Ick. I hope I didn't get any on me.

Okay let's just hope that the Republicans will be just as decent if Her Majesty steals and loots this election.

this is an absolutely insulting post.

It figures it would be a college student that would ask Chelsea this question. They haven't had enough life to actually see things other than black and white, right and wrong.

Many couple who have gone through similar circumstances in more privacy came out the end stronger. Only people who live in their judgments that someone has to be worse than them so they can be right, would ask such a questions of this young lady.

She gave the perfect answer and only the lack of full frontal lobe development probably prevented the kid that answered the question from actually understanding how inane and inappropriate the question was.

Tacky.

I doubt this is a college student. This is another drive-by blogger and I wish Josh could remove the post. Don't know what the rules are but there are some things that misrepresent the views of the community here.

This is one of them.

I don't agree that Chelsea should be asked this question or any other relating to Lewinsky. Have we lost all propriety? It's her parent's business, ask them. Don't really see what Lewinsky has to do with this primary race at all.

I am interested in Chelsea being asked why she campaigns very publically for her mother but refuses to talk to the press. I think that is a live issue and one to which Chelsea can speak to personally.

Lewinsky, Bill Clinton and the legacy of right-wing Hillary hatred may be a weakness---but that doesn't have anything to do with Chelsea Clinton, who doesn't deserve to be harrassed over the fallibility of her father and the pain inflicted on her mother.

Nothing will be gained by Democrats going after Chelsea on that issue.

However, BOTH Senator Hillary Clinton AND Chelsea Clinton are vulnerable on the key Constitutional issue of our time--and of the last 60+ years.

Chelsea Clinton fielded a question in Madison, Wisconsin about the lack of evidence for invading Iraq, Bush's lies about WMD, and Senator Hillary Clinton's behavior as measured against the Constitutional job description mandated to Senators as members of the Legislative Branch.

Chelsea retorted that "I'm glad you had clairvoyance; not everyone had that luxury."

I submit this attitude goes straight to the heart of everything that's wrong with this country, from its emasculated military to its eviscerated rule of law to its disemboweled economic power.

Chelsea was fundamentally unresponsive to an on-point question, relevant to the one major issue of the day, and dismissive to the valid concern of a fellow American citizen, in this case a college student. Whether it was snide or sarcastic, I couldn't say. But I can say it was offensive, irresponsible, enormously insulting, and wholly dishonest.

Why? All Hillary Clinton had to do was pick up a newspaper to know George Bush was lying to Congress and to the American people. Article after article after article discredited and debunked, in real time, Bush's manufactured assertions about aluminum tubes, bioweapons, WMD, and nukes. In real time. Newsweek. Multiple newspapers. On and on and on.

Greg Thielmann and Houghton Woods, State Dept. analysts, came right out and publicly stated, pre-war, that the aluminum tubes could not have been intended for or used for enriching uranium.

In Newsweek.

So which rubes does Chelsea Clinton think she was addressing? Madison is a politically hyper-aware city, with multiple thousands of people tracking those lies, debunking evidence and media narratives on a minute-to-minute basis.

If I can pick up a newspaper as America is muscled into an illegal war, then so can the Honorable Senator Clinton, (D?-NY).

Even more to the point: Hillary Clinton is a Yale Law School graduate, and the Constitution explictly mandates that Congress weigh the evidence, debate the justness of the cause, and Declare War--if circumstances call for war. And if that's not required for an offensive war for which there is no provocation and no evidence, then when SHALL Congress stop living in a T.S. Eliot poem ("shall I eat a peach?"), get up off its coddled and self-entitled collective assets, adn do its job?

If Hillary Clinton had done her job as a Senator, instead of chasing after George Bush with a rubber stamp, she would've been the Democratic nominee this year---instead of a historical footnote.

Adopting the Establishment's stance---100% anti-thetitical to the foundational core that defines America---that the Constitution is irrelevant and no one need live up to it in practice, is precisely what's wrong with Hillary Clinton's candidacy. I guess they teach sophistry in Yale Law School, and with it the active subversion of the Cosntitution.

It's really the only conclusion. But it is 180-degrees in error, for it allows the U.S. to commit all the same "entangling alliances" Washington and Jefferson warned us against, and repeat all the same mistakes that cost King George III the Colonies and jump-started the Revolution in 1776 in the first place.

>But Hillary's mistaken if she thinks D.C.'s hemophiliac aristocracy will let her in just because she buddies up to BOTH Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife (who financed Bill Clinton's downfall)---

--because Sally Quinn, self-appointed defender of D.C.'s politesse and etiquette---and yes, the whole country choked on Quinn's blatant hypocrisy--just went after Chelsea Clinton on Harry Smith's TV show. Said she was fair game--specifically, even when it came to Bill's adultery.

So to the original poster--if YOU want to join Sally Quinn and David Broder and John Harris and Doyle McManus, be my guest.

But never let it be said a Constitutional Restoration wasn't in order---nor that you, or Chelsea or Hillary, were ever part of the solution.