Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
When parents set bad example!
Sigh.
Note how smoothly the former first child can lie:
http://www.primetimepolitics.com/primetime/site/video/chelsea_clinton_questioned_on_bosnia_sniper_fire/
This is why dynasty-style politics must end.
Yes, I'm calling Chelsea Clinton a liar. Although she is clever to hide behind her mother being "on record".
Advertisement
Comments (15)
Oh, I don't know I'd go so far as to say she's lying about it as much as her mother... she's more pushing the responsibility of answering the question off onto her mother.
Thing is, she's in a pretty tough position. Let's say she thought her mom blew it. She can't say that, it would be splattered all over the news for days. She'd get an earful from her mother, who would never, ever let it go, and would likely spend the rest of her natural life blaming Chelsea if she loses the nomination.
Chelsea, for her own livelihood and sanity, really has no other choice than to answer as she did.
At least her deflection was better than her mother's - instead of throwing mud or double-speaking about "mis-spoke", she deflected and said she'd like to talk about the future rather than the past. Avoidance, obviously, but like I said I don't think Chelsea had any other choice. It's to her credit, I suppose, that she recognized that.
March 25, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd second all that. Chelsea did not lie, she merely deflected. I see nothing wrong with that in this case. She didn't want to talk about it and for good reason.
I still respect Chelsea, and I actually hope she does have a successful political career.
March 25, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? There is nothing particularly extraordinary about her (except a genetic link to previous power).
March 25, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm definitely no Chelsea expert, but what I've heard of (and from) her mildly impresses me. She's a good speaker and intelligent. Obviously she's well connected, as well. That she didn't actually lie and merely passed on the question suggests to me that her character is reasonably sound. That she didn't rat her mom out suggests to me that she's also reasonably savvy.
March 25, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting: 1st that her mother can be "ratted out" implies you think HRC lied.
And then when Chelsea supports the lie, that is deemed savvy, but not an issue of character.
I understand why you may think Chelsea Clinton was in a tough spot (she was, because she had to defend a lie), but what really scares me is that you hope she may become a politician. I suspect you are one of many.
Keep electing those from the most privileged classes or known names. It's thinking like this that gave us Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, GWB... and may yet give us HRC.
March 26, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Another triangulated politician is born. ;-)
I do like how others in the room (including Chelsea) felt the topic was somehow not proper.
March 25, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't follow Ben here that I'd like to see her have a successful political career. I'm not saying that Ben necessarily falls into this category, but I've noticed that there is a certain cult of personality surrounding the Clintons among Democrats. Maybe it comes from the defensive loyalty that was engendered in supporters by the rabid attacks of the right throughout the 90s. The fact is Chelsea Clinton has lead an intentionally private life, which is her right, but this leaves us knowing little about what kind of person she is. She went to Stanford and Oxford and now works for a hedge fund in NYC. Okay, but what, other than her last name, says that anyone might like to see her engage in public service?
Curiously, there's another question related to mother's recent proclamations of experience that hasn't quite panned out and I'd like to hear an answer from Chelsea, though this is unlikely because she has a policy of refusing to answer questions from the press. It is the question of Northern Island, the topic of her undergraduate thesis. Specifically, it was about her father's role in mediating the Belfast Agreement. I would be most interested to see someone ask her, after having had such access and doing the quality of research and work required of her Stanford, whether she finds her mother's portrayal of her involvement to be accurate? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if she "deflected" that question as well?
March 26, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the video closely. Every time she continues to answer the question, she takes another sidestep (literally sidestepping the issue!) away from the speaker.
Chelsea is working the hedge fund (an incredibly lucrative job) because of family connections. I dare say her name helped getting into Stanford and Oxford as well. Silver spoon and all.
What's amazing to me is that most at TPM would trounce on GWB's jobs prior to governorship as being handed to him by daddy, but these same people are blind to the same thing from the Dem side.
Now *that* is the emotional infantilism that Josh spoke of. Of course, applying this to the Dems as well as the GOP is something that makes many here uncomfortable.
Power is power. There are enlightened leaders, but no enlightened parties. I just posted a similar comment here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/oh-that-way-madness-lies-1.php
The exuberance over the Dems is a bit sickening. That's what makes Obama so refreshing: "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and all that.
Yeah, just words.
You make a good point, DF, about nabbing Chelsea's thesis. I know all grad theses are publicly accessible... don't know about Stanford undergrad theses. Maybe it was ghost written by Ted Sorenson:
"Why Ireland Slept"
March 26, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: American Theocracy, did you ever happen to come across this piece in Mother Jones?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
It's interesting to see so many Clinton supporters getting incensed along with the likes of Sean Hannity (Fox has been running a non-stop "story" about Obama's "campaign crisis") over the comments of Jeremiah Wright. He said some things that were perhaps inflammatory, but nothing he said is quite as bone-chilling to me as the evangelical movement. Liberation theology is far less frightening to me than back-room theocracy.
March 26, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
File under: do anything, say anything.
HRC is about as religious as Ronald Reagan.
Oops! There I go again. ;-)
Thanks for the link, DF, I'm passing it along to some other folks.
Are you "enjoying" AMERICAN THEOCRACY? (I use quotes since it's hard to enjoy that book... as in feel good about things in it...!)
March 26, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am "enjoying" it. :)
March 26, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: HRC and religion
Hmmm... I guess it's okay to be hyper-religious... so long as you go to a white church! Interesting!
March 26, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There a number of humanists on the web that have speculated that Obama is less a religious man and more of a crypto-humanist. His mother was a vocal atheist. Of course, there's no way that you can near the White House without being Christian. Wishful thinking? Perhaps...
March 26, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Al Franken will include Chelsea and Hillary in his book sequel: "Lying Liars and the Liars who Tell Them: How the Clintons Lied Their Way Right Out of Another Presidency."
March 26, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this even a democracy when our political echelons are filled with family names like Rockefeller, Kennedy, Bush and Clinton??? When will we get over this infatuation with political "royalty" and start electing outstanding candidates who are able to overcome the odds, come out of nowhere to trounce the established, moneyed power elite? It's making a mockery of the War of Independence and the Magna Carta, might as well go for the real deal, the Windsors.
March 26, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment