March 25, 2008 02:05 PM
Chelsea Clinton Smacks Down Butler Univ. Student: Lewinsky "None Of Your Business"
While campaigning for her mother Tuesday at Butler University in Indianapolis, Chelsea Clinton fielded a question from a student that she obviously had no intention of answering. Kudos to the former first daughter for handling the situation with class.
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Scarce)
"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."
PRIMERO!
Now if only she could tell her mother to drop out.
Well...Chelsea sure has grown into a fine young woman.
And good for her for stopping that BS in it's tracks!
If only her father would have answered the same way. None of your business!
Good on you, Chelsea! I'm an Obama backer, but I still have love in my heart for the Clinton family and its nice to finally hear one of them counter one of these bastards.
Yay now we can wait for FAUX to spin this negatively sometime today.
My suggestion.....
"Chelsea viciously attacks innocent student over brave Lewinsky question."
Looks like Chelsea isn't ready for prime time yet. Why do people still treat her like a 13 year old living with mommy and daddy in the White House?
Anyways, CBS Reports on Chelsea's "special rules".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/26/politics/main3968878.shtml
Her mother would be proud. She answers questions like Hillary does. She doesn't. It was a legitimate question.
Do they not think the Repugs are not going to bring this up? Of course they will. What are they going to campaign across the nation saying "that's none of your business" every time a question arises?
I do think a better question would have been "Why did your mother blatantly lie about sniper fire, and why did you not set the record straight since you were there?"
Why is none of our business? Its all about Hillary's judgement. It all happened when she was in oval office.
Funny part is, according to CNN.com, it was a Clinton supporter asking the question! Why not just answer "No"?
Unless a person considers People Magazine hard news or believes the tabloids, this sort of crap just isn't relevant.
I'd like to see a woman named Clinton in the WH - Chelsea in 2020.
Gallup has a new poll out:
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McC...
All these Clinton backers would rather see John McBush choose the next 2-3 Supreme Court nominees?
They'd rather see McBush choosing a cabinet of his liking which may very well include the same neo-con artists who've been foisted upon us for the past eight years?
They want to continue occupying Iraq for a hundred years because Obama's former minister spoke some ugly truths about the current state of the country?
They want to see their civil and privacy rights diminished even more because of their longing for four more years of a President Clinton?
They want another Republican who is beholden to the Christian Fundamentalist right wing and the FOX news crowd as their president until 2012?
They are willing to sign off on torture as official U.S. policy rather than have a progressive and popular Democrat become president?
Truly pathetic, childish and self destructive behavior as I see it.
She is a lovely young lady who has endured a lot in her life. Horrible attacks, like those which came from senile warmonger John "Gramps" McCain when she was a young girl.
typical wingnut, after 6 years of the chimp's administration thumbing their noses at the rule of law all they can think of is Monica. Pathetic.
Arrow @ 7:
I wonder that myself. The woman is almost 30 and treated like she is 3. I think she has dealt with, and can deal with questions surrounding her father's girlfriends/trysts over the years.
What was the actual question about Monica Lewinsky? Couldn't you have at least linked to that?
Depends on the content and context of the question. Some aspects of the scandal are relevant and are our business. Specifically, the way the whole administration handled itself. Those same people are now running the Clinton campaing - can we expect more stonewalling and bunker mentality instead of fortrightness from a Hillary Presidency?
Hillary Clinton publicly questions Obama's judgment for staying in his church for 20 years. Chelsea Clinton thinks it's nobody's business to question her mother's judgment for sticking with a husband who repeatedly humiliates her by sticking his pudding-pop in every random bimbo. Chelsea Clinton has inherited the hypocrisy and moral double standards of her parents.
"If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain"
That is a shocking number. Shockingly low. I had always assumed 100% of Hillary supporters wanted a McCain presidency.
I have always liked Chelsea. Good answer to a stupid question.
deezus @ 5:
Deezus:
Thank you for understanding that one doesn't have to trash the Clintons and re-write the Clinton presidency in order to support Obama. Good on you!
unfrozencaveman @ 16:
Seems like a valid question to me.
I thought she was very adult about it. A lot of things may call into question Hillary credibility, but how she handled the Monica matter isn't one of them.
BoyWonder @ 2:
I'd rather see her half ass competition drop out.. the one doing more harm to this country than bush has ever done. And what business is it of this smarty pants in the audience to bring this into the conversation.
Why doesn't someone ask obama why he accepted his financing of his home from Auchi the Iraqi crook and Rezko the Chicago gangster. Now THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CAMPAIGN...but of course if it don't have sex this stupid bunch of people in this country ignore and I do mean stupid.
Chelsea had every right to smack down that bullshit TMZ question.
I have to give some kudos to the Clintons. Chelsea's smackdown comes on the heels of Hillary's definitive and prompt response to the housing slump. Though I don't necessarily agree with her on it, she is the only candidate who has actually addressed the issue with more than a "we should look into it more" (McCain) or Obama's milktoast response (so weak I cannot even remember it right now). Again, I am not a Hill supporter but I am impressed with their courage and willingness to admit to mistakes. Obama has shown me only retreat (Rev. Wright) and platitudes.
yellow dog @ 11:
I think Jeb Bush has dibs at the Presidency before Chelsea, but down the road I'm sure she'll get her turn.
Yeah, I agree with the people who are saying she gets treated like she is 3. You want to get into the political arena, it's hot. Was it a dumb question, absolutely, please don't also feed me the baloney that just because she is a "college" aged kid the college kids should fawn over her. She's not running for president, her entrenched, power hungry Mom is. Go away Bushes, go away Clintons. PLEASE!!
Excuse me ... if the question was asking her what she thought when it happened, or what Monica-gate did to her when it happened, I think her answer was great -- but that wasn't what was asked. She was asked a POLITICAL question, and I for one am getting fed up with Chelsea still being treated as if she was 12. She's not. She's 28, she's campaigning actively for her mom, she's answering questions about her mother's potential policies in front of reporters ... she is, in part, an operative, and she should answer questions just like any other operatives do.
If Chelsea's putting herself out there on the campaign trail, she oughta then be open to questions. I don't think that question was out of bounds at all -- it was about the perception of her mother -- and the only reason she could get away with such a curt question is that she knows she's not going to be pushed.
Sorry, but if you're on the campaign trail, you open yourself up to be pushed. Chelsea's an adult. Ask her the questions.
sam @ 22:
Really? She never questioned her husband but stated publicly it was nothing more than a rightwing attack and Monica was a liar, and you think that doesn't damage her credibility?
Arrow @ 7:
why are you so interested in something that really is no one's business? And don't give me nonsense it reflects on Sen. Clinton's so-calleld credibilty. Why not call McCain out on his violating campaign finance laws?? THAT is what is important. Not her father's sex life.
Marge @ 23:
Obama can't answer questions right now because he is under sniper attacks with that liar Sinbad.
Chelsea,
Unbelievably
Nice
Talking Point.
ConcernedCanuck @ 8:
I guess we should be gratefull that they didn't block off all the exits but one, set fire to the place, and shoot everyone who tried to excape out the one exit.
I can't believe people are still dwelling on that.
Get over it America, it's over and done with...
move along now.
if you think about it -- what she said doesn't even make any sense...
what a joke. the clinton's are simply making me ill, which is ashame, i really liked them before her and obama squared off...then her true colors came out.
she was right.
Can't stand Hillary, can't stand Bill, but that's because of their triangulation, DLC ties, disgusting campaign tactics, GOP-lite policies, their subtle racism against Obama, their near endorsement of McCain, and their generally childish attitude. Monica has little to do with it.
tr @ 355:
seriously....how many new grads get high paying jobs at a top hedge fund
its good to be connected, and truly shows that the clintons are now as much out of touch as the bushes
shit, at least the bush twins try and put on a good show with their teaching and trips to 3rd world countries
Isome @ 357:
no as a matter of fact the guys a democrat and hes acording to my local news from my home town of evansville indiana , he said he ment no offence by the question , he was just wondering how monica affected hillerys chances in the election!
You just fell for the Clinton's hypocrisy and spin. I thought you were smarter than that.
as a voter it is our business if they want our vote.
I would have replied by saying so and then tearing up the check at the fundraiser or asking for my money back if it was a paid event.
The voters decide what is their business not the candidates or their surrogates.
cant be talking about me i dont like clinton or obama or mccslut!
The Clinton campaign has a total hands-off policy regarding Chelsea-- no interviews, no questions from the press.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If she is out campaigning for her mother, she is subject to the same rules that apply to any surrogate of the candidate.
Still, it's nice to see the Clintons so protective of their 28 year old daughter.
If you can't ask Chelsea a question without the Clintons going ballistic, just think what they would have done if, when she was say a 22 year old intern, the 49 year old CEO of the company used her as a sexual toy?
Too bad they forgot that Monica was somebody else's 22 year old daughter when Bill took advantage and the whole Clinton team geared up to destroy her--until the blue dress evidence made that smear campaign pointless.
Tony Iovino @ 368:
yeah bill pulled a cigar on her and forced her to go down on him!!!!the cad
Che's Lounge @ 86:
Go vote for Clinton, Lounge. If you think you're an Obama supporter, you're truly on the chronic. Platitudes and retreat? Please.
I can't stand it when people try to dignify their political POV by bashing the candidate they claim to "support" while simultaneously propping the one they pretend to oppose.
And what happens when you call them on it? You get the well thought out and eloquent response quoted above.
Seeing the responses on this video says a lot about the current state of American politics.
There are a lot of people out there who seem to care about idiotic nonsense... but real issues...
...that's just too boring. (sarcasm)
Where are the complaints regarding McCain's disregard of campaign finance laws?
A video where a woman basically tells an obnoxious person to mind their own business gets seven times more responses than a video about a presidential candidate's breaking of a law.
What is this world coming too?
I think it because people watch too many bad T.V. shows.
There's more to life than reality' television.
Welcome to Bizarro World
Where liberals who were once appalled that Clinton was impeached for a blow job are now doing the republican's jobs for them and even going after his daughter....
All because it's politically convenient..
jeez... It just goes to show that its not only the right wing nutjobs who've lost thier moral compasses
Well put, Chelsea. Bravo.
ConcernedCanuck @ 8:
This is the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. Just sayin'. You seem like a smart enough person, but when it comes to Hillary Clinton she can never do anything right - and even her daughter is guilty by association. That you even pretend this is a legitimate question shows that when it comes to Hillary Clinton, you and FOX News are of the same mind.
qwert @ 366:
And the Sense of Entitlement continues. Yes, you should be entitled to every dirty, personal secret and situation their family deals with. If you ask Chelsea what colour her panties are, she should damn well tell you, or you'll throw a fit.
The whole thing, in my mind, smacks of that sort of perversity.
Joseph @ 356:
Thanks for your compliment. While I favour Obama over Hillary by a significant margin, I despise the way people throw logical reasoning out the window when an election comes along. No matter how agreeably a campaign starts, before long people start thinking their candidate can turn water to wine and the opponent is blood kin to Satan. I don't see it as in the interest of either candidate when the process is reduced to such a puerile level. There are a lot of reasons why Hillary would be a good president, and in my opinion alot of reasons she would be a bad president. But when the press has decided the story line ahead of time and then fit the coverage to it, then the process is fucked. I was reading about a month ago about a incident in which Hillary went into the bus for the press that follows her around, to give them coffee and donuts. Not a single journalist would even say a word to her. Here they have the perfect opportunity to do their jobs and ask anything they want to her and instead they are acting like a bunch of immature highschool students snubbing the unpopular girl. How is that good for anyone?
Joseph @ 356:
I agree. And I believe that Hillary Clinton's deadly sin is not being nearly as attractive or charismatic as Barack Obama. They've both employed questionable tactics at times, and even said questionable things. But because Obama is so much more convincing, Hillary Clinton looks like chopped liver comparatively. It doesn't matter that behind closed doors, they're both strategic and they are both ambitious, or that when you look at their records they're nearly identical. It doesn't matter that they've both spent a good chunk of their lives fighting for progressive causes. No, what matters is that in front of the camera, Obama's an angel and Clinton is an evil hag.
I really wish I understood where the hatred for Hillary Clinton was coming from. While I agree with Bill Maher (who observed that anyone who hates Hillary Clinton has a personal problem they need to work out), I'm still at a loss for words. I cannot help but think that ingrained sexism has a part to play, considering that the role of the Woman and the role of the Politician are almost diametrically opposed. A woman with power, showing that she's out to win and doesn't need a man's approval? I think, on some subconscious level, people respond poorly to that. And yes, even women can be programmed to respond this way. Take a look at how society treats feminists and the resentment men and women feel toward anyone who self-applies the label. And yes, I'm rambling - but you get my point. People don't want to like Hillary Clinton in the same way they don't want to hear anything negative about Barack Obama (since it's a buzzkill).
Meat @ 377:
Exactly so, and reducing the candidates to Messiah or Satan does nothing to illuminate the issues. It is merely projecting what you want on the candidates, and taken to its most absurd extent it leads people to say things like Chelsea is telegenic and is able to answer questions.....Chelsea for president
When asked in a recent interview about the neverending American casualties in Iraq, Cheney replied to the effect, “So? They volunteered.” Callous and arrogant.
When Chelsea, who loves her parents and goes out on the stump for them, is harassed about long-ago personal issues of her parents, Obama partisans reply to the effect, “So? She volunteered. Fair game.” Same callousness and same arrogance.
I have seen all my favorite progressive blogs overwhelmed by merciless Obama partisans who distort and disparage every single movement and utterance of Hillary Clinton. Every headline about her is given a negative slant. This is the tactic used by the neocons: shout out discourse with a raucous cacophony of phony issues. If Obama supporters really believe that Obama is ahead and that his character is superior, then take the high road. Save your vitriol and invective for the neocons who are really ruining our country.
Amen Lacie -
But, I suspect many of the so-called Obama supporters are really just good ole Freepers jonesing to rehash their 90's talking points.
Andy K Jong Il @ 52:
The guy who asked the question of Chelsea was on Olbermann tonight and he stated his question was asked to reveal what Hillary's state of mind was at the time of a very stressful situation and how she dealt with it - how did it make her stronger. A legit question if true since Hillary has made much of her readiness to assume the Presidency. He also stated (over the shouting of the talking heads) that he never mentioned Monica Lewinski. He tried several times to get this point across but was shouted down each time. The problem is this isn't much of a story without Ms. Lewinsky. It's more 'newsworthy' if there is a sexual connotation. Even Olbermann ignored the man after he denied using Lewinsky's name and he wasn't called on to comment anymore. Later in the show, Jonathan Alter (I think, or Dana Milbank) made a very telling general observation about media coverage of the campaign. Basically he said that most of the things everyone is so excited about are non-issues but the media is in such a feeding frenzy that they have to play up every misstatement and faux pas by the candidates in order to sell shiny things to the masses (I paraphrase). They've got us hooked and they have to keep us coming back for more. If this cannibalism lasts much longer the Democratic Party will again succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Good for her. This shit has nothing to do with politics, but here we go again. WTF does Bill Clinton getting a blow job have to do with Hillary Clinton running for president? And why ask Chelsea to talk out in the open about really personal stuff?
Ask Hillary herself if you want to know, and guess what? She'll give the same answer.
What kind of answer do people expect?
"Oh wow, my husband was cheating on me and got caught and made an ass of himself in front of the entire world, but I didn't feel humiliated in the least."
I agree with azdanno @ 381, if these shenanigans don't stop between Obama and Clinton, the Republicans will win the White House again. The more time they waste going after each other, the more votes McCain gets.
The guy who asked the question of Chelsea was on Olbermann tonight and he stated his question was asked to reveal what Hillary's state of mind was at the time of a very stressful situation and how she dealt with it - how did it make her stronger. A legit question if true since Hillary has made much of her readiness to assume the Presidency. He also stated (over the shouting of the talking heads) that he never mentioned Monica Lewinski. He tried several times to get this point across but was shouted down each time. The problem is this isn't much of a story without Ms. Lewinsky. It's more 'newsworthy' if there is a sexual connotation. Even Olbermann ignored the man after he denied using Lewinsky's name and he wasn't called on to comment anymore. Later in the show, Jonathan Alter (I think, or Dana Milbank) made a very telling general observation about media coverage of the campaign. Basically he said that most of the things everyone is so excited about are non-issues but the media is in such a feeding frenzy that they have to play up every misstatement and faux pas by the candidates in order to sell shiny things to the masses (I paraphrase). They've got us hooked and they have to keep us coming back for more. If this cannibalism lasts much longer the Democratic Party will again succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
so this guy went on Olberman to ask the question he should've asked in the first place? that reeks of a Republican plant, unless his claim of not
mentioning her name is true. hard to tell anymore. it's easy to say you're a supporter of whoever, whether true or not.
for that matter, how do any of us truly know ANY of the candidates are telling the truth about anything?
we don't. none of us can predict the future. after all, it is campaign season.
for all we know McStain might be pandering just to get the republican nomination, only to end the war once in office. extremely doubtful, but remotely possible (used as for illustrative purposes only, not a supporter. not ever).
i can understand attacking Bill, but this is ridiculous. i will never vote for Hillary, but remember, Hillary was not the one who cheated. period. that gives her some credibility, when it comes to marital problems at least.
Maybe it's just me, but I swear this C&L has a hidden bias for the Clinton's. I generally enjoy the content of the site, but it bothers me a bit. The fact this story was presented as some sort of (Chelsea) Clinton "smack down" when it could easily be seen as a neutral, not worthy for a news post, comment, or it could have been said her language was a bit condescending and cold. On top of that is the refusal to say or display almost any negative comments or videos of Clinton, in the guise that the site is neutral until someone is selected. Apparently, it doesn't matter if Clinton is tearing the party apart and has no chance in hell of winning the nomination.
dr girlfriend @ 383:
dr girlfriend Says
so this guy went on Olberman to ask the question he should've asked in the first place? that reeks of a Republican plant, unless his claim of not
mentioning her name is true. hard to tell anymore. it's easy to say you're a supporter of whoever, whether true or not.
for that matter, how do any of us truly know ANY of the candidates are telling the truth about anything?
we don't. none of us can predict the future. after all, it is campaign season.
for all we know McStain might be pandering just to get the republican nomination, only to end the war once in office. extremely doubtful, but remotely possible (used as for illustrative purposes only, not a supporter. not ever).
i can understand attacking Bill, but this is ridiculous. i will never vote for Hillary, but remember, Hillary was not the one who cheated. period. that gives her some credibility, when it comes to marital problems at least.
messed up on comment #383, you couldn't tell who said what! sorry.
Clintons? Class? Surely, Sir, you must be joking.
When Americans spent the better part of a couple of years listening to every Clinton innuendo, the hounding of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky, court cases, opinions from everybody and his brother, and endless books on the subject, and last but not least the impeachment of a sitting president, how is it NOT our business?
how about we stop using silly, childish phrases like "smacks down" when we mean "responds to."
Chelsea needs to shut up and go home. how in the hell do you go stump for your mother, a candidate for president, and routinely refuse to take questions? and then when you get one you don't like, refuse to answer, and be rude about it at the same time. this privileged, overpaid little tart needs to grow up. people on this board have asked why she is treated as if she were 12 years old. well, because she acts like it, and demands it. you put yourself out there you need to accept the good with the bad, the hard with the easy, the praise with the scorn. that's part of the job. you don't get to pick and choose. you don't like it? then stay home.
and shame on the media for not going after her on this. she received a pass when she was a kid and not involved, and rightly so, but now that she is involved, and all grown up, she is fair game.
Ask this back Chelsea.
I dunno, do you think that the Right Wing Smear machine, fronted by Karl Rove which forced Mr. McCain to lose his 2000 Presidential bid by publically questioning his black daughter's roots, will hurt his chances this time around?
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE ASKED? HOW ABOUT THIS ONE, NOW THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED THAT YOUR ONLY PATH TO THE WHITE HOUSE NOW INCLUDES THE SABOTAGE OF THE 2008 DEM. NOMINEE, HOW DO YOU PLAN TO WIN BACK JADED DEMOCRATS IN 2012?
DrWolfy @ 350:
The Clintons like a good head.
Hillary definitely comes with baggage, any way you slice it. Just a fact.
Personally, I don't blame Chelsea for answering that question as she did because I'm sick to death myself of hearing people bring up Lewinsky after all this time and especially when it is at best only tenuously relevant to Hillary Clinton's candidacy -- I for one don't understand why a husband's infidelity necessarily jeopardizes the wife's credibility, since this seems to suggest that she's in some way responsible for his behavior. However, I think a better response would have been something along the lines of "May I ask why you think that question is relevant at this time?" as a form of verbal jujitsu. With such an answer, she would have unexpectedly put the onus back on him and perhaps prompted him to explain himself -- which would have shed some light on whether his motivation for asking the question was truly as legitimate as he claims it was. If he countered by asking her why she wasn't answering the question, she could have replied by asking why he wouldn't answer hers!
J @ 384:
Hahahahahahahahaha
You have to be kidding me.
Biddut Miah @ 9:
Hillary's judgement? Oh yes, it was stupid on her part to let Bill hide in a pantry and receive oral sex from an intern.
Yes, stupid Hillary. Jeebus I don't even want her for pres and this is just the stupidest comment I've read here in a long time.
Are you a troll or an Obama hit person?
Charles @ 18:
I wonder how many of those "Clinton Backers" are cross-over repugs?
Libertas @ 30:
Yeah, it's okay... Don't worry, I have a feeling that poor little Chelsea won't have to be exposed to these meany questions for much longer anyways. ;)
samdog @ 33:
Get the Clinton's back in the Oral Office.
deezus @ 5:
I've never had any use for Slick Willy or the Power Obsessed Hillary, but I'm very impressed with young Chelsea. What didn't break her certainly made her stronger.
Good on you Chelsea!!
Maybe instead of this meaningless clip reminding up of the purient Clinton years, C & L should show the clip of daughter Clinton spewing the lies of her mother.
goat hussein sage @ 12:
The Republicans are counting on IDOTS to vote for McCain. They will keep playing the Wright video and they will be do it. Unless we keep reminding of the consequences.
None of our business? I must have no class. She was asked:
To pretend that her father's dick headed behavior has no effect on American politics or the credibility of the woman who elected to remain married to him seems silly on the face of it.
I'm sure it is difficult when your own father pissed away his Presidency and then tries to redeem himself by electing his wife.
I'm sure that Chelsea feels very loyal to her mother and probably to her father too. But she's an adult, fully aware of sex, sin, fidelity and infidelity, and the way in which these private matters become very public when you are the President.
Her response is a canned response, well rehearsed for just the moment when it was asked.
We all know that the right tried to destroy Clinton over this issue, and that was terrible and unjustified. But Clinton made himself vulnerable, and Hillary is heir to the mess he created.
In particular her mother's credibility in terms of insisting that Obama distance himself from a certain angry Pastor is deeply compromised by the fact that she did not distance herself from a certain horny President. The question was RIGHT on target, and her response was of course to say "it's just a personal matter." But Hillary has made personal relationships into political matters over the Wright issue, so really, how dare the Clintons say their personal lives aren't political matters that reflect on their credibility.
Good for her for being a loyal daughter and playing the political game well... but too bad she demonstrates she's just another member of the win at all costs Clinton clan... and never mind the hypocrisy.
ConcernedCanuck @ 21:
Absolutely. Hillary is a brilliant woman and I find it impossible to believe that she did not figure out that Bill fooled around with Monica until he told it to her face way after the whole blue dress incidient. For all those women out there with serial cheating husbands - do you really still give them the benefit of the doubt?
We now know Hillary's penchant for remembering incidents as she prefers to remember them. Why didn't Hillary lobby her husband to come clean? Imagine what legistlation etc. might have happened if the whole afair had just gone away. Hillary chose to fight and that was America's loss. Sorry, the question was relevant. A really lame post by C&L here.
She's looking pretty hot.
Chelsea is absolutely right. It's none of our fucking business (words Chelsea SHOULD have used) how she and her mother handled the affair. This is why the Dems cannot win in Nov. This petty bullshit is just a distraction and stupid Dems play right into it every goddamn time.
We'll get McCain and we deserve him.
Ask yourself a couple questions: (1) Do you think that Bill Clinton spoke to his wife about the ML issue before he went out and lied about it? I think the answer is likely "Yes". (2) Having discussed this with his wife, it was their joint decision to lie about the matter. (3) Now, faced with that information and the recent examples of her (...let's give her a little) ...misstatements... do you think that maybe she's a liar or that she just has bad judgment? Either way, I think the American public have a right to know. So the question was fair and the reply was ridiculous. Chelsea treated a supporter like trash instead of simply saying that she didn't think that it had damaged her mother's credibility.
Chelsea is an operative on the dems' side and she dodged a question just like when Dick Cheney gave the "I'll kill ya !" look to Wolf Blitzer when asked about his gay daughter's lifestyle not seeming in alignment with the "values" that got Bush/Cheney elected. Chelsea , the operative, dodged a legitimate question. Now the story snowballs as you see. Chelsea didn't make it go away. Thank you Chelsea ! Thank you Hillary !! Thank you Nancy Pelosi ! Here comes President McCain ! Here comes the Iran War. It's all over for the USA. It's PAYBACK TIME ! The Rise and FALL of the USA Empire. Chelsea,Hillary, and Bill .....go on ya' all ....Keep helping the man McCain get into the Whitehouse. He's probably already picking out the sheets for his Whitehouse bad while the Clinton family is running interference on Obama. It's hillarious to watch. P.S. : I don't live in the U.S.
When I come on this site and read the comments posted by the obama fan club, I can smell the mendacity through the computer screen. When Chelsea got a hostile question framed in the subjunctive, she knew better than to answer. I saw the young man later who asked the question; he claimed to be a BIG Hillary supporter. HORSEPISS No Sen Hillary Clinton supporter would ever ask Hillary or her daughter a monica question...EVER So obama fan club, do all the political attacks on your guy's competition as you wish, just lay off the daughter. You do not see clinton people ragging on Michelle's words. The press maybe, not us. And like it or not Hillary is not a woman cowering in fear of combat; she is going to take this fight to the convention floor in Denver. She is going to make obama and the democratic party leadership tell Floirda and Michigan : YOUR VOTES DO NOT COUNT..you do not to get to have SUFFRAGE. don't believe me??--- She was on Fox last night being interviewed by Gretta...and that is exactly what she declared.
Just reading these comments. Have ugly americans always been this stupid about everything, forever? Honest to Christ I used to really like the Clintons, but now I hate them, even more then Bush. There has been enough damage to the homeland by the Bushs and Clintons. Wake the heck up America. regards
Handled the situation with class???? I totally disagree. I thought her attitude was very snotty. It was a very legit question. It wasn't personal. It was asking if Hillary is up to the task to be President. It probably should have been asked of Hillary and not to the daughter. But the daughter is out there stumping for her mom and that's part of politics. Just like Bill said yesterday, this is politics, if you can't handle it you shouldn't be running. But it's no surprise the Clinton campaign is saying one thing on one hand and the other hand is doing the opposite. And it's just one more example of the pisspoor campaign this woman has been running. This question should have been anticipated and asked long before now and a more appropriate answer could have been given if they would have had the forethought to prepare for it. Joe Biden was right early on in an early debate, Hillary just has to much baggage to win the Presidency and be effective, it's not all her fault, but it's there anyway and if her and her family can't handle it, they shouldn't be running. Which is precisely what Bill said yesterday. It's just too bad this family doesn't practice what it preaches. If Hillary thinks this subject won't come up and shouldn't come up, she's more delusional than I thought. This woman clearly doesn't have the experience or temperment to be President.
And too, it's very much everyone's business how your mom handles the stresses that come her way Chelsea, she's running for President, not dog catcher. Next time your asked such a question, be better prepared so that you don't come off so snotty.
PostAmerican, I totally agree. How people refuse to see the damage done to this country by the Clintons is beyond me. Hillary and her supporters, you lost a long time ago, get over it. You are not only doing permanent damage to the Democratic party, but to our democracy as well. No more Clintons, no more Bushes. Our democracy depends on it.
Are we sure that "young man" wasn't Jeff Gannon in a wig?
Many Republicans
This site is starting to come off like a Republican stronghold. I know the Obama supporters can't be that hateful. The hateful Cllinton comments seems counter to everything Democratic. We must have many Republican plants on this site. If we don't, many had better learn objectivity in a hurry. I don't want a McCain administration. Sadly, this site is becoming a rich fertile ground for killer talking points for the Republicans to use against the Democrats. Is that what we want? Unity first.
Joseph
Has anyone asked Chelsea Clinton why she isn't fighting in Iraq. A police action her mother voted for and continues to vote to fund ??? Chelsea has went about her life as if Iraq isn't happening. Going to University, walks on the beach and pursuing her career with time to take off and tour the US for her mother.
Billy Bush is the host of a TV gossip show while others are fighting in Iraq.
Is this how to protect America from Terrorism??
WoW, the arrogance of these people.
Right on, Chelsea! The little snot apparently received no instruction on manners from his parents.
sovereignjohn @ 405:
Iraq is not a police action. A police action requires Congressional authorization after the first 30 days, to be renewed every 30 days after that.
As for funding our invasion it's my understand Obama has been voting to do so too.
I don't know. I think that it is actually an important question. "Does it hurt your mother's credibility?" is a public question about electability and someone deciding who they are going to put their weight behind should consider that. The correct response was not, "It's none of your business," but, "Those who equate private family decisions with the capacity to govern are misguided."
HJ
Herb @ 323:
Uh, no....sorry, but that's just wrong. The GOP's witch-hunt crippled our government. If it had not been for the witch-hunt, Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinsky would have had no effect on the business the government should have been taking care of at the time and it never would have even registered as a footnote to history.
bullfrog @ 341:
If the GOP had this country's priotrities as their priorities, we would not have had this mess that cost us $40 million. As for the 94 election, it had nothing to do with the blowjob, as the election, as well as the 1996 election, happened before the Lewinsky scandal. After the scandal, in the 1998 midterms, I believe the Dems picked up seats.
The funny thing is that the guy who asked the question is a Hillary Clinton supporter and booster. Strange days.
More than 400 comments and nobody asks why the global warming question isn't included in the clip? This country is fucked.
No Hillary Clinton supporter would ever ask a monica question, to Hillary or Chelsea PERIOD. So it was a plant, fine; ain't politics fun. But my question is to these hundreds of comments by the obama group that are so crude and rude; are they really democrats. Carl Rowe's style of politics is in play here. Are obama's people so dumb as to tear into Sen. Hillary Clinton and her family with such vitriolic shit as to piss off anyone; or is it just the plan to anger both sides and keep them sniping at each other? Anyone rational out there have a comment?
qse32 @ 208:
You failed to realize that I was describing the arguments on the blogosphere. I've read many comments on many blogs that say Hillary can't please Bill, that's why he cheated. An attack against her, and a variation of the "cold" or "frigid" or "calculating" meme. I certainly don't prescribe to those thoughts; and within the context of my post, it's outrageous that you labeled me a sexist.
That being said, you do display some sexism in claiming that any woman who forgives a cheating spouse is using bad judgment. And you further display sexism by extrapolating that situation in order to condemn Hillary's qualifications as a presidential figure.
When Bill's escapades were initially exposed Hillary Clinton said allegations about her husband and the White House intern were manufactured by a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Eventually, Bill had to admit the truth.. I think the question about her jumping to conclusions and immediately pointing the finger at a vast right-wing conspiracy showed that either a- she is willing to lie and blame others to keep her status or b-she cannot see through lies..even in her own home. When taken along with the Bosnia story and so many others I think asking about her credibility is warranted. I'd rather have it questioned today than 2 years from now.
The question Chelsea was asked was SO VERY IMPORTANT. Maybe it's THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION. Why ? Simple -if Hillary wins -two things will definitely happen : (1.) She'll be the top commander of the US Armed Forces while two wars are occurring...and...(2.) Bill will be back in the Whitehouse doing sexual things to females other than his wife.
Therefore the American want to know if Hillary can keep her mind on managing these wars (or ending them) while her husband is flirting and doing who knows what else!!! And the American people deserve an answer ! I hope the question comes up over and over again until it gets thoroughly answered.
Hillary will never win this ,because MSNBC will make sure she does'nt.
hey donald frumsfield---one word to ya--HORSEFEATHERS The republicans and obama fan club or whoever the fuck these folks are, sling shit all over the blogs, then blame Sen Clinton for destroying the party; and to those paid pundits of putrid persuasion, one word to you-- HORSEPISS
if anyone wants to tell that loser how much of one he is, his email address is [Deleted. Site Monitor]If he thinks "monica" is anyones business, then so is his email, considering how he has been parading himself on TV recently. this guy must regret his idiocy.
[Do not give out e-mail addresses in an attempt to harass anyone- ANYONE. This is a one warning offense. The next time I see it, I'm banning you- no leeway. Site Monitor]
Pity Bill didn't take that same attitude.
ConcernedCanuck @ 8:
I disagree with your contention of it being a legitimate question. If the question was asked of Bill Clinton then I could see it having some relevence, (although not that much) The point of the question wasn't to ask something uncomfortable that would elicit a valuable response, it was to ask something uncomfortable that would make Chelsea squirm. What exactly is the importance to you of asking a daughter whether her father's infidelity hurt her mother? As far as your suggestion that it is legitimate because the right wingers are going to ask it when the campaign starts, why is is legitimized by rightwingers asking it?
Quoted from Evan Strange, the student who asked the question:
Sorry Evan, no strong leader here, just a candidate who'd prefer to bury the past entirely like any other politician (you know, she is one of those!)
Borshe @ 32:
ConcernedCanuck @ 8:
How do you know what the question was? I've seen a characterization of the question, but I haven't read(or seen, or heard) the actual question, so I don't know what the context of this clip is, exactly.
Wonder when this one's scheduled to be appointed President - before or after Barbara or Jenna gets their turn? The sad thing is I probably won't even be dead yet when that happens. At what point does it stop being the domain of conspiracy theorists to wonder what exactly a New World Order would consist of? Certainly the subversion (attempted or actual) of American Democracy by corporate interests with the invaluable assistance of two would-be political dynasties qualifies as such.
Steveboy @ 20:
I'm convinced that a good 70% of these people who are attacking Obama and claiming to be Clinton backers (or vice versa) are just Republicans trying to confuse us.
Voting for McCain is voting to end a woman's right to choose, along with the other ramifications that would follow twelve (or sixteen) solid years of extreme right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court.
The comments regarding this story on Huffpo have been absolutely disgusting. Things are a little more civilized here. It is no one's business except maybe someone a Kenneth Star who apparently likes to sniff panties.
Anybody ever think that it was once again a "staged" question? I mean, it goes back to the Clinton Victim mentality, that seems to follow them throughout their careers. Pretty damn successful victims, if you ask me. I think it was staged.
If you believe the Lewinsky affair has relevance to Clinton's ability to be president, then we need to ask serious questions about McCain's cheating on his wife - and then he divorcing her.
I'm tired of McCain getting a free ride.
With that said, I think people's personal lives should be just that - PERSONAL.
Stick to voting on candidates based on their job performance and career resume.
This absolutely IS our business if you plan to be leading the free world.
That's what you give up when you choose to lead 300,000,000 people, your personal life.
Andy K Jong Il @ 52:
Follow the link.
What a fine women that Chelsea has grown into! Her parents should be really proud. She's a blessed soul to have Bill and Hill for parents. My God, with those connections she could have been a spokesperson for world peace, fought hunger on a global scale...etc. Instead this courageous lass chose instead and more enlightened path, a career in Hedge funds. (I'm really chocked up!)
unfrozencaveman @ 16:
I was thinking the same thing. If the question really was, "Do you think that your mom's credibility was hurt by the Lewinsky scandal?" I'm not sure I understand the response that it was none of the questioner's business.
But if the question really did probe into private aspects of Chelsea Clinton's feelings on the matter, or another private concern, I do understand the response.
It does seem weird to me that the actual question, quote unquote, has been omitted from the news reports. (Not from C&L, since C&L only quotes the news reports anyway.) If there's a report out there that has the actual question, I'd like to see it.
Why was asking if HRC's credibility was damaged a bad question? The question wasn't about the events but rather consequences that may have affected HRC from those events. I don't see how you can credit Chelsea with handling it with class since she not only avoided the question but twisted the question around on the questioner making it seem he asked something that he did not.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 46:
I have to agree with you there. Besides, she's got a lot guts and says it like she sees it. A very admirable trait.
ooo SNAP, just like ya mama, evading question, they are grooming you well.......
linus bern @ 49:
Hang on a second. You cannot claim to have played a key role the entire Clinton administration 1993-2001 and then say that the whole Monica thing was a personal matter. The Monica thing was all of 1998 - an entire year on the front pages. What was she advising? If her advise was to dismiss the entire thing and go after the enemies, then that was bad advice. The public deserves to know about this, unless she claims to only be a wife. but if she claims to just be a wife, stop pretending to be a key advisor.
Go Chelsea! She handled that so well. I think whoever asked that question deserves the shame he felt when everyone applauded Chelsea for her response.
Who the hell asks that kind of question of the daughter of the cheating person? How are they involved? And how, exactly, is Hillary's credibility compromised because of something Bill did? Freaking idiot, he was probably just trying to get attention.
you damn obama supporters don't really want him to win. some of you are the most vile and nasty people I have ever encountered who called themselves democrats/progressives. Everytimes I believe I want to support him, your nasty comments discourage me. I am almost to point of saying "to hell with you and him" and either not vote or vote for mccain just to wipe that smugness off your faces. Can you win without me (a Hillary supporter who has come to the conclusion that it is time for her to called it quits)? He has the advantage at this point, chill out a bit and cool it with the nastiness, please!!!!
ConcernedCanuck @ 60:
I have. Twice, now, in fact. Here's what it says at the link:
And the candidate's daughter was ready with a quick reply today in Indianapolis when asked if her mother's credibility had been injured by the sexual relationship that the former president had with the former White House intern, Lewinsky, in the White House.
Where's the question quoted?
Che's Lounge @ 25:
You say "I am not a Clinton a Hill supporter" - oh please, give me a break. Even you can't tell the truth. "Willingness to admit to mistakes" - what a joke. When I saw Hillary start talking about Rev. Wright to cover her but, and the say they asked my the question so I had to answer - another lie. Why did she read from prepared notes???? Hillary is getting to be a major embarrassment. Will she please step down so we can get on with fighting the McGrampa?
Good for her. It's nice to see some class coming from the Clinton campaign.
That student is probably thinking to himself:
"Ooohhh! I got to ask a question about a SCANDAL!! I'm on Teeveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 3:
I'd hit it.
I fail to see the relevance of Lewinsky questions in TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. Actually, I failed to see their relevance when they were relevant. Unless someone broke the law, where they stick their dong and how their wives react to it is a personal matter, not a public one. I had a Poli Sci prof try and argue that it was very important because a President could leak sensitive information to his sexual partners. I know I tend to blurt out secrets while I'm being fellated. This is just an example of the type of logical leaps people need to make to act like their interest in the Clintons' bedroom life is anything other than lewd fascination.
For the record, I'm no Hillary supporter. I'd just like to see her being criticized for the appropriate reasons.
And are people so desperate for a messiah that they see Chelsea Clinton tell off one college kid who asked a personal question and they are immediately saying "Chelsea for President"?
ConcernedCanuck @ 21:
So I guess if your father had a "relationship" with someone other than your mother while they were married, and a neighbor asked you about the "credibility" of you mother, you would have thought it a fine question?
Monica, her blue dress and any stains on the Oval office were How Many Years Ago?
Geez, doesn't anyone get tired of hearing defenses of questions like these?
They are mean-spirited, and have no relevance to today. THey are just plain wrong.
And if this is relevant, then why isn't anyone asking about McCain's credibility when it comes to his relationship with bush et al? After all, aren't they the ones who slandered his wife and daughter?
Frankly, I have more difficulty with his becoming buddy-buddy with those people than I have for Hillary and her relationship with her husband.
68 sam Says:
Sam, my post #12 is for you. Care to respond?
Ron Paul @ 59:
Tell it to the Europeans. They've been around a hell of a lot longer and the personal lives of their leaders seems to have no effect on their ability to govern. We are just puritanical hypocrites who get off on the personal lives of others. We murder with impunity but care only about somone's credibility from a perspective of their spouse screwing around 10 years ago. That's just disgusting and immature. But that's amerika!
In other words: "YES, but I don't want to admit that it has had an effect"
Borshe @ 32:
Did you know that
I simply
Can't understand how you could
Know something like that and
How you would have the audacity to say
Extremely offensive and
Arrogant remarks that
Distract from the point of the video???
Wow, for once I kinda agree with David Brooks (eegads!):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html?em&ex=1206676800...
unfrozencaveman @ 66:
And that is what the question was about. It wasn't a gang up by reporters threatening the baby Chelsea from the bad old world. It was an honest question. One thing I could never understand about Bill Clinton's supporters is how they never understand what he did wrong. He LIED continually about his female relationships, and if you are in the Oval Office getting paid by the taxpayers to run the nation, and instead are having sex all over the place, people have a right to be pissed. Especially when he lied about it over and over. Sure the Repugs wasted a shitload of money investigating the Clintons, BUT, there was in most cases valid reasons and questions to investigate.
Either way, I still think the entire question was staged to once again portray that victim status that people seem to eat up. Guess it beats questions about your mother's lying over sniper fire.
That's a cruel thing to ask her.
linus bern @ 73:
Agreed. Turned out that kid is a Clinton supporter and his friends ask him this question all the time. Guy was trying to find some clarification into Hillarys Judgement or lack-there-of.
Andy K Jong Il @ 69:
Looks like a question to me. I understand what you are saying though. You are right. It doesn't really deliver the context of the question. Perhaps there is a video somewhere.
chris @ 65:
Uh-why would a private family matter be anyone's business?
And actually the question was (not a direct quote, but the gist) "Did your dad getting his knob gobbled in the Oval office hurt your mom's cred?"
What a stupid question. Why would Bill's penchant for fellatio reflect on Hillary? Because people would think she doesn't do blow jobs?
Did you ask the question chris? Because it sure has your style of 'logic' written all over it.
You say “I am not a Clinton a Hill supporter” - oh please, give me a break. Even you can’t tell the truth
Fuck you asshole. I haven't given her a dime, gone to any appearances and disagree with her on just about every foreign policy issue.
I wish Bill had said the same thing back when the whole mess was breaking. It really wasn't any of our business. By denying it, he made himself look even worse when the truth came out. Stupid reason for a president to get into trouble, anyway. The Republicans were desperate to get anything they could on Clinton.
leslie @ 74:
It would be valid if my father was the former President of the United States and my mother wanted to be, yes.
sam @ 68:
Chelsea handled that dumb question well. What does Obama has to do with this story? Hating on Obama because you hate us foolish.
Drew @ 78:
I called Homeland Security and they cracked the code you guys are using.
Comments are closed on this entry