted by: SD | April 10, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal and even ultra liberal in some respects. I always thought that liberals were different from the right wingers in a fundamental way. During this campaign season, I discovered I was wrong. The liberals are just as hateful as the right..this is quite apparent from the liberal blogs who distort news, create fake headlines, and practice censorship of opposing voices. Huffingtonpost.com is just one example. They are manipulative and use the same tactics as the swift-boaters in tearing down their opponents. They pay no regards to the facts. As a result, I find myself without an outlet. I have railed against the corporate media for its distorted coverage of events. Unfortunately, liberals are no different.

Posted by: Kevin99999 | April 10, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is ugly AND old.

Think about, she's almost 30 and she's still acting like as 12 yr. old virgin.

Posted by: Arth | April 10, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

The continuous senseless, abusive attacks on the Clinton family by Obama supporters for a sexual incident from the 90s raises questions about their capacity to discuss policy issues intelligently.

And then there are those Obama supporters who choose to repeatedly heap scorn on Hillary Clinton for succeeding in keeping her marriage and family together and maintaining hundreds of personal friends, while earning the widespread respect of her colleagues as a second term senator from the state of New York.

These same Obama supporters, who are perhaps too young and uninformed to be aware of MLK, Jr.'s sexual indiscretions, should be asked how they judge MLK's wife, Coretta Scott King, who demonstrated a strength of character similar to that which Hillary Clinton has shown under the same circumstances.


Posted by: sister | April 10, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see the Washington Post has finally intervened to establish some appropriate boundaries for the posting of comments.

I had the same thought expressed earlier by ChooseBestCandidate, who wrote "i see a trend of unwarranted nastiness here, and it is shameful. and we wonder why 6 girls have no problem with beating one girl to post it on youTube?..."

The internet truly is an open sewer, especially in the blogosphere, but the rankest sewage (see the message boards on Daily Kos and HuffPost) does at times spill over onto the MSM Web sites.

I've noticed the most heinous comments are from apparently very youthful Obama supporters who are both very zealous in support of their candidate and completely unhinged when assaulting Hillary Clinton or any member of her family. Somewhere these young people, who swarm the internet in droves 24/7, have gotten the idea there are no boundaries or limits in cyberspace for making abusive comments toward anyone who might pose a threat to Obama's election.

Like ChooseBestCandidate, I was horrified at the video of the six girls beating up another girl, but realized it's part of the ethos evolving in our culture that encourages both abusive language and violent behavior among a shocking percentage of today's youth.

I hope the Washington Post will continue to maintain appropriate standards and somehow curb the filth on this web site at least.

Posted by: ichief | April 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama up 2 more points today! Can you say "President Obama?" GO O-8 GO

Posted by: AZ | April 10, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

It's British not british. I am proud to be British. Capital B if you please. Thank you.

Posted by: True Brit | April 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with the Clintons in office??? They're the ones responsible for the best eight years of economic progress this country has ever seen!!!! Hell, put the Clintons back in the White House!!!

Posted by: Ogie | April 10, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

No one died when Clinton lied!

Really guys, lying about a sexual affair is worse than lying to start a war?? c'mon now.

And "millions of people hate" Hillary Clinton? My goodness, hard to believe she won all those votes with such national vitriol against her. Personally I think you guys are scared of smart women.

Posted by: PHX | April 10, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Feaver said: "But there have been a number of just plain hateful and otherwise totally inappropriate comments. I have asked they be removed and, at this writing, they have been."

Ahhhh, so the "nothing-but-democracy" Washington Post has now decided to quash "free speech". I have always read where they rail and rail against people who try to quash free speech. I wonder why Feaver and his ilk NOW decide that it's time to CENSOR UNREGISTERED posters' comments. Why do you suppose that, UP UNTIL THIS ARTICLE, that they have allowed "hateful" comment to be posted. But, NOW, when it comes to the Washington Post "buddies", the Clintons, then "CHANGE THE RULES" Feavor comes crying about hurting little Chelsea's feelings with "hateful" and "inappropriate" remarks!!

I'll keep my opinions of Chelsea to myself on this blog. I may say something about Chelsea's bad hair days, and Feaver would refer me to the Department of Homeland Security!

Democracy has "left the building" when it comes to the Washington Post blogsite.

BTW, Feaver, That's a real "sense" of "democracy" you got there. "All Hail Queen Hillary and Princess Chelsea". Will that get my post on your blog, Feaver? I say it will.

Please post on this blog the new requirements for satisfying YOUR requirements for "appropriate" postings. We wouldn't want to interfere with your definition of "democracy".

I hear tell that China has an opening for their state-run blogsite, Feaver. They're looking for someone to censor "hateful" and "inappropriate" comments damaging to their personal reputations.

I say: DEMOCRACY FOREVER- REGARDLESS OF HOW "HATEFUL" OR "INAPPROPRIATE" IT MIGHT BE!!

Posted by: Frankie Hunter | April 10, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary, and Chelsea, no doubt on her mother's orders are screwing up by not answering the question of how Hillary handled Bill Clinton's cheating.

A lot of people, myself included, base their decision on who to vote for on character. How Hillary handled her husband's Numerous extra-marital affairs, why she didn't leave him, how she overcame her anger, resentment, jealousy over it all, or... Do the Clinton's have an arrangement? An open Marriage?

I think answering this question would go far in show Senator Clinton's character. No matter which way the answer goes. Whether it's a marriage of convenience, whether they have an open marriage or whether he was just plain out-and-out cheating on her, how she handled it goes to her character and I think Chelsea and the Senator are wrong for YELLING at the people who ask the question. It's a reasonable question.

I think Chelsea, by not answering the question, is hurting her mother's already dwindling hopes of getting the nomination.

Posted by: Doffy | April 10, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

everyone thinks its bad for hillary to stay with bill after monica .to me it shows shes got something going for her that most dont. and bill didnt do anything against our country to cause it harm .it was aganist his marriage.hillary handled it why cant everyone else .you better check your own spouses out if you think your isnt doing the same thing (cheating on you ).and chelesa has the same grace as her mom. bills just a typical male..none of you know why he did what he did . so go ride some other horse for a while .we get tired of hearing about bills cheating ..hillary is hillary ..bill is bill .let it rest . go check out obama cheating....all men do it ........

Posted by: jerri | April 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm british and has been following this election every single day. For the first time in my entire life i've been so enthusiastic about politics. I absolutely agree with the idea that it's best for Chelsea Clinton to answer some of these questions wisely instead of shying away from them since she's been on the spotlight of her mother's campaign. By the way i'm white in my mid 20's and can't explain in words how much I love Obama. I think he's the best inspiring politician I've ever seen in my life time. Obama for president! You go boy, UK is behind you!!!

Posted by: Blair UK | April 10, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

it doesnt matter who you are .i have never seen anything like this .obama can do nothing wrong . but hillary can just get up in the morning and shes a liar,etc talking bad about obama ,i never heard one word out of her mouth bad about him ..but how do you anounce your president ..when his name isnt american ..what have we come to that we would let this go so far . he run with a racist preacher, now hes been noted as running with some one who uses dynamit . whats next , and you ppl trust his man . how can u trust him...ask God to guide you .your all lost ..

Posted by: jerri | April 10, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton should get a medal for what she's been through, and think man, it was not her choice ... that she was born into that family.

Chelsea Clinton has conducted herself so well over the years (unlike kids of many past presidential families, especially the George/Jeb Bush kids).

I'm glad we're finally going to see the end of the Mr/Mrs Regan "team," and the Chaney-GeorgyW "team," and the one-term Bush. Great! This is democracy and term limits at work. This is what keeps our country in the better half of the world, despite the erosion caused by assorted terrorists and dictators as well as the past 63 years of half-wit bumbling stumbling incompetence that have defined the U.S. Presidency over those many years.

I like Chelsea, but I couldn't stand yet another four years of the Mr-Mrs Clinton "team." We've already had eight years of it and I'm sick to death of the political "families" running things, so I am campaigning for a real independent thinker. GO Obama !'O-8!

Posted by: Ann Brown | April 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Any time we are asked to express our opinions on something we agree or disagree with, is expécted that emotional judgements prime over rational judgements. Chelsea Clinton is a young and smart lady that shows what is expected from her. If she were different, say, had a vice or behavioral problems, she will be drawing another type of public attention, perhaps pityness.

We normally become fascinated by the way other people are as a mechanism to mirror ourselves. This phenomena is called MIRROR SYNAPSES, which is trying to emulate or distantiate from other´s peoples vices or virtues.

Posted by: ignacio sanabria | April 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't recall the Kerry or Bush daughters being fair game. I think Ms. Kornblut knows exactly what she is doing. The MSM wants to cause so much hate for Clinton so she will get out. Senator Obama needs to have a sit-down with his supporters, including MSM. He need to tell them to stop the partisan hate. You are just turning off half of the democrats, I can not win without them.

Posted by: Tina | April 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The inherent problem has been not allowing the press to talk to Chelsea Clinton like the grown up campaigner she is. The Clinton camp has expected her to be protected as though she is still 12. People resent that. They want public figures to be interviewed and asked hard questions by professional journalists. It's part of the process. If that's not allowed to happen, then folks get angry.

Posted by: carlos | April 10, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

>Why are people now pitting the Obama >daughters against Chelsea and vice versa? >It's really low and unfair to bring the >children into the larger competition >between Obama and Hillary. This fight is >getting so indecent.

seriously, kids, this is a false parallel. Obama's kids are not speaking as surrogates for him. Chelsea is a campaigner for her mom. that doesn't make it right for people to say horrible htings about Chelsea. but you gotta stop with these comparisons that are apples and oranges. you don't have to leave chelsea out of the discussion if she's actively stumping. there's an undeniable level of fair game there.

Posted by: gotta b. kidon | April 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

soon, soon. we will find out that she's as adept at lying as her parents. and she doesn't have the excuses of growing up poor or in a generation that was still putting women down.

she's been molded to the point that whatever she says is proof only for the fact that she said it.

Posted by: malach hamovess | April 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

the commentor who suggested obama's supporters would shoot at dawn anyone who made mean comments about his children is missing the point that obama has not sent his children out as surrogate campaigners. he _has_ done that with his wife, and she has indeed taken any number of ridiculous hits for her comments, and still, nobody is calling for execution. it's a campaign, and if you're in it, you'd better have a strong jaw. if chelsea is going to campaign in places where they ask her tough questions, and hopefully they ask tough questions everywhere, she's going to have to address things that people are thinking about. the whole "what will bill do in the white house with nothing to do?" question may sound meanspirited, but it's actually something people want to know.

Posted by: indievoice | April 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about Chelsea. It's about stepping thru the mire of internet journalism that lead readers from Headlines into opinionated blogs. This is wrong. For those of you who cry censorship please understand that there's a time and place for all news content and a responsible Editor should respect that like an oath and organize the format accordingly This is fundamental to journalism because it gives us readers a common reference point allowing us to choose between reading the facts or editorials. I would have much more respect for a news service if they followed the ABC's and steered away from marketing tactics at the readers expense. I am glad foul language was removed but I invite all those bloggers to restate their sentiment to the editor who should post them more appropriately. That's his/her job. This is how Free Speech works its not about ranting in blogs its about context.

Posted by: Edlines | April 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Respectfully, I dissent.

Chelsea Clinton has injected herself into this campaign. She should be no more immune to the types of criticism aimed at the candidates, their staff, and their adherents. She's not even a kid anymore, she's in her mid twenties.

svreader gets to post _over and over and over_ again the lie that people froze to death in "Obama's Slums". (Over 60 times; I know, because I actually counted them.) What's worse -- permitting a provable lie masquerading as fact over and over or mean-spirited statements that no one can take as serious statements?

Point being, censoring comments for this kind of content opens a bag of worms.

And BTW, why haven't we seen more in the Post about Hillary Clinton not paying her staff's health care premiums? It's hard to believe that the Post's playing it down the middle when Chris Cilizza runs videos of Obama and the pesky picture taker, but the Post ignores a story reported over a week ago in Politico.com.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Nina K..people like you thowing out that Those who make statements u dont agree with have racial issues..like you said to Terri B is disqusting. There is nothing racial in anything she said...but to you, a hater who has to always throw out the race card to justify a debate you are having is so ignorant...but what do u expect from somone like you..honey you are racialeccentric if there is a word... I eat white bread , does that make me a person with racial issues...to you, probably

Posted by: tino | April 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have been trouble since Arkansas, long before they hit the lottery in Washington. Dishonest business dealings, sexual harrasment and lying to the public was old hat for them. When Bill was president(the leader of the free world?)and looked America straight in the eye and told a bald-faced lie about something as stupid as oral sex, I knew he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Any American corporation would have fired him on the spot, yet he remained in the White House while Hillary blamed the whole thing on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Hillary's not even in the oval office yet, and she's already caught lying. This seems inconsiquential to some people, but I'll have nothing to do with a liar or a thief.

Posted by: superdave | April 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Why are people now pitting the Obama daughters against Chelsea and vice versa? It's really low and unfair to bring the children into the larger competition between Obama and Hillary. This fight is getting so indecent.

Posted by: Christine | April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea's dilemma - Her mother is despised by millions of Americans for exactly the type of word parsing (I'm a numbers nerd) and faux answers (I'm a numbers nerd) strategies she has been encouraged to use as she campaigns for her mother.

Once a candidate has taken to lying, obfuscating, hubris, and disenfranchising voters by taking lobbiest money and suggesting the pledged delegates they've elected switch candidates... well all of such a candidate's supporters are fair game because they are defending the horrid, unpresidential behavior.

Chelsea is in a tight spot between a lying mother politician, and the truth-hungry public.

Posted by: JBE | April 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I am not surprised by the strong reaction from readers.

Kornblut erred in that she confused the public's celebrity curiosity with emotional resonance. Kornblut's assertion that Chelsea connects with people, thus influences how they vote is simply not true for millions.

Chelsea was reared in a privileged world of private schools, guarded care, and all the comforts wealth can purchase. Her lucrative career opportunities are based on her parents' status, not her merits.

The Clinton's isolated Chelsea from the public for 28 years; consequently, many are curious about her. But curiosity and resonance are not the same. Millions of people simply cannot relate to Chelsea.

Posted by: C. G. of Houston, TX | April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I have a seventeen year old son, he will be old enough to vote this november for the first time. I wish that simply the media would take an issue and fill a paperor news program with a comparison and contrast of each candidate. Wow what aconcept. In 1984, Ronald Reagan asked Are you better off than you were four years ago? My answer was yes. I became one of the Reagan Democrats. This year Hillary could actually be the first presidential candidate to change my mind. Stick to the issues.

Posted by: Ray | April 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Many of the comments I have read made me feel so ashamed of and for a great number of the people posting here. Do you really think before you put your fingers on the keys? How petty. How judgmental. How mean. What an absolutely pitiful representation of Americans is made on these comment spaces. Shame, shame, shame.

Posted by: LucyIn Buford | April 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's not get carried away here folks. Chelsea did not get a job at a leading NY hedge fund because she worked hard, was particularly brilliant, and had a small dose of luck. No, that is only for the rare few ordinary people who make it. Chelsea got her job because of who her parents are. Period. That is what is wrong with America, and nepotism goes against what this country was meant to be founded on. And it is hypocritical for the Clinton campaign to run around pennsylvania pretending to be on the side of ordinary people. It is insulting and a mockery to those of us who strive to better ourselves in the middle class despite the uphill battles we face. I respect Bill and Hillary for what they have achieved. Ditto for Obama. But Chelsea? Get real.

Posted by: dlux | April 10, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

When asked about her occupation early on, Chelsea described herself as a numbers nerd, and not an employee of a hedge fund. Those funds don't have the greatest of respect from many economists in light of the current money meltdown. She doesn't want to be vetted by the press, to the point of turning down a question from a grade schooler "reporter". What, one might ask, does she want to avoid answering from a legitimate representative of the press?

Posted by: bob | April 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

to all the clinton haters who accuse them of being cheaters and liars....how many could actually say they have never cheated or lied? probably, very few. AND, how many think THEIR candidate, BHO, has never cheated or lied. probably all of them. such folly and deliberate blindness. come on.....get real. we aren't looking for perfection here....we're looking for someone who we know can lead our country and solve the messes dubya will leave behind in his wake. Johb McCain is too old and too confused and, BHO is too green...can't even take a stand on something as simple as the POTUS attending the opening ceremonies of the olympics! need I say more?? as for chelsea....she is the best of both parents.....you can't raise a daughter that turned out as well as she did if you're too screwed up....something the clintons are not! too many people are conditioned to hate them though, so they do....so much so that they can't be objective. if they were, they could readily see the same faults in their own candidate, BHO, who has plenty of lies of his own (i.e., he didn't know rev wright had made anti-american comments like that, he didn't know that rezko had donated alot more money to his campaign than he thought, etc. etc.). In fact, if one looks deep enough, BHO would proably surpass Hillary on his share of "mis-speaks" but his supporters don't want to go there or, be disillusioned. saps.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the best candidate for President. He has the best judgment and his campaign indicates how well he would run the government.

Clinton's campaign is in disarray and is in heavy debt. Do you want someone who cannot run a campaign smoothly to be your president?

Posted by: kreyol509 | April 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea has every right to campaign for her mother, and she's an adult so she should be able to answer tough questions. From what I've read, she's handled it well. As for the comments going over the WaPo blog and others, that is an unfortunate side effect of everyone being an anonymous handle or nickname with a post. You can be vile and nasty all you want and no one will know who and where you are. It's not populism at all. Populism has manners. It's abuse if saying it in person to someone will get you arrested or punched in the nose. Maybe some websites should be looking a bit more carefully at what's showing up lately.

Posted by: rmpatera | April 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

you people make me sick.so high and mighty, the people who yell the loudest are the ones who should clean their own house.you will not answer now but in the future you will answer to some one you can't lie too.have a nice life.

Posted by: bernie | April 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!
RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!

Posted by: Robert Paulson | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey TONY!

I'm waiting for those news sources.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is representing her mother, and as Hillary's representative, she needs to be willing to take the heat.

Hillary is much hated by millions of people who see how corrupt and depraved she is. Some of that hatred is bound to be focused on Chelsea, if Chelsea is out there defending someone who is truly indefensible and REPREHENSIBLE.

Posted by: HRC-B-GONE | April 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm quite disturbed by the fact that comments appeared that were so dreadful they had to be removed. I am not a Clinton supporter, but I am also not a supporter of unreasonable, unconstructive comments. We all need to tone it down -- everyone -- lest we divide ourselves to the point of not being able to unite when we need to.

Posted by: Julia | April 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

By not screening the media creates news by creating discourse between citizens. It becomes a story. Division doesn't just happen. Sometimes it's a set up.

Posted by: JC | April 10, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow, all of you people need to chill. This reader would like to suggest that the comments section of each article be separate from the article itself.

As it is now, readers looking for real journalism get through the article, and scroll down to read a whole bunch of random people's rants. Journalism should be unbiased and unemotionally delivered. A handful of repeat posters ranting colors people's perception of the events.

Furthermore, I think dedicating an entire article to comments on a Washington Post article is woefully solipsistic. Talk about contemplating your navel. Let's try real journalism.

Posted by: Melissa | April 10, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Why would you not moderate your blog?

Everybody else does. I am sure it is expensive. But an unmoderated blog is an invitation to the reckless and the careless.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is a grown woman and the MSM needs to break that glass cage they have put her in and ask why she backed up her mother's lie about Bosnia. Either that or quit sending a film crew to show how "cutesy pie" she's thought to be. It's sickening.

Posted by: LJ | April 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

So sick of slams against Chelsea Clinton. She's the only child of a president who hasn't embarrassed her parents, i.e., Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and more particularly, "W"'s girls, or at least, one of them! Why shouldn't she campaign for her family??? It's her right to do so, and she handles everything, every question, and every issue with class. I am voting for Obama, but I do not fault Chelsea for anything!!!!

Posted by: Kay | April 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm disturbed by the premise of this article (although, to be fair, I see that there are many postings here that are off topic).

Who gets to decide what is 'appropriate' and what is not? The brahmins at the Washington Post? Opportunities to post comments should be as democratic and populist as possible. There are too few (not too many) for ordinary folks to express their views (as quirky as they may be). Unfortunately, that will attract the usual asortment of lunatics that post comments that are way off-base and/or nasty.

But this isn't China, Pakistan, Burma, or Iran (or parts of Europe if you try to talk about Islam in an rational way). People should be allowed to have their say ... even if what they have to say is daft.

The Post should give people more credit. I think sane people will be able to tell the difference between totally looney comments and comments that have at least a kernel of merit.

As for Chelsea Clinton:

(a) I applaud her for, generally, refusing to get baited into questions about her father. She isn't her father, so why should she have to answer for his vices.

(b) However, she is an adult. I don't know why she, her allies, and reporters think that she should get a free ride. She has consciously decided to get involved in politics as an adult. Why shouldn't she expect tough questions and scrutiny.

One thing that journalists have failed to highlight is the fact that Chelsea initially repeated/parroted her mother's lies about snipers in Bosnia. Like I said, Chelsea is not responsible for her father's affairs, but she IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LYING ABOUT BOSNIA.

Back to the original point, we don't need more censorship in this world. We need less of it even if we have to take some risks for greater freedom.

Posted by: American in the UK | April 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

why cant all of you see you are all fools, the real problems we should be focusing on are not in this forum, wake up country, stop the hatred, feed your hungry neighbor, realize the world doesnt owe you anything, and re-educate yourselves if need be, ask yourself is this why you go to church, if you do, to spew hatred and nastiness to your fellow man. ask yourself WWJD. Get your head on straight and think.

Posted by: Mary | April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I really think we need to leave Chelsea out of it. I am a Obama suporter but will never ever say anything about Chelsea. I am very proud of her. Heck, we did not see Bush's daughter out there stumping.

But don't get me started on the parents. I agree with the author, they did a good job with Chelsea

Posted by: Cyndeewi | April 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight. The Clintons have lied, cheated, stolen, taken credit where it isn't due, and I'm supposed to call that an improvement over George Bush Part 2? Please.

McCain isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but he has a history of independent bi-partisan politics and Obama, by way of his "lack of experience", might very well be a real change for this country's political situation. One of those two might have my vote simply because at least they represent a fresher smelling cowpie in an already filthy manure pile.

Based solely on the way she's run this primary and her complete inability to stay honest about her own experience, I don't really care how many times Hillary trots the daughter and Bill in front of the cameras, my vote is staying as far away from the Clintons as I can put it.

Posted by: Daniel | April 10, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse


If anyone made those kinds of remarks about Obama's children, his supporters would demand they be shot at dawn. The double standard between how they expect Obama to be treated (with fairness, honesty, and respect), never applies to how they have treated Clinton. That's why we call 'em Obamaniacs afterall.

Posted by: Teri B.
-----------------
Terri B, I find your comments appalling to say the least! The Obama children are little girls ages 6 and 8!! Do YOU have some negative feelings and thoughts about these two beautiful CHILDREN?? I don't think anyone in their right mind would be hateful to these little girls! Obviously you have a racial issue.

The Clintons have put their 28 year old "child" out on the campaign trail. It began with Chelsea standing beside her mom like a window dummy, never uttering a word. Once they saw Senator Obama drawing massess of college students, they decided to send Chelsea to colleges and universities to campaign for Hillary. Since she is acting as her mother's campaign voice and surrogate, she should be able to be critiqued as much as Hillary and Bill. For the media to "PROTECT" this 28 year old ADULT from scrutiny and criticism is outrageous. As her mother, Hillary, often states: "IF YOU CANNOT TAKE THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN". This applies to you too, Chelsea!! If you cannot answer the questions, that's fine, you can politely say, "I choose not to answer that question". But, no, you might have graduated from the best schools, however, you obviously failed to learn something extremely important: Courtesy!! Telling someone something is none of their business is pretty darn low and shows NO class! But then, Hillary and Bill have shown they, too, have no class whatsover and even worse, NO INTEGRITY.

Posted by: NinaK | April 10, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill are a fine example for Chelsea, one is a liar the other a cheater, that's what I want in the White House, and it is our bussiness, it's not their house, they are supposed to represent this country, lying and cheating are not good qualaties...

Posted by: Hal | April 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

hmmmmm...after reading all these

'ahem" comments i have just one question...how many of you dudley do rights have nasty little skeletons in your own closets hmmmm?????????????

Posted by: smoothsoul | April 10, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

even with hillary being a public figure, it is none of our business how the clintons handled infidelity in their marriage, hx shows he had the best interest of the country in mind when he made decisions professionally that is all i care about. chelesa didn't ask to be born to these two individuals, she handles herself very well, i would be pround of her if she was my daughter

Posted by: louisiana | April 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea needs to get a real job and a life. Maybe she can handle the both of them. Stop livin off your folks Chelsea.

Posted by: ksal | April 10, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I think it would have been most appropriate to say " I have no comment on that." to be perfectly safe for Chelsea to answer questions if she is not comfortable. Whether people would like to think that as negative or positive, so be it. That statement will never get any conclusive idea.
Now, since there are alot of Clinton haters in this country, I just wanted to say that- if you are an Obama supporter, think about this- this election is not about movements, speeches, embellished credentials.
You may hate Hillary because she is a Clinton, but you will love her back when she delivers this country back in track, compared to Obama, who you love so much now, but hate him later when he fails to keep his promises to you. Then, you know it is too late to change your mind.

Posted by: COPPER | April 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but Chelsea is campaigning for her mother. If she were not part of the campaign and desired her privacy, all she needs to do is get off the bus. Since she's part of the campaign and campaigning for her mother, she shouldn't expect any special treatment or consideration. Both of Bush's daughter's (though adults) were never part of his campaign. Neither are Obama's daughters (they're 5 and 10 years old, for Pete's sake). So Chelsea Clinton and Michelle Obama should be fair game since they are official campaign surrogates.

Just my 2-cents.

Posted by: Chris Salzmann | April 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

RULE 34 ON CHELSEA CLINTON, GOGOGOGOGOGOGO!!!

Posted by: Robert Paulson | April 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Letting unedited, unscreened comments go up is not some great moral victory. It is just that newspapers are too cheap to hire someone to vet the comments. The BBC site has a lively debate but the posts are screened. Not screening posts for relevance is just penny pinching. Imagine THAT in a newspaper!

Posted by: patrick | April 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

How many of you voted for Bill Clinton twice? Do you regret it? Would you rather George P. Bush have had a second term?

Obama supporter have lost all sense of reality. Even CNN and MSNBC become Obama supporters. Keith Olbermann may as well wear an Obama t-shirt.

Posted by: Tina | April 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

If Chelsea and Bill are going to campaign for Hillary, then they should ask all the questions they want, and it is our bussiness, it's not their White House, we have a right to know what happens in there, Bill having oral sex in the Oval office is a big deal, and Rev. Wright has not campainged for Barak Obama, so it's pretty even to me...

Posted by: Hal | April 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I read the writings with hilarity. It is obvious of the hate in our politics. Not many get to take pride in infedility on the national stage. It is one of the many factors that people dislike the Clintons. I must say you can not trust them. However, go Hilary--take the gold!

Posted by: George | April 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Okay, Tony. I'm game. What news sources did you get your information from?

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

You could not be more wrong. I got my info from multiple sources-I will never take the word of a single source of news as the whole truth.

While snopes.com may focus on the one sentence, the entire document must be taken into context. The "thought" part is nonsense, she polled the black students. Since you likely won't admit what those results are, I will. An overwhelming majority said that they did not believe as she did. At the time she was in college, to still refer to whites as "oppressors" was simply ridiculous. It exposes her as a pure racist, sort of like the Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Hey, wait a minute, who's church has the Obama's attended for twenty years? So you see, there is really a strong connection to the Obama's and the good reverand. They feel the same about so many things, especially when it comes to whites.

The black community needs to listen to people like Andrew Young, who would make a superb President, or Bill Cosby, not racist idiots like Louis Farrakhan or Rev. Wright.

Posted by: Tony | April 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I understand where the hateful remarks toward Chelsea come from. Those of us who truly understand the depth of depravity that the Clintons inhabit, have strong negative feelings about the Clintons.

We also feel ripped off by the Clintons, who have abused their power, cheated the public, and made $109 million in the last few years, while Hillary doesn't seem to have the money to pay the small businesses who have supplied services and goods to her campaign.

If we vent some of our anger and outrage onto Chelsea, it's because she is out there now, defending her indefensible mother, and asking that we, the voters, support letting her parents back into the White House.

NO WAY CHELSEA. NO FRICKING WAY.

Posted by: Leslie | April 10, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Amazing, Absolutely Amazing! Listen to all of you talk about all the smut you can dig up about the 3 big candidates and smut is to put it mildly. Not one of these candidates are honest or upright citizens or even capable of the office of presidency.Yet, Yet, you choose to ignore the only candidate who is capable and honest and upright. RON PAUL> You deserve the crap that anyone of the JM, BO or HC is about to hand us, God help us if any of them win. .

Posted by: RoinCT | April 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Lets get real! Neither Hilary or Chelsea are being treated with kid gloves!

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

re Chelsea and profanity

Okay some people get overheated but that is NOTHIGN compared to what happened to Dem candidate Barry Welsh when a FIST FIGHT broke out and board member ended up in jail. You should really see this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjrCspSD1k

So I'm glad as long as it stays to profanity and people have a real chance to vote and won't be prosecuted for their political beliefs (Alabama, Don Siegelman). People around the world are following this primary carefully. The tinieset little event that goes on in a district will be commented around the world as internet shrinks the world. Remember that those of you who posts profanity. Chill out and have a coup of coffie and remember that forgiveness is a beautiful thing, there's no need to blow up storms when things can be talked through in proper manner. In the end you can always (I hope and pray things are sorted out in Delaware County IN) vote for the good guy,right?

Best Regards

Markus In Sweden


Posted by: New Sweden | April 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is a 28 year old GROWN woman. She is on the payroll for her mothers campaign. I watched her repeat her mother's Bosnia story at one her university "talks". She was certainly old enough to remember whether there was "sniper fire " or not. The apple does NOT fall far from the tree. She can tell a lie just as smoothly as her parents. She is unfairly being handled with kid gloves. Like Bill Clinton said "don't put the pads on if you don't want to get roughed up!". Chelsea had better "saddle up" and take her fathers advice, or stay home.

Posted by: Martha Davidson | April 10, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Why i it so hard for you FOLK to leave the Clintons alone and let this WOMAN B R NEXT PRESIDENT ...........

Posted by: Texas Best | April 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

A vote for me is a vote for the Republicans. I cannot win, there are just not enough idiots in this country that would vote for me. Obama will win the presidency, but not me, I can't lie my way in. Sorry folks, time to have a heaping dose of truth from me, Hillary Clinton

Posted by: HillaryClinton | April 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Tony, you did not read the entirety of the snopes article, did you? Had you bothered you would have read:

Much scrutiny and discussion has been focused on a single phrase contained within the thesis, the statement that "blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor." This phrase has repeatedly been quoted out of context and presented as if it reflected Michelle Obama's own philosophy, but in its full context it is clearly her specultaion about what she thought some of the respondents she surveyed for her thesis (i.e., students who had attended Princeton in earlier years) might have been feeling.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

In reply to: GET REAL!!!!

"This is the kind of thing that feeds people's fears. It's ridiculous. Before you jump off a cliff start using snopes.com."
*********************************************
You evidently did not read what I had stated. I said "tried". That is documented fact. Under pressure they reversed their action. She did it, now she can't hide from it.

This is not about feeding fears, it is about knowing the true soul of a person that wants to be President of the US. If Obama supporters get their feelings hurt now, you have seen nothing yet if he gets the nomination. The Republican dirty tricksters will have a field day with The Obama's. If you think that the uproar over Rev. Wright have died down, just sit tight because you have not seen anything yet. The dodging the votes by "present" will easily make him a target for those who attack an apparent weakness when it comes to taking a stand.

Posted by: Tony | April 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Great job Washington Post. Comments have gotten nasty, hateful and uncivilized unbecoming of a civilized society. People forget the sole purpose posting comments on line is exchanging ideas and carrying on a debate in civilized manner.

Thank you for the cleanup.

Posted by: Independent | April 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

As to the post:

However, to ask Michelle Obama about her thesis at Princeton is extemely relevant. Barack Obama should be asked in public why he why he is married to someone who, according to that thesis, is blatantly racist and feels that whites deserve any bad thing that happens to them. Ask him why the Princeton library has attempted to disallow any access to that thesis.

GET REAL!!!!

This is the kind of thing that feeds people's fears. It's ridiculous. Before you jump off a cliff start using snopes.com.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

There is an amazing lack of class in our society. I wonder why that is? My parents taught me better. Perhaps I have answered my own question?

Posted by: rcrtr | April 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

There will always be the hateful amongst us. They seem to have found a home on the Internet. The media has served as an enabling force for them to vent their venom.

One only has to spend a few hours watching MSNBC or reading "reports" on the Internet to understand the full scope of this diatribe against Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Fred C Dobbs | April 10, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Doug - please step off the high horse. If you want to remove comments, do so. Don't go self-righteously blathering on about how mean-spirited people can be. It's especially galling to give the "last word" to a cliche world-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbag comment.

I'm all for open, moderated forums - they are consistently of the highest quality and actually allow for more freedom of thought. Now, just do what I thought the Post was already doing - their job of providing a quality forum - and spare the hand-wringing. You're old-school print folks will appreciate it too I am sure.

Posted by: thinkresults | April 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

What mean dirty comments I see here. Most Americans forget lots about their past, but never about the Lewinsky case. So what, Bill Clinton was impeached. You know, who should have been inpeached for lying for years to the people of the USA?
Bush and his buddies. Did he get impeached to let 4000 soldiers die for his lies?

What is worse? A man who loves other women sometimes too and lies about it, or a man who offers up his young soldiers and let them die for his lies?

And now to pester Chelsa with what her dad has done YEARS ago - shame on all of you!!

Posted by: Masha | April 10, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

To ask Chelsea Clinton about her father's infidelity has absolutely nothing to do about any issue in this election.

However, to ask Michelle Obama about her thesis at Princeton is extemely relevant. Barack Obama should be asked in public why he why he is married to someone who, according to that thesis, is blatantly racist and feels that whites deserve any bad thing that happens to them. Ask him why the Princeton library has attempted to disallow any access to that thesis.

This is not conjecture, not a made-up story, this is not infidelity, this is about the person that the person that the potential next President of the US is married to. Speaking as someone who has been married to the same woman for 30+ years, I would not have had the same feelings for my wife if her thoughts and opinions (which in the case of Michelle Obama are quite radical by any measurement, we so much different than mine. Some will likely say that I am a racist for bringing this up, but then I am not the one who wrote the thesis. But this is relevant, while Chelsea is not.

Posted by: Tony | April 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Teri B - Chelsea is not a child, she is a grown woman. Obama's two girls are probably 5 and 6 years old. So your comment is not applicable and is idiotic.

You didn't read the comment. The comment was

It seems like an idea as bad as expecting the Obama daughters in a few years to explain how they came by that lovely house in Chicago.

You missed "in few years".


Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Almost every set of comments I've seen on a political article has included inappropriate, nasty, and even profane content. It makes me sick. Why pay so much attention to it only when it involves Chelsea, though? Why isn't it, at least the worst of it, abhorred in general?

Bill Clinton is the one who said, "If a politician doesn't want to get beat up, he shouldn't run for office." If that goes for candidates, shouldn't it go for surrogates, too? Campaigns use surrogates to expand the candidates' reach, enabling them to virtually be in two or three places at the same time. Should they be able to reap the benefits of this neat trick without incurring the logical consequences?

And by the way, doesn't anyone think it's interesting that the student who (as far as I know) started all this by asking for Chelsea's opinion on the criticism of her mother's handling of the Lewinsky scandal was a Clinton supporter? Other Clinton supporters (following Chelsea's lead) bashed the student unmercifully in comments. It never occurred to any of them that the student might actually want to know the answer to his question.

Posted by: DoTheMath | April 10, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Teri B - Chelsea is not a child, she is a grown woman. Obama's two girls are probably 5 and 6 years old. So your comment is not applicable and is idiotic.

Posted by: jim san diego | April 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Freedom without respect is anarchy and anarchy is not freedom.

A disrespectful population will not receive respect and cannot hold its government to higher standards. A government that doesn't respect the people it governs will manipulate and abuse them. Freedom will be taken from them no matter how loud they curse. We are seeing this now.

Hillary's frequent use of the F word and abuse of her campaign staff are well known. It is also well known that Chelsea referred to the State Troopers guarding them in Arkansas as pigs because her parents did it. You only have to look at the people who raised her to know that she is less than innocent. Perhaps she thinks that their behavior is OK. She is getting off easy if she only has to answer questions about Lewinsky. She could be easily called on to disavow her parents.

Posted by: Web Smith | April 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, the cowards are out in force, as usual. Both public discourse and the Washington Post are demeaned when you give license to people to make statements they wouldn't have the courage to own up to with family, friends, co-workers, employers and fellow citizens. The Post should return to the ethics of journalism in its online manifestations and abjure Geek self-indulgence masquerading as a reasonable culture for politics and discourse.

Posted by: Tim McGarry | April 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Although I find Chelsea's work in the Hedge Fund industry to be in total opposition to campaign finance reform and don't think she should avoid discussing the valid question of how the scandals in the the Clinton Presidency effected both of the Clinton's credibility I see no place for vitriolic debasing remarks being made about her. I do think that she should allow reporters to interview her though, she could actually be helpful to the campaign in that regard and her avoidance of the press just adds to the feeling that the Clinton's think they are above fair scrutiny.

Posted by: Tane | April 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Open discussion is quality discussion, and if that involves throwing a few insults...

No, discussion does not involve a few insults. You are mistaking discussion for bickering.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

It seems that on some fundamental level the Clintons scare the snot out of a lot of people on the other side of the political fence. Which is strange because, frankly, because they're not really that different from the Bushes. Much less money it's true, but just as well connected. I'm sure the Bush daughters will be just as well employed in the future as Chelsea is now. With the same amount of qualifications for their respective positions. It must be because the Clinton females step up and speak out. And this frightens the bejesus out of a lot of conservatives.

Posted by: axon | April 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure there are many advantages that have come Chelsea's way by being a Clinton. There are also going to be disadvantages. Being an adult requires dealing with daily highs and the lows - the rest of us who have to do it every day. 28-year old Chelsea Clinton has placed herself out on the political playing field as a surrogate of her mother's campaign. The playing field cannot and should not be sanitized for Chelsea Clinton's benefit. Chelsea is not a victim in this - she has a choice of participating in this campaign or not - without "special Chelsea rules."

Posted by: EureRiver | April 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Hilary's state of mind? Bill's Hilary's best advisor? Are you kidding me? What are you trying to say? Women can't control their emotions? Women need men to tell them what to do - how to think?

Your misogyny is ever so thinly veiled.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

stupid, and has a superiority complex. Not using a real name on the internet does not equate to cowardice, dummy. You would like comments screened because you're afraid of... what? Words hurt you? Too disruptive for you? Screw you and the horse you rode in on. Open discussion is quality discussion, and if that involves throwing a few insults... well, mud slinging seems to be bipartisan. Take the preceding sentences with a grain of salt, I'm just trying to make a point, nothing personal. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Tim McGarry is | April 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Why would you ask Chelsea about Lewinski? She's not the one who had the affair. If your dad was cheating on your mom wouldn't you be mortified/ avoid all mention of it?

Posted by: Talley | April 10, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

It seems like an idea as bad as expecting the Obama daughters in a few years to explain how they came by that lovely house in Chicago.

Good one!

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, don't have a problem with the comments, as I find comments are oftentimes more a reflection on the author than on the subject being commented on. I do, however, have a problem with news outlets who require too much identifying information prior to posting, information which can serve no useful purpose, in my opinion. Unless of course, they're more interested in gathering information on me than they you are in getting my ideas.

Posted by: Jean Chevreille | April 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I believe HRC emotional response to Bill being unfaithful is a very ligit question -What if is 3am and the phone rings and Hillary has just found out about yet another serial infidelity - What is she going to say on the phone then?
Effects us all - ligit question about HRC emotional state.

Also, we're worried about BHO's connection with his priest, but not HRC's constant connection with her husband - who among other things lied to congress, used the people's oval office/paid time to have a sexual encounter, and NOW the Colombia issue - "Oh, my husband and I differ on a lot of things."

I count my husband to be my closest advisor and the person with whom I align my dreams and goals with - but we ARE still individuals. Perhaps we should give both of the candidates the same amount of benefit of doubt.

Peace.

Posted by: lil | April 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is the last person you want to ask about her father's affairs. What the heck does she know about it?

Hilary didn't cheat so she's not the one to ask either.

I dare you to ask Bill!

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The idea that I'll have to live with the electoral decision of throngs so ill informed they can't distinguish a Bush from a Clinton staggers me. It seems like an idea as bad as expecting the Obama daughters in a few years to explain how they came by that lovely house in Chicago.

Posted by: Pastor Nancy | April 10, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will not be able to focus attention on American problems because when that 3:00 a.m. phone call comes, it is then she will notice Bill is not there. She will forget that call trying to find Bill and he will probably be somewhere producing yet another stain piece of garment, pajamas and nightie.

The Clinton will only bring embarrassment to the White House again. Scandal after scandal. Do you really think the Republican will ignore where Bill's money is coming from. Who do they owe a favor?

Posted by: HoneyRogers | April 10, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

the relative anonymity of BLOG Commenters seems to bring out the worst in some. Folks with conservative views have become dogmatic & hateful. They advocate violence against anyone that believes differently than themselves. Where is this mean spirited behavior being nurtured ? From spiritual leaders and Murdoch Media. Good examples of how "even the Devil can quote scripture to convince folks to follow him". Onward Christian Soldiers !!! ( I don't believe Jesus would sing this song )

Posted by: Rick | April 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to know why Chelsea's looks or do-ability have anything to do with this argument. This is so ridiculous!

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled by the mean-spirited and gutter mentality of Hillary opponents. Nothing she has ever said or done begins to match their venomous and puerile outbursts. Such malicious attacks on anyone, Hillary, Barack, or McCain, reveal much that is unsavory about the character and arrested mental development of the writers. They don't deserve publication by a respected newspaper such as the WP.

Posted by: Emjay | April 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

If someone asked one of my daughters about my ex's serial adultery, there's not enough space here to list how many body parts I would be ripping off such a questioner. If anyone wants to know how Hillary feels/felt/acted toward her husband's adultery, then ask HER. Such questions directed at Chelsea are beyond the pale; what's most disturbing is that those questions have been directed at Chelsea by CLINTON SUPPORTERS. If that's the kind of person Hillary Clinton wants to appeal to, well.....

Posted by: windrider | April 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Using profanity makes you look less than intelligent. It makes you look like you have a limited vocabulary or a limited grasp of the English language.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

If anyone made those kinds of remarks about Obama's children, his supporters would demand they be shot at dawn. The double standard between how they expect Obama to be treated (with fairness, honesty, and respect), never applies to how they have treated Clinton. That's why we call 'em Obamaniacs afterall.

Posted by: Teri B. | April 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is OK. And, anyway, her mother has lost.

Posted by: Gus Moralez | April 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea may be intelligent, poised, and informed, but she represents what is really wrong about this country -- blatant, unapologetic nepotism. Unfortunately, it is often most apparent in the fields where "progressive thinking" are supposed to dominate, that is, in the entertainment industry, in politics, and even in academia. To me, it is disgusting to see so much hay made over the thoughts and actions of a very young adult who has been nothing if not sheltered from the real world and whose opinions, therefore, have little to back them up but what she has been taught rather than learned in the school of hard knocks. Like so many other members of her generation, she is overpaid and extremely inexperienced. That said, she has a right to comment on her mother's candidacy and I find it unseemly to press her about her father's infidelities. Finally, your concern about comments from the public being "inappropriately hateful" or "not germane" are your judgement, only. In bastions of liberality, like Washington D.C., it is clear that Hillary is the preferred candidate. Therefore, the media continues to go out of their way to keep her candidacy alive, even though her chief opponent for the Democratic nomination has already proven that he has a broader appeal.

Posted by: Tom B. | April 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Watching Bill C run from one money-making speaking engagement to another while his wife is 'running' makes it very clear he knows the money spout will dry up when she finally (thankfully) gives up on her bid for a return to the scene of his crimes.

Posted by: Dan Johnson | April 10, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that our public officials don't have a private life, and everyone feels that it is their right to intrude. The affair was a private affair that had nothing to do with national security or our country. If there were public funds spent on the investigation, it is because none of those "impeccable inquisitors" could ever understand a private matter between adults! President Clinton would not have been subjected to a public flogging if this had been considered a private matter. I don't condone his behavior, I just don't think we as a country should have been part of that kind of vindictiveness.

In retrospect, we had a great country back then. We were respected in the world, we had a surplus, our homes were not in jeopardy, our stature in the word was secure and we were not at war, killing thousands of young people, not to mention the wounded and maimed ones.

Chelsea Clinton should remember the words of another great First Lady that put up with so much intrusion into her private life..."The river of sludge will go on and on. It is not about me." Jackie Kennedy was right on the money with this unsolicited attention.

There seems to be a sadistic, insatiable thirst for knowing, speaking and living someone else's life.

Chelsea has behaved well and regardless of her parentage, she should be afforded the respect as anyone who appears before the public stage with a clean slate. I feel pride in her accomplishments as a devoted daughter, and as a citizen of the world.

Olga O. Pina
Austin, Texas

Posted by: Olga Olivia Pina | April 10, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Santa's right about Chelsea: ho, ho, ho.

Posted by: santa | April 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

since you did that, the remaining comments no longer reflect the average feelings of americans since they've gone through rose colored glasses enhanced with a political tint.

more specifically, I don't believe that the clintons were good for america and, like others, have anger because they embraced Iraqi sanctions, bad trade policy, the housing bubble, etc...

in closing, nasty words were invented to describe bad behavior in a succint way; thus, they should be allowed since they efficiently provide rhetorical balance to the empty praise and admiration found in other comments.

Posted by: why delete the comments? | April 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

TaxedtotheLimit needs to use snopes.com more often. The Clintons do not charge the Secret Service rent.

The truth is bad enough. Stop making things up.

Posted by: get real | April 10, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I can't decide whether my favorite is the young griefer who thinks that Chelsea Clinton is the one who introduced the subject of Monica or the award-winning economist who shares his/her deep knowledge and insight into the negative consequences for the overall economy posed by Ms. Clinton's work with "dirivitives"

Talking points should never be too complicated for your least intelligent zealots to repeat, because they're very enthusiastic and they don't know that's who they are.

Posted by: julia | April 10, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how nobody attacked George Bush's daughters with hard questions when they campaigned for their dad. I would have loved to ask them "Why did you ditch your security people in south America? Did you think you might be putting our country at risk for blackmail, if you were kidnapped?" Now that is a pertinent question.

Asking a child about parent's infidelity, years after it happened, is just a way to make her so uncomfortable she quits campaigning for her mother.

Maybe some of your readers would like someone asking them about their parents' infidelity? Once again, it is the media trying to make it sound like Bill Clinton was the only one in the country that did this. Newt Gingrich's comments while embracing infidelity proves the hypocrisy.
Do we really need to get into this again?

Posted by: miranda west | April 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"ASK THE QUESTION:
WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?"

Because one cannot anticipate every attack and life isn't Hollywood. When Matthias Rust landed his light plane in Red Square during the Cold War, he bypassed large numbers of air defense assets simply by "doing something different".
Also because we scrapped the vast majority of our Air Defense systems after the Cold War ended. Americans are brainwashed by mediagenic Military Channel one-sided propaganda and usually haven't the slightest idea of our limitations. (Of course, media that don't spout a pro-military line won't get sexy content and cooperation from the military...)

Posted by: SFV | April 10, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Newspapers have always screened the letters that are sent in before printing them. There's no reason why a credible news service could not do the same on the web. I don't unstand why the washingtonpost puts on airs about being shocked at some of the comments--if you want to pretend you are just another blogger on the net then I'm afraid you have to take what comes with it. I don't think you're that stupid, and you insult our intelligence when you expect us to believe you are surprised at what some people write on the net.

Yes, I still miss the days of Walter Cronkite.

Posted by: jay | April 10, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The name Clinton, and the party Democrat, are both synonymous with the word LIE.

Posted by: TruthOut | April 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

If she cannot stand the heat, she should stay out of the kitchen.

Posted by: alzach | April 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

This is not a comment on the Chelsea article, but rather on the policy of screening comments. There is just too much hate- language, unnecessary abuse on all sites which allow 'free response'. Monitoring is necessary in order to ensure that some kind of intelligent and civil conversation and dialogue complement the articles.
I believe those sites which do this will in time have better names than those which allow the 'worst to drive out the better'.

Posted by: Shalom Freedman | April 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

First of all, she needs to expect this. She stepped up into the spotlight of her mothers campaign (as I would if my parents ran) and in doing so became a public figure. Also, in case you have not seen her on TV, she is far from helpless. I despise the Clintons but at the same time, I am impressed with Chelsea standing by her parents and in gracefully taking the abuse that is to be expected when you are in her shoes. BTW, best way to deal with the trolls, ignore them. Now that you have given these people credit in this article, you will never hear the end of them.

Posted by: Gouranga | April 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Some of you complain about the hypocrisy between the Free Tibet issue and a free Palestine, but what you fail to acknowledge is that Israel has repeatedly TRIED to give the Palestinians their own space and more independance, but EVERY time Israel has done it, the radical Palestinians view it as Israel being weak and start attacking all Israelis with rockets, suicide bombs, etc.
Every time they do that, no condemnation is uttered by the mainstream media, but God forbid a civilian die while the Israelis are trying to bring the murderers to justice, then everyone in the media, the UN, Europe and the Middle East all condemn ISRAEL's actions while ignoring the fact that they were responding to an unprovoked attack.

There's your hypocrisy right there.

The events between the Muslim fascist radical extremists and western civilization proves you can't appease people that want you dead, unless you want to just let them kill you. Granted it may be a tiny minority of them, but it's a large enough group to kill hundreds or thousands of civilians deliberately every year.

Whereas Tibet has done nothing to the Chinese to warrant their occupation, as far as threats, use of force, or anything else that would be unjustified if they weren't already occupied.

Posted by: Matthew B | April 10, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

If Chelsea decides to step into the political ring then she should expect punches. If you can spout it but can't take it, go find a job that suits you. The "Oh poor me / that's not fair / and it's none of your business" garbage doesn't fly. Bill Clinton's p**s poor judgement and lack of moral character made it everyone's business whether she believes or not. That's only her opinion and a weak cop out. And he used the people's house on the people's time. You know, the American people he and Hillary profess to care so much about?

Bill Clinton doesn't care enough about his wife or marriage to honor it. So how do they both profess to care about anything or anybody but themselves and why should we support her when he never did. A person that does that to someone they supposedly love will do anything to anyone at any time when it suits their agenda. A college educated woman like Chelsea should understand that. Guess she missed a few important points about character. Hillary is nothing more than a pathway for him to wield power and influence that his ego can't let go of and he is the connection that gives her a voice. Without him she is a nobody. They should be in prison for the documented indescretions they both have committed both privately and publicly. Chelsea is nothing more than a duped pawn in their dysfunctional games. You get rewarded with what you tolerate. The country is Clinton weary and we should not tolerate them any longer nor people like them. Their power comes from the ignorant blinded people that give it to them. It comes from nowhere else.

Posted by: Steve Mayer | April 10, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

People, the Lewinsky affair is more than a a 'family matter'. It was about Bill lying under oath, not fessing up, getting fined and disbarred. It's about the whole Clinton machine trying to cover up for Bill meanwhile attacking those trying to get at the truth. Chelsea wants to defend her mother then let her answer legitimate questions about the whole mess.

Posted by: knicklas | April 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are rich/super rich and getting richer by the minute. How can she say she understands blue-collar workers. This Goldwater / republican is a fake and a liar and her poor daughter is learning from the best two liars in this country. Her entire life has been one big lie. Chelsea, my advise to you is to go back to your dorm and stay as far away from your mother and father as possible. Hell, send them a card for mother and father's day and live your life before you become a habitual liar too. You already lied for your mom about Bosnia, don't do that again. It hurts your credibility when you run for president (as your mom is trying to set you up to do). Stop letting her pimp you out.

Posted by: Traj | April 10, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea and family home videos ya could share with us or some audio

Posted by: ken s | April 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

i think chelsea's kinda cute. i'd definitely like to take her out for cheeseburgers and beer at the bowling alley. but, i gotta say this: i think w's daughters are smarter because they wisely choose to stay out of the spotlight.

Posted by: bubba9 | April 10, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

There is an insidious relationship between the media, celebrity/politicians, and ratings, and the public. For example, what is the effect of the Fed artificially lowering interest rates over the last 15 years? I doubt that Brad Pitt or Chelsea Clinton have anymore clue than my neighbor. Why am I reading this article?

Posted by: Kyle | April 10, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

As a young person (23y/o), I have to say... it is truly frightening to know I am inheriting a country filled with people as hateful and ignorant as some of those who write on these blogs. I have been involved with politics for years in NC, and as a democrat that has created difficult moments where I needed to be understanding and patient. But, god as my witness, if I was face to face with someone the people (likely democrats) who post these ridiculous and mean-spirited comments...I could only shake my head and remember that Mom also told me that someone need not be a republican to be an idiot.

Posted by: WB | April 10, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Oh by the way, the Press has agreed to keep Chelsea out of the media during her first WH stay. Now she is 28 and the old contract is no longer valid. She put herself in the public domain, and there could and should not any expectation of privacy or an embargo on any topic.

Posted by: Lionel | April 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Has anybody ever sat down with these candidates and had dinner or played cards. You don't know these people. Politicians are professional Liars. When is everyone going to wake up and realize that the government is not your friend. What has any government done for it's people but wage war and breed pestilence, hunger and death. This is the same government, whether left or right, that has outsourced all your jobs, poisoned all your food and tainted all your lakes. They care for only one thing and that is the all American $$$$$. Oh, I'm sorry I forgot that isn't worth anything either!

Posted by: Freakomancer | April 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Give us all a break. Chelsea is a dirivatives queen selling this bomb making material to the public. This dirivatives mess will be the death of the entire banking system when it finishes imploding.

She is selling Wall Street snake oil as her father Bill lied and told everyone he paid down the national debt. Bill Clinton told everyone he had a budget surplus......yeah right!!

Look on Yahoo.com and search on Yahoo's search engine for, (Public Debt to the Penny). This is the Treasury Departments website. On the left hand side of the page it says, (Historical Debt Outstanding)..Click on it. It lists the United States Debt in 50 year increments.

The last time the debt was paid down was 1957!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There never was a budget surplus...and Bill Clinton never paid down the National Debt. President Bush gave everyone a tax cut on Bill Clinton's lie. Now we owe 4 Trillion dollars more on the Deficit. Thank you Bill Clinton.

Chelsea needs to quit selling shady Dirivatives contracts that are going to implode and take down the dollar. She makes six figures because she is selling Wall Street snake oil.

She is fair game for sticking up for her fathers misleading comments, as well as contributing to the overall poor health of the United States economy because of unlimited Dirivatives trading. You can Lump Henry Paulson right in there with her.

They are all crooks.

Posted by: Steven Wilson | April 10, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton is a credit to her parents and she is the reason why the Clintons did not break up after the unfortunate WH intern affair. I support Hillary and Chelsea all the way and as someone in higher education, I wish more of our students were as smart, informed, articulate and hard working as Chelsea. I hope that she will run for office someday. Chelsea is a window into what Hillary is really like; I hope voters will see that.

I agree with the censorship because some of the comments posted have been revolting: no amount of asterisking out profanity will detract from how distasteful some of the comments have been. Also, censorship will prevent people from trying multiple postings, very annoying indeed.

Posted by: alee21 | April 10, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is not in the WH yet and we can see the division and the antoginism pilling up. The Clintons have done too much harm to the Democratic Party and to another extend the US and her hunt for power if we do not stop it will cause us to loose the majority in Congress and also the WH.

Posted by: Lionel | April 10, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea sweetie, you are fair game. If you don't want to answer the tough questions (be it Monica, Paula, or Jennifer), then stay in a kids place. If you are gonna be an adult, then be an adult. Please hope I am never in your presence when you speak, cause I plan to ask any question I want to ask. Your mom wants my vote, and in order for her to get my vote, she better answer my questions, and that goes for you too since you want me to vote for her. No sympathy here, you stepped on that stage.

Posted by: TraJ | April 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I wish someone would ask Chelsea Clinton about the statement made by one of Mrs. Clinton's cohorts on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors that, " Unions are nothing but blood sucking parasites." Is that too much of a "personal family question?"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM

Posted by: Lucia | April 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

KJL-- Because she did not join the military.

Posted by: mags | April 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Down with Dynasty

We kicked the royalty out of our government but we still act like monarchists when looking toward those with fame and fortune to fill our positions of leadership.

Posted by: Paul Tinker | April 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse


I like Chelsea Clinton, she is very smart and intelligent, and as an Obama supporter, I do not see anything wrong with her diligently campaigning for her Mom. Great girl she is.

Posted by: Rajendra Ram | April 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

There are a lot of sick people who are not
interested in who would be the best President with command of the issues facing America. All they want to do is
humiliate Chelsea Clinton. Lets
stick to the issues and stop playing childish games.It is better to be quiet
than to open your mouth & prove how simple minded you are.

Posted by: Skipper | April 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Are they now using Chelsea for sympathy votes because people are asking her questions? Questions that just might be staged. It's always the same question about Monica Lewinsky and they get the same planned remark from Chelsea.
When it comes to the shady Clintons', I question everything! I don't trust them at all. No Sympathy votes from me.
Some strategy, er?

Posted by: Debmood | April 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse


Infidelity brought to light can be an emotional and painful experience for both parties involved. Chelsea is inarguably the closest person to both Hilary and Bill. Questions regarding her mother's experience in dealing with this type of emotional crisis are certainly relevant in the eyes of this voter.
Lest we forget Lisa Nowak, the NASA astronaut facing attempted murder charges, who drove from Texas to Florida to confront a romantic rival? Would you entrust her with the command codes to this nation's nuclear arsenal

Posted by: Political Hipster | April 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The strongly worded comments about the Clintons are indicative of how the country as a whole regards Hillary. Her sense of entitlement for the presidency and her refusal to drop out when she has no chance of statistically winning is feeding the ire and anger of everyone who wants change in this country. The clintons are just as tied to the political and corporate systems that run this country as Bush is. The only thing worse than Hillary being the next president would be Bush having another term.

Posted by: gfwjq | April 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Jacob Thomas can criticize Washington Post editorial policy or whatever all he wants, but his comments about deletion of over the top comments by anonymous cowards just demonstrates what a nitwit he is when it comes to the internet. When you post a comment on a site owned by someone else, you implicitly agree to abide by their rules. There are kinds of speech that are clearly out of line in any kind of civilized society, and if a site owner decides they will tolerate somewhat less than the most extreme legal speech, that is their prerogative. I run a number of sites and blogs, and you can bet that if anyone uses hate speech or similarly useless venomous spewing of garbage, I'll delete it when I find it. You want to write that kind of crap, buy your own website and put it up.

Posted by: Chris Johnson | April 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Anyone that believes anything that spews from the mouth of a politician or anyone that would associate with politicians is a fool.

It astonishes me that any child of any politician can grow up without hating their parents. In this case, where both parents are power hungry and mentally ill, it astonishes me that she doesn't move to Canada.

Posted by: Hale Nochi Guu | April 10, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Great censorship!!
That always leads to open discussion. If you don't like foul language don't use it, but be grown-up enough to pass over a vulgar comment and continue reading, and not impose your views of appropriate/inappropriate on everyone else.
Or you can use the Bush Mantra, and just bomb everyone who curses on your message board!

Here's a quote to live by:
"good fences make good neighbors"

Posted by: Jon in NJ | April 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I am confounded with the intensity of discourse and gross negative assault upon Chelsea...On the other hand the Clintons have chosen to have her stump and attempt to promote their political agenda...their campaign both through their own initiative and utilization of surrogates has decended to a very negative assault as well...riddled with whole and half truths and in instances see Columbia Trade deal and 800,000 to the Clinton bank account; hypocracy towards the electorate. Given their demeanor and general tenet they also may be responsible for the anger generated by their campaign which may from time to time also land on their daughter. This assault or vicsious tyrad by some responders is not of course appropriate but when swimming with sharks it is important not to have any open wounds to attract them...if one does "have open wounds" as the Clintons do then they should not send their offspring into murky waters.

Posted by: Socrates | April 10, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone reviewed the Clinton Tax Returns for "RENTAL INCOME". According to Westchester residents the Clintons CHARGE RENT for the use of the land which the Secrete Service Secutity Detail uses to Protect Bill!! If Hillary is elected, when her term is over, will the Taxpayers be paying RENT for two Secrete Service Details??

Posted by: TaxedToTheLImit | April 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

.

QUESTION FOR CHELSEA:

WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING IN IRAQ ?

You support your mother, and she voted for the war, so why aren't you fighting in Iraq?

SERIOUS QUESTION !

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, as long as other parents' children fight and die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ ? ?

.

Posted by: KJL | April 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

When she repeats what her mom tells her to say! She confirmed her mom's account in Bosnia (she was with her) and when it comes out that it was lie - no one questions Chelsea about it. Oh she was sleep deprived as well. She has been protected like a 3 year old and has only been brought as a "weapon" to combat and secure youth vote! No press interviews, no personal opinion, avoid unpleasant subjects, tough questions - yeah she has found her own voice - which like a cuckoo repeats what Billary wants her to say!

Posted by: SKumar, Memphis | April 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

You hush Tim! You hush right up!

Posted by: sexual dude | April 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

This whole article is like an ouroboros.

Posted by: Eggers | April 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I find nothing objectionable about her being a surrogate. She is not 'being pimped' as Shumer commented but obviously quite willingly campaigning.

However, I believe that like her mother said 'If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Whitehouse'. Consequently, she has to be prepared to deal with the questions.

As for the Lewinsky affair: I find it completely legitimate to ask her about an issue that her dad was impeached for. It was a political question, as the private life of the (future) president simply is. Why else was Bill impeached then?

Posted by: Rolf Ernst | April 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

While most of the questioners have not articulated their concerns clearly, there are a couple of legitimate questions to ask Chelsea, about the future of a Clinton presidency. Bill Clinton's dalliances created a major distraction from the important work of the presidency and of this country. The man is a hound, and likely to stray again. What assurances can the family provide, that Bill will be kept on a leash and will not cause new distractions? Like it or not, by choosing public life, the Clintons have also assumed the obligation to address the question of whether their personal lives will intrude on the work of the country. In this era, business relationships, friendships, club memberships, health conditions and personal tax returns have all become areas of inquiry as well, as we pursue the ideal of a candidate not beholden to business interests who also has the character, judgment and integrity to handle the job. We have no need to further occupy ourselves with the psychodrama of the Clinton dysfunctional marriage.

Posted by: Former Clinton supporter in Pittsburgh | April 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are using Chelsea as a tool to try and cut into Obamas connection with young voters. I have not seen her say anything substantive. "My Mother has a better health plan." My mother would make a better President". So if they want to use her for some kind of character reference, why should not the basis of her opinions be fully cross-examined. I would say the same if Obama had adult children on the campaign trail. She may not have any opinions on her mothers credibility, but I do.

Posted by: Patrick | April 10, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Her mother is not using her. Wouldn't you go out on the campaign for your mom?

Anyway, I don't like hill or bill and I don't like McClan or Obama. They are all devoted members of the Council On Foreign Relations and that means they are loyal to the Council, not America!!!

Posted by: George | April 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

That is interesting Lisa:

Why do the Clintons' support freeing Tibet, yet impose very brutal starvation blockades on the Palestinians who according to any human rights organization are treated much worse than people in Tibet?

There are "Free Palestine" and "Stop Israeli Apartheid [brutal occupation and ethnic cleansing type system]" rallies in college campuses all over the world including the USA, Canada & UK.

This is not an attack on the Israeli or Chinese people who want a peaceful just solution for the oppressed people. It is just an understanding that all people should be free from oppression; we just shouldn't politicize the matter.

Posted by: Bob | April 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea Clinton is indeed an adult, but her father's past sexual indiscretions have absolutely nothing to do with her mother's campaign. (Nor did they have anything to do with her father's job performance, but that's an old story.) If she brought the subject up, it's fair for the press and blogsphere to comment, but really, the Lewinsky affair is now a bagged specimen of political irrelevance. The best thing for the press, the public, and the Clinton family to do now is to consider it a topic utterly devoid of useful information.

As for the people who post cruel or obscene personal remarks about members of a candidate's family: Well, there are twits everywhere. It's also fair to remove such comments from a moderated blog, but in the meantime -- just don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: Starbug | April 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

NO MORE CLINTONS IN OFFICE

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Lewinsky and Bill made a mistake, there is no way Chelsea can explain why nor should she have too. No desent person would ever ask the children about affairs of thier parents. Stick to the topic and that is why she thinls her mother would be good for the country. The republicans have investigated the Clintons from the time they were born and have blaimed them for everything except the Linburg kidnapping.

Posted by: Rick Burroughs | April 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

the question is why should I listen to this girl, when its obvious that she is being used as as a campaign tool by her mother... and if anyone cares to check,she only started becomming a "political asset" only after her mothers aire of entitlement evaporated in the light of her losses to Obama... hmmmmm.

Posted by: MadcapMagician | April 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Clintons' double standard and prejudice:

For free Tibet, put pressure on China (I want Tibet to have rights too)

But, cover up and aide Israeli apartheid and brutal 60 year occupation of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians have much less rights than the people of Tibet who can travel freely and are China citizens unlike the Palestinians who were not born to the "right" mother or on the "right" side of some line.

Posted by: Lisa | April 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

All this sensitivity over 27 year old Chelsea, yet I see a constant stream of racially insensitive and often provocative comments directed toward Senator Obama. I'm sure the Clinton "whining" has caused this handwringing on your newspaper's part and I think it is emblematic of the Clinton's "love to dish it out, but can't take it" policy. In addition to so many positive reasons to support Senator Obama, one bright hope is finally putting an end to the constant whining and "poor victim" nonsense spewing from the Clintons and their supporters. Hillary DIANE Clinton, William JEFFERSON Clinton and company need to go back to making millions off their connections and stop bothering a country that is more than tired of their antics.

Posted by: chgodane | April 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

ASK THE QUESTION:
WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?

Posted by: n0spam4me | April 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

How staggering, another editorial misstep for a former great in the world of internet news. If you want anonymous comments, solicit them and keep them. If you don't want said nastiness, make people register in the first place. This touch-and-go, "delete what we feel like" nonsense reflects a deeper problem at the Post - namely that it doesn't know how or where it fits in to an internet-driven news world.

Your decision to retroactively limit comments shreds your credibility as an open forum and will continue to drive citizen-contributors away toward news outlets that are either more transparent in their editorial decisions or less conflicted about what's "fit to print."

To me, this reflects the silence of a unified editorial message coming down from the top. At very least, your print and online editions need to get their stories straight and decide what kind of publication the Post will become.

You've already lost so much, it doesn't seem there's much left to bleed.

Posted by: Jacob Thomas | April 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

oh no, the foul language!

Posted by: crybaby | April 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

ClintonInc has gone overboard in helping the otherside.

Posted by: Lewisxxxusa | April 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/chelsea-morning.html

"Thursday, April 10, 2008
Chelsea Morning

This morning's WP has an excellent piece on Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign.

I have also been struck by how the 90s images of a younger Chelsea have been replaced by a woman of substance, intellect, humor and grace.

As one can now expect, the article was followed by comments that barely reach above the limen of sheer expulsion to actual thought. Simple crude attacks.

As an Obama supporter, I find the coarse, degrading, adolescent fire aimed at Chelsea repulsive--a true example of human ignorance, of simple glee in childish degradation.

Chelsea is a genuine, articulate and obviously sincere woman who both admires and cares for her mother; she brings warmth, humor and humanity to her efforts. If only these commenters could bring one-tenth of these qualities to their own impulsive emissions--literally smears of thought and emotion.

This is a fine woman working to help her mother. See yourself clearly for a moment. Stop it.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/chelsea-morning.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | April 10, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The only two things wrong with the Clinton campaign are the content and the style.

Posted by: Rodentman | April 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Anonymity gives cowards courage. I would like to see you require commenters to register and use real names. I would also like to see you screen comments. The quality of the discussion on these boards would benefit from both steps.

Posted by: Tim McGarry | April 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

She's irrelevant, put her on the Nickelodeon Channel to answer all the "Soft-Ball" questions lie she does now. When she speaks she sounds like she's on Valium or something anyway.

Posted by: NoMoClinton | April 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company