Link: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/chelsea_clinton_gets_fired_up.html Lots of stories over the past few days about how a brave but calm and collected Chelsea Clinton "rebuffed," "fired back at," "rebuked" a question some Butler University student asked her about how her mother responded to the Lewinsky scandal. (The student was a Hillary supporter). Here's exactly how Chelsea responded to the question ... “Wow .... you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business.’’ And the media has lionized Chelsea for such a stern and fast response to this unexpected, cold and calculated, unreasonable zinger fired against her and her mother and the sanctity of womanhood. Let's look again at how this 28-year-old woman, private-school daughter of a president, bachelor's degree from Stanford, graduate degree from Oxford University, responded to the question: She stammered and stalled while she thought about it, then finally blurted out the same brilliant retort my 6-year-old uses when I ask him where the last brownie went: "It's none of your business." And the crowd erupts. You rock Chelsea! Go get 'em girl! The media immediately follows suit and gives Chelsea the cunnilingus she's always deserved ... a campaign hero is born. Was her response really that brilliant? Was the question fair?
Well there's one thoughtful response! Anyone else care to weigh in? MY POINT, FOR THOSE WHO NEED SOME ASSISTANCE: If Chelsea is campaigning publicly for Hillary Clinton, she is fair game for all questions, and the media should not make a martyr out of her because of a brief exchange that made her uncomfortable (an exchange, I might add, that she handled quite poorly considering her vast and expensive education.) So why is the media stroking her off for such a piss-poor response? She's not 12 anymore.
But dont you know that the media is controled by the liberals? You cant trust a word that comes from the main stream media and anyone that does is a fool...
seems that these days any kind of question is fair game, 12 years ago it was "Boxers or Briefs" Now we have come to this. Tough question for Chelsea to answer without smearing her dad. A more calculated response might have earned even more media traction.
I'm just surprised they hadn't prepared her for it. It's a huge legacy of those years, sometimes the only thing people associate with her parents.
And something that is relevant when looking at how this "woman" would respond in a national crisis. Should Bill be involved, what lengths would she go to in order to cover up and disguise the real problem? Afterall she touts her years as first lady as experience. It may be reasonable that a child of a dysfunctional family wouldn't wish to speak about it, but it could have been phrased more politely and reasonably. When cornered it's typical of the Clintons to act personally outraged. That way they don't have to respond or answer for their actions.
12 years ago it was "Boxers or Briefs" As much as I hate Newt Gingrich, I loved his answer to that question.
We all have personal boundaries about certain private issues concerning us - and when someone breeches those boundaries we may respond in a stammered way, not as "collected" as we might have hoped we would. It's called being human. I'd hazard a guess she was briefed on the fact this question might/would come up. But just because she may have been briefed, and just because she's well educated and 'not 12' anymore doesn't mean anything, really. She's human like the rest of us, and she's inherited this situation, that quite understandibly has to be hard as hell to think about let alone, talk about for her. Especially in a public forum. I think it was really tacky of the person asking the question. Yes, it was "provocative" *rah* for them for "taking a risk". It was real swell of them to pick on the daughter of the dysfunctional couple. Instead of asking Chelsea about this, why isn't this Hillary supporter asking HILLARY about it? Or does anyone dare? Easier to pick on Chelsea. Good on them. *rolls eyes*
Gotta plead ignorance. What did old Newt say? Crotchless panties? I can't quickly find the quote, but he said the question was childish, and that he wouldn't answer. And then he said the questioner should be ashamed for wasting time on such an idiotic question.
Hannah Cubed: I do feel sympathy for Chelsea, but not really for the question (she was asked about it again two days ago, so I think it's going to become a "gotcha" question for college kids to get themselves on TV). Her parents are using her as a campaign tool. They want to get her to college campuses to try to cut into Obama's big support there. Her parents are throwing her to the dogs. I think that's wrong, and another part of their win-at-any-cost strategy.
