Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Chelsea Clinton is a brat
Chelsea Clinton gets better press protection than the Pope. Yesterday, Princess Clinton snapped at a student who asked a question about her mother. “It’s none of your business,” she said to an ovation by a bunch of kool-aid drinking fans. Ironically this comes on the same day that her father says if you aren’t tough enough to take the heat, get out of politics.
This isn’t the first time that Chelsea has snapped at someone during a stump speech. Chelsea snapped at another person who asked a question about her mother’s Bosnia lie. After watching these two videos on You Tube, I have come to a simple conclusion regarding the princess. Chelsea Clinton is a bitch.
It isn’t what she said that bothers me it is how she said it. Search on You Tube and I am sure you will find the videos in question. She comes off like a brat with an attitude. Immediately her tone changes and with a smile, she talks down to the person like they are a peasant. This is the same woman that turned down a question from a 9-year old. Remember, Chelsea doesn’t take questions from the press. Apparently Chelsea doesn’t discriminate on age either with her press restrictions.
There is a difference in being unfair to a candidate’s child who isn’t in the public eye and one who puts herself there. Keep in mind that Chelsea isn’t a little girl anymore. She is a 28-year old, college educated, professional adult. Chelsea will take questions from college students and retirement homes, but don’t dare ask Chelsea a question if you are from the press. Several members of the press have accused the campaign of being downright nasty whenever the request for a Chelsea interview is presented.
Was the question asked to Princess Clinton out of bounds? I don’t think so. It wasn’t as if the gentleman asked a rude or inappropriate question. Hey, don’t get mad at the kid. Get mad at her father who was the one who had relations with the intern. It isn’t as if Hillary hasn’t used this incident to her own benefit on the campaign. Remember the Texas debate? “I think everybody here knows I’ve lived through some tough times.”
I can go back to the last campaign and point out the hypocrisy in this force-field placed around Chelsea. Remember when John Edwards dropped Dick Chenye’s daughters name and her sexuality during a debate? The coverage the Bush twins received in 2004 was merciless. The Bush twins weren’t giving interviews yet that didn’t stop the press. I didn’t hear anyone from the Bush family go on television and blast the media for covering the twins. Chelsea is getting a walk in the park compared to coverage that the girls received.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. As a traveling surrogate, she has willingly put herself into the spotlight. Chelsea has lived a life full of the fruits of being the daughter of a United States President. Chelsea could have nipped this in the bud immediately by answering the question. Don’t be surprised to see this get worse. Chelsea is an intelligent woman who can do better than “none of your business.” What is she hiding anyway? Why won’t she answer questions? Why aren’t the media doing their job when it comes to Chelsea?
Don’t you have a right to question someone who is spewing political rhetoric to your college kids or your elderly parent? She will take questions from a 93-year old with Alzheimer’s but not anyone from the press. Since when is it okay to give a political speech without being questioned on what you are saying? The last time I checked I didn’t think I was living in Russia.
Comments (177)
I have seen both of these videos. I have been a suporter of Obama in this campaign since the 2004 DNC. I have been a Hillary Hater since her vote for was. You are way off on this one. Chelsea handled each of these situations as well as anyone could. She had dificulty with the Bosnea question because she was conflicted between honesty and loyalty. The Monica question was simply out of line and she was right to be offended. It is simply rude to confront a person in ANY situation with their parents infidelity.
March 27, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my thoughts. (Of course, this sort of takes the wind out of Louisville1975's "typical" Obama supporter statement.)
March 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No real offense intended Ben. I think that someone would go after Chelsea again got me a bit. I am just glad to see the majority think the same. I apologize.
March 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you...the question was out of line. Call me a brat, call me a bitch, but I would have stomp a hole in someone if they had asked me those questions. Chelsea handled it with a lot more maturity than I would have and freely admit that.
March 27, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone once asked Eudora Welty a question that'd been circulating for years, whether she was a virgin, and she replied something like, "I know my mother didn't raise me to ask such questions and I'm sure you weren't raised that way either."
March 28, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
no matter how you spin this, Chelsea had every right to tell that college kid to shove it! Even if the student was a Hillary supporter.
March 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your are a right asshole.......
March 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on not only are you an ASSHOLE.....but your so typcial of a Obama supporter. Your becoming a cliche of yourself. Can't you see how everyone is laughing at you? Your pathetic. Go out in the real world with your stupid ideas and comments. Go on. Take that kinda shit anywhere you gutless ass.
Jesus thats pathetic
March 27, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...but your so typcial (sic) of a Obama supporter."
I think folks who make such general statements about either candidate's supporters are dim witted.
Did you not read Larry Geater's comment above? He is an Obama supporter, as am I.
March 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that. But this goes a little beyond the pale. Sure there are thousands of re-sets on both Candidates background to go after....but taking off after someone's kid? Bill has always had more control than me.
March 27, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is calling you to task for dressing down the assertions made in this diary about Chelsea Clinton's refusal to talk about the Monica crap, but your "typical Obama supporter" statement is not only full of crap, but so richly ironic in its use of negative broad-brush idiocy as to be almost comical.
Many Obama supporters (and I consider myself a typical one) think this diarist is the one being an asshole and out of bounds about decrying Chelsea's handling "out of bounds". The diarist calling her a bitch is enough to merit calling this diarist an asshole, so stow your partisan (and highly inaccurate) bloviating about this diarists crap being "typical Obama supporters".
March 27, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to use sic, you could've added one after "your" as well. ;)
March 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already admitted to being the dumb kid in class Ben.......
March 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I was just being a bit snarky. Heavens knows that I make the occasional grammar/spelling mistake—usually in a post where I correct someone else's, which is why I usually try to avoid it!
(That said, the sheer number of they're/their/there, you're/your, it's/its, and even to/too (I don't think I see anyone misspell "two") drives me a bit batty.)
March 27, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soon as Steve Jobs figures out how to attach these things to our heads....it will be worked out
March 27, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's a "typical Obama supporter", anyway? Let me know, because I'm already down on myself since I don't like lattes. Being a white chick from South Texas, we prefer diet coke or Folgers.
March 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric is Jenny. diet coke? No RC in Texas?
March 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's getting harder and harder to find RC here. But I should have qualified my statement; Diet Coke for breakfast.
But (please) don't conflate me with Eric; I don't think Chelsea Clinton is a brat at all. And if I did, I wouldn't consider it to be worthy of a TPM post (sorry Eric). As a party, we have bigger fish to fry. I think it's time that both sides realized that, and started working on other things...like keeping our folks in Congress this fall.
March 27, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you check Eric's profile, Louisville? He's:
* Location: Philadelphia
* Age: 30
* Politics: Conservative-moderate
* Party: Repub
* Website: http://www.thecamelclutchblog.com
Typical Obama supporter? He's a Republican looking to stir up trouble, and looking for more hits for his blog. On which I see he's...
Eric Gargiulo
Sports Editor
"have worked in the professional wrestling business for 12 years. For the last 9 years I have been an announcer and host for several pro wrestling television shows, home videos, and pay-per-views. I am the host of the radio show, Pro Wrestling Radio heard on WBCB 1490AM since 1999. You can read my complete bio on my website, by clicking here. I blog about Pro Wrestling, MMA, football, music, television, and more."
His latest post is "Eliot Spitzer is one horny dude." Most of the rest is wrestling and sports. He also has "Barack Obama’s slip of the tongue" on the "typical white person" comment. The Republican wrestling expert is pretty hard on Obama there.
I'm just saying, Louisville, don't assume that everything negative posted about the Clinton's is from the typical Obama supporter. A lot of Republican jackasses are able to type as well.
March 27, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, I don't mean to be the grammar police, but your is possessive. It's you're in this particular context. We all make this sort of mistake from time to time, but I keep seeing you do it and it's beginning to drive me more insane than your point of view. If what you mean to say is "you are", then it's you're.
March 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric is a dip shit.
March 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait wait, I do agree with Eric in a way. I'm just confused with the one particular situation, the question was not "How do you feel about your father being involved in arguably the most famous affair in US History?" but was more along the lines of asking what affect the affair has on the image of credibility that HRC puts forth, which I think is a valid concern.
I mean, really, there are people who voted against Al Gore because he didn't come out and condemn Bill for his conduct, do you think those people will give Hillary a pass? I remember a lot of people (these people in 2000 were either independents or weren't affiliated with anything) being a little uncomfortable with how she had handled the situation. Isn't it fair to ask her if that is going to affect her candidacy this time around in the GE when it's certainly going to be alluded to if not directly referenced?
And there are much more polite ways to respond to a group that showed up to hear you speak. Why couldn't Chelsea have just said "I don't really feel comfortable talking about that, I can't answer that question." Why does she not have to observe the same decorum that we want Geoffrey Morrell or Dana Perino to follow?
March 27, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because she didn't think it was any of their business. That's what she said. She was rather polite about it.
March 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness I think the question should have been directed to Hillary. I hope somebody ask's Hillary about her concerns about Monica Lewinsky on her visit to Indianapolis this weekend.
But knowing Hillary, she will probably have planted questions in place.
I love how the media try to spin the Lewinsky scandal down, "you were just a child back then, what do you know about Lewinksy". As if 1998 was a long time ago. [laughs]
I was just beginning HS back then, Chelsea Clinton was 18, an adult then.
It's not forgotten Hillary supporters, and don't think it will go away if Hillary gets the nomination and faces the Republican machine.
March 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an ignorant jackass.
The Lewinsky affair started when Chelsea was 15 and lasted for less than 5 months.
I don't see how the Lewinsky affair has anything to do with Hillary, much less Chelsea. It wasn't the public's business then and it isn't the public's business now.
And Chelsea was calm and gave a much calmer answer than I would have have given.
And observer2, Republican shenanigans hurt our country. If they hadn't gotten lucky with Monica, they would have made up something like the whole Swift Boating. It's depressing that supposed allies on the left still haven't digested the 1990's worth a damn.
March 27, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, I posted as to why there was public concern about the formerly private life of the most powerful executive in the world at the time in a response to Louisville. Why don't you think the public deserves to know the weaknesses of the man (and eventually woman) leading them?
March 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because people are nosy. Should we ask them their G-spots? Isn't it our right to know?
March 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the public's awarenes and Bill's lying with his misunderstanding of what the definition of "is" is, along with the independent investigation that preceded his impeachment hearings were all through 1997-1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky
So what if the actual sexual relationship had occured for a 5 month period prior to 1997. No one questioning that, the question is how did Hillary feel the Monica situation impacted her campaign. Hillary had and learned about Bill's affair the same time as all of America did, through the press.
;)
March 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, you got a tidbit right on the timing of the expose.
The answer remains the same: MYOB.
How are sunspots affecting her campaign?
March 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question. As can be seen from this graph, we're at a low point in the 11 year (give or take) sunspot cycle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif
However, as we can see this activity is once again about to peak. It might just be too close to tell!
March 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A politically driven investigator, charged with investigating possible improprieties in a land development deal, spends $70 million in Federal taxpayer dollars to find out that our 42nd President, like so many before him, was getting some on the side?
Bill Clinton's only error was to not answer the question asked of him with the same words his daughter used so recently.
That warrants Impeachment, but lying to Congress gets a pass? Horseshit.
I am no Clintonite in this year's race, but no President (and his family) should have to endure the barrage thrown at them by a mob of soulless vilifiers.
March 27, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The catch was he had to testify, so he couldn't tell Starr "it's none of your business". And the "definition of 'is' is" part was in his evaluating whether Monica lied, not he.
March 28, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe, your a bigger asshole for giving this run.
March 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the video:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/chelsea_clintons_noneofyour_bu.html
The question was not about her parent's infidelity about a candidate's credibility.
Chelsea Clinton was haughtily condescending toward the questioner. Her response was essentially "How dare you ask that? No else ever has dared do so." She made the questioner the focus of her put-down rather than the question, which is just downright rude.
March 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awwww, I wonder what Miss Manners would say.
March 27, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If hard questions are an issue for Chelsea she shouldn't be out on the stump. She seems to have the same kind of glossy anger that her parents have shown over the Monica issue. She's basically saying "you don't have the right to ask me that question." It would have been a greater answer to deal the questions with it directly. At 28, and campaigning, it's time to play for real.
March 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard questions are obviously not a problem for her. She handled this one with grace.
March 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the video again. She didn't act terribly angry.
"None of your fucking business, asshole..." - that's what angry sounds like.
March 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when you read it with an Al Pacino inflection.
March 27, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her response was essentially 'How dare you ask that? No else ever has dared do so.'"
Geez. You posted the link. Did you not watch the video? Because you have misrepresented what she actually said.
Silly season seems to be transmogrifying into stupid season.
March 27, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't understand the reason why the question is detestable( I shudder to think who put the "plant" in the audience?) then I question your basic humanity. Ditto for Hillary. Its none of our business! Wasn't that the point in 1998/1999?
If these are "progressive" views..count me out
March 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not everything's a conspiracy, Louisville1975. There are quite a few trollish Obama and Clinton supporters at TPM. Jokes aside, I doubt any of them are actually part of either campaign.
March 27, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As i said above ben. just little touchy when people go after somebodys kids. Whether its Clinton, Bush, Cheney, or Obama. That just isn't on in my book.
March 27, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed with you.
I was discussing this with my wife last night and we pretty much agreed that it was out of bounds to ask Chelsea about something that doesn't affect how Hillary would lead the nation.
Chelsea had nothing to do with it, was very much affected by it in a very personal way and it needn't be asked of her. Or Hillary.
As far as I'm concerned, That matter isn't a political issue in 2008, it's a political hatchet job.
As Louisville1975 says, the kids need to be off limits.
I would like to see fellow Democrats agree that Rev. Wright should be off-limits (as it was HIS words that offended, NOT Obama's) but we'll see.
Regardless, Chelsea got ambushed by that kid. I think he was a snarky college kid that figured he could ask something prickly, and ended up looking like a prick.
March 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now wait a minute. I think her response was quite justified and not at all what this GOP diarist presents it as, but she is doing public events and stumping for her mother's campaign, so this 'she is out of bounds' stuff is a little lame.
So campaign surrogates who are 28 years old merit getting "just little touchy when people go after somebodys kids."...?
This is not a situation where people are hounding her in private life. She is stumping for a candidate in a campaign.
March 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's a fact. She's been incredibly successful is avoiding the press, but she's putting herself out in public for the campaign which means that she's going to be asked questions. This is, of course, a different issue than judging the validity of each individual question, but Chelsea isn't just the first kid anymore. She's a full-blown arm of her mother's campaign.
March 27, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm less turned off by the student asking Chelsea the question than I am about the apparent indifference to placing "Jesus" in the midst of a profanity laced response.
March 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bussta,
I apologize. I thought were in the post racial, post gender, post theology era.....But I believe Jesus would have been with me on this one.
March 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'Ville, I still don't see how this was an attempt to "go after somebodys kids". How was the question unfair?
March 27, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfair in that she is their child. She loves them...they love her. Why go there in the first place? Probably the questioner knew that the media would pick it up and they have an instant pop on CNN for a day or so. I would like to think that Democrats have more class than that. This one was as dumb as Edwards was about Cheneys daughter. Its got no place in the discussion.
Its clear that child of God had to go through A LOT in the 90's in the White House. Republicans said and did some pretty harsh things to her. I thought we were above trying to trash the child is all.
Think about you've got one question to ask the Daughter of Bill and Hillary. Are you going there? Just a sad indictment of what we've become as people.
GO CARDS!!!!!!!!
March 27, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the question wasn't about how she felt about an affair or how it had affected her life, but what her opinion was on if it would come up in the GE. And to be honest, I do want to know as a Democrat how Hillary is going to react to any references to her husband's infidelity during the GE (supposing she makes it that far). And now that Chelsea is 28, I would guess that she's certainly capable of giving her opinion on whether or not it would affect her mother as a person or as a candidate.
Certainly I'd ask Hillary that first, but as a college kid, I'm not tracking HRC down to ask her that question, and if the opportunity arises that someone close to her is free, I'll ask them instead.
Maybe you think we should have a little more class and respect for the child involved, and in cases where the child was still a child I'd agree, but Chelsea is a contributing member of society and now that family members of elected officials are credited going into future elections with that experience, I do have an interest (albeit small at this point) in knowing how her father's affair would affect her mother's candidacy.
March 27, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am 42 and would not respond to any questions about an ethical breach by my parents. It is because she is 'their child' not 'a child'.
March 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'm not saying she is required to answer the question, but I don't understand the indignation.
March 27, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your father embarassed your mother in public and I asked you about it how would you feel about the fairness of the question?
March 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well go wank off to Richard Scaife magazines if that's what you need to know. Most of the rest of us are quite happy to discuss more pertinent issues, even if we do get a bit sidetracked at times.
March 27, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa whoa, slow your roll, this is completely pertinent to somebody who might be running for office, and yes, her daughter is in her confidence and might know whether or not any accusations or references made during an extremely important election will derail HRC in any way. Sure, the question is best asked to HRC herself, but Chelsea is there on her behalf.
Also, watching the video, if you're going to assume that the questioner wanted to ask a snarky question to get a pop on CNN, why would they ask a nuanced question? Why not say something that would actually pop? Do you really think college kids are waiting in ambush to manipulate Chelsea Clinton's public image? Is that the reality of the situation to you?
March 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care why they asked the question. It's none of their business. If they don't like it, they can sue her or go vote for a Republican or throw themselves under a truck. I don't care. Chelsea gave a perfectly good answer. We've got a stupid war on and the economy in the tank and we're supposed to revisit Bill Clinton's blowjobs via his daughter? Methinks not. We went down that road.
March 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Bill's infidelity relevant to Hillary's ability to be President?!? Other than as a counter-point when she says stupid things about how she would've left that church even though she never left her adulterous husband, this has no bearing on Hillary's campaign.
(My point is not that she should have left Bill, but that it was a personal decision. Obama's decision was similarly personal, although I suppose I might feel slightly different about it if I thought Rev. Wright was a racist America-hater like some ignorant folk are wont to assume.)
March 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree to disagree. Just hope that your kids never have to answer for you in public.
March 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The student who asked the question is an idiot.
Then again, most people are idiots in college.
March 27, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could eat a mess of Froglegs right now....screen name is making me hungry
March 27, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would anyone want to respond to such a silly and pointless post? And who would recommend such nonsense? I could care less about Chelsea Clinton and I think (or thought) most anyone would agree. If she runs for office, then your opinion will become relevant.
March 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too didn't like Chelsea's answer. The Presidency is OUR business. Bill's shenanigans hurt OUR country, whether we opposed impeachment or not. IT was certainly a distraction.
And she's not a 13 year old who can't be allowed to be asked questions. She's a 28 year old adult woman.
Plus I've already hear her lie once. She was asked about sexism and she brought up the "iron my shirts" stunt. It was actualy a radio station playing a prank. Chelsea spun it as "they were serious" and her being "shocked" by it. So I suspect she is as dishonest as her parents.
The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.....
March 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this was all argued out 10 years ago...but how did bill getting a Bj hurt our country?
March 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on 'Ville, if it was argued out 10 years ago you'd have remembered a lot of people objected to his getting a blowjob in office NOT because of the blowjob, but because of two reasons:
1. Most importantly, his actions after the blowjob, which was to lie and omit and deceive and frustrate. That's not good no matter what the offense was, and he turned a relatively small deal into a really big deal, and that lying made a lot of people uncomfortable (which makes it a lot easier to hate on the hummer).
2. Less importantly, and only because most progressives don't recognize this as PC, it's probably not safe to have the man in charge of the most powerful military and economy in the world with little to no impulse control. Also, we've elected people who have had little sexual impulse control but who've done just fine otherwise, but this still worries your average John Q. Public.
Wow, you're right, I don't remember hearing or saying anything like that in a decade. But it's still important, I'd argue.
March 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you fell of the wagon. Maybe you can crawl back on before it degenerates even further.
March 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your not making sense. That was and is between Bill and Hillary and no one else. K. Starr and et al.....wanted it differently. Why are we rehashing this? Its stupid. Chelsea should have bitch slapped the questioner.
March 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disagreed. Hillary is running on the "I am more electable" platform, which invites the question "do you think its hurts her credibility" and could affect voter decisions in the General. I wouldnt ask it, it doesnt affect my decision, its of questionable character to ask it to her, but the topic is relevant for anyone who has inserted themselves into the stumping, or has a unique perspective. I didnt like the question, she didnt need to answer and it was probably best not to. But, there is an argument that she could take a risk and speak to the sillyness of the connection between their marriage and her credibility. I think the pastor comment, though not a child, is also irrelevant, and Im glad it was dealt with head on, I think it gave a voice to the sillyness, not a curt dismissal.
March 28, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
By his handing his enemies a bludgeon with which to pummel him.
The Clintons are self-indulgent, self-sabotaging, and self-destructive, and it's a poor trait in a "leader", wouldn't you say?
March 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, will you say the same of FDR? JFK? RFK? LBJ?.........your on a slippery slope. No pun intended :)
March 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're giving Bill too much credit. JFK and RFK used to frequent what were essentially whorehouses as part of their travel. The press looked on benignly. They didn't have to be in control. Bill did, and his amount of cavorting is more pathetic than outrageous. If he were only French he could have had a 2nd family while in office.
March 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
ps - I think some of yall are drinking the Kool-aid of the great Clintonian Victimhood. They lash out and kneecap one moment, and then rereat in tears and outrage the next at some perceived offense to their delicate sensibilities. Poor little Chelsea -- 28 year old hedgefund manager -- was put out to deliberately put a pretty innocent face on an ugly ruthless Nixonian campaign.
March 27, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, wonder if Monica is supporting anyone . . .
March 27, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tacky.
Unless you're a GOP Troll, fellow Dems shouldn't attack Hillary with something of which she was an innocent victim. She didn't break her vows, didn't break the law, didn't turn her back on her husband and stuck by him and she didn't break the nation's trust.
March 27, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty unfair. I am an Obama supporter, and I think I am quite typical in thinking that Chelsea was well within her rights to tell that guy to shove off with his Monica question.
It was tacky and inappropriate, and I dare say most people disagree with this poster, regardless of whom they support.
Please don't use such a broad brush -- I don't think it's warranted.
March 27, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
have a moonpie on me jenny
March 27, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I thought this was all argued out 10 years ago...but how did bill getting a Bj hurt our country?"
When Osama bin Laden blew up our embassies in Africa, Bill was hampered by the Monica scandal.
Remember all the "hilarious" wag the dog references? They became less funny after OBL killed 3000 Americans.
The point is that the President can't be bogged down by his sexual problems when lives are at stake.
March 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your quite wrong. Bill was not hampered at all. If you remember he was bombing Sudan, Afghanistan and parts of Iraq trying to get Mr. Bin Laden. Thats why the charges by Hollywood and the Republicans that he was making war to take heat off of Monica was so hurtful and...WRONG. He had his eye on the ball and was so courageous during that time keeping America safe. Lest we forget 9/11 happened on GWB's watch.
March 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
if she cant handle being a surrogate for her mother then she shouldnt be out on the trail
how is info related to her father's impeachment not fair game? it may be nasty but that's life
March 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She handled it just fine, and should keep campaigning for her mom untill her mom withdraws.
March 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
She gave her answer - not nasty but straight forward. That's life. Deal with it.
March 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
At age 15, Chelsea was off limits. As a 28-year-old public representative of the Clinton campaign, Chelsea deserves no more nor less than other public representatives of the campaign, such as Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. Louisville is overreacting. That said, who cares if she's a bitch? She's not running for election (at least not yet).
And a couple of personal anecdotes which give me some sympathy for her. I once shared a table at a coffeeshop with her several years ago. There were no other tables, and I didn't realize that it was her until I asked her if I could share it. She nodded but did not otherwise acknowledge me, which I thought was a little unfriendly, but hey, it's New York. At some point, a woman came over and told Chelsea how much she admired Bill. Chelsea was very gracious and told the woman that it was always nice to hear kind words about her father. But I was thinking that if people were always coming up to me to gurgle about my dad, grace would probably not be my response. And this was a from a supporter. Imagine how many people say nasty things to her. A friend of mine, attending Stanford in the late 90's, once made some lewd joke about Bill in public, only to turn around and find Chelsea right behind him.
In short, it must suck to be Chelsea, so I'm OK with her being a bitch every so often.
March 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Your just wrong. There is nothing to argue. In my mind your wrong...
March 27, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about, "I'm perfectly okay with Chelsea getting angry every so often"? Why does that mean she's a "bitch"?
Besides of which she was rather in control.
March 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "angry" isn't the right word. If you want a non-sexist equivalent, I would use "jerk" or "asshole". And I didn't actually say that she was being a bitch, jerk, or asshole, just that:
1) It's not off-limits to call her one
2) I don't care if she is one
3) I would be if I were her
March 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good response.
And I agree with your view.
March 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Your post is spot on.
March 27, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said, "who cares if she's a bitch".
How about just using the non-sexist version next time without listing the definitions or giving the excuses?
March 28, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about comprehending his explanation instead of going to back to your own interpretation of his words completely out of context. Is it that you're the only one who can use the word without being sexist?
March 28, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't you the one who wrote the "bitch is the new black" diatribe? How do you know that's not how Genghis is using it here? It kind of seems like that to me. Are you the only one who can throw that word around?
March 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah well, no one seemed to pick up on the empowering part, so now we're down to discussing whether a Chelse is a bitch for not evaluating the effects of her father's penis. I've been humbled - I am blogger, hear me whimper.
March 28, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm quite sure that Genghis doesn't mean that at all, but you'd rather be the Rev. Wright of sexism than address facts.
March 28, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, did it ever occur to you that this is just as stupid as rappers constantly calling each other nigger? Did it strike you that this may not be as empowering as you might think? The empowerment idea here is pretty short-sighted. It keeps the word in the lexicon and only the "in" group is allowed to use the word. Case in point right here. Genghis apparently can't use it even though he doesn't mean it in a sexist way whatsoever, but you're apparently allowed to throw it around willy-nilly. Those outside the group don't ever quite see it or hear it in the "empowered" context, at least not in the way that the "in" group is using it. In the long run, this reinforces the original division though an us/them mentality.
March 28, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply |