Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

On Chelsea, Monica, and the Scandal That Dare Not Speak Its Name

April 01, 2008 10:30 AM

At N.C. State yesterday, Chelsea Clinton was again asked by a student about her father's conduct as president, i.e., l'affair Lewinsky.

The question came on the heels of a question asked Chelsea last week by Evan Strange, a student at Butler University, as to whether her mother lost credibility by initially blaming the controversy on a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Chelsea curtly told Strange that it was none of his business.

Strange, a self-described Clinton supporter, insists he was not trying to cause trouble. (Watch him explain himself HERE) He supports Clinton and his friends always ask him about the scandal, he said.

This week, Chelsea, speaking at the Talley Student Center, was asked by freshman Bryce Davis about her response to Strange.

"It's none of your business," Chelsea said. "I'm sure there are things in your family that you don't think are anyone's business either."

Davis started to walk out, and Chelsea told him she didn't think anyone should vote for or against her mother because of her father.

"I'm not leaving because of that," Davis said. "I have a class."

Watch the exchange HERE.

In the N.C. State student newspaper, Davis explained himself further.

Chelsea's "father, at the time, was the president of the United States, and one of his primary duties as President was to be chief citizen," Davis said. "[By acting as] chief citizen, he should be a model citizen for the United States….I was not trying to embarrass Chelsea Clinton in front of my peers and I felt that when I left the meeting after my question, people felt that I was storming out of the building. In reality, I had a 12:30 p.m. class that I was five minutes late to."

Certainly there are more polite questions to ask someone than about when her father cheated on her mother.

That said, the Clinton campaign is trying to have it both ways -- using Chelsea as a spokeswoman, a surrogate, to advance Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy, but not subjecting her to the rigors other spokespeople -- including Cate Edwards, Meghan McCain, and the Romney boys -- have agreed to go through.

Chelsea's rule is that she doesn't take questions from the media, but she takes them from "real people."

Now she's deciding she's not going to answer some of the real people's questions, too.

If only questions about her father's extra-curricular activities were just a personal "none of your business" type deal.

They're not.

They tend to become huge scandals that distract from the more important work a president should be doing.

Clinton defenders say that's only because we live in a world with a vast right-wing media apparatus and a compliant, bottom-feeding media. Even if you buy that notion, this is the world we live in. Given that, it's nothing short of astonishing that we've made it this far in the campaign with few serious questions to Sen. Clinton about the impeachment of her husband.

Obviously, Sen. Obama won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I'm not sure the Republicans will be that chivalrous.

When a senior adviser to Obama in Iowa raised the specter of Monica's stained GAP dress last week, the Clinton campaign pounced, pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama's supposedly clean-campaign invoking such a personal attack. Obama denounced the comment, the Iowa adviser took it back.

Fair enough. But I don't think it's unfair to ask the Clinton campaign if they can assure the American people that nothing like impeachment -- nothing that a normal family would be able to shrug off with "none of your business" -- will happen again.

Maybe Chelsea will never have to come up with a better answer than "None of your business." But I don’t know that her parents will be able to use that. Unfortunately, it became all of our business in graphically-footnoted detail.

The only time I've seen this question asked of Sen. Clinton was during the Politico/WJLA interview of Clinton two months ago.

A reader asked: "How could we be sure that some new business or personal scandal involving Bill Clinton won't erupt which the Republicans will use to blow your agenda and your administration right out of the water?"

Clinton's response: "Well, you know, I just can assure this reader that that is not going to happen. You know, none of us can predict the future, no matter who we are and what we're running for, but I'm very confident that that will not happen."

"None of us can predict the future"??

- jpt

April 1, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (96)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There are people in the world that the marriage bow is sacred to them. For better or worst... till death do us part. Remember those words?
Remember Bill Clinton did not abandoned you. We had surplus and economy was good. He was a good President.

Posted by: adela | May 24, 2008 8:52:17 PM

No one asked her about her mothers personal response to Monica. They asked questions about her mothers statements to the media about the incident. I think it is a very fair question and when Chelsea campaigns for her mother she should be prepared to answer questions that directly relate to her mothers credibility.
By the way I will probably vote for Hillary in the up coming Indiana primary. I don't think she should answer to make her look bad I feel that not answering looks bad

Posted by: Heather | Apr 9, 2008 5:22:08 PM

Why is it that HIllary is being held accountable for what her husband has done?

Should we hold you accountable for the actions of your husband, wife, or the person with whom you chose to spend your life?

Basically, that is what is going on here! You aren't holding her HER ACTIONS, but the actions of others.

Chelsea maybe an adult. but that doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to keeping push a dead horse. Else of course your uncouth.

It is done so, by the person's with tabloid mentalities, small minds, and lack of thought.

Posted by: Frank Storm | Apr 3, 2008 8:14:29 AM

Since Clinton supporters are suddenly appearing on Fox and others who were part of the vast right wing conspiracy I think the initial question to Chelsea takes on more relevance. If the Clinton family was so harmed by right wing pundits, whey are they now courting them? Is it worth winning to have to ask for the support of people who caused so much alleged pain? Has Hillary Clinton ever admitted she was wrong in believeing her husband and appearing to join in his initial lies about the affairs? These are all questions which go to leadership ability and have nothing to do with the details of the affairs.

Posted by: Auntie Cairo | Apr 2, 2008 4:01:51 PM

All I can say is if Hillary is nominated the Clintons will need to get used to it. Republicans are itching to bring up Monica and the impeachment. Is it a legitimate question. No. But, the reality is it will be asked again, again, and again.

Posted by: Indy_Voter | Apr 2, 2008 10:29:29 AM

Chelsea said that she thinks that her mother would be a better President than Bill..Why. Everyone loves Bill and Moms negative rating go off the scale. Does this Chelsea opinion go to Monica, Gennifer, Paula, et al, and the fallout. In otherwords, the very issue she says is none of our business. Does her opinion have to do with the fact that Bill's lies were under oath and therefore perjury, which led to impeachment, both of which are our business. Or maybe she does understand that the White House is owned by the people, and anything that goes on in the building is our business, except maybe in the Presidents living quarters.

Or is this just typical Clinton family campaign tactics. With Bill also implying that Hillary would be better. Can anyone familiar with the Bill Clinton ego imagine him believing that anyone in the world has been or would be a better President than him. Sounds more like say-do-anything to win. And bring the kid in to help.

Regarding her response to a student asking abour Monica, the Chelsea answer was too glib and quick, so obviously the campaign had prepared it well in advance.

Second, the question was regarding her mothers credibility, and not about the affair. So the response was not responsive Probably because Chelsea had been waiting for the issue to arise and could not wait to give her canned response. But Hillary does seem to feel that her credibility is none of the voters business.

I would be interested in knowing Chelsea's recollections of Bosnia, and why she did not correct Hillarys memory during the two weeks before the news clip surfaced. And what role the Hedge Fund that she works for played in the sub-prime morgage mess that Hillary now wants to spend billions of taxpayer money to clean up.

As it is, it all reflects on Chelsea's judgment in thinking that her mother would be a better President. (assuming that she actually believes that, or has the knowledge to have an informed opinion). It seems to me that if Hillary and Bill want to use their 28 year old daughter to get votes, being life-long politicians in the midst of a dirty campaign that they helpd create, they all know Chelsea will eventually face some difficulty and have chosen to put her in the arena. I would be a little more sympathetic if she were younger, or the Clinton campaign were a little cleaner.

Remember the incident when she said "I don't talk to reporters and unfortunately, that includes you." This to a 15 year old student. Talk about parental control. Maybe she should distance herself from her parents and reject their statements...after listening to them for 28 years, she must know what they stand for.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 2, 2008 8:07:25 AM

While I think they should leave poor little Chelsea alone, I also think they should leave Michelle Obama and doubts about her patriotism alone. Michelle Obama is the only candidate's spouse who has not committed a crime. Bill Clinton lied under oath. Cindy McCain was a drug addict who stole from her own charity. Either we have guilt by association or we don't. If it's fair game to attack Obama based on what his wife or his pastor says, then it is fair game to attack Hillary based on what her husband did and how he lied under oath and how he was impeached. At the same time, punishing poor Chelsea for her father's humiliating behavior is sadistic and cruel. However, given Bill Clinton's behavior, both he and Hillary and Clinton are also cruel to put their daughter in this horrible position. Everybody is guilty here except little Chelsea.

Posted by: Di | Apr 2, 2008 4:07:06 AM

as i recall, this is a free country. that means anyone can ask anyone any question, and anyone can decline to answer any question.
1. bill clinton was IMPEACHED and DISBARRED, and hillary was very nearly ruined because of his numerous affairs. the scandal brought out questions of personal integrity and honesty and ethical conduct when holding high office. the only reason hillary was not ruined was because she suddenly developed selective amnesia.
its amazing how a politician who did all this is now running for president.
2. the rev wright tapes were recorded 5 years ago. if you can bring up recordings of what a pastor said 5 years ago, for which he was and has been neither indicted nor arrested nor impeached nor any other type of castigation except by the media, why not bring up bill clintons white house scandals for which he WAS IMPEACHED and DISBARRED. obama isnt married to rev wright. rev wright wont be sleeping in the white house every day for the next four to eight years with little or nothing to do. bill clinton had AFFAIRS in plural. it wasnt a momentary lapse of judgement, it was his modus operandi. i do not hold any right to judge hillary on her decision to stay with bill, but i ca judge their actions including lying, perjury, victimizing the women who accused bill...lets leave that there.
3. chelsea is not a child. she may not like it, it may not be fair, but it is a valid question to ask. when your dad, the former president was impeached and disbarred, how does that affect your mothers candidacy now that she is running for president?
perfectly legit question, to which she can say she sees no correllation and would rather not discuss the issue as it is very personal to her.
sweet and succint...the clintons are not.

Posted by: elle eda | Apr 2, 2008 1:52:55 AM

People's personal pecadillos are that until they run for public office. Obviously the office of President of the United States is a subject of intense observation for many reasons.

I have a hard time seeing Hillary as standing up for women by her continuing to stay with a man who has had serial affairs subjecting her and her daughter to such prying and offensive remarks.

Why should we believe he won't do it again and why should we have to be subjected to the trash media stories that would follow.

We would be fools to forget there are a whole lot of voters who will explain that as one of Hillary's negatives and why they will be sure to vote against her. It's not fair but Hillary would have done better if she had divorced Bill.

Posted by: vmcgreen | Apr 2, 2008 1:24:08 AM

Chelsea should answering question about her father's behavior. Look, she been living off campaign donations while campaign for her mother. Hillary can't pay her creditors. But I guess that Hillary version of affirmative action.

Posted by: water57 | Apr 1, 2008 10:58:35 PM

Chelsea Clinton cannot possibly add anything to the Lewinski crap that people still want to bring up and obsess over. Its complete stupidity, or trouble making, to ask her such questions. Have you no decency at all people? Go watch soap operas. Seems to be your level.

Posted by: Jammer | Apr 1, 2008 10:41:20 PM

@COUNT THE MI & FL VOTES & SEAT THEIR DELEGATES

"What level have people stooped to in this country?"

You should have asked President of the United States Bill Clinton during his cigar games with a young intern in the Oval Office, while the First Lady was two rooms away as her schedules show.

Posted by: Nicholson | Apr 1, 2008 10:21:16 PM

Why must we live in a society where the public's right to know is considered enough of a reason to forget all standards of decency and civility? There are just some subjects a child, adult or otherwise, should not be asked about a parent's behavior. Just because a person is in the public spotlight does not mean they have to answer every invasive question asked of them. I regret that more of us are not outraged by this behavior. We have really become an insensitive society. Everyone else's troubles are salvated over. Not the kind of people I'd want around my family.

Posted by: Susannnah | Apr 1, 2008 10:17:14 PM

SHAME on Billy J for being the scoundrel that he is.
SHAME on Hillary for being a willing partner.
SHAME on Chelsea for not staying out of the limelight in this campaign.

She's fair game and apparently raw meat given her incredibly lame responses to the Monica question.

Posted by: cactuscoot | Apr 1, 2008 9:08:15 PM

Posted by: Kathy | Apr 1, 2008 2:20:17 PM,

You think it's a fair question to ask Chelsea? Ok... it would be fine with you if someone questioned your kid about your husband cheating on you?

OMG!

Posted by: Dana | Apr 1, 2008 7:27:56 PM

Rs
She survived it to become President.
It wasnt his first outside fling and gaurentee you it wasnt his last. She enabled him .Then was 1 of his staunch defenders. The vast right wing.
If Chelsea want to stump like a grown up then answer Questions like a grown up. I can not believe after the first question Hill did not pull her from the lime light..She needs to think of her daughter instead of winning.

Posted by: Lauepow | Apr 1, 2008 6:21:40 PM

Independant in Texas
You just spoke for thousands of Americans. your reasoning is what many have said and felt.
Obama08

Posted by: Lauepow | Apr 1, 2008 6:17:13 PM

It's interesting that some of Hillary's harshest criticism that she stayed with her husband even though he cheated and lied about it comes from other women. Hillary did go on Tyra and she addressed the issue then (apparently Oprah was and is not available). There are many women who have walked in Hillary's shoes, and they have to make choices that relate to their children and how they are going to survive financially. It's just not that easy to leave a husband, and it's just not that easy to get a divorce in many states! And it's possible that Hillary and Bill really love each other and they love Chelsea. If anything can be said, they have raised a wonderful young woman. Hillary did not stand by Bill's side when he finally admitted he lied - big difference from all the other political spouses in the news lately. But if that is where this race is going, because the Obamanations have nowhere else to go but down below the scum sucking pond scum, so be it, Hillary has survived it all before.

Posted by: rs | Apr 1, 2008 2:49:30 PM

I think it a very fair question and I personally would like to see Hillary address it once and for all - do not leave it to your daughter to defend you or your husband for your poor choices. I as a woman am deeply offended that Hillary made the choice to stand by her man regardless of the deep personal shame it brought to her, her daughter and our country. The shame lies in not the affair really but in the lies that came after and the continued behavior of the Clintons to ignore the situation or to claimit it is republican driven..please. It only proves to me that she stayed with Bill and refuses to answer the question for political gain. Just as she moved to New York State to gain quick entry into the Senate.

Posted by: Kathy | Apr 1, 2008 2:20:17 PM

Chelsea has the freedom to appear where she pleases, just as any other person does, and to answer any question she pleases, just as any other person does.

However, in my opinion, Bill's behavior has no affect on his wife's credibility, and the way she conducted herself when all of this came out was very admirable.

Posted by: JuJu | Apr 1, 2008 2:10:50 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS